Starting in 2008, debate about potential hazardous effects from exposure to bisphenol A (BPA) migrated from the pages of scientific journals to the U.S. media, regulatory authorities, and state legislatures. In the context of deep scientific conflict about the existence of adverse health effects attributable to BPA, this article asks why it was the case that some state legislatures considered or adopted legislative bans on products made from BPA, whereas others did not. Drawing on existing theories of agenda-setting and policy change via punctuated equilibrium as well as a well-defined methodology (event history analysis), evidence of agenda-setting is presented. Particularly, it is argued that routine and high-impact health coverage was significantly related to the chance that a state legislature considered legislation banning products made with BPA. This was indirectly, but importantly, related to the actual adoption by state legislatures of legislative bans on products made with BPA.