(You might hear that banning BPA is "anti-science" if you read blogs like Science 2.0 or the American Chemistry Council website. But even though they have "scientific-sounding names," they are industry funded groups who are really just marketing and PR groups well paid to distribute disinformation--like Monsanto did when rGBH was found to cause so many problems, and most notably, like the tobacco industry did when it was learned that tobacco causes cancer. It was the tobacco industry who first coined the term "junk science" to refer to evidence that their product causes cancer. "Junk science" is still used by anyone who wants to debunk evidence against their cause (profiteering). But the new buzz word is "anti-science." But by definition, using science to prove a product causes health problems pretty much disqualifies any term such as "anti-science."
See, when big corporations spend a ton of money manufacturing and introducing a chemical/product into the market, the LAST thing they want to hear is that their product causes health problems. But rather than do what is best for their fellow human beings and pull the product off the market, or at least submit it to an independent study, these profit whores instead set up these bogus PR firms with official or scientific sounding names and they fund extremely pro-"product"(in this case, pro-BPA) biased studies undertaken by "scientists" on their payroll. Of course, when you fund your own study, you are going to get the results you want because you paid handsomely for them. Only an idiot would think the manufacturer would gamble on the risk that an independent/unbiased study would go their way after so many previous adverse findings led to having to launch their media saturation warpath disinformation PR blitz claiming that anyone concerned about their product causing health problems, is "anti-science." Right, and tobacco doesn't cause cancer, either. Right!
And as for the FDA, does anybody take that ridiculous PR firm seriously as an actual regulatory agency? They pass products sight unseen, in many cases, meaning they pass them without consulting the results of studies for safety and effectiveness. In fact, you will live a long life if you do the opposite of what the FDA states is safe/healthy. If they pass it, leave it alone. If they ban it, it must be good for you. FDA is just another industry shill. If you want a future job at a big pharma co., you better make business profitable for them while supposedly regulating them.--jef)
And as for the FDA, does anybody take that ridiculous PR firm seriously as an actual regulatory agency? They pass products sight unseen, in many cases, meaning they pass them without consulting the results of studies for safety and effectiveness. In fact, you will live a long life if you do the opposite of what the FDA states is safe/healthy. If they pass it, leave it alone. If they ban it, it must be good for you. FDA is just another industry shill. If you want a future job at a big pharma co., you better make business profitable for them while supposedly regulating them.--jef)
++++
BPA ban passes California Legislature
Saturday, September 3, 2011 - San Francisco Chronicle
The Senate this week passed a ban on the chemical bisphenol A in the manufacturing of sippy cups and bottles for babies and the bill now heads back to the Assembly for one more vote on amendments. It is likely to pass - a broader version passed that house already - and then head to the desk of Gov. Jerry Brown.
BPA is used to harden plastic and has been a cause of concern worldwide. There are bans on it in children's products in the European Union, China and several states, among many other places. The federal government has "some concern" (a bureaucratic term that basically makes it a "3" on a scale of 1 to 5) for its "effects on the brain, behavior, and prostate gland in fetuses, infants and children."
Recent history has suggested that this most sensible act of child protection is never a done deal as long as chemical industry lobbyists are working the halls of the California State Capitol.
"They're working it big time," said Assemblywoman Betsy Butler, D-Marina Del Rey, author of AB1319, the latest effort to keep BPA out of products aimed at young children.
BPA is a common industrial chemical that has been linked to an array of hormonal and behavioral problems - including early puberty, hyperactivity, breast and prostate cancer, infertility and obesity.
The movement to ban BPA from children's products gained traction with the 2006 passage of a San Francisco ordinance. A year later, the Board of Supervisors backed off the ban, yielding to possible state action.
Each year not only has produced more conclusive scientific evidence of the health hazard of BPA - manufacturers of plastic toys and containers have found alternatives in response to public concerns. A walk down a store aisle stocked with prominently labeled "BPA-free" products shows how thoroughly the industry's no-alternatives claim has been debunked.
Eleven states have moved to ban BPA products from baby bottles and sippy cups. The American Medical Association recently lent its weight in support of such efforts.
Regrettably, Butler's bill is not as comprehensive as earlier incarnations of BPA legislation. It was amended to remove formula containers from the list of banned products.
The scaled-back AB1319 is the bill that passed. It remains a modest but essential - and long overdue - move to protect children's health.
2008
What happened: SB1713 (author: Sen. Carole Migden, D-San Francisco) died on the Assembly floor in the final days of session. The vote was 31 yes, 36 no - and 13 members failing to vote.
Outrage: The American Chemistry Council ran a shamefully disingenuous scare campaign, with targeted robo-calls and mailers warning low-income Californians that the bill would raise grocery prices and threaten food safety.
2009
What happened: SB797 (author: Sen. Fran Pavley, D-Agoura Hills) died in the Assembly at the end of session. It cleared the Senate without a vote to spare (21-16), then was rejected on the Assembly floor.
Outrage: Even though more Assembly members voted for (35) than against (32) the bill this time, passage required a majority of all members - and 13 failed to vote.
2010
What happened: SB797 cleared the Assembly, but the chemical industry lobbyists worked their magic in the Senate at the end of session, where it fell two votes short of passage - 19 yes, 18 no.
Outrage: The bill nearly died in the Assembly when one of its co-authors, Democrat Alberto Torrico of Fremont, flipped to opposition. Public pressure led to Assembly reconsideration and passage, but Torrico remained opposed.
+++++
Bisphenol A Health Effects — Should You Be Worried About BPA Exposure?Each year thousands of man-made chemicals are added into our environment with little knowledge as to the potential long-term side effects on health.
One of the chemicals that has received increasing attention in the last five years is Bisphenol A (BPA).
Should you be concerned?
Sources of BPA
Over six billion pounds of Bisphenol A are produced each year and it is estimated that 100 tons of it is released into the atmosphere, mostly through industrial waste water [1] [2]
Public concern, however, has been over its widespread use in “hard” polycarbonate plastics (including many baby bottles, pacifiers, & sippy cups) and epoxy resins found in the linings of canned food, canned beverages, dental sealants and even flame retardants used in electronics. [3]
Health Concerns Regarding BPA
BPA is known to exert weak estrogen activity in animal and human studies. In fact, BPA has been shown to be mainly responsible for estrogenic activity leaching from our landfills into the surrounding ecosystem. [4]
Similar concerns exist with weak estrogen-like compounds in soy and popular supplements. [5] Some clinicians suggest that food chemicals with low estrogenic activity (such as flax and soy) may actually exert some health benefits, while man-made estrogen-like chemicals may be more likely causing harm.
What we know is that up to 95% of individuals tested have levels of BPA in their urine. [6] BPA has also been found in breastmilk, amniotic fluid, neonatal blood, placenta, and cord blood. [7]and almost all organic and non-organic canned foods, soups, juice, tuna, and green beans contain some BPA.
Bisphenol A is widely categorized as an “endocrine disruptor”. Endocrine disruptors are man-made chemicals that have potential to cause reproductive abnormalities, and some like BPA have been shown to behave like estrogen in the body.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defines an endocrine disruptor as:
An exogenous agent that interferes with the production, release, transport, metabolism, binding, action, or elimination of natural hormones in the body responsible for the maintenance of homeostasis and the regulation of developmental processes [8].Simply put, these chemicals disrupt hormone function by mimicking or even blocking the normal activity of hormones.
The Emerging Role of Epigenetics
Epigenetics (“above the gene”) is the science behind how dietary and chemical signals from our environment help regulate how our genes are expressed for better or for worse.
Those changes in gene expression can then be passed to our offspring without any involvement of genetic mutations.
Currently tens of thousands of man-made chemicals are released in to our environment with little to no understanding of their potential impact on human and ecosystem health. Our understanding of how toxins interact with our physiology to produce health effects is growing rapidly. The field of toxicology will be especially affected by advances in our understanding of epigenetics. [9].
What is exciting about the research is that we are discovering clues as to how our genetic risk to certain diseases can be increased or decreased through toxin exposure, as well as diet and lifestyle choices.
In April 2011, a Nature Reviews. Endocrinology article offered this statement:
“Exposure to endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) is associated with dysfunctions of metabolism, energy balance, thyroid function and reproduction, and an increased risk of endocrine cancers. These multifactorial disorders can be ‘programmed’ through molecular epigenetic changes induced by exposure to EDCs early in life, the expression of which may not manifest until adulthood. ” [12]Despite widespread excitement in the emerging field of epigenetics, most BPA research has still largely been based on animal models. Despite growing public concern, new guidelines regarding chemicals such as BPA have been slow to develop.
Safety reports on BPA suggest that BPA has a half-life of two hours, with all metabolites being recovered in the urine [].
I still wonder whether exposures are large and/or frequent enough to overcome the bodies ability to flush it out, and what effect the substance (even at low doses) may have long-lasting effects despite short-term exposures — especially when it comes to genetic expression.
Estimated exposure to BPA tends to be below levels proven to be safe, but in rat models, even low-dose exposure has been correlated with health effects [13].
BPA may actually exert different effects at both very low and very high dosages [3].
Despite the controversial nature of BPA research, what have these studies shown?
Possible Health Effects of BPA
Fertility, Reproductive Health & Pregnancy Outcomes:
Because of its estrogenic behavior, there has been concern of BPA’s impact on fertility, reproductive health, and pregnancy outcomes.
A 2009 article published in the journal reviewed evidency of BPA’s direct influence on the placenta. The article noted that BPA exposure may be associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes such as:
A popular 2008 Canadian documentary called “The Disappearing Male” noted the concern over man-made “endocrine disruptors” and their effect on male fertility. The film noted that male sperm counts have declined 50% in the last fifty years, and that exposures during key moments of development can be crucial in determining sex and reproductive health.
There is also evidence that a mother’s exposure to BPA while pregnant can affect the fertility of male children [16] and exposure may also be associated with early puberty in females. [17] Long-term risk of excess estrogen exposure for females may include breast, endometrial, ovarian, and colon cancers. In males, BPA is suggested to lower testosterone levels by its effects on testis and the pituitary [18].
According to the Cleveland Clinic, uterine fibroids occur in 25–80% of women. Although causes are not completely identified, alternative providers tend to blame “estrogen dominance” for their presence.
Signs and symptoms of uterine fibroids may include:
Human studies have shown associations of BPA and similar chemicals with low sperm formation, low testosterone, genital malformation, and higher incidence of breast cancer. [18]
- Disordered menstrual bleeding & severe menstrual cramps
- A feeling of fullness in the lower abdomen
- Problems with urination (frequent/infrequent)
- Pain during intercourse
- Low back pain
- Constipation
- Chronic vaginal discharge
- Infertility
Additionally, BPA may be associated with cryptorchidism (undescended testicles), hypospadias (defect in opening of the urethra) in males, and miscarriages, impaired fertility, and a disrupted menstrual cycle in females. [19]
Pregnancy and Infancy:
Certain groups such as pregnant mothers and young children may be more vulnerable to the effects of BPA. [20]. (As noted earlier, BPA has been found in breastmilk, amniotic fluid, neonatal blood, placenta, and cord blood. [7])
Toxic levels in infants and children tend to be higher in concentration due to their small body size & they are considered high risk because of the rapid development of their immune and nervous systems.
Time Magazine noted in May 2011 that BPA exposure in Pregnancy may be connected to Childhood asthma.
There is also serious concern of genetic changes being induced by toxic exposures to a developing fetus or infant, and that those changes may be less reversible than the effect of toxic exposure in adults [3]
Brain and Nervous System:
Because most brain and nervous system development occurs during the first few months and years of life, young children may be more vulnerable to BPA exposure. Beyond reproductive abnormalities, concern over the potential neurological effects of bisphenol A and exposure during pregnancy and the first few years of life has sparked fierce political debate over the neurological implications of BPA exposure.
Studies in rats and non-human primates have shown evidence of an association of BPA with a 70–100% loss of nerve synapses in the hippocampus (area of brain involved in memory) and the spine by blocking normal estrogen and androgen (i.e. testosterone) activity.
Cognitive decline, depression, and schizophrenia are conditions associated with a similar loss of nerve synapses [21].
International publicity and debate over bisphenol A has been re-fueled largely because of recent insights into how BPA may negatively affect the brain and nervous system.
Diabetes and Obesity:
There is a positive association of BPA and similar endocrine-disrupting chemicals with obesity in both human and animal studies. [3] Some believe that pre-natal and post-natal exposure to BPA may play a role in weight gain [22]. BPA may also increase the amount of inflammatory chemicals released from existing fat tissue [23].
Bisphenol A has shown to alter control of blood sugar in both rats and humans and may promote the development of type 2 diabetes [24].
Prostate Health:
Chronic exposure to low levels of estrogenic chemicals like BPA over time increased the rates of prostate cancer in rats [25].
Alterations in testosterone and estrogen levels have been linked to elevated prostate specific antigen (PSA) and the potential to promote prostate cancer development [26] [27]; [28].
Thyroid Function:
Some evidence suggests an antagonistic effect of BPA on Thyroid hormone function [29]. Additionally, epigenetics may also play a role between endocrine disruptors and thyroid function [12].
Should I Be Worried About BPA?
The European Food Safety Authority released an opinion on BPA in 2008 that because of differences in the metabolism of rodents and humans, rats are likely at greater risk than humans. In 2010, upon push to review their opinion based on an international push to ban BPA from baby bottles, the EFSA reconfirmed their 2008 opinion stating that there was flaws in the research designs that had been used as rationale for a ban.
A 2011 review published in Critical Reviews in Toxicology, noted the “deadlocked controversy” over BPA. The review supported that the tolerable daily intake of BPA remain set at 0.05 mg/kg per day (50 ug/kg/day). The authors remarked that no adverse health effects have been consistently observed at doses ≤5 mg BPA/kg/day [30].
It’s important to note that the study was partly funded by a BPA-interest group
A separate review article published in Reproductive Toxicology in 2007 stated:
We are confident that adult exposure to BPA affects the male reproductive tract, and that long lasting, organizational effects in response to developmental exposure to BPA occur in the brain, the male reproductive system, and metabolic processes. We consider it likely, but requiring further confirmation, that adult exposure to BPA affects the brain, the female reproductive system, and the immune system, and that developmental effects occur in the female reproductive system [31].More recently, a June 2011 issue of the journal Human Reproduction Update, the authors claimed that there is enough evidence present to take “precautionary actions” regarding women’s reproductive health and endocrine disruptors such as bisphenol A [32].
Additionally, a Harvard study published in April 2011 in Current Opinion in Pediatrics suggested “Even in the absence of epidemiological studies, concern over adverse effects of BPA is warranted given the unique vulnerability of the developing fetus and child. Healthcare providers are encouraged to practice primary prevention and counsel patients to reduce BPA exposures,”[33].
BPA is just one of many sources of endocrine disruption that are becoming ubiquitous in our envioronment.…a small stress here, and a small stress there, and the hypothetical possibility of combination effects have some alternative health professionals concerned.
Despite research claims that BPA is safe at the current guidelines, there is debate over the potential bias of industry-sponsored research.
Other reviews have painted a different story, and consumer pressures against BPA have been building over the last decade.
Uniquely, BPA exposure has been shown a “U-shaped” response-curve, meaning an effect is only seen at low and high doses, making it impossible to make conclusions on the effect of low exposure based on high-exposure studies [3], and may also complicate “tolerable intake” guidelines.
As public concern clearly affects both policy and research dollars, it is important to voice any of your concerns as the industry is surely spending money to voice its opinions as well.
The good news is that because of consumer pressure, at least $30 million has recently been set aside to fund ten, two-year studies on the safety of BPA.
Epigenetic influences may take longer
than two years to develop. Whether the results of these two-year
studies will add to the confusion regarding the safety of BPA is still to be determined, but it’s a good sign that policymakers are listening.
Tips on Avoiding BPA Exposure:
Taking “precautionary actions” can be more simple than you can think:
- Purchase products stored in glass containers
- Eat foods and herbs that support detoxification such as broccoli, cauliflower, brussel sprouts and turmeric.
- Purchase BPA-free baby bottles, pacifiers and infant feeding cups.
- Avoid the use of #7 labeled plastics.
- Do not microwave or heat food in plastic containers.
- Ensure proper ventilation for rooms & offices containing computers and electronics.
- Do not store food in scratched or damaged plastic containers, or other containers with plastic lining.
- Consider asking a health professional about special urine testing especially if there is history of reproductive difficulties, uterine fibroids, breast cancer, menstrual abnormalities, or history of infertility.
+++++
CA moves towards BPA ban as more damning evidence released of health effects
California took one step closer yesterday towards a ban on BPA in baby bottles and sippy cups for children as the State Senate voted 21-19 in support of the Toxin-Free Infants and Toddlers Act. The legislation passed the Assembly earlier this year, but as amendments were made to the bill’s language in the Senate, it must return to the Assembly for final approval before heading to the Governor’s desk.
Consumers Union, a sponsor of the bill, applauds the Senate for approving the measure with hopes that California will become the eleventh state to pass a ban on BPA. Canada, the European Union and China have also already banned the chemical in baby bottles.
Evidence against the safety of BPA continues to mount. Known to leach from plastic containers into food and beverages, BPA is an endocrine disruptor that has been linked to an increased risk of cancer, diabetes, reproductive, neurological and developmental disorders.
A new study released in the journal Birth Defects Research offers further reason for concern, showing BPA exposure in utero to adversely affect the development of male genitalia. The study was based on exposure of pregnant women to BPA in the workplace.
California’s bill, which would go into effect July 1, 2013, would require manufacturers to replace BPA in baby bottles and sippy cups with the least toxic alternative available.
“We urge the Assembly to quickly finalize this bill so that parents will no longer worry about this hazardous chemical when purchasing these products for their children,” said Elisa Odabashian, West Coast Director of Consumers Union.
+++++
Will BPA ever be taken off the US market? Not if the ACC has anything to do with it!
Fri Sep 02, 2011- Daily Kos
For more than 30 years Tennessee Eastman was my neighbor when I lived in Kingsport. I can find many ways to praise this company. While certainly not perfect in many ways, Eastman is still the life blood to Northeast Tennessee.
I hope this relationship will continue as the company soon begins a second century there.
Some of the most conscientious people I know are employed at Eastman in Kingsport.
You can usually trust the integrity and consistency of the decisions and policies that flow from their work at the plant and in its corporate headquarters.
But sometimes I become very cynical when I see what happens to some corporations when they become a part of a lobbying group.
Less than 10 years ago, I was honored to be invited to sit on the
Community Advisory Panel that Eastman sponsors. During my four years on
this council I learned so much about the company’s dedication to
quality control, responsible care and strategic plans to curtail
emissions.
You can imagine my surprise when I heard that former CEO and current Chairman of Eastman’s Board of Directors, J. Brian Ferguson, who, as chair also of the American Chemistry Council (ACC), was putting big lobbying bucks and time to defeat the Sen. Diane Feinstein (D, CA) Amendment to ban synthetic sex hormone bisphenol A (BPA). Simply put, this “line in the sand” for chemical reform, an amendment to the Food Safety Act, would have stopped BPA exposure to infants and toddlers in baby bottles and sippy cups.
Could this be the same Brian Ferguson who led this company into a new era of stability after some rather uncertain times before he took the reins of the company?
But Brian Ferguson, as chair of the ACC, led the choir from a different song book. Why would he act to continue the use of BPA in our most vulnerable persons’ containers…..their baby bottles and sippy cups…. when there are other materials out there, even one that Eastman itself makes, that could be used instead? I just don’t get it!
On November of 2010, Chairman of the Board for ACC Ferguson reportedly led an action aimed at Congress that might have shocked his Eastman investors, shareholders, customers, and employees who really are trying to believe that the company wants to do the right thing.
While Chairman of the Board for Eastman Ferguson has promoted the company as being sustainable, even gaining awards for this, and promoting their Tritan as “BPA-Free,” Chairman of the Board for ACC Ferguson led the full scale attack on the amendment to the Food Security Act that would have removed BPA from baby bottles and children’s sippy cups.
As a child I was always told that “a stitch in time saves nine.” Ferguson, as chair of the American Chemistry Council’s recent heavily funded lobbying of Congress, worked to defeat what would have been a small change in the way baby containers are made. This defeat could haunt us years down the road as these children contend with expensive health problems. Is that something Eastman folks can point to with pride from the chair of their board? As a stock holder myself in Tennessee Eastman, I would like an explanation.
You can imagine my surprise when I heard that former CEO and current Chairman of Eastman’s Board of Directors, J. Brian Ferguson, who, as chair also of the American Chemistry Council (ACC), was putting big lobbying bucks and time to defeat the Sen. Diane Feinstein (D, CA) Amendment to ban synthetic sex hormone bisphenol A (BPA). Simply put, this “line in the sand” for chemical reform, an amendment to the Food Safety Act, would have stopped BPA exposure to infants and toddlers in baby bottles and sippy cups.
Could this be the same Brian Ferguson who led this company into a new era of stability after some rather uncertain times before he took the reins of the company?
During Ferguson’s tenure as CEO of the company, Eastman appeared to be trying to move into the 21st century by developing safer chemicals. While it manufactured an endocrine disrupting chemical phthalate called DEHP, banned in the European Union, it also developed a non-DEHP substitution. And in response to rising consumer awareness about another endocrine disrupting chemical, bisphenol A (BPA), used in polycarbonate bottles, it developed Tritan, a substitution for BPA. BPA, even at low does exposure, is linked to breast cancer, prostate cancer, obesity, diabetes, erectile dysfunction, sperm damage and DNA damage in fetuses.
But Brian Ferguson, as chair of the ACC, led the choir from a different song book. Why would he act to continue the use of BPA in our most vulnerable persons’ containers…..their baby bottles and sippy cups…. when there are other materials out there, even one that Eastman itself makes, that could be used instead? I just don’t get it!
On November of 2010, Chairman of the Board for ACC Ferguson reportedly led an action aimed at Congress that might have shocked his Eastman investors, shareholders, customers, and employees who really are trying to believe that the company wants to do the right thing.
While Chairman of the Board for Eastman Ferguson has promoted the company as being sustainable, even gaining awards for this, and promoting their Tritan as “BPA-Free,” Chairman of the Board for ACC Ferguson led the full scale attack on the amendment to the Food Security Act that would have removed BPA from baby bottles and children’s sippy cups.
With considerable money spent lobbying, Chairman of the Board ACC Ferguson torpedoed an amendment that, had it gone through, would have sent his new Tritan product sales soaring, plus he would have removed a dangerous chemical from exposing children – something Eastman’s competitor, BPA-maker Sunoco, has already done in its own sales policies by refusing to sell BPA to customers whose products would expose children. Even the United Arab Emirates have announced plans to ban BPA and the European Commission has announced they are banning BPA, it’s been labeled a toxic chemical in Canada, and efforts to restrict it are happening in 20 U.S. states.
As a child I was always told that “a stitch in time saves nine.” Ferguson, as chair of the American Chemistry Council’s recent heavily funded lobbying of Congress, worked to defeat what would have been a small change in the way baby containers are made. This defeat could haunt us years down the road as these children contend with expensive health problems. Is that something Eastman folks can point to with pride from the chair of their board? As a stock holder myself in Tennessee Eastman, I would like an explanation.
+++++
In Utero exposure to BPA May Adversely Affect Male Genital Development
8/29/2011
OAKLAND,
Calif., -- In utero exposure to Bisphenol-A may adversely affect male
genital development, according to a Kaiser Permanente study published
online in the journal Birth Defects Research.The observational study found that the sons of BPA-exposed Chinese workers had a shortened distance between their genitals and anus -- known as anogenital distance -- compared with sons whose parents were not exposed to workplace BPA.
The association between BPA exposure during pregnancy and anogenital disease also showed a dose-response relationship, meaning the greater the BPA exposure a mother had during her pregnancy, the shorter her son’s AGD measured, according to researchers.
“Although the finding needs to be confirmed by additional research, this study provides the first epidemiological evidence that parental exposure to BPA in the workplace during pregnancy is associated with shortened AGD in male offspring,” said De-Kun Li, MD, PhD, the principal investigator of the study and a reproductive and perinatal epidemiologist at the Kaiser Permanente Division of Research in Oakland, Calif. “This finding indicates that BPA may interfere with testosterone function during fetal development because the shortened AGD indicates under-developed male genitalia, likely due to an abnormal testosterone function.”
This study is the fifth in a series published by Dr. Li and his colleagues that examine the effect of BPA in humans:
- The first study, published in November 2009 in the Oxford Journals Human Reproduction, found that exposure to high levels of BPA in the workplace increases the risk of reduced sexual function in men.
- The second study, published in May 2010 in the Journal of Andrology, found that increasing BPA levels in urine are associated with worsening male sexual function.
- The third study published in Fertility and Sterility showed that an increasing urine BPA level was significantly associated with decreased sperm concentration, decreased total sperm count, decreased sperm vitality and decreased sperm motility.
- The fourth study, published in 2011 in the Journal of Reproductive Toxicology showed that parental exposure to BPA during pregnancy was associated with decreased birth weight in offspring.
For this study, workers in participating factories with and without BPA exposure in the workplace were identified. They were divided into three groups: unexposed (neither parents exposed to BPA in workplace), father directly exposed (representing maternal indirect exposure through the father), and mother directly exposed during the index pregnancy.
Then 153 sons, age ranging from infancy to 17 years old with 81 percent being less than 10 years old, were examined. The study found that maternal exposure to BPA in the workplace during pregnancy was associated with a 2.8 millimeter (approximately 0.11 inch) shortened AGD in sons if the mother was indirectly exposed through the father’s direct exposure, and 8.1 millimeter (approximately 0.32 inch) shortened AGD in sons if the mother was directly exposed, compared to unexposed parents.
Funded by the U.S. National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, this new study adds to emerging human evidence questioning the safety of BPA, a chemical created in the production of polycarbonated plastics and epoxy resins found in baby bottles, plastic containers, the linings of cans used for foods and beverages, and in dental sealants.
The researchers explained that BPA is considered to be a highly suspect human endocrine disrupter with estrogen-like effect.
“This new epidemiological study of in utero BPA’s effects on the fetal male reproductive system provides direct evidence from human studies that is urgently needed as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and various other U.S. government panels are evaluating this controversial topic,” Li said.
This new finding is also consistent with a recent report from animal studies that in-utero exposure to BPA made male offspring less attractive to female mating counterparts.
+++++
What is bisphenol A?
By Miranda Hitti
Bisphenol A is a chemical found in polycarbonate plastic and epoxy resins.
Polycarbonate plastics are used in certain food and drink packaging and also in compact discs, computers, impact-resistant safety equipment (such as helmets and goggles), and medical devices.
Polycarbonate plastics that contain bisphenol A usually have a No. 7 on the bottom, within the "chasing arrows" used to sort plastics for recycling, according to the National Institute on Environmental Health (NIEHS).
Epoxy resins line metal products such as canned foods, bottle tops, and water supply pipes.
+++++
NRDC Sues FDA to Remove BPA from Food Packaging and Items that Contact Food
September 1, 2011
NRDC's complaint further explains that BPA leaches from its
packaging into food when exposed to heat or acidic conditions and with
use over time. BPA has been detected in liquid infant formulas, canned
foods, and canned beverages. In many instances, NRDC states, BPA
content in packaging is not indicated.
By on September 1, 2011
|
On August 19, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. ("NRDC") sued FDA for declaratory and injunctive relief for FDA to grant NRDC's citizen petition to remove the chemical bisphenol A ("BPA") from food packaging and other products where it comes in contact with food. NRDC alleges that BPA may be found in a wide variety of the liners of metal food cans and hard plastic containers such as baby bottles.
NRDC is a nonprofit environmental and public health advocacy organization headquartered in New York, New York with more than 400,000 members. NRDC engages in research, advocacy, and litigation to improve the regulation of harmful substances in food, drugs, and consumer products.
NRDC's original citizen petition was filed in October 2008 yet remains unanswered by more than 1000 days. According to NRDC, FDA should have responded to this type of petition within 90 days and has a maximum time of 180 days to respond. NRDC asserts that FDA's failure to respond to NRDC's petition prolongs its members from unwanted exposure to BPA in food packaging. FDA's failure to respond to the petition, moreover, has denied NRDC from seeking judicial review, if necessary, NRDC further alleges.
According to NRDC, BPA was developed in the 1930s as a synthetic estrogen for pharmaceutical use. Later, manufacturers developed ways to use BPA to produce polymers for plastic containers and resins for coating metal containers and the lids of glass jars and bottles, NRDC's complaint explains. Between 1961 and 1964, FDA approved BPA as a food additive through the use of packaging results in BPA becoming a component of food. Since then, BPA has become a high production chemical used in over six billion pounds globally and two billion pounds in the United States each year.
On August 19, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. ("NRDC") sued FDA for declaratory and injunctive relief for FDA to grant NRDC's citizen petition to remove the chemical bisphenol A ("BPA") from food packaging and other products where it comes in contact with food. NRDC alleges that BPA may be found in a wide variety of the liners of metal food cans and hard plastic containers such as baby bottles.
NRDC is a nonprofit environmental and public health advocacy organization headquartered in New York, New York with more than 400,000 members. NRDC engages in research, advocacy, and litigation to improve the regulation of harmful substances in food, drugs, and consumer products.
NRDC's original citizen petition was filed in October 2008 yet remains unanswered by more than 1000 days. According to NRDC, FDA should have responded to this type of petition within 90 days and has a maximum time of 180 days to respond. NRDC asserts that FDA's failure to respond to NRDC's petition prolongs its members from unwanted exposure to BPA in food packaging. FDA's failure to respond to the petition, moreover, has denied NRDC from seeking judicial review, if necessary, NRDC further alleges.
According to NRDC, BPA was developed in the 1930s as a synthetic estrogen for pharmaceutical use. Later, manufacturers developed ways to use BPA to produce polymers for plastic containers and resins for coating metal containers and the lids of glass jars and bottles, NRDC's complaint explains. Between 1961 and 1964, FDA approved BPA as a food additive through the use of packaging results in BPA becoming a component of food. Since then, BPA has become a high production chemical used in over six billion pounds globally and two billion pounds in the United States each year.
NRDC believes that BPA interferes with thyroid hormones and possible harmful effects on the brain, nervous, and reproductive systems. NRDC also said that a "significant amount of peer-reviewed, independent studies" have been linked BPA exposure with breast cancer, prostate cancer, and early puberty. Some of the other harmful effects linked with BPA include male reproductive effects such as decreased sperm count and testicular problems.
NRDC's current action follows a similar action brought in D.C. Court, which resulted in a July 21 decision by a The three-judge U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia panel ruled unanimously on jurisdictional grounds, finding that the case belongs in district (federal) court. Now that NRDC filed in federal court, we will continue to monitor how this issue is resolved.
No comments:
Post a Comment