(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)
++++
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?
Our environment is sick and it may be making us sick too.
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
[] []
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.
[]
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.
[]
Similar concerns exist with weak estrogen-like compounds in soy and popular supplements.
[]
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. [] BPA has also been found in breastmilk, amniotic fluid, neonatal blood, placenta, and cord blood.
[]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 [].
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.
[].
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.
Endocrine disruptors such as bisphenol A have actually been
shown to alter gene expression and cause epigenetic changes in those
exposed. [] [].
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. ” []
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
[].
BPA may actually exert different effects at both very low and very high dosages
[].
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:
- preeclampsia
- intrauterine growth restriction
- premature births
- & pregnancy loss[] and indirect association with recurrent
miscarriages.[]
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 [] and exposure may also be associated with early puberty in females. []
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 [].
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:
- 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
Human studies have shown associations of BPA
and similar chemicals with low sperm formation, low
testosterone, genital malformation, and higher incidence of
breast cancer. []
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. []
Pregnancy and Infancy:
Certain groups such as pregnant mothers and young children may be more vulnerable to the effects of BPA. []. (As noted earlier, BPA has been found in breastmilk, amniotic fluid, neonatal blood, placenta, and cord blood. [])
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 []
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 [].
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. [] Some believe that pre-natal and post-natal exposure to BPA may play a role in weight gain []. BPA may also increase the amount of inflammatory chemicals released from existing fat tissue [].
Bisphenol A has shown to alter control of blood sugar in both rats
and humans and may promote the development of type 2 diabetes [].
Prostate Health:
Chronic exposure to low levels of estrogenic chemicals like BPA over time increased the rates of prostate cancer in rats [].
Alterations in testosterone and estrogen levels have been linked to elevated prostate specific antigen (PSA) and the potential to promote prostate cancer development [] []; [].
Thyroid Function:
Some evidence suggests an antagonistic effect of BPA on Thyroid hormone function []. Additionally, epigenetics may also play a role between endocrine disruptors and thyroid function [].
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
[].
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 [].
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
[].
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,”
[].
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
[], 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?
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
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.
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.
