7 Nasty Effects of BPA

BPA – The Plastic Chemical

by Mike Barrett
March 26th, 2013


Bisphenol A (BPA) is the widely used chemical found in many plastics, food can linings, and even on US dollars and receipts. Known as an endocrine-disrupting chemical that mimics the hormone estrogen, BPA has been linked to numerous negative health effects in countless studies. The worst part? While the Food and Drug Administration considered banning the chemical in March of 2012, the ban was denied, and BPA continues to be ubiquitous. So what exactly does mean? It means the entire U.S. is still subjected to the chemical’s negative effects.
Here are 7 nasty effects of BPA.

1. Breast Cancer

Breast cancer is slowly becoming one of the many well-known negative outcomes induced by BPA exposure. In fact, over 130 studies have confirmed the link between bisphenol A and to ailments like breast cancer, obesity, and reproductive problems. Ironically, the popular nonprofit Susan G. Komen for the Cure partners with many bottled water companies for their ‘For the Cure’ races across the nation. The problem, obviously, is that most of these plastic bottles contain BPA.

2. Early Puberty

While girls typically enter into puberty (or have in the past, at least) at just over ten years of age, studies show that this age has fallen by more than a year within only one generation. Some girls are even seeing breasts at 7 years old. Although there are other factors to consider, BPA may be to blame as well.

After examining 1,151 girls between the ages of 6 and 8 in the United States over a two year period, researchers found that multiple chemical classes were detected at high levels within the girls’ urine. About one-third of the girls went through puberty prematurely.

“Our research shows a connection between chemicals that girls are exposed to on a daily basis and either delayed or early development. While more research is needed, these data are an important first step in evaluating the impact of these common environmental agents in putting girls at risk,” lead researchers Dr Mary Wolff said.

3. Heart Disease

Some research has linked both BPA and phthalates to a disorder known as atherosclerosis. This disorder, which is the hardening of the arteries through the buildup of plaques, negatively impacts blood flow and ultimately increases your risk of heart disease. Shocking, the research is not the first of its kind. One team also found that individuals with higher levels of bisphenol-a in their urine were more than twice as likely to suffer from coronary heart disease than those with lower levels.

4. and 5. Infertility in Males and Females

Bisphenol a has been found to be adversely affecting male genital development, subsequently leading to compromised fertility health. One study examined the effects of BPA on the distance between the genitalia and the anus in males, known as the Anogenital distance (AGD). AGD is very important biologically for a number of reasons, and plays a prominent role in the health of one’s fertility. Researchers found that parental exposure to BPA during pregnancy was associated with shortened AGD in male offspring. In other words, high level BPA exposure led to offspring with AGD defects.

AGD has been linked to fertility in males, making BPA’s negative impact on the male reproductive system noteworthy. Men with an AGD lower than the median, which sits around 52 mm (2 in), have seven times the chance of being sub-fertile as compared to those with a longer AGD.

But males aren’t the only one’s suffering; BPA has been linked to reproductive issues in women as well. In one study, researchers found that BPA caused reproductive problems that can affect women, including abnormal egg development. The eggs of fetuses exposed to BPA had difficulty forming follicles, which ultimately increases the risk of eggs dying before maturation. Additionally, the researchers observed other abnormalities, showing signs that they would carry too many chromosomes as a result of not dividing during development. This could lead to miscarriages or disorders like Down Syndrome.

6. Sparks Multiple Negative Brain Alterations

Further adding on to BPAs long list of negative effects, some research has also found that the chemical disrupts a gene responsible for proper nerve cell function, ultimately leading to compromised brain development. Researchers of the study, published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, discovered that BPA could damage central nervous system development by disrupting a gene called Kcc2.


“Our study found that BPA may impair the development of the central nervous system, and raises the question as to whether exposure could predispose animals and humans to neurodevelopmental disorders,” study researcher Dr. Wolfgang Liedtke, M.D., Ph.D., said.

Another study found that exposure to bisphenol-A early in life can spark changes in gene expression. The changes occur in a part of the brain called the amygdala, which can lead to increased levels of anxiety.

The study abstract states:


“Early life exposure to Bisphenol A (BPA), a component of polycarbonate plastics and epoxy resins, alters sociosexual behavior in numerous species including humans. The present study focused on the ontogeny of these behavioral effects beginning in adolescence and assessed the underlying molecular changes in the amygdala.”

7. Obesity

Last, but certainly not least, BPA may be one of many factors responsible for the obesity epidemic. One study found that high BPA exposure is associated with obesity in the general adult population in the U.S.

Another study, examining BPA concentrations in the urine of kids aged 6 to 19, found that obese children made up 22% of individuals with the highest BPA levels in their urine. About 10% of kids who had the lowest BPA concentration in their urine were obese.

Bisphenol A's 'twin' may have more potent hormone effects

Another Plastics Ingredient Raises Safety ConcernsBy Janet Raloff, Science News

A largely ignored contaminant doesn’t just resemble bisphenol A, the chemical found to leach out of hard plastic water bottles. It’s BPA’s fluorinated twin — on steroids.

New laboratory studies in Japan indicate that the twin, called bisphenol AF, or BPAF, may be even more potent than BPA in altering the effects of steroid hormones such as estrogens in the body.

The unusual way that BPAF blocks some estrogen actions and fosters others “could make this a vicious compound, a very toxic compound,” says Jan-Åke Gustafsson, a molecular endocrinologist at the University of Houston. The chemical is an ingredient of many plastics, electronic devices, optical fibers and more.

The last letter in bisphenol AF’s name denotes the substitution of fluorine atoms for six hydrogens and explains why the compound is sometimes referred to as hexafluoro-BPA. These fluorines also make BPAF behave differently than BPA in the body, biochemist Yasuyuki Shimohigashi of Kyushu University in Fukuoka, Japan, and his colleagues report online April 28 in Environmental Health Perspectives.

Both chemicals act on estrogen receptors, molecular locks found in cells throughout the body. Estrogen hormones serve as their keys, turning on genes that control time-sensitive activities such as ovulation in young women. Certain contaminants, such as BPA and BPAF, can mimic those keys.

But some mimics are better than others and may even, like skeleton keys, act on a variety of locks. Most of BPA’s estrogen-mimicking effect, Shimohigashi’s group found in 2006, comes from activating a cellular switch known as human estrogen-related receptor gamma, or ERR-gamma.  It’s an “orphan” receptor, meaning a lock with no known natural key.

In its latest study, the Japanese group performed tests in isolated cells and receptor proteins. And BPAF, the researchers now report, all but ignores ERR-gamma. Instead, the chemical’s fluorine atoms appear to give it a strong affinity for the two best-studied estrogen receptors, ER-alpha and ER-beta. Indeed, the fluorines bind to ER-alpha some 20 time more effectively than BPA does, and to ER-beta almost 50 times more effectively.

After binding, BPAF proved a potent activator of ER-alpha, unleashing its actions just as the body’s own estrogen would. The big surprise, Shimohigashi says, was finding that despite BPAF’s even stronger affinity for ER-beta, it elicited no activity from this lock. The chemical enters the receptor and then just sits there like a dud. In so doing, it blocks the receptor’s access to the body’s own estrogen — preventing it from unlocking any of the myriad operations normally controlled via this important receptor.

Where ER-alpha can promote reproductive cancers, actions triggered through ER-beta tend to inhibit cancer development and foster health in a range of tissues throughout the body. “So simplistically speaking,” Gustafsson says, “ER-alpha is the bad guy and ER-beta is the good one.” Generally, he says, their actions tend to balance one another.

And that’s what appears to make BPAF such a “double-edged sword,” he contends. By increasing ER-alpha activity and shutting down ER-beta’s countervailing functions, BPAF appears to shift endocrine action toward greater toxicity, he says.

Early hints of BPAF’s hormonal alter ego prompted the National Toxicology Program in late 2008 to target it for federal toxicity testing in rodents. Shimohigashi says his team will soon begin similar studies to investigate how the newly unveiled endocrine effects play out in whole animals.

Little is known about the quantity of BPAF produced each year or likely human exposures. One federal study conducted nearly three decades ago estimated that some 4,400 U.S. workers likely encountered the chemical at the time, according to a brief online report by the National Toxicology Program. That report also notes that the contaminant has been detected in women’s fat — a sign that it could, during breastfeeding, be passed along to a baby.

+++++++

The Chemical Marketplace Series - Bisphenol AF
by Bill Chameides

Introducing bisphenol AF, BPA’s more toxic sibling.
By now, you've no doubt heard about Bisphenol A (aka BPA) and its potential for toxic mischief when leached from various plastic containers. You’ve probably also heard that companies are now falling all over themselves to declare their products ”BPA-free." (And some people claim that the public can't catalyze a national green movement.)

All in the BP Family


But you may not know that BPA is only one of a cornucopia of chemical bisphenols, or BPs, running amok in the world. (The "BP” referred to here should not be confused with a certain petroleum company that has received a good deal of media attention of late.)

Among the alphabet soup of chemical BPs are BPB, BPC, BPF, BPAF, BPE, and BPS. In fact, the National Toxicological Program lists 38 compounds [pdf] that are structurally similar to BPA. The common thread is that they all begin with the same basic bisphenol chemical structure of C12H10(OH)2 — two phenyl groups each bonded to a hydroxyl (OH) group — then are subtly added to and/or otherwise modified. For example, in the case of BPA, two methyl groups (CH3) are added along with an extra atom of carbon (C) to the basic bisphenol building block.

What About Bisphenol AF (BPAF)?

Well, not all that surprising, given the "F" in its appellation, BPAF has the same configuration as BPA except the hydrogen atoms in the methyl group have been replaced by fluorine atoms. (Technically speaking, substituting fluorine for hydrogen in the methyl groups turns them into trifluoromethyl compounds.)

From the point of view of a chemical engineer, the addition of the fluorine atoms improves BPA’s chemical, thermal and mechanical properties, making it attractive for lots of applications in plastics, electronic devices, optical fibers, and more. Thus, BPAF is one more example of a compound with wondrous new properties produced by replacing hydrogen atoms with halogen atoms (in this case fluorine) in an organic molecule.

But, alas, there is a problem: many of those halogenated compounds turn out to be mixed blessings at best. They can be quite toxic and they can be slow to break down or metabolize in the environment and in the human body. Examples include PBDEs, PCBs [video], DDT and Freons.

Lots of Unknowns With BPAF

As for BPAF, the fact is we don't know very much about its toxic properties. But recent results from short-term studies have suggested that it may act as an aggressive endocrine disruptor. Indeed, in 2008 it was one of only six chemicals accepted for further study by the National Toxicological Program.

While that work is just getting started, data trickling in from other sources are not reassuring. There are signs that BPAF may be a more effective endocrine disruptor than BPA. For example, a study published last spring in Environmental Health Perspectives by Ayami Matsushima of Kyushu University in Japan and colleagues suggests that BPAF packs a one-two punch on the reproductive system: effectively shutting off gene receptors that promote reproductive health and inhibit reproductive cancers, while activating the receptor that can promote reproductive cancers.

Okay, that's not great, but what are the chances any of us are being exposed to BPAF in dangerous quantities? I can't give you a definitive answer, but here's what TheGreenGrok team has been able to find out.

It's rather incredible to me but the National Toxicology Program reports [pdf] that there does not yet exist a comprehensive database on the types of products that contain BPAF. One application that has been documented: BPAF is used in food-contact polymers such as fluoroelastomer gaskets and in hoses used in food-processing equipment. BPAF may also be used in dental resins and plastics used to wrap foods. Not exactly what one would want to hear for a potentially toxic compound.

Patent records [pdf] indicate that we haven’t been making BPAF all that long, only since the late 1970s. According to the Environmental Protection Agency’s most recent chemical inventory database from 2006 (the inventory is updated every four years), between 10,000 and 500,000 pounds of BPAF are manufactured, imported or used annually in the United States. Why such a large range? That’s the way EPA does it; here’s the agency's explanation [pdf].

These amounts, reports EPA, have remained essentially flat since 1986. But are they significant? It's hard to say since we don't know that much about how BPAF moves through the environment or whether a significant amount leaches from products and gets into our bodies. Two relevant things to note:

• On the positive side, the amount of BPAF in use in the United States is considerably less than that of BPA (at one billion pounds or greater).
• On the other, BPAF has been detected in the environment (albeit at levels lower than that of BPA). A study in Germany found detectable levels of BPAF in about three-fourths of the surface water and sewage samples collected and in more than half of the sediment samples collected.

So that's the story on BPAF. One of some 80,000 chemicals used here that go unregulated and virtually unstudied. Are the products you use exposing you to BPAF? Your guess is as good as mine.

Bisphenol-A (BPA): Unhealthy Epigenetic is in Most Everything (7 articles)

 (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?

Written on August 30, 2011 by Alexander Rinehart, MS, DC, CCN 

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  ^[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.

Endocrine dis­rup­tors such as bisphe­nol A have actu­ally been shown to alter gene expres­sion and cause epi­ge­netic changes in those exposed.  ^{[10]  [11]}.

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:

• preeclamp­sia
• intrauter­ine growth restriction
• pre­ma­ture births
• & preg­nancy loss^[14] and indi­rect asso­ci­a­tion with recur­rent
  mis­car­riages.^[15]

 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:

• 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. ^[18]

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

Posted by Meg Bohne on 08/31/11

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

September 1, 2011

By Frommer Lawrence & Haug 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.

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.

High levels of BPA in a Male's System Lowers Sperm Count

(When numerous studies conclude that a chemical compound is harmful to our health, but the regulating agency responsible for approving the use of said chemical compound denies harmful effects are caused by said chemical compound, then that regulation agency has failed its reason to be, and therefore is incapable of further regulating that industry, because obviously the makers of said chemical compound have attained its approval questionably rather than putting it through a legitimate approval process. This calls into question every other chemical compound the regulating agency has approved.--jef)

***

'Gender bending' chemical in food tins may cut male fertility
By DAVID DERBYSHIRE | 5th August 2010

A ‘gender bending’ chemical in food and drinks containers could be behind rising male infertility, scientists say.

Men with high levels of Bisphenol A (BPA) in their bodies are more likely to have low sperm counts, according to a study.

BPA is widely used to harden plastics and is found in baby bottles, CD cases, plastic knives and forks and the lining of food and drink cans.

The chemical mimics the female sex hormone oestrogen and interferes with the way hormones are processed by the body.

Although some animal studies have shown it is safe, others have linked it to breast cancer, liver damage, obesity, diabetes and fertility problems.

Experts estimate BPA is detectable in more than 90 per cent of people.

It is one of the world’s most widely manufactured chemicals, with more than 2.2million tons made each year.

Earlier this year, Denmark became the first EU country to ban the chemical in food and drink containers for children under three.

Canada and three U.S. states have also brought in bans.

Scientists have now discovered it could be lined to poor sperm quality and concentration.

Professor John Meeker, who led the study at the University of Michigan in the U.S., said: ‘Much of the focus for BPA is on the exposures in utero (in the womb) or in early life, which is of course extremely important, but this suggests exposure may also be a concern for adults.’

In one of the first human studies, Professor Meeker and co-author Russ Hauser, from the Harvard School of Public Health, recruited 190 men through a fertility clinic.

The researchers compared thelevels of BPA in urine samples with the men’s sperm quality and concentration.

They also looked for signs of DNA damage in their sperm.

Men with the highest levels of BPA had sperm concentrations 23 per cent lower than those with the least.

‘The results also suggested a 10 per cent increase in sperm DNA damage,’ said Professor Meeker.

But the researchers stressed that their findings, published in
the journal Reproductive Toxicology, needed to be repeated with a larger sample size.

Elizabeth Salter Green, of the Chemicals, Health And Environment Monitoring Trust, described the study as ‘another nail in the coffin’ for BPA and called for it to be banned.

‘There are now hundreds of research papers that indicate BPA is not good for our health, linking exposure to fertility problems, cancer, diabetes and obesity,’ she added.

The Food Standards Agency insists there is no evidence BPA is harmful.