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.

Banning BPA

 And there was rejoicing!-jef

A Poisonous Coating
by KARL GROSSMAN


It’s what the county legislature in Suffolk County, New York is noted for—passing first-in-the-nation laws. It’s done that with laws banning the hand-held use of cell phones while driving, the sale of drop-side cribs and the supplement ephedra, and many statutes prohibiting smoking in public places. The measures have often been replicated statewide and nationally.

And the panel did it again this month passing a measure that bans receipts coated with the chemical BPA. BPA, the acronym for Bisphenol-A, has been found to be a cause of cancer and other health maladies.
“Once again this institution is going to set the standard for other states to follow,” declared Legislator Steve Stern of Huntington after the passage of his bill December 4.

The top elected official of Suffolk County, which encompasses eastern Long Island, County Executive Steve Bellone plans to sign the measure into law next week.

BPA has become common. It is used widely to harden plastics and as a coating inside cans of beverages and food. Another use is coating the paper used for receipts enabling it to become “thermal paper” and react to heat to print numbers and words.

In 2009, the Suffolk County Legislature enacted a first-in-the-nation law—also authored by Stern—prohibiting the use of BPA in baby bottles and other beverage containers used by children under three. Stern was made aware of the health dangers of BPA by Karen Joy Miller, founder of Prevention is the Cure, an initiative of the Huntington Breast Cancer Action Coalition. Prevention is the Cure emphasizes the elimination of the causes of cancer.

Ms. Miller testified at the legislative session at which the measure passed 16-to-1: “We’ve got to end this disease [cancer], and a bad-acting chemical like [BPA] is at the top of the list.” After the vote, she applauded “Legislator Stern and the Suffolk County Legislature for taking this important step to protect public health.”

Stern’s “Safer Sales Slip Act” was also backed by Dr. Philip Landrigan, chair of the Department of Preventive Medicine and dean for Global Health with the Children’s Environmental Health Center at Mt. Sinai School of Medicine in New York City. It will protect “the health of the public by reducing exposures to BPA for all Suffolk County families and, most especially, pregnant or nursing women, and women of childbearing age…As leaders in pediatrics and preventive medicine, we strongly support this legislation.”

Meanwhile, claiming at the legislative session that BPA is safe was Stephen Rosario of the American Chemistry Council. Millions of tons of BPA are now manufactured annually and the American Chemistry Council has led in defending the substance.

The Stern bill declares that the Suffolk Legislature “finds and determines that BPA is a synthetic estrogen which disrupts healthy development and can lead to an altered immune system, hyperactivity, learning disabilities, reproductive health problems, increased risk of breast and prostate cancer, obesity and diabetes.”

It refers to his earlier “Toxin Free Toddlers and Babies Act” and notes that since the passage of “this groundbreaking ban,” a national counterpart of the measure was enacted—“finally, this summer”—by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Of receipts coated with BPA, the BPA on this “thermal paper can transfer onto anything it contacts, including skin” and through the skin “be absorbed…into the body,” says the bill.

This “dermal exposure to BPA poses a risk to public health and particularly to those whose employment requires distribution of such receipts.” Moreover, “the thermal paper containing BPA is also utilized in bank receipts and at Automated Teller Machines and gas pump receipts, creating multiple and ubiquitous points of exposure in daily life.”

Further, research has determined that “workers employed at retail and food service industries, where BPA-containing thermal paper is most commonly used, have an average of 30% more BPA in their bodies than adults employed in other professions.”

And, critically, as the measure notes, “there are several manufacturers that produce thermal paper that does not contain BPA.” That’s the way it is for toxic products and processes: there are safe alternatives for them. There are safe substitutes for virtually every deadly product and process. The problem: the vested interests that continue to push and defend them.

The Stern law carries penalties of $500 for the first violation and $1,000 “for each subsequent violation.”

It hopefully will be replicated far and wide. And, bans on BPA should be extended to the use of all plastics with BPA along with cans of beverages and food that have a coating of this poison inside.

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.

FDA to Ban BPA from Baby Bottles; Plan Falls Short of Needed Protections: Scientists

The FDA, always getting to the party after everyone has already gone home and blogged about it. --jef

Tuesday, July 17, 2012 by Common Dreams

The US Food and Drug Administration announced Tuesday that the chemical bisphenol-A (BPA) is now officially banned from the manufacturing of baby bottles and sippy cups -- a move that researchers say still falls short of sufficient regulation. Environmental groups say more should be done to ban BPA from all consumer products including infant formula and food and beverage packaging, which are not included under the new rules.
 
 The F.D.A. said that its decision was a response to a request by the American Chemistry Council, the chemical industry’s main trade association, that rules allowing BPA in those products be phased out, in part to boost "consumer confidence."

The Environmental Working Group says the move is purely cosmetic, as most companies have already stopped using BPA for baby bottles and sippy cups due to public pressure. Allowing BPA to go unchallenged in products it is actually still used in is a blow to the anti-BPA fight.

“Once again, the FDA has come so late to the party that the public and the marketplace have already left,” said Jason Rano, Director of Government Affairs for EWG. “If the agency truly wants to prevent people from being exposed to this toxic chemical associated with a variety of serious and chronic conditions it should ban its use in cans of infant formula, food and beverages."

BPA is a synthetic estrogen that scientists say can disrupt the hormone system, interfere with development of the reproductive and nervous systems in babies and young children, and is likely carcinogenic.

In the US, BPA is an almost ubiquitous substance found in most food packaging, water bottles, and dental sealants. Roughly 90 percent of Americans have traces of BPA in their urine, due to exposure. Traces have also been found in breast milk, the blood of pregnant women and umbilical cord blood.

“This is only a baby step in the fight to eradicate BPA. To truly protect the public, FDA needs to ban BPA from all food packaging. This half-hearted action—taken only after consumers shifted away from BPA in children’s products — is inadequate. FDA continues to dodge the bigger questions of BPA’s safety,” said Dr. Sarah Janssen, senior scientist in the public health program at Natural Resources Defense Council.

Toxic Time Bombs

Chemicals Can Alter Development for Generations

by STEVEN HIGGS

 

The pernicious impact of toxic chemicals in the body, from suspected roles in autism to human response to everyday stress, can manifest themselves in future generations, according to a new study from researchers at the University of Texas (UT) and Washington State University (WSU).

Published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the animal study found DNA changes wrought by a common fungicide are passed down from parents to offspring, according to a May 22, 2012, UT news release. The researchers studied how the animals respond to stress.

“The ancestral exposure of your great-grandmother alters your brain development to then respond to stress differently,” said WSU professor Michael Skinner.

Along with UT’s David Crews, Skinner and colleagues exposed gestating female rats to the popular fruit and vegetable fungicide vinclozolin and monitored for “epigenetic changes,” which can be passed on to subsequent generations.

Crews and Skinner subjected the exposed rats’ third generation of offspring to a variety of behavioral tests and found them to be more anxious and sensitive to stress. They also had greater activity in stress-related regions of the brain than descendants of unexposed rats.

“We are now in the third human generation since the start of the chemical revolution, since humans have been exposed to these kinds of chemicals,” Crews said in the release. “This is the animal model of that.”

Crews, whose contributions to the paper focused on the neuroscience, behavior and stress aspects, said increases in disorders like autism and bipolar disorder may be connected to the kind of “two-hit” exposure that the experiment is modeling.

“It’s more than just a change in diagnostics,” he said of the documented increases in mental disorders in recent decades. “The question is: Why? Is it because we are living in a more frantic world, or because we are living in a more frantic world and are responding to that in a different way because we, or our ancestors, have been exposed to environmental contaminants. I favor the latter.”

***

The stress study is the second that Crews and UT colleague Andrea Gore have authored on vinclozolin in five years. In 2007 they found exposure to the toxin can affect mate choice in later generations.


Also published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences journal, the study found that female rats avoid males whose great-grandmothers were exposed to the fungicide and preferred males whose ancestors were uncontaminated, according to a March 27, 2007, UT news release.

“Even across generations, your attractiveness as a mate is decreased if your great-grandmother has been exposed to environmental chemicals,” said Gore. “That will have an impact on your ability to reproduce and could take you out of the gene pool.”

Vinclozolin is also linked early onset of cancer and kidney disease in males, they said.
Crews and Gore studied the early onset of disease in rats caused by initial exposure to vinclozolin and found it was passed down generation to generation through the males.

“The female is able to detect which male is likely to get early onset disease and which male is not before they show any manifestation of disease,” Crews said.

Gore added, “The female rats can sense something is wrong, although they can’t see it.”
Males exhibited no preference for female type and generally move on to other populations to mate, the release said. So the effect of vinclozolin exposure in the natural setting would not only span generations but could also reach other populations of animals through male migrations.

“Males disperse, and if they were to mate, it would be at times that they aren’t manifesting signs of disease,” said Crews. “They are literally time bombs.”

***

Crews and Gore write blogs on the Huffington Post and on March 19, 2012, penned a joint column titled “Our Contaminated World” that focused on the Food & Drug Administration’s (FDA) pending decision to allow the toxic chemical bisphenol-A (BPA) in food packaging like coated metal cans and plastic wraps.

“There is a long scientific history showing a link between exposure to endocrine disruptors and reproductive disorders such as infertility and early puberty.” - Professors David Crews and Lauren Gore, University of Texas

“Epidemiological evidence in humans shows associations between BPA and cardiovascular disease, metabolic disorders and reproductive impairments,” they wrote. “Beyond BPA, endocrine disruptors are linked to cancer, obesity, reproductive disorders and mood disorders like anxiety and depression.”

Endocrine disruptors, according to the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), are chemicals that interfere with the endocrine or hormone system and can produce “adverse developmental, reproductive, neurological, and immune effects in both humans and wildlife.”

In response to a complaint from the Natural Resources Defense Council, the FDA decided to continue allowing BPA in food packaging, Huffington Post blogger Lynne Peeples reported on March 20, 2012.

Chemicals like vinclozolin and BPA are undeniably useful, protecting grapes from fungus, leafy greens from pests and children from fire ants and flammable pajamas, Crews and Gore wrote the day before the FDA decision on BPA.

“They’re also in us, and transforming our bodies and minds,” they said. “There is a long scientific history showing a link between exposure to endocrine disruptors and reproductive disorders such as infertility and early puberty. Furthermore, the evidence is growing that the damage is much more widespread.”

Chemicals have been shown to increase the risk of various cancers, to contribute to obesity and to influence the activity of neurotransmitters in the brain, they continued.

“In fact, there are even hints that exposure to the chemicals may have something to do with the dramatic rise in autism and mental disorders over the past few decades,” they said.

With geneticists beginning to appreciate the fundamental role of the environment in shaping who humans are, the question is no longer simply “nature or nurture?”

“We know that nature (the environment) has been changed by contamination, and this leads to changes in how organisms are nurtured,” Crews and Gore wrote.

EPA Grossly Misrepresents The Toxicity Of Corexit Used In Gulf Of Mexico

Saturday, May 12, 2012
Susan Aarde - Activist Post

Quite incredibly, the EPA issued a positive report on May 1, 2012 regarding the safety and toxicity of various dispersants used in the BP Gulf Oil Spill. Included in this assessment was the use of Corexit.

This report “indicated that all eight dispersants had roughly the same toxicity," and all fell into the “practically non-toxic” or “slightly toxic” category. Scientists found that none of the eight dispersants displayed endocrine-disrupting activity of “biological significance.”

The same report went on to say that “dispersant-oil mixtures were generally no more toxic to the aquatic test species than oil alone.”

The first question that jumps out for those who have researched this subject with any degree of thoroughness is how this recent report fails to reconcile with previous studies performed by the EPA.

Here is some test data retrieved from the EPA website that was posted previous to the BP Gulf Oil Spill.

The dispersant (Corexit 9500) and dispersed oil have demonstrated the following levels of toxicity per the EPA website link that follows: 

(1) 10.72 parts per million (ppm) of oil alone will kill 50% of the fish test species in a normal aquatic environment within 96 hours. 

(2) 25.20 parts per million of dispersant (Corexit 9500) alone will kill 50% of the fish test species in a normal aquatic environment within 96 hours. 

(3) 2.61 parts per million of dispersed oil (Corexit-laden) alone will kill 50% of the fish test species in a normal aquatic environment within 96 hours.

This data diverges from the recent report to such a significant degree that the results which were just posted at the EPA.gov website under the title of “The BP Oil Spill: Responsive Science Supports Emergency Response” must be seriously scrutinized.

What is the buying public to make of such conflicting data? Those who have medical conditions which require complete avoidance of toxic seafood need to know with certainty what they are eating.

Likewise, the fishermen in the Gulf need to know the true condition of their catch. Swimmers and beach goers need to know the state of the water, as well as the beaches. Boaters ought to be informed of the relevant risk factors when out in the areas of recently sprayed waters, whether surface or deep sea.

The most serious questions to emerge from this report revolve around the issue of credibility. Can the EPA ever be trusted again to conduct the necessary research regarding anything having to do with the Gulf of Mexico oil spill caused by BP?

Issuing such blanket statements about the relatively low toxicity associated with this spill, irrespective of location on the beach, in the waters, in the wetlands or estuaries, seems to be quite disingenuous.

Furthermore, the federal government’s declaration that the "clean up phase" of the Deepwater Horizon spill is over begs for review, especially in light of the large quantities of submerged oil unaccounted for residing in the water column, DOJ’s discovery of false flow rate numbers reported by BP and new sightings of oil slicks all over the Gulf.

In light of all that, the clean up phase is not over and further use of Corexit dispersant isn’t an effective solution.

Moreover, the fact that the EPA has approved for use a very safe bioremediation agent known as Oil Spill Eater II, but has yet to allow its use in the Gulf raises many additional questions.

From our investigation, it has become clear that Corexit has been given preferential treatment over other much safer alternatives. The Gulf Oil Spill Remediation Conference (GOSRC) was quoted as follows in this regard:

When we heard about Oil Spill Eater II, and the fact that it is EPA-approved (NCP listed) and has demonstrated its effectiveness at least 14 times for the BP Gulf Oil Spill, we wondered why it wasn’t being used 24/7.

The GOSRC went on to issue a press release entitled: Coalition Of Enviro, Citizens And Political Groups Demand COREXIT Use Be Stopped which pointed out the deliberate false image which has been created around the use of this toxic dispersant — Corexit 9500.

The Gulf Rescue Alliance (GRA) also made the recent observations in their press release entitled: BP Gulf Oil Spill Revisited.

Many of these studies point out the obvious; that when you mix a tremendous volume of released oil with methane gas and further mix it with a toxic dispersant like Corexit, as they have done throughout this oil spill, a chemical cocktail is created that will have as far-reaching ecological ramifications as it will profound environmental consequences.

The Earth Orgainization (TEO) has also weighed in on this issue through their release of an excellent documentary entitled: Hidden Crisis in the GULF. Barbara Wiseman, TEO President, has been an ardent advocate for safer oil remediation measures since the very beginning of this oil spill. She has said that:

At the beginning of the disaster, TEO investigated to find effective, non-toxic technologies currently available in adequate supply to clean up an oil spill of this size. Once we isolated the best solutions, we then investigated to find what the barriers to getting them implemented were. The barriers have all come down to specific people in the EPA. They are, in effect, holding the Gulf hostage and, for some unexplained reason, won’t let it be cleaned up.

Lastly, perhaps the words of Steven Pedigo reflect the voice of reason more than any other in this ongoing oil spill when he was quoted in A 2nd Anniversary Report on the BP Gulf Oil Spill as follows:

The toxic dispersants add absolutely nothing to EFFECTIVE RESPONSE. There is no scientific basis for it, and their use violates The Clean Water Act, EPA’s charter and common sense. 

Corexit’s label clearly states it can cause kidney failure and death and the MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheet) specifically warns, 'Do not contaminate surface water with it. Additionally, toxicity testing in regards to marine species shows little tolerance by all forms of sea life; thus, applying it on spills as a preferred response method increases the toxicity of the spilled oil on which it is used.

Huge Spike in Cancers, Fertility Problems Linked to Chemicals in Household Items

Friday, May 11, 2012 by Common Dreams

Chemicals in common household products may be behind the huge rise in cancers, diabetes and obesity, falling fertility, and an increased number of neurological development syndromes, the European Environment Agency (EEA) reported yesterday. 

"Scientific research gathered over the last few decades shows us that endocrine disruption is a real problem, with serious effects on wildlife and people," EEA Executive Director Jacqueline McGlade said in a statement. "It would be prudent to take a precautionary approach to many of these chemicals until their effects are more fully understood."

EEA points to the ubiquity of such chemicals, as they are found in packaged food, plastics, cosmetics, pharmaceuticals and many other common household items.

Among the possible effects of these chemicals are breast cancer, reduced fertility, autism, early onset of puberty and thyroid disease.

* * *

European Environment Agency: Increase in cancers and fertility problems may be caused by household chemicals and pharmaceuticals

Chemicals which disrupt the hormone system – also known as 'endocrine disrupting chemicals' (EDCs) – may be a contributing factor behind the significant increases in cancers, diabetes and obesity, falling fertility, and an increased number of neurological development problems in both humans and animals, according to a review of recent scientific literature commissioned by the European Environment Agency (EEA).

Chemicals which can potentially disrupt the endocrine system can be found in food, pharmaceuticals, pesticides, household products and cosmetics. In recent decades, there has been a significant growth in many human diseases and disorders including breast and prostate cancer, male infertility and diabetes. Many scientists think that this growth is connected to the rising levels of exposure to mixtures of some chemicals in widespread use.

"Scientific research gathered over the last few decades shows us that endocrine disruption is a real problem, with serious effects on wildlife, and possibly people", EEA Executive Director Jacqueline McGlade said. "It would be prudent to take a precautionary approach to many of these chemicals until their effects are more fully understood."

The Weybridge +15 (1996-2011) report on endocrine disruptors was launched at Brunel University outside London today. It is the result of an international workshop that evaluated the findings of the last 15 years of research. The report follows the 1996 Weybridge report and associated workshop, where the problem of EDCs was first comprehensively discussed by regulatory authorities and scientists together.

Reasons for scientific uncertainty
The report shows clearly that there is strong evidence of harm from EDCs in some wildlife species and in laboratory studies using rodent models for human health. However, the effects of EDCs on humans may be more difficult to demonstrate, due to the length, cost and methodological difficulties with these types of studies – so wildlife and animal studies may be seen in some cases as an early warning of the dangers.

In the last 10 years, risk assessment and regulatory frameworks for dealing with EDCs have been created and screening procedures have been developed to test chemicals for endocrine disrupting properties. There are still lots of factors that make the risk assessment process difficult. Chief amongst these is the fact that these chemicals can affect early development of, for example, the brain, reproductive, immune and metabolic systems in detrimental ways that are often invisible until several years or sometimes decades after exposure.

Scientific understanding is further complicated because mixtures of similarly acting EDCs in combination may contribute to an overall effect, whilst each of these chemicals alone may not cause harm. These factors make it hard for scientists to identify thresholds of exposure below which there are no effects.

However, there is a large body of evidence linking chemical exposure to thyroid, immune, reproductive and neurological problems in animals, and many of the same or similar diseases and disorders have been observed to be rising in human populations. Both animals and humans may be exposed to these chemicals in the environment, or via water or the food chain where the chemicals can build up.

Possible effects of endocrine disrupting chemicals

• The link between some diseases and EDCs is now accepted. For example, exposure to oestrogen or to oestrogenic EDCs is an accepted risk factor for breast cancer, endometriosis, fibroids and polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) in women.
• Breast cancer rates are increasing in almost all industrialized countries. The majority of these cases are due to lifestyles and environmental exposures, rather than specific genetic factors.
• Some EDCs may also cause low quality semen. Detailed reviews of current knowledge show clearly that human male reproductive problems are increasing in many countries. There are large regional differences in semen quality. In some European regions approximately 40% of men suffer from reduced fertility while in others it is less than 10%
• Laboratory studies show that the reproductive systems of a broad range of vertebrate species, for example polar bears and fish, and some invertebrate species such as some snails and oysters are susceptible to EDCs.
• Some studies have linked EDCs to thyroid disease. Thyroid cancer rates have increased by between 5 % (Switzerland) and 155 % (France), particularly in women, children and young adults.
• Several studies have also linked exposure to some EDCs with neuro-developmental disorders such as autism, attention deficit disorder and diminished cognitive function in children. However, more work is needed in this area to confirm or refute theories involving the wider sphere of EDCs in modern commerce
• There is a trend towards the earlier onset of puberty in girls, which may be influenced by EDCs.
• Some persistent endocrine disrupting substances, such as DDT, TBT and PCBs - now banned or restricted in their use - have been shown to cause catastrophic declines in mollusc, seal and bird populations in some parts of the world as a result of their effects on reproduction. Scientists are concerned that many chemicals that are still in modern commerce also affect the human reproductive system.

Our Chemical Cocktail Evaluated in New Report

Friday, April 20, 2012 by Civil Eatsby Paula Crossfield

When it comes to the chemicals used in food packaging, there is much we still don’t know. After a recent U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) decision last month to not put further restrictions on bisphenol-A (BPA), a new report today in the Washington Post takes a closer look at studies that reveal that such endocrine-distrupting chemicals are not only ubiquitous, they might also be harmful at much lower doses than previously thought.

The FDA allows around 3,000 chemicals, including BPA and phthalates–a family of chemicals used in lubricants and solvents and to make polyvinyl chloride pliable–at low doses, long considering them additives though they migrate from the packaging instead of being purposefully added by the food manufacturer. But these chemicals are notoriously hard to trace, and have not been studied for their cumulative effects.

“Finding out which chemicals might have seeped into your groceries is nearly impossible, given the limited information collected and disclosed by regulators, the scientific challenges of this research and the secrecy of the food and packaging industries, which view their components as proprietary information,” writes Freinkel, author of Plastic: A Toxic Love Story, who wrote this story in collaboration with the Food & Evironment Reporting Network. “Although scientists are learning more about the pathways of these substances–and their potential effect on health–there is an enormous debate among scientists, policymakers and industry experts about what levels are safe.”

What has scientists worried is the fact that endocrine disrupters like these interfere with the body’s natural hormone system. Animals studies on BPA, for example, have found that doses of the chemical below the FDA-approved threshold administered during critical stages of development can effect behavior, breast and prostate cells, and brain structure and chemistry. According to recent studies, around 90 percent of Americans have BPA inside their bodies.

Freinkel explains how plastic food packaging is a major source of these potentially harmful chemicals. Other studies have shown phthalates passing into food from processing equipment and food-prep gloves, gaskets and seals on non-plastic containers, inks used on labels–which can permeate packaging–and even the plastic film used in agriculture.

The report highlights an upcoming study that found a particular phthalate, called DEHP, in many of the 72 different grocery items evaluated. Studies have associated low-dose exposure to this chemical with male reproductive disorders, thyroid dysfunction, and subtle behavioral changes.
Last month, the FDA denied a petition to ban BPA, saying in a statement that while “some studies have raised questions as to whether BPA may be associated with a variety of health effects, there remain serious questions about these studies, particularly as they relate to humans and the public health impact.”

You can read the full report here on the Food & Environment Reporting Network’s Web site, which also features additional reporting on the topic.

Scientists Warn of Low-Dose Risks of Chemical Exposure

Sunday, March 25, 2012 by Yale Environment 360

A new study finds that even low doses of hormone-disrupting chemicals — used in everything from plastics to pesticides – can have serious effects on human health. These findings, the researchers say, point to the need for basic changes in how chemical safety testing is conducted.

by Elizabeth Grossman

Since before the publication of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring 50 years ago, scientists have known that certain synthetic chemicals can interfere with the hormones that regulate the body’s most vital systems. Evidence of the health impacts of so-called endocrine-disrupting chemicals grew from the 1960s to the 1990s. With the 1996 publication of Our Stolen Future by Theo Colborn, Dianne Dumanoski, and J. Peterson Myers, many people heard for the first time how such exposures — from industrial pollution, pesticides, and contact with finished consumer products, such as plastics — were affecting people and wildlife. Since then public concern about these impacts has grown.

In 2009, the American Medical Association called for reduced exposure to endocrine- disrupting chemicals. Last year, eight scientific societies, representing some 40,000 researchers, urged federal regulators to incorporate the latest research on endocrine-disrupters into chemical safety testing.

Last week, 12 scientists – including such experts as Colborn and the University of Missouri’sFrederick vom Saal — published a paper that they say significantly advances the debate. Their research, based on a review of 800 scientific studies, concludes that it is “remarkably common” for very small amounts of hormone-disrupting chemicals to have profound, adverse effects on human health. Hormone-disrupting chemicals, the paper explains, challenge a fundamental tenet of toxicology — “the dose makes the poison” — which contends that the greater the dose, the greater the effect. Hormone-disrupting chemicals don’t necessarily behave like this. Significant health effects, the researchers say, sometimes occur at low rather than high doses.

"Whether low doses of endocrine-disrupting compounds influence human disorders is no longer conjecture, as epidemiological studies show that environmental exposures are associated with human diseases and disabilities,” the paper’s authors write. The study, published in the journal Endocrine Reviews, maintains that the low-dose and special dose-response effects of hormone-disrupting chemicals means that “fundamental changes in chemical testing and safety determination are needed to protect human health."

The study’s lead author, Laura Vandenberg, a post-doctoral associate at Tufts University’s Department of Developmental and Regenerative Biology, said in an interview said that this low-dose and special dose-response behavior “should be expected of any chemical that acts like a hormone."

Not all experts in biology and toxicology agree with the study’s conclusions. Some scientists in academia, industry, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said there is not yet convincing proof that extremely low doses of endocrine-disrupting chemicals have ill health effects or consistently produce low-dose effects that are not predicted by their effects at higher doses.

"There’s no question that both natural and synthetic compounds can mimic hormones,” said George Gray, director of the Center for Risk Science and Public Health at The George Washington University. But that a chemical produces effects at one level, no effects at another, and different effects at yet another level of exposure, “that’s not yet widely accepted in toxicology,” said Gray. “It’s something toxicologists are not yet convinced of and comfortable with,” he added.

Hundreds of such hormone-disrupting chemicals have now been identified, and exposure to these compounds is virtually ubiquitous. Among the chemicals the new paper discusses are bisphenol A, used in plastics, can liners, and receipt papers; common pesticides, including atrazine and chlorpyrifos; methyl paraben, a preservative used in cosmetics and personal care products; triclosan, an antibacterial agent used in soaps and toothpaste; nonylphenol, a detergent ingredient; the flame retardant PBDE-99; perchlorate, a fuel compound; and dioxin, an industrial and incineration by-product. The paper also cites DDT and PCBs — discontinued but very environmentally persistent compounds.

"This is the first time anyone’s tried to synthesize this whole field and show that this is not a single chemical issue,” Vandenberg said of the new study.

Very small amounts of hormones, including endocrine system hormones — those that regulate many of the body’s most important systems, among them development, metabolism, and reproduction — can have significant biological effects. So, it’s been discovered, can synthetic compounds with similar chemical compositions. Research indicates that exposure to a small amount of such a chemical at a particular stage of development can prompt effects that can impact not just that particular individual, but, in some cases, several generations.

"It’s not just sex hormones but also thyroid hormones, and insulin among others, that are involved,” said Vandenberg. “We’re really complicated instruments."

The health effects documented in the studies the paper reviews have been observed in live animal and cell culture studies and in human epidemiological studies. Their effects include adverse impacts on reproductive and sexual development and fertility; cognition and neurological systems; immune system function; and metabolic effects, including diabetes and obesity. 

“The weight of the available evidence suggests that EDCs (endocrine-disrupting chemicals) affect a wide range of human health endpoints that manifest at different stages of life, from neonatal and infant periods to the aging adult,” write the authors.

Hormones interact with cellular receptors like locks and keys, explained Vandenberg. The hormone or hormone-like chemical is the key, and the receptor, the lock. “Touch the receptor and it starts to produce a response,” said Vandenberg. Too much chemical stimulus (the wrong-size key), however, can overwhelm the receptor, causing it to shut down and produce no response.

A key concept of the paper is that endocrine-disrupting chemicals are non-monotonic, meaning that the responses of animals or people to the chemicals do not necessarily intensify or diminish based on the dose. To illustrate this concept, Vandenberg said, “Picture a line of people, where those on the left have no exposure and those on the right have the most exposure. For endocrine-disrupting chemicals, where the greatest effects occur may not follow that line of increasing exposure level from left to right."

While complex and challenging, the studies gathered in this paper demonstrate that this phenomenon is now well documented, say the authors. “I hope that this paper opens the door to the realization that the endocrine system is the overarching control system of all other body systems,” said Theo Colborn, president of the Endocrine Disruption Exchange, whose work has been instrumental in popularizing knowledge of endocrine-disrupting chemicals. “It controls how we develop, function, and reproduce from the moment we are conceived — in other words, the quality of our lives and our existence."

While epidemiological studies show environmental exposure to EDCs are associated with human diseases, linking a specific environmental chemical exposure to an individual’s health disorder remains difficult, particularly given the many variables that contribute to health outcomes — life stage, genetics, and other environmental factors.

"There are different susceptibilities in different populations that may cause very minute amounts of a hormone to prompt effects in some people but not others,” said Linda Birnbaum, director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, who was one of the paper’s reviewers. This literature, she said, points to the importance of investigating low doses and timing of exposure when assessing chemicals for endocrine and other hormonal health outcomes, she explained in an interview.

Some scientists think more research is needed to confirm how endocrine disrupting chemicals behave. L. Earl Gray, Jr., a research biologist at the EPA’s Reproductive Toxicology Branch, said these low-dose effects are “certainly biologically plausible.” But he questioned whether there is sufficient evidence to firmly establish the non-monotonic responses of endocrine-disrupting chemicals.

The American Chemistry Council (ACC), which represents chemical manufacturers, issued a statement saying that it “has committed substantial resources” to better understanding the potential effects of chemicals on the endocrine system, and cited a Michigan State University professor emeritus of toxicology who concluded that “low-dose effects have not been proven, and therefore should not be applied to real-world conditions and human exposures.” (Corporate shill, yeah?--jef)

To verify these effects, studies must prove the mechanism of these responses and be replicable, said Lorenz Rhomberg, principal at the Gradient Corporation, a private environmental and risk analysis consultancy. “In my experience that’s been lacking,” said Rhomberg, co-author of an ACC-funded study that found low doses of BPA to be without adverse human reproductive and developmental health effects.

But, said Vandenberg, that’s exactly what the new paper shows. “We don't just know that these effects occur, we know how they occur,” she said, noting that for some chemicals like BPA, non-monotonic responses are reported by dozens of labs.

Thomas Zoeller, a University of Massachusetts biologist and paper co-author, said that regulatory testing of chemicals for endocrine-disrupting impacts lags behind the growing evidence of the compounds’ health effects, particularly at levels to which people are routinely exposed. “There is a very large disconnect between regulatory toxicology and the modern science of endocrinology that is defining these issues,” said Zoeller.

How much will testing chemicals at low, environmentally relevant levels improve human health, the paper authors ask? While it’s not currently possible to quantify in dollars, current evidence “linking low-dose EDC exposures to a myriad of health problems, diseases, and disorders suggests that the costs of current low-dose exposures are likely to be substantial,” they conclude.

"People can easily get overwhelmed by this issue,” said Laura Vandenberg. “But from a public health perspective, we can’t see this problem as too big to deal with. We wouldn’t do that with any other medical problem.”

BPA: Death by Plastic

(BPA is bad. There are 45 seconds of an NWO rant at the beginning of the video, and at 4:26 or so is a silly theory about a BPA link to homosexuality that I don't buy into, but the rest of the info is good.--jef)

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.