• Overview
• Food
• Baby Care
• Hazards & Threats
• News
• Our Purpose
• Prevention
• Products
• Sustainability & Lifestyle
• All Articles
• All Videos

Blog

In perhaps the most eye-opening coverage of BPA to date, David Case covers The Real Story Behind Bisphenol-A in the February issue of Fast Company magazine. Attempting to uncover why two federal agencies would have such opposing viewpoints on the chemical, Case digs up dirt on how a handful of consultants were hired by the chemical industry and used Big Tobacco's tactics to sow doubt about science and hold off regulation of BPA.

BPA is dangerous to human health. Or it is not. That's according to two government reports in recent months that came to opposite conclusions. The National Toxicology Program (NTP), which is part of the National Institutes of Health, reported in September 2008 "some concern" that BPA harms the human brain and reproductive system, especially in babies and fetuses. Yet less than a month earlier, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration declared that "at current levels of exposure" BPA is safe. Even after the FDA's own science board questioned the rigor of this analysis in late October, the agency didn't change its position.

Let's take a moment to ponder this absurd dichotomy. How could our nation's health watchdogs reach such divergent conclusions? Are we being unnecessarily scared by the NTP? Or could the FDA be sugarcoating things? What exactly is going on?

We went on a journey to find out. What we learned was shocking. To some degree, the BPA controversy is a story about a scientific dispute. But even more, it's about a battle to protect a multibillion-dollar market from regulation. In the United States, industrial chemicals are presumed safe until proven otherwise. As a result, the vast majority of the 80,000 chemicals registered to be used in products have never undergone a government safety review. Companies are left largely to police themselves.

Case’s scathing report of malfeasance includes insights into regulatory staff allegiances to industry, scientists being bought up in an attempt to “corner the market” of experts, and questionably flawed studies (like one industry-funded study that found no effects of BPA because they used rats that were genetically insensitive to estrogen). It has all the ingredients for the next great expose′ from Michael Moore or Morgan Spurlock.

And, as the battle surges on, the studies continue to pile up.

• A new study published in Environmental Health Perspectives simulated infant exposure to BPA and found that a young, developing child without a fully matured means to deactivate BPA could be carrying concentrations of the compound that are more than 10-fold higher levels than adults. One main reason for this difference is due to the fact that a baby's liver enzyme activity is only 5 percent of an adult's. The results suggest that children are very likely to be the most severely affected by exposure to BPA and related endocrine disruptors.

• Again, from Environmental Health Perspectives, high BPA levels were found in hospitalized premature babies. In this first study examining infants’ exposure to bisphenol A, premature babies hospitalized in neonatal intensive care units had levels of BPA in their urine 10 times higher than the general population. The source of exposure most likely was plastic medical devices used in the hospital, although some could have come from infant formula. The early born infants represent a subpopulation that is at high risk of being exposed during critical life stages.

• Animal research at the University of Alabama at Birmingham is resurrecting cancer concerns about BPA. Coral A. Lamartiniere, a top toxicologist and senior scientist at UAB's Comprehensive Cancer Center, said low levels of BPA, given orally to rodents caused tumors and genetic changes consistent with early stages of cancer growth. In the study published last week, Lamartiniere and colleagues gave female rats with nursing litters oral doses of BPA. The result: The baby rats matured with higher levels of breast cancer.

What would industry say? Historically, their response to similar studies has been that doses are still too low to have any ill effects and we can’t extrapolate animal studies to humans. Fast Company’s “How to Pass the BPA Test” covers these arguments and more (and they could apply just as well to any of the contentious chemicals in our everyday products.)

Here are a couple of the canned industry arguments and the rational responses:

BPA DEFENSE: The levels of BPA that people are exposed to are thousands of times lower than the threshold that EPA has determined to be safe.
TRUE, BUT: Just because human exposure is below the EPA threshold doesn't mean we're safe. The EPA standard, established in the 1980s, is based on traditional toxicology rather than endocrinology. BPA is a synthetic hormone, which means tiny doses -- in the parts-per-billion range -- may be dangerous too. (Healthy Child note: according to studies conducted over a decade ago, adverse health effects were found at levels 25,000 times lower than the EPA threshold.)

BPA DEFENSE: Most of the evidence of adverse health effects comes from rat and mouse studies.
TRUE, BUT: Animal experiments are crucial in toxicology. (Scientists don't feed humans potentially harmful chemicals.) Small mammals such as rats and mice are accepted as a proxy, because their biology is similar to ours. And since people are exposed to BPA in their daily lives, there is a growing body of human data that support what lab scientists are finding. But the data will never be definitive because it's impossible to find a control group of humans with no BPA exposure.
What do our regulatory agencies have to say about the accruing evidence of harm? The FDA has promised “to look into it further,” but according to Case, it doesn’t seem likely that their opinion will change soon.

You might expect the government to start controlling the use of BPA, but the track record suggests otherwise. The United States has a long tradition of keeping harmful substances -- lead, DDT, tobacco, PCBs -- on the market for decades after scientists find adverse effects. The National Toxicology Program report citing "some concern" has no regulatory impact, and the FDA has repeatedly deemed BPA "safe," even in the face of criticism.

The EPA could theoretically step in, but that's unlikely too. The agency "has no real program to regulate industrial chemicals, as a result of deep flaws in the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act," says Andy Igrejas, environmental-health campaign director for the Pew Charitable Trusts. Under the act, the EPA needs to show "substantial evidence" that a chemical is harmful, and must weigh the costs of restrictions against the economic benefits of keeping the chemical in commerce. That's a byzantine chore and helps explain why the agency has managed to restrict only five chemicals in the law's 33-year history. Under the 1996 Food Quality Protection Act, Congress ordered the agency to screen industrial chemicals to determine if they interfere with the endocrine system, a program that might have flagged BPA. Nine years after the 1999 deadline, the agency has yet to screen a single chemical.

Luckily, we don’t have to wait for the BPA problem to become so large it stops slipping through the gaping loopholes of our antiquated regulatory system. Legislative pushes are underway across the country:

• In Washington, a proposed ban would begin July 1, 2010. It prohibits BPA in food and drink containers made for children 3 and under, including sippy cups, baby bottles and cans of liquid infant formula. It also bans it in reusable drink bottles, such as popular Nalgene bottles. The measure also directs the Department of Ecology to find alternatives to BPA by July 2012 for food and drink containers that aren't already banned. California, Minnesota, New Jersey, Connecticut and Delaware are a few of the other states leading the way in promoting regulation of BPA and reducing children’s exposure.

• In Congress, two bills, one introduced in the House and the other in the Senate, look to do what the FDA has not. The Ban Poisonous Additives Act of 2008 lists BPA in food containers as “a poisonous or deleterious substance which may render the contents injurious to health.” The Senate bill, BPA-Free Kids Act of 2008, wants to ban BPA in products meant for children 7 years old or younger. The bill has been referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation.

Canada has banned the chemical from baby bottles and children's toys, and some large retailers have voluntarily decided not to stock products containing BPA. In Japan, manufacturers switched to an ethylene lining for canned foods to avoid BPA contamination.

While consumers and the public await new safety regulations on BPA, there are measures that can lower exposure risk. Avoid or minimize buying food and drink in plastic containers and aluminum cans, which are lined with a resin containing BPA. Don’t microwave food in plastic food containers. Use glass or BPA-free baby bottles and powdered formula.

More comments:

Print this page | Email a friend