BPA is widely used in shatter-proof plastic baby bottles, sippy cups, and the lining of formula cans and leaches out of these containers into food. Consumers Union, the nonprofit publisher of Consumer Reports, has long warned of the dangers of BPA in food containers, particularly for fetuses, infants, and small children. Our precautionary advice to consumers is based on more than 200 scientific studies that show clear links between tiny amounts of exposure to BPA and subsequent increased risk of cancer, diabetes, reproductive, neurological, and developmental disorders.

Studies show that BPA is in the bloodstreams of more than 90 percent of the population at levels that have shown harm in animal studies. And food appears to be a primary source of exposure. Children may metabolize BPA more slowly than adults and may therefore be particularly vulnerable to BPA, which has also been linked to early puberty, breast cancer, childhood obesity, autism, and hyperactivity.

Because of the existing and growing body of scientific knowledge about the health risks of BPA to consumers, the American Medical Association recently announced support for a ban on BPA-containing baby bottles and infant feeding cups and called on the industry to take action to stop producing them.

There’s also a growing industry movement against BPA. Many of the largest manufacturers of baby bottles no longer make their bottles with the chemical. In addition, major retailers are in the process of phasing out selling baby bottles with BPA, or have already done so. Moreover, chemical giant and BPA manufacturer Sunoco, acknowledging the safety concerns about BPA, announced it would restrict the sales of the toxin for use in baby bottles and food containers for children under three.

The Department of Toxic Substances, which oversees California’s Green Chemistry Initiative, slated to regulate chemicals in the state, recognizes the importance of banning BPA from children’s food and drink containers immediately with this legislation. The Green Chemistry program has become bogged down with long delays and will not be functional soon enough to protect the 550,000 babies born in California each year from the health risks of BPA.

The Department’s letter of support for this BPA ban states [PDF], “In light of the information available regarding the potential health effects of bisphenol A and the regulatory actions already taken by a number of other states and countries, DTSC believes it is prudent to restrict the use of bisphenol A in a narrow range of products such as children’s infant bottles and cups.”

The writing is on the wall: Harmless alternatives to BPA in baby bottles and sippy cups are in demand. With the signing of this bill, California can signal that big chemical company money cannot trump the health of babies and toddlers.

Originally published on Huffington Post

BPA has been linked to fertility problems, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, attention deficit disorder and cancer. Scientists at the University of Missouri, led by Cheryl Rosenfeld, found that a constant stream of BPA into the body could result in the chemical sticking around longer than expected.

“When BPA is taken through the food, the active form may remain in the body for a longer period of time than when it is provided through a single treatment, which does not reflect the continuous exposure that occurs in animal and human populations,” Rosenfeld said. “We need to study this further to determine where the ingested BPA becomes concentrated and subsequently released back into the bloodstream to be distributed throughout the body.”

She also considered that the consequences of this could be even more dire:

We know that the active form of BPA binds to our steroid receptors, meaning it can affect estrogen, thyroid and testosterone function. It might also cause genetic mutations. Thus, this chemical can hinder our ability to reproduce and possibly cause behavioral abnormalities that we are just beginning to understand.

BPA is commonly used in the lining of canned food, in plastic bottles, and on cash register receipts, among other applications. The Centers for Disease Control has shown that it is also in the urine of 93 percent of Americans.

I reported a few weeks ago that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently affirmed that BPA in cans leaches into different foods at variable, erratic rates. Another study out this week showed that 95 percent of the BPA in preschoolers’ urine had been taken in through their food sources. This backs up the 2010 report [PDF] by the World Health Organization (WHO) stating that food was by far the primary source of exposure to BPA in humans.

In addition to media coverage on this study, Chemical & Engineering News, the magazine published by the American Chemical Society, has made BPA the focus of this week’s issue.

One article looks closely at the toxicity debate. The growing consensus among consumers is that they don’t want it in their food at any dose, and health advocates point to many of the low-dose studies that increasingly show reason for concern. Meanwhile, the industry–which is producing 12 billion pounds of the chemical every year, with demand rising by five percent annually–doesn’t want to lose their billion-dollar market. The article states that can liner and baby bottle applications represent about five percent of BPA use–meaning that it might make better sense for advocates to organize for partial bans, like the nine states which have made moves to ban the substance in baby bottles.

However, this doesn’t rid us of channels for BPA exposure. In addition to human exposure via other types of food packaging, cashiers who handle receipts and the workers in facilities that use and produce BPA are still at high risk for exposure and illness. The industry also claims it has yet to find truly suitable alternatives. In addition, those that are in use now–like Bisphenol-S–are not necessarily any better for us. Indeed, most of them are also endocrine disruptors with the potential to cause the same set of diseases.

This may leave you wondering what to do to avoid ingesting BPA. One way to minimize your exposure is through a diet of fresh, whole foods, including fruits and vegetables, which has been proven to dramatically decrease the amount of BPA in the bloodstream.

In the meantime, California stands on the edge of voting to pass a BPA ban in the next week. Last month, the State Assembly passed a bill to ban BPA and in the next week, the bill is expected to be heard by the Senate Health Committee, chaired by Dr. Edward P. Hernandez (D-Los Angeles), who abstained from voting on a similar bill that was defeated last session. Based on the overwhelming evidence, let’s hope California makes the right decision this time around.

In the video I submitted, which you can watch below, I stress that one of the greatest threats to clean water is chemical contaminants—and that Dow Chemical has a long history of water pollution. The PR representative e-mailed to say “unfortunately we can’t use your video,” but that she would be happy to include me, still, if I would consider re-recording it. When we discussed what that would mean she said, no “fingerpointing;” they wanted a “positive, inclusive discussion.”

I believe in inclusiveness and engagement, but I also believe we must pursue those principles within a context that is honest. To do otherwise is to participate in what is popularly called “greenwashing,” painting a veneer of environmentalism on an otherwise unchanged product or practice—a corporate strategy many of us are all too familiar with.

In this spirit, I felt it would be disingenuous to engage in a conversation about water sustainability, for a campaign paid for by Dow Chemical, without pointing out the direct relationship between Dow’s core business products—a source of its $8 billion in profit last year—and toxins in our environment.

At the same time Dow launches this initiative, the company is actively fighting multiple lawsuits from communities who contend their water has been polluted by the company, including from its hometown manufacturing plant in Midland, Michigan. In 2007, the EPA detected the highest level of dioxin ever discovered in the country’s rivers or lakes in waterways near Dow’s global headquarters. Dioxin levels in some places were a thousand times higher than the residential standard, according to the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. A recent study found women living in Midland, as well as Saginaw and Bay counties, have significantly higher rates of breast cancer; dioxin was to blame. A class action lawsuit is pending.

“In the backyard of Dow’s corporate headquarters, the company for decades through philanthropy, public relations, and politics has made the choice to push back at every regulatory level instead of addressing their dioxin contamination of 52 miles of freshwater and Lake Huron,” said Michelle Hurd Riddick of the Saginaw Bay grassroots environmental organization, Lone Tree Council. “The company has mastered the art of greenwashing while poisoning a whole watershed and getting away with it.”

Community members in another Midland—Midland, Texas—filed suit earlier this year against Dow and three other companies for contaminating groundwater there with hexavalent chromium. Barred from use in the European Union because of its toxicity, hexavalent chromium is a known carcinogen. The EPA’s own hazard report notes that exposure, including through contaminated drinking water, “may produce effects on the liver, kidney, [and] gastrointestinal and immune systems.”

Dow also continues to drag its heels and fight regulators in order to continue production of some of its most toxic and water polluting products.

In 2000, for instance, the EPA announced it was phasing out approval of Dow’s insecticide, and potent neurotoxin, Dursban for new home construction in the United States because the product is linked to serious illnesses and even death in children. Five years later, the chemical was still in use in U.S. homes. And in 2003, Dow settled a $2 million lawsuit with the state of New York, the largest penalty ever in a pesticide-related case, for repeatedly violating an agreement about proper advertising of Dursban and making misleading safety claims.

Dow is also a leading manufacturer of Bisphenol-A (or BPA), used in numerous consumer products such as baby bottles, children’s toys, and the linings of food cans. It’s a particularly dangerous chemical, with proven toxicity even in low doses, especially in utero. The National Institutes of Health’s National Toxicology Program has found the chemical may increase the risk of certain cancers and alter brain development. The chemical, a synthetic estrogen, has also been linked to reproductive and hormonal problems. New research is showing that a vast majority of Americans is exposed to low concentrations of BPA not only through consumer products, but from surface water, too.

The future we should be creating is one in which everyone has access to clean water. No one should worry whether their water is tainted with endocrine disruptors, carcinogens, or neurotoxins—produced by Dow or any of the country’s other biggest chemical manufacturers. Dow has the power, and resources, to do more than create a faux “inclusive conversation” about water sustainability. The company should discontinue its most toxic products and pay to clean up communities it has contaminated. Until it does, I will not be complicit in its greenwashing.

The article also appears on TheNation.com

Many Americans, including a high number living in low-income communities, have come to rely on canned tomato sauces, soups, and vegetables to expedite their meal preparations. Yet a new study from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reveals that the canned food items on your dinner plate are over 90 percent likely to be tainted with Bisphenol-A (BPA), a primary chemical used in the lining of cans. (For more information on BPA, check out Civil Eats’ previous reporting here, here, here, and here.)

These findings are notable because they underline the fact that BPA levels in cans are variable depending on the type of food, or even within batches of the same food item. This is the FDA’s largest study to date across a wide spectrum of commonly consumed canned food items, including soups, chilis, pasta and pork and beans–foods often consumed by children, who have a heightened risk of exposure due to their body size.

This is not the first time such findings have been made public. Consumers Union, the nonprofit publisher of Consumer Reports, found similar results (though at three times lower levels than the FDA findings) in a 2009 study, noting that the daily safety threshold set by the FDA of 50 micrograms per kilogram of body weight was based on outdated studies often funded by the American Plastics Council, an industry group.

Consumers Union went on to suggest limiting daily exposure to one-thousandth of that level. “Consumers have no idea how much BPA they may be exposed to from any given can,” said Dr. Urvashi Rangan, Director of Technical Policy at Consumers Union. “As we previously reported, just a few servings of some of these foods can expose consumers to levels of BPA that have caused harm in animal studies. We believe this is an unacceptable margin of safety and that consumers should not have to ingest BPA.”

The scientists from the FDA did not go on to interpret the data in this new study or make any new recommendations about the agency’s safety threshold for the chemical.

Our chemical body burden

The Centers for Disease Control has demonstrated that 93 percent of Americans have detectable levels of BPA in their urine. Other studies have concluded that BPA is a “gender-bending” chemical that messes with our hormones, as well as increases the risk of cancer, diabetes, heart disease, and hyperactivity in children. In addition, studies have found that it lowers sperm count in workers at the facilities where BPA is in use.

Chemicals enter our food system in many ways, including being used as additives in our food to change its flavor or color, moving into the food from its packaging, and through the use of pesticides on farm fields. In fact there are 80,000 different types of chemicals in use today, seven percent of which have been tested for safety by our government.

BPA is one of the more ubiquitous chemicals, found on cash register receipts, in dental fillings, and in certain types of plastics, in addition to aluminum cans. Given its ability to migrate, each of us is being exposed by various sources on a daily basis, and how this kind of multiple-point exposure adds up has yet to be studied.

Getting it out of our system

Eating a diet of whole foods is one of the best ways to clear BPA and other chemicals out of our system. But not everyone has access to these foods, and just handling the receipt on your next shopping trip can expose you (and not to mention the cashier).

In the U.S., chemicals must be proven to cause harm before they are removed from the market. Yet often exposure adds up over time, which could be resulting in chronic conditions that are difficult to quantify, making it particularly hard to ban a chemical. Advocates believe that stronger public policy is necessary to lower the risk and eliminate unwanted exposure to the chemical.

While Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) championed legislation to ban BPA altogether in the Senate last year, there has yet to be a bill that passes either the House or Senate on this issue. Meanwhile, BPA in children’s products has been banned in nine states, including Maine, Minnesota and Connecticut, as well as in the European Union, Canada and most recently, China is moving to ban the chemical. Similar BPA-ban legislation is pending in 12 other states, including California, which passed legislation in the State Senate on Monday.

Some companies are responding to the public’s concern over BPA by preemptively removing it from their baby bottles and other products. The grocery chain Kroger recently announced it would be removing BPA from the store’s brand of canned food items as well as cash register receipts. But as a recent Op-Ed in the New York Times reminded us, as companies react to public outcry by changing their formulas, they might be replacing it with similarly harmful chemicals without as much name recognition.

The fact that such a study was conducted by the FDA serves as part of a shifting strategy for the agency on BPA. As the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported in 2009, lobbyists for the chemical industry have historically played an active role in FDA policy making and managing public opinion of the chemical. Yet last year, the agency admitted that the chemical was not entirely safe in food contact applications, and that it supports stronger regulations and oversight.

In 2008, the agency drafted an updated assessment of the chemical which included some concern over its safety. A subcommittee reviewed the draft and refuted these findings. Two and a half years later, this internal disagreement has left a finalized assessment to gather dust on a desk somewhere at the FDA. Meanwhile, the general public continues to be exposed to a soup of chemicals, including BPA, in variable and uncontrolled doses.

As with genetically modified foods and now, antibiotics, perhaps there will soon be a lawsuit filed against the FDA to force it to better regulate BPA and the chemicals in line to replace it.

Photo: stevendepolo via Flickr

Assembly Bill 1319, the Toxin-Free Infants and Toddlers Act, would ban the use of BPA in baby bottles, sippy cups, infant formula, and baby food. The bill, authored by Assembly Member Betsy Butler (D-Marina Del Ray), which was passed by both the Assembly Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials Committee and the Health Committee, is headed for a vote by the full Assembly today.

BPA is used in the manufacture of the lining of canned foods as well as cash register receipts, but this bill is limited to banning BPA in food contact products for young children. Despite this, the $6 billion chemical and formula industries reportedly spent $5 million to defeat last year’s BPA bill, which failed narrowly when two ill legislators, both of whom had voted for the bill previously, were absent for the crucial final vote. And the chemical industry is once again fiercely lobbying California lawmakers with the claim that BPA is safe and that safer alternatives are not available.

Consumers Union, the nonprofit publisher of Consumer Reports, has long warned of the dangers BPA in food containers, particularly for fetuses, infants, and small children. Our precautionary advice to consumers is based on more than 200 scientific studies that show clear links between BPA exposure and increased risk of cancer, diabetes, reproductive, neurological, and developmental disorders. We also recently refuted the misinformation put out by industry about the alleged safety and lack of alternatives to BPA.

Studies show that BPA is in the bloodstreams of more than 90 percent of the population at levels that have shown harm in animal studies. And food appears to be a primary source of exposure. Children may metabolize BPA more slowly than adults and may therefore be particularly vulnerable to BPA, which has also been linked to early puberty, breast cancer, childhood obesity, autism, and hyperactivity.

Because of the existing and growing body of scientific knowledge about the health risks of BPA to consumers, BPA in children’s products has been banned in nine states, the European Union and Canada. Most recently, China announced that it, too, would move to ban BPA. BPA-ban legislation is currently pending in 12 states.

There’s also a growing consumer and industry movement against this chemical. Many of the largest manufacturers of baby bottles are no longer selling bottles made with BPA. In addition, major retailers are in the process of phasing out selling baby bottles with BPA, or have already done so. Moreover, chemical giant Sunoco, acknowledging the safety concerns about BPA, announced they would restrict the sales of the controversial chemical in baby bottles and food containers for children under three. Just last week, grocery giant Kroger, having made sure that BPA is gone from the baby products it sells, announced that it is ridding the chemical from cans it uses in its store brands and the paper on which its receipts are printed.

California’s children are at a risk from BPA exposure. Big chemical and formula company money shouldn’t trump the health of babies and toddlers.

The Senate made substantial progress on the pending Food Safety Bill Wednesday. To move the sweeping food bill forward, the upper chamber voted 74-25 to limit debate, circumventing Sen. Tom Coburn’s (R-OK) objection.  And key stakeholders resolved the two controversial issues that have plagued the bill: bisphenol A and small farm exemptions.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s (D-CA) amendment–which originally aimed to ban the chemical bisphenol A, or BPA, in all food containers, but had since been scaled back to only containers meant for infants and small children–was officially defeated.

“Unfortunately, the compromise agreement on a BPA amendment to the food safety bill has been blocked,” announced Feinstein on the floor of the Senate. Feinstein said she and Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY) had, after months of negotiation, finally reached a compromise that would have banned the use of BPA in baby bottles and sippy cups and required the FDA to issue a revised safety assessment on BPA by Dec. 1, 2012.

That compromise was shut down by the leading chemical industry group, according to Feinstein.  ”Unfortunately it has become clear that the American Chemistry Council (ACC) has blocked and obstructed the agreement from being added to the Food Safety Bill currently on the floor.”

“I regret that the ACC puts the sale of chemicals above the safety of infants and children,” she added. “The chemical lobby came in at the 11th hour opposing this ban.”

The ACC has maintained it should be up to the Food and Drug Administration, not Congress, to rule on BPA safety.

The Tester-Hagan Amendment, on the other hand, remains a real possibility. The amendment, introduced by Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT) and supported by Sen. Kay Hagan (D-NC), would exempt farms and food producers that either fit the FDA’s definition of “very small business,” sell most of their products directly to consumers, restaurants, or retailers within state lines or within 400 miles that have annual sales of less than half a million dollars.

Late last night, consumer groups and sustainable agriculture advocates, who have been at odds over the amendment’s language for months, reached a compromise that could be adopted into the manager’s package. Though the details are not yet public, the agreement is rumored to reduce the distance threshold and allow the FDA the ability to withdraw an exemption if a farm or facility is linked to a foodborne illness outbreak.

“We are happy with the outline of the final deal on the Tester-Hagan amendment,” Ferd Hoefner policy director of the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition said, adding that specifics of the deal were embargoed.

Recently, the Canadian government declared bisphenol-A (BPA) toxic, a step I hope the U.S. will soon take since the scientific evidence is mounting that BPA–along with many other endocrine disruptors in our environment–are abundant in our bodies and are having deleterious effects.

One problem with BPA is its ubiquity. It’s a chemical commonly used to line the interior of food and beverage cans, as well as to make plastic bottles and other hard, clear plastics. Ninety-three percent of Americans tested had detectable levels of BPA in their urine. Experts say the substance can clear from adult bodies with efficiency, but our constant exposure to it probably makes this irrelevant.

Even more problematic is that babies, children, and fetuses cannot excrete BPA efficiently, causing it to build up in their systems. Because of these findings, Canada banned BPA from baby bottles, as did several U.S. states, including New York, Connecticut and Minnesota.

Most of us have heard that BPA can be found in certain plastics as well as soda and food cans, but you may be surprised to know where else it lurks: the protective coating put on children’s teeth to prevent cavities, refrigerator shelving, milk and juice containers, microwave ovenware, eating utensils, plastic toys, DVDs, CDs, sunglasses, and receipt paper. It’s also present in some cigarette filters, and thus impacts smokers and others through second-hand smoke.

BPA, a known endocrine disruptor, has been written about quite a bit. We wrote it here, here, and here on Civil Eats. The term endocrine disruptor is tossed around a lot in the media, but what are endocrine disruptors?

Let’s start with a tour of the endocrine system, which is made up of glandular tissue (the thyroid) as well as glands within organs (testes, ovaries, and heart). Like the nervous system, the endocrine system controls and coordinates bodily functions, but unlike the nervous system, which uses electrical signals that respond within split seconds, the endocrine system uses hormones, which have longer-lasting effects that act over hours, weeks, and years. The processes these hormones regulate include: metabolism, the body’s growth and development, and sexual reproduction. As hormones travel in the blood to reach each body part, the specific molecular shape of each hormone fits like a key-in-a-lock into receptors on specific tissues and organs.

BPA mimics the hormone estrogen, which means its molecular structure also fits into receptors specifically designed for estrogen. As you can imagine, when a synthetic compound gets into these receptors and it’s not the hormone your body needs, there are consequences.

Over 200 studies have found that these consequences include: brain development problems, breast and prostate cancer, birth defects, learning and behavioral problems in children, early onset of puberty, and obesity.

In my last column, I wrote about how children get 40 percent of their calories from junk food. It turns out, it may also be the BPA found in many of these packaged food containers and cans that’s also contributing to the increase in obesity. The Endocrine Society (TES) issued a report showing a correlation between high levels of BPA and obesity. Scientists are now calling substances like BPA and other endocrine disruptors “obesogens” because of the strong link they’ve found between increasing rates of obesity and higher levels of endocrine disruptors in our systems.

Unfortunately, there are a myriad of endocrine disruptors in addition to BPA found in our environment. The cumulative effect of all these hormone-like substances in our bodies is still unknown. But needless to say, they are best avoided.

Here is a list of some other common endocrine disruptors and where they’re found: phathalates, found in vinyl flooring, detergents, soap, shampoo, deodorants, fragrances, hair spray, nail polish, plastic bags, food packaging, garden hoses, shower curtains; perfluorooctanic acid (PFOA), found in grease- and water-resistant coatings like Teflon and Gore-Tex; oxybenzone, found in moisturizers, lip balm, and sunscreen; parabens, found in lotions, hair care products, and shaving products; perchlorate, found in drinking water, on some vegetables, and in soil; decabromodiphenyl ether (DECA), found in flame retardant clothing, furniture, mattresses, carpets, and electronics; pesticides, sprayed on conventionally grown fruits, vegetables, grains, etc; artificial bovine growth hormones, found in commercial dairy products; MSG, found in many packaged foods; and flouride, found in the U.S. water supply and toothpaste.

These are some simple and easy steps that will help you reduce your exposure to endocrine disruptors:

• Eat fresh, whole, organic foods as often as possible to reduce your exposure to pesticides, synthetic fertilizers, and artificial bovine growth hormones.
• Avoid processed foods and beverages, which often contain additives like artificial sweeteners and MSG, and are often in packaged in plastic.
• Store food and beverages in glass containers only.
• Do not use non-stick or plastic cookware.
• Only use natural cleaning products and natural brands of toiletries.
• Don’t use artificial air fresheners, dryer sheets, fabric softeners, or other synthetic fragrances.
• Replace your vinyl shower curtain with one made of fabric.
• Filter your tap water.

This article is part of a regular column by holistic nutrition expert Kristin Wartman, in which she examines food, nutrition, and the way the industrial food industry affects our food system and our health.

Photo: ShakataGaNai via Flickr

Chicago is the first city in the nation to ban bisphenol A (BPA) from plastic baby bottles and sippy cups for children under the age of 3. The Chicago City Council voted to approve the ban yesterday, which would be implemented early next year, and Mayor Richard Daley said he will sign the ordinance. “The F.D.A. continues to be recalcitrant and very slow about taking any action on BPA,” said Chicago Alderman Manuel Flores, one of two city officials who proposed the ban last year, after hearing concerns about the potentially harmful effects of the chemical to young children.

Recently, Suffolk County, N.Y. became the first county in the country to impose a similar ban. Late last week, Minnesota became the first state to ban BPA from plastic baby bottles and sippy cups. BPA—a chemical used in polycarbonate plastic, including some baby bottles, cups, sports bottles, food-storage containers and the linings of cans—has potential links to a wide range of serious health effects. For more about the serious health effects, and politics, of BPA, check out these previous Civil Eats posts here and here.

In March, the Suffolk County, New York legislature unanimously passed a bill to ban BPA. That bill was signed into law in April. Federal legislation to ban BPA in all food and beverage containers, the “Ban Poisonous Additives Act of 2009,” was introduced in Congress on March 20, 2009. The bills, which are identical, are sponsored by Reps. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) and Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.) and Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.).

Six of the largest manufacturers of baby bottles recently decided they will no longer sell bottles made with BPA. In addition, retailers such as Babies ‘R’ Us, Safeway, Target, Toys ‘R’ Us, CVS and Wal-Mart are in the process of or have already phased out selling baby bottles with BPA, and chemical giant Sunoco, acknowledging the safety concerns about BPA, recently announced they would restrict the sales of the controversial chemical in baby bottles and food containers for children under three. Just this week, chemical giant Hexion said it will indefinitely idle a 190 million-lb-per-year BPA plant in Texas due to “continued soft demand for BPA.” (But, in bad news, the company said it is bringing a 310 million-lb-per-year BPA plant back online after it was down for maintenance.) It’s clear that the sea change in bans is impacting production.

Several states, such as California, Connecticut, New York and Michigan are also considering BPA bans. In 2008, the Canadian government banned its use in baby bottles. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Science Board is currently pursuing additional research on the issue.

In August 2008, the FDA reiterated its stance that BPA was safe for humans and has since come under intense criticism from the scientific community including its own Science Advisory Board. At the February 2009 Science Board Hearing, FDA tacitly acknowledged the serious health concerns regarding BPA, but the agency has not yet revised the prior position that no public health safeguards should be implemented at this time.

A study by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has shown that 93 percent of Americans excrete some BPA in their urine suggesting that exposure to BPA is likely widespread and ongoing. Moreover, new studies suggest that BPA seems to stays in the body longer than previously believed. Given the existing and growing body of scientific knowledge about the health risks of BPA to consumers, and the growing consumer and industry movement against this chemical, it’s great that Chicago is moving ahead of federal action. But, consumers will remain at risk until federal action is taken. Hopefully, new leadership at FDA will act swiftly to address this important public health concern.

On Friday, leaders from the House of Representatives and the Senate introduced legislation to establish a federal ban on bisphenol A (BPA) in all food and beverage containers. The bills, which are identical, are sponsored by Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) and Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.).

BPA—a chemical found in the linings of cans and in polycarbonate plastic, including some sports bottles, food-storage containers and baby bottles—has potential links to a wide range of health effects. The diseases and health effects to which BPA has been linked include an increased risk of diseases or disorders of the brain, reproductive and immune systems.

“The scientific evidence is mounting that BPA poses serious health risks, especially to children, and manufacturers and retailers have already started to pull items from their store shelves,” said Markey, reported Agence France-Presse. “It is time for Congress to act quickly to ban this toxin from all food and beverage containers so that parents can feed their children without worrying that the food contains poisonous chemicals.”

The federal legislation follows the March 3 unanimous decision by the Suffolk County, New York Legislature to ban BPA in all beverage containers for children under the age of three. Today, Suffolk County Executive Steve Levy will hold a public hearing on this landmark legislation. Levy has until April 2 to either sign or veto the bill to sign the bill to make Suffolk County the first jurisdiction in the nation to effectively ban BPA.

“This legislation will set a new precedent and sends a strong message to FDA and to industry that consumers, like those in Suffolk County, want change now,” said Dr. Urvashi Rangan, Senior Scientist and Policy Analyst, Consumers Union.

Consumers Union has repeatedly called on FDA to ban BPA materials in infant and children’s products and food and beverage contact containers. Recent studies have linked BPA exposure to problems with liver function testing, an increased risk of diabetes and heart disease and interruptions in chemotherapy treatment. A study by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has shown that 93% of Americans excrete some BPA in their urine. New studies also show that BPA seems to stay in the body longer than previously believed.

In August 2008, the federal agency said BPA was safe for humans. But the agency only considered studies that had been financed by the plastics industry. At last month’s Science Board Hearing, FDA tacitly acknowledged the serious health concerns regarding BPA, but the agency continues to maintain the position that no public health safeguards should be implemented at this time.

Steven Stern, the Suffolk County legislator who sponsored the ban in that county, told the Associated Press that the FDA review prompted him to act. “We can’t wait. We don’t know how long it’s going to take.”

Several states, such as Oregon, Washington and California, and cities, such as Chicago, are also considering BPA bans as the FDA continues to research BPA while allowing the product to remain on the market. In 2008, the Canadian government banned its use in baby bottles. Major U.S. retailers, including Toys ‘R’ Us Inc. and Wal-Mart, already have removed products containing BPA from their shelves because of the growing controversy.

Shortly after the Suffolk County Legislature made its decision, six of the largest manufacturers of baby bottles—Avent, Disney First Years, Gerber, Dr. Brown, Playtex and Evenflow—decided they will no longer sell bottles made with BPA. The decision by manufacturers came after Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, joined by attorneys general of Delaware and New Jersey, wrote to the baby bottle companies urging them to stop using BPA because studies have linked the chemical to health problems in infants, including damage to reproductive, neurological and immune systems.

Almost immediately after this decision, gas and chemical giant Sunoco, acknowledging the safety concerns about BPA, announced they would restrict the sales of the controversial chemical in baby bottles and food containers for children under three. “We will no longer sell BPA to [Sunoco’s] customers who cannot make this promise,” Thomas Golembeski, head of public relations, wrote in a letter to two investors, according to the Associated Press.

While scientists continue to assess the health risks of BPA to consumers, the FDA is taking on a bigger risk by taking no action to protect the health and safety of consumers. Given the currently existing body of scientific knowledge about the health risks of BPA to consumers—and the growing consumer and industry movement again this chemical—the FDA should act immediately to protect high risk populations, such as children and babies, while it gathers more data.

Image: thesoftlanding

Salmonella in peanut butter, mercury in high fructose corn syrup, staph-resistant bacteria in pork, and now, new and improved bisphenol A (BPA), with longer staying power, in your very own body.

Yesterday, the online journal Environmental Health Perspectives published new research that shows that high levels of BPA—a chemical with potential links to a wide range of health effects—remain in the body even after fasting for as long as 24 hours. Dr. Richard Stahlhut of the University of Rochester and colleagues obtained data for a sample of 1,469 American adults through the CDC’s National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES).

According to the authors, two possible explanations might exist for the higher levels of BPA in people who fasted: One is that exposure to BPA might come through other means, such as house dust or tap water. The second is that BPA may penetrate fat tissues, where it would be released more slowly.  But the research indicates for the first time that we are either constantly being bombarded with BPA from non-food sources or we are storing it in our fat cells, unable to get rid of it as quickly as scientists have believed.

The Centers for Disease Control estimates that 93 percent of Americans have detectable levels of BPA in their urine. BPA is found in the linings of metal food cans and in many plastic products, including sports bottles, food-storage containers and baby bottles. It’s also used in PVC water pipes and in dental sealants. Cellular, animals and some human studies have shown BPA effects on the brain, prostate, normal hormonal systems and gene programming which can lead to several problems with reproduction, behavior, insulin resistance, heart disease and even cancer.

The FDA and the European Food Safety Authority had declared BPA safe based, in part, on assumptions that BPA passed quickly through the body and that people were exposed to BPA primarily through food. Canada, however, has declared BPA to be a toxin and banned its use in baby bottles last year. More than a dozen states are considering banning it too.

In September, the National Toxicology Program expressed “some concern” about the effects of BPA on the development in children and fetuses. Then in October, an advisory panel to the FDA harshly criticized the agency, saying it ignored important evidence, including studies that suggest babies are at risk. In December, the FDA finally agreed to reconsider the health risks of BPA, but at present, the agency hasn’t changed its opinion on BPA’s safety.

If you haven’t been up on BPA-water-bottle-gate, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has done some outstanding reporting on conflicts at FDA and also tested 10 household products and found toxic levels of BPA leaching from all of them. The newspaper found federal regulators favored industry-financed studies in their assessments. (The FDA safety assessment relied on two studies, both paid for by chemical-makers, and ignored hundreds of independent studies that found the chemical to cause harm in laboratory animals.) Another must read is Fast Company’s in-depth piece on the real story of BPA.

More research on long-term exposure to BPA is critical so that we can learn how BPA might be stored in fat and to determine the myriad means by which we are being exposed to this toxin. In the meantime, consumer advocates advise avoid using food containers with BPA. Drinking from metal or glass water bottles and avoiding canned foods by buying in buy in bulk are some good ways to try and avoid BPA until we learn more. Let’s hope that’s soon.

Photo: gerrychu