This local news story by Fox News New York does a particularly good job of warning consumers about the dangers of BPA.
After shopping for some common canned goods in a New York-area supermarket, the reporters sent the products to a BPA expert at the University of Missouri for testing. The researchers emptied the cans, rinsed them out and filled them with pure water. A day later, the level of BPA in the water was dangerously high. They also point out that when water infused with BPA is added to a petrie dish with breast cancer cells in it, the cells multiply rapidly. Check it out below:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3_cYZKksvI
Monday, January 25, 2010
Saturday, January 23, 2010
There's Nothing New Under the Sun
So in my wandering on the Web today, I found another blogger who-- Guess what? -- has been recording the process of eliminating plastic from her life. And she's done a good job at it. So good, in fact, that I've decided to up my game and use her site as an example of what could be...I also thought you might like to see what she's been up to and review some of the research she's compiled.
You can check her out at http://fakeplasticfish.com/2009/01/bisphenol-aka-bpa-what-is-it-where-is/
The lead story on the blog today is a wonderful fact sheet about BPA's.
Enjoy.
You can check her out at http://fakeplasticfish.com/2009/01/bisphenol-aka-bpa-what-is-it-where-is/
The lead story on the blog today is a wonderful fact sheet about BPA's.
Enjoy.
Friday, January 22, 2010
Step One: Separating the Good from the Bad
Now, I'm sure experts would probably say that there are no "good plastics" but for the purposes of trying to incorporate my BPA-reduced lifestyle into the context of the real world, I've decided to start by minimizing my exposure to the kinds of plastics that likely contain polycarbonate.
Here's a quick run-down of the different categories and which ones you should try to avoid:
ALWAYS AVOID
Plastic #3
This one's a really, really bad one. Otherwise known as PVC or Polyvinyl chloride, #3 is a potentially carcinogenic, non-recyclable material that will sit in landfills forever leaching chemical into the air, water and soil. Flip over your shampoo bottle, your mouthwash or salad dressing container and check for PVC. And then throw it away.
Plastic #6
Expanded Polystyrene Foam, aka 'styrofoam take out containers'. While it may be easy to avoid ordering takeout in #6, it might be harder to avoid buying a CD or DVD, which likely contains it, or in saying "No, thank you" to the plastic take out coffee cup, which I noticed this week falls within this dangerous category.
Plastic #7
According to the Environmental Working Group, polycarbonate plastic food containers often are marked on the bottom with the letters "PC" recycling label #7. Although not all #7 labeled products are polycarbonate this is a reasonable guideline for a category of plastics to avoid.
Metal Cans
Perhaps the most dangerous category of packaging to avoid is metal cans (including soda cans), which almost always contain BPA's. Even many metal water bottles marketed as an alternative to plastic Nalgene bottles are lined with a plastic coating that contains BPA.
Check out this nice write up Treehugger.com did on the risk of BPA's in canned food:
According to the FDA, 17% of the American diet comes out of cans, and many of those have an epoxy liner made with Bisphenol A, a chemical which can mimic human estrogen and which is linked to breast cancer and early puberty in women. While the leaching of BPA from Nalgene water bottles and other polycarbonate bottles is a concern, the danger from canned food may be greater. The Environmental Working Group tested canned food bought across America and found BPA in more than half of them, at levels they call "200 times the government's traditional safe level of exposure for industrial chemicals." There are no standards for BPA; it is allowed to be put in anything, and billions of pounds are produced each year. (They also had a good graphic, which you can see here: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/04/bpa-danger-from-cans.php)
'SAFER' CHOICES
#5
Polyproplene, or #5 is a somewhat safer choice. A lighter-weight plastic resin commonly used in dairy and deli packaging, some companies have chosen this lighter plastic because it has a lower environmental impact to produce and transport.
An article I found on www.thegoodhuman.com explains that companies such as Stonyfield Farm, use #5 containers because a one-quart container made from #5 uses 30 percent less plastic than a #2 cup. And since it takes less material to make a thinner container, the article states, it reduces the amount of resin that needs to be manufactured. Stonyfield estimates that the use of #5 over #2 prevents the manufacture and disposal of more than 100 tons of plastic per year.
#1,#2, #4
Polyethylene Terephthalate (PETE) #1, high density polyethylene (HDPE) #2, and #4 are supposedly safe. I'll do some more poking into this category and get back to you with more information on what the experts say.
Here's a quick run-down of the different categories and which ones you should try to avoid:
ALWAYS AVOID
Plastic #3
This one's a really, really bad one. Otherwise known as PVC or Polyvinyl chloride, #3 is a potentially carcinogenic, non-recyclable material that will sit in landfills forever leaching chemical into the air, water and soil. Flip over your shampoo bottle, your mouthwash or salad dressing container and check for PVC. And then throw it away.
Plastic #6
Expanded Polystyrene Foam, aka 'styrofoam take out containers'. While it may be easy to avoid ordering takeout in #6, it might be harder to avoid buying a CD or DVD, which likely contains it, or in saying "No, thank you" to the plastic take out coffee cup, which I noticed this week falls within this dangerous category.
Plastic #7
According to the Environmental Working Group, polycarbonate plastic food containers often are marked on the bottom with the letters "PC" recycling label #7. Although not all #7 labeled products are polycarbonate this is a reasonable guideline for a category of plastics to avoid.
Metal Cans
Perhaps the most dangerous category of packaging to avoid is metal cans (including soda cans), which almost always contain BPA's. Even many metal water bottles marketed as an alternative to plastic Nalgene bottles are lined with a plastic coating that contains BPA.
Check out this nice write up Treehugger.com did on the risk of BPA's in canned food:
According to the FDA, 17% of the American diet comes out of cans, and many of those have an epoxy liner made with Bisphenol A, a chemical which can mimic human estrogen and which is linked to breast cancer and early puberty in women. While the leaching of BPA from Nalgene water bottles and other polycarbonate bottles is a concern, the danger from canned food may be greater. The Environmental Working Group tested canned food bought across America and found BPA in more than half of them, at levels they call "200 times the government's traditional safe level of exposure for industrial chemicals." There are no standards for BPA; it is allowed to be put in anything, and billions of pounds are produced each year. (They also had a good graphic, which you can see here: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/04/bpa-danger-from-cans.php)
'SAFER' CHOICES
#5
Polyproplene, or #5 is a somewhat safer choice. A lighter-weight plastic resin commonly used in dairy and deli packaging, some companies have chosen this lighter plastic because it has a lower environmental impact to produce and transport.
An article I found on www.thegoodhuman.com explains that companies such as Stonyfield Farm, use #5 containers because a one-quart container made from #5 uses 30 percent less plastic than a #2 cup. And since it takes less material to make a thinner container, the article states, it reduces the amount of resin that needs to be manufactured. Stonyfield estimates that the use of #5 over #2 prevents the manufacture and disposal of more than 100 tons of plastic per year.
#1,#2, #4
Polyethylene Terephthalate (PETE) #1, high density polyethylene (HDPE) #2, and #4 are supposedly safe. I'll do some more poking into this category and get back to you with more information on what the experts say.
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Outrage
I wonder if however-many-years ago, people across America looked at the pack of cigarettes sitting on their table and said, "Wait a sec--you're telling me these things can kill me?" I always thought that consumers had to be willingly ignorant to not know about the dangers and health risks posed by smoking, but in light of the recent news about BPA's, I'm beginning to think that I, too, have been duped. And worse, that the government has been the one distributing the blinders. It turns out that Bisphenol-A (BPA), a common chemical found in many hard plastics, might actually be the cause of many of the diseases that Americans increasingly suffer from -- including Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome, the one that I have dealt with since early adolescence. The Food and Drug Administration has vowed to conduct further research into this chemical before banning it outright, but I'm putting my money on this stuff is toxic and I don't want it around. Starting today, I am going to document my research into the chemical, its possible side-effects, my inquiries into what the FDA knew and when they knew it, and what efforts I am making to avoid it. The trouble is, this stuff is everywhere. So while I may never rid my life of this toxin completely, my hope is to cleanse my system enough to achieve better health and peace of mind. This web site is my hope that you will join me on my journey to a BPA-free life.
BPA's may permanently alter body chemistry
According to the Environmental Working Group, studies demonstrating BPA toxicity to humans at current levels of exposure Health problems associated with BPA exposures in people include the following:
Cardiovascular disease - A study published in January 2010 links BPA exposures in Americans to heart disease (Melzer 2010). The work, by a team from the Peninsula Medical School and the University of Exeter, includes 1,493 American adults enrolled in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) National Health and Nutrition Examination Study (NHANES). The researchers examined the newest NHANES data from 2005-06 and also pooled it with 2003-04 NHANES data. They confirm their previous findings in 2008 that associated BPA exposures and heart disease from participants in the 2003-04 study (Lang 2008).
Aggression – In a study of 249 children, researchers at the University of North Carolina found an association between prenatal BPA exposure and aggressive behavior in 2-year-olds, especially among girls (Braun 2009).
Polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) – Scientists at the University of Tokyo studied 47 women with reproductive disorders and 26 healthy women and found that those with polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) had higher serum levels of BPA relative to women with normal ovarian function, and that there were positive correlations between BPA concentrations and sex hormones (testosterone and androgen) (Takeuchi 2004). This confirmed their earlier study of 16 women with PCOS (Takeuchi 2002).
Recurrent miscarriages – Researchers found higher serum BPA levels among 45 women with a history of recurrent miscarriages than among women with normal pregnancies (Sugiura- Ogasawara 2005).
Damage to male reproductive system – Two studies of workers with BPA exposures similar to those measured in Americans (Calafat 2008) find associations with damage to the male reproductive system. A study of 42 men with occupational exposure to epoxy resins found that they had decreased secretion of follicle stimulating hormone when compared with men without occupational exposure to epoxy resins (Hanaoka et al. 2002). Another study of 25 Japanese shipyard workers found BPA-exposed painters had lower testosterone concentrations and higher luteinizing hormone (Cha 2008).
Diabetes – In 2008, scientists from the Peninsula Medical School and the University of Exeter examined BPA levels measured more than 14,000 adults participating in the CDC NHANES study from 2003-04. They found that people with higher BPA levels were more than twice as likely to report a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes than individuals with the lowest 25% of BPA exposure (Lang 2008).
References
Braun JM, Yolton K, Dietrich KN, Hornung R, Ye X, Calafat AM, Lanphear BP. 2009. Prenatal Bisphenol A Exposure and Early Childhood Behavior. Environ Health Perspect. 117(12): 1945–1952. (doi: 10.1289/ehp.0900979)
Calafat AM, Ye XY, Wong LY, Reidy JA, Needham LL. 2008. Exposure of the US population to bisphenol A and 4-tertiary-octylphenol: 2003-2004. Environ Health Perspect. 116(1): 39-44.
Cha BS, Koh SB, Park JH, Eom A, Lee KM, Choi HS. 2008. Influence of occupational exposure to bisphenol A on the sex hormones of male epoxy resin painters. Molec Cell Toxicol. 4(3): 230-234.
Hanaoka T, Kawamura N, et al. 2002. Urinary bisphenol A and plasma hormone concentrations in male workers exposed to bisphenol A diglycidyl ether and mixed organic solvents. Occup Environ Med. 59(9): 625-8.
Lang IA, Galloway TS, Scarlett A, Henley WE, Depledge M, Wallace R,
Melzer D. 2008. Association of Urinary Bisphenol A Concentration With Medical Disorders and Laboratory Abnormalities in Adults. JAMA. 300(11): 1303-1310. (doi:10.1001/jama.300.11.1303).
Melzer D, Rice NE, Lewis C, Henley WE, Gallowa TS. 2010. Association of Urinary Bisphenol A Concentration with Heart Disease: Evidence from NHANES 2003/06. PLoS 5(1): e8673. http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0008673
Sugiura-Ogasawara M, Ozaki Y, Sonta S, Makino T, Suzumori K. 2005. Exposure to bisphenol A is associated with recurrent miscarriage. Hum Reprod. 20(8): 2325-9.
Takeuchi T, Tsutsumi O. 2002. Serum bisphenol a concentrations showed gender differences, possibly linked to androgen levels. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 291(1): 76-8.
Takeuchi T, Tsutsumi O, Ikezuki Y, Takai Y, Taketani Y. 2004. Positive relationship between androgen and the endocrine disruptor, bisphenol A, in normal women and women with ovarian dysfunction. Endocr J 51(2): 165-9.
###
Cardiovascular disease - A study published in January 2010 links BPA exposures in Americans to heart disease (Melzer 2010). The work, by a team from the Peninsula Medical School and the University of Exeter, includes 1,493 American adults enrolled in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) National Health and Nutrition Examination Study (NHANES). The researchers examined the newest NHANES data from 2005-06 and also pooled it with 2003-04 NHANES data. They confirm their previous findings in 2008 that associated BPA exposures and heart disease from participants in the 2003-04 study (Lang 2008).
Aggression – In a study of 249 children, researchers at the University of North Carolina found an association between prenatal BPA exposure and aggressive behavior in 2-year-olds, especially among girls (Braun 2009).
Polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) – Scientists at the University of Tokyo studied 47 women with reproductive disorders and 26 healthy women and found that those with polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) had higher serum levels of BPA relative to women with normal ovarian function, and that there were positive correlations between BPA concentrations and sex hormones (testosterone and androgen) (Takeuchi 2004). This confirmed their earlier study of 16 women with PCOS (Takeuchi 2002).
Recurrent miscarriages – Researchers found higher serum BPA levels among 45 women with a history of recurrent miscarriages than among women with normal pregnancies (Sugiura- Ogasawara 2005).
Damage to male reproductive system – Two studies of workers with BPA exposures similar to those measured in Americans (Calafat 2008) find associations with damage to the male reproductive system. A study of 42 men with occupational exposure to epoxy resins found that they had decreased secretion of follicle stimulating hormone when compared with men without occupational exposure to epoxy resins (Hanaoka et al. 2002). Another study of 25 Japanese shipyard workers found BPA-exposed painters had lower testosterone concentrations and higher luteinizing hormone (Cha 2008).
Diabetes – In 2008, scientists from the Peninsula Medical School and the University of Exeter examined BPA levels measured more than 14,000 adults participating in the CDC NHANES study from 2003-04. They found that people with higher BPA levels were more than twice as likely to report a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes than individuals with the lowest 25% of BPA exposure (Lang 2008).
References
Braun JM, Yolton K, Dietrich KN, Hornung R, Ye X, Calafat AM, Lanphear BP. 2009. Prenatal Bisphenol A Exposure and Early Childhood Behavior. Environ Health Perspect. 117(12): 1945–1952. (doi: 10.1289/ehp.0900979)
Calafat AM, Ye XY, Wong LY, Reidy JA, Needham LL. 2008. Exposure of the US population to bisphenol A and 4-tertiary-octylphenol: 2003-2004. Environ Health Perspect. 116(1): 39-44.
Cha BS, Koh SB, Park JH, Eom A, Lee KM, Choi HS. 2008. Influence of occupational exposure to bisphenol A on the sex hormones of male epoxy resin painters. Molec Cell Toxicol. 4(3): 230-234.
Hanaoka T, Kawamura N, et al. 2002. Urinary bisphenol A and plasma hormone concentrations in male workers exposed to bisphenol A diglycidyl ether and mixed organic solvents. Occup Environ Med. 59(9): 625-8.
Lang IA, Galloway TS, Scarlett A, Henley WE, Depledge M, Wallace R,
Melzer D. 2008. Association of Urinary Bisphenol A Concentration With Medical Disorders and Laboratory Abnormalities in Adults. JAMA. 300(11): 1303-1310. (doi:10.1001/jama.300.11.1303).
Melzer D, Rice NE, Lewis C, Henley WE, Gallowa TS. 2010. Association of Urinary Bisphenol A Concentration with Heart Disease: Evidence from NHANES 2003/06. PLoS 5(1): e8673. http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0008673
Sugiura-Ogasawara M, Ozaki Y, Sonta S, Makino T, Suzumori K. 2005. Exposure to bisphenol A is associated with recurrent miscarriage. Hum Reprod. 20(8): 2325-9.
Takeuchi T, Tsutsumi O. 2002. Serum bisphenol a concentrations showed gender differences, possibly linked to androgen levels. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 291(1): 76-8.
Takeuchi T, Tsutsumi O, Ikezuki Y, Takai Y, Taketani Y. 2004. Positive relationship between androgen and the endocrine disruptor, bisphenol A, in normal women and women with ovarian dysfunction. Endocr J 51(2): 165-9.
###
NY Times Article: January 16, 2010
January 16, 2010
F.D.A. Concerned About Substance in Food Packaging
By DENISE GRADY
In a shift of position, the Food and Drug Administration is expressing concerns about possible health risks from bisphenol-A, or BPA, a widely used component of plastic bottles and food packaging that it declared safe in 2008.
The agency said Friday that it had “some concern about the potential effects of BPA on the brain, behavior and prostate gland of fetuses, infants and children,” and would join other federal health agencies in studying the chemical in both animals and humans.
The action is another example of the drug agency under the Obama administration becoming far more aggressive in taking hard looks at what it sees as threats to public health. In recent months, the agency has stepped up its oversight of food safety and has promised to tighten approval standards for medical devices.
Concerns about BPA are based on studies that have found harmful effects in animals, and on the recognition that the chemical seeps into food and baby formula, and that nearly everyone is exposed to it, starting in the womb.
But health officials said there was no proof that BPA was dangerous to humans.
“If we thought it was unsafe, we would be taking strong regulatory action,” said Dr. Joshua Sharfstein, the principal deputy commissioner of the drug agency, at a news briefing.
Nonetheless, health officials suggested a number of things people could do to limit their exposure to BPA, like throwing away scratched or worn bottles or cups made with BPA (it can leak from the scratches), not putting very hot liquids into cups or bottles with BPA and checking the labels on containers to make sure they are microwave safe. The drug agency also recommended that mothers breastfeed their infants for at least 12 months; liquid formula contains traces of BPA.
BPA has been used since the 1960s to make hard plastic bottles, sippy cups for toddlers and the linings of food and beverage cans, including the cans used to hold infant formula and soda. Until recently, it was used in baby bottles, but major manufacturers are now making bottles without it. Plastic items containing BPA are generally marked with a 7 on the bottom for recycling purposes.
The chemical can leach into food, and a study of more than 2,000 people found that more than 90 percent of them had BPA in their urine. Traces have also been found in breast milk, the blood of pregnant women and umbilical cord blood.
Reports of potential health effects have made BPA notorious, especially among parents, and led to widespread shunning of products thought to contain the chemical. Canada, Chicago and Suffolk County, N.Y., have banned BPA from children’s products.
The government will spend $30 million on BPA research in humans and animals, to take place over 18 to 24 months, health officials said at a news briefing on Friday.
Dr. Linda Birnbaum, director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, said the research would involve potential effects on behavior, obesity, diabetes, reproductive disorders, cancer, asthma, heart disease and effects that could be carried from one generation to the next.
Activists on both sides of the passionately debated issue said they were disappointed in the government’s action. The American Chemical Council, which represents companies that make and use BPA, issued a statement saying BPA was safe, praising the health agencies as confirming that there was no proof of harm to people by it, but also saying, “We are disappointed that some of the recommendations are likely to worry consumers and are not well founded.”
Diana Zuckerman, president of the National Research Center for Women and Families, said the F.D.A. had not gone far enough, because its recommendations put the responsibility on families and not on companies making products containing BPA. In addition, Ms. Zuckerman said, the focus on safety should not be limited to children, because studies have linked the chemicals to heart and liver disease and other problems in adults.
Government evaluations of BPA have had a contentious history. The drug agency wrote a draft report calling it safe in 2008. But shortly after that, the National Toxicology Program, part of the National Institutes of Health, said BPA was cause for “some concern,” citing the same issues that the drug agency is now agreeing to: potential effects on the brain, behavior and prostate in fetuses, infants and children.
Then the drug agency asked an independent panel of scientific advisers to review its draft report, and the panel gave it a scathing review. It accused the F.D.A. of ignoring important evidence and giving consumers a false sense of security about the chemical. The drug agency promised to reconsider BPA, and the announcement on Friday fulfilled that pledge.
“We are for the first time saying we believe there is some concern about the substance’s safety, and we’ve closed the gap between N.I.H. and F.D.A.,” Dr. Sharfstein of the F.D.A. said in an interview.
Dr. Sharfstein said the drug agency had become more receptive to new techniques of studying the safety of chemicals. Old methods involved giving test animals large doses and looking for clear evidence of effects like illness, tumors or organ damage. Newer methods involve studying small doses — similar to human exposures — and looking for more subtle effects, like changes in behavior or biochemistry. Results can be harder to interpret and may demand more study.
Dr. Sharfstein said the drug agency was also re-evaluating the way it regulates BPA. The substance is now classified as a food additive, a category that requires a cumbersome and time-consuming process to make regulatory changes. Dr. Sharfstein said he hoped its status could be changed to “food contact substance,” which would give the F.D.A. more regulatory power and let it act more quickly if it needed to do so.
Gardiner Harris contributed reporting from Washington.
Correction: January 17, 2010
An earlier version of this article included a photo of Nalgene water bottles, which no longer contain BPA.
F.D.A. Concerned About Substance in Food Packaging
By DENISE GRADY
In a shift of position, the Food and Drug Administration is expressing concerns about possible health risks from bisphenol-A, or BPA, a widely used component of plastic bottles and food packaging that it declared safe in 2008.
The agency said Friday that it had “some concern about the potential effects of BPA on the brain, behavior and prostate gland of fetuses, infants and children,” and would join other federal health agencies in studying the chemical in both animals and humans.
The action is another example of the drug agency under the Obama administration becoming far more aggressive in taking hard looks at what it sees as threats to public health. In recent months, the agency has stepped up its oversight of food safety and has promised to tighten approval standards for medical devices.
Concerns about BPA are based on studies that have found harmful effects in animals, and on the recognition that the chemical seeps into food and baby formula, and that nearly everyone is exposed to it, starting in the womb.
But health officials said there was no proof that BPA was dangerous to humans.
“If we thought it was unsafe, we would be taking strong regulatory action,” said Dr. Joshua Sharfstein, the principal deputy commissioner of the drug agency, at a news briefing.
Nonetheless, health officials suggested a number of things people could do to limit their exposure to BPA, like throwing away scratched or worn bottles or cups made with BPA (it can leak from the scratches), not putting very hot liquids into cups or bottles with BPA and checking the labels on containers to make sure they are microwave safe. The drug agency also recommended that mothers breastfeed their infants for at least 12 months; liquid formula contains traces of BPA.
BPA has been used since the 1960s to make hard plastic bottles, sippy cups for toddlers and the linings of food and beverage cans, including the cans used to hold infant formula and soda. Until recently, it was used in baby bottles, but major manufacturers are now making bottles without it. Plastic items containing BPA are generally marked with a 7 on the bottom for recycling purposes.
The chemical can leach into food, and a study of more than 2,000 people found that more than 90 percent of them had BPA in their urine. Traces have also been found in breast milk, the blood of pregnant women and umbilical cord blood.
Reports of potential health effects have made BPA notorious, especially among parents, and led to widespread shunning of products thought to contain the chemical. Canada, Chicago and Suffolk County, N.Y., have banned BPA from children’s products.
The government will spend $30 million on BPA research in humans and animals, to take place over 18 to 24 months, health officials said at a news briefing on Friday.
Dr. Linda Birnbaum, director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, said the research would involve potential effects on behavior, obesity, diabetes, reproductive disorders, cancer, asthma, heart disease and effects that could be carried from one generation to the next.
Activists on both sides of the passionately debated issue said they were disappointed in the government’s action. The American Chemical Council, which represents companies that make and use BPA, issued a statement saying BPA was safe, praising the health agencies as confirming that there was no proof of harm to people by it, but also saying, “We are disappointed that some of the recommendations are likely to worry consumers and are not well founded.”
Diana Zuckerman, president of the National Research Center for Women and Families, said the F.D.A. had not gone far enough, because its recommendations put the responsibility on families and not on companies making products containing BPA. In addition, Ms. Zuckerman said, the focus on safety should not be limited to children, because studies have linked the chemicals to heart and liver disease and other problems in adults.
Government evaluations of BPA have had a contentious history. The drug agency wrote a draft report calling it safe in 2008. But shortly after that, the National Toxicology Program, part of the National Institutes of Health, said BPA was cause for “some concern,” citing the same issues that the drug agency is now agreeing to: potential effects on the brain, behavior and prostate in fetuses, infants and children.
Then the drug agency asked an independent panel of scientific advisers to review its draft report, and the panel gave it a scathing review. It accused the F.D.A. of ignoring important evidence and giving consumers a false sense of security about the chemical. The drug agency promised to reconsider BPA, and the announcement on Friday fulfilled that pledge.
“We are for the first time saying we believe there is some concern about the substance’s safety, and we’ve closed the gap between N.I.H. and F.D.A.,” Dr. Sharfstein of the F.D.A. said in an interview.
Dr. Sharfstein said the drug agency had become more receptive to new techniques of studying the safety of chemicals. Old methods involved giving test animals large doses and looking for clear evidence of effects like illness, tumors or organ damage. Newer methods involve studying small doses — similar to human exposures — and looking for more subtle effects, like changes in behavior or biochemistry. Results can be harder to interpret and may demand more study.
Dr. Sharfstein said the drug agency was also re-evaluating the way it regulates BPA. The substance is now classified as a food additive, a category that requires a cumbersome and time-consuming process to make regulatory changes. Dr. Sharfstein said he hoped its status could be changed to “food contact substance,” which would give the F.D.A. more regulatory power and let it act more quickly if it needed to do so.
Gardiner Harris contributed reporting from Washington.
Correction: January 17, 2010
An earlier version of this article included a photo of Nalgene water bottles, which no longer contain BPA.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)