Bisphenol A Back in the News

by: JayinPortland

Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 03:03:41 AM PST

Recapping the news from earlier this week, a new study published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, conducted by researchers at the University of Rochester (NY) has found that BPA exposure is possible through means other than just food containers, and that the chemical remains in our bodies longer than previously thought -

While the belief had been BPA was quickly and completely eliminated from the body through urine, this study found people who had fasted for even a whole day still had significant levels of the chemical.

Stahlhut said this suggested BPA may hang around in the body longer than previously known or that it may get into the body through sources other than just food, perhaps including tap water or house dust. Stahlhut added that BPA may get into fat tissue, from where it might be released more slowly.

More below the fold...

Bisphenol A, commonly abbreviated as BPA, is an organic compound with two phenol functional groups. It is a difunctional building block of several important polymers and polymer additives. With an annual production of 2-3 million tonnes, it is an important monomer in the production of polycarbonate.

Suspected of being hazardous to humans since the 1930s, concerns about the use of bisphenol A in consumer products grabbed headlines in 2008 when several governments issued reports questioning its safety, and some retailers pulled products made from it off their shelves.

BPA is a known endocrine disruptor commonly used in the production of many household items, from baby bottles to plastic food containers to soup cans to dental fillings; and exposure via tap water and house dust is now also thought possible.  Many studies have linked long term, low-level BPA exposure to everything from increased risks for obesity by triggering fat-cell activity, to diabetes, heart disease and an increased risk of developing breast cancer later in life from fetal exposure.

It was previously thought that the main exposure route to BPA was from food, via the chemical leaching from plastic water bottles and the coatings of food cans into the water and food itself.  That's now been brought into question by some findings in this latest study.  A key quote via TreeHugger (there's also a chart at that link) -

Overall, BPA levels [in urine] did not decline rapidly with fasting time in this sample. This suggests substantial non-food exposure, accumulation in body tissues such as fat, or both.

Naomi Starkman at Civil Eats weighs in on these new findings, just the most recent in a spate of bad news as to what the food / drug / chemical companies are doing to us -

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.

Ouch...

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.

A couple of bills concerning BPA were introduced during the 110th (2007-2008) Congress, neither of which were passed then.  S. 2928, The BPA-Free Kids Act of 2008 in the US Senate; and in the US House, H.R. 6228 To ban the use of bisphenol A in food and beverage containers.

David Case takes an in-depth look at the history behind the BPA issue with a great article at Fast Company, "The Real Story Behind Bisphenol A" -

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.

Just five companies make BPA in the United States: Bayer, Dow, Hexion Specialty Chemicals, SABIC Innovative Plastics (formerly GE Plastics), and Sunoco. Together, they bring in more than $6 billion a year from the compound. Each of them referred questions about BPA's safety to their Arlington, Virginia -- based trade association, the American Chemistry Council. "Our view would be, Well, no, there isn't anything to be concerned about," says Steve Hentges, the council's point person on BPA. "In a sense, you could have 'some concern' about just about anything."

Perhaps. But consider this: Of the more than 100 independently funded experiments on BPA, about 90% have found evidence of adverse health effects at levels similar to human exposure. On the other hand, every single industry-funded study ever conducted -- 14 in all -- has found no such effects.

Those industry-funded BPA studies were what FDA relied on last year in declaring BPA safe for all uses.  From the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, via the Detroit Free Press (yes, somewhat confusing) -

The newspaper found federal regulators favored industry-financed studies in their assessments. Entire sections of the FDA's assessment contained identical language to reports written on behalf of chemical-makers or others with a financial stake in BPA.

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.

The FDA's own science advisory board has recommended that the FDA reconsider its ruling. FDA administrators have promised to study the matter further but so far have stood by their assessment.

Canada has already banned BPA from use in baby bottles, and 12 states are currently considering similar measures.  A key part of the problem here is that which was mentioned in the first paragraph of the above quote from the Fast Company piece.  Before industrial chemicals are widely introduced for use in products that people use, it should be proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that they won't cause us any harm.  The onus needs to be on the chemical companies before they're allowed to introduce these substances into our daily lives, as is currently the case in the EU and in Canada.  Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) introduced the Kid-Safe Chemicals Act in May 2008 to seek to address this here, but we still have a ways to go on that.  You can sign up in support of the Act here.

Consumers Union also currently has a petition up at their site urging Congress to take action in support of a ban on the use of BPA in food and beverage containers, and in other products that could potentially expose children to this toxic chemical.

In case you're interested, The St. Petersburg Times had an excellent column last weekend listing ways to reduce your family's exposure to potentially toxic plastic substances.

We'll leave the last word to Joel Tickner and David Case -

"The U.S. has this disjointed approach to chemicals management that doesn't focus on the inherent hazard of the chemical," says Joel Tickner, project director at the Center for Sustainable Production at the University of Massachusetts Lowell. BPA is far from the only modern-age substance whose effects we don't fully understand, and isn't the only product whose safety record has been twisted. In that way, perhaps, it may be the canary in the coal mine. And so the question looms: In our quest for progress -- and profit -- are we putting our future at risk?