|
bisphenol a 
Fri Feb 12, 2010 at 04:29:29 AM PST
|
Two weeks into (and halfway through) the Oregon Legislative Assembly's 2010 Special Session, we now have a better idea of what should pass and what will have to wait. The statewide plastic bag ban has been dropped for now (as expected, we'll pick it up in 2011), but the bill (SB 1032) banning the sale of BPA-containing baby bottles and sippy cups has passed the Oregon Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee -
The Senate environment committee voted 3-2, with Democrats in favor and Republicans against, to refer Senate Bill 1032 to the Senate floor.
The bill would ban bisphenol-A, or BPA, from baby bottles and sippy cups beginning July 1, 2011. Major bottle manufacturers, Walmart and other retailers are already backing away from the ubiquitous chemical when it comes to bottles and cups for young children.
Washington's Legislature easily passed bills with similar bans recently with large, bipartisan margins.
Oregon will pass the bill as well, since Democrats outnumber Republicans 2-1 in both the Oregon House and the Oregon Senate. But still, I have to wonder what Oregon Republicans are thinking by voting in favor of continuing to expose our children to BPA? Shame on Brian Boquist and Jason Atkinson. Someone should tell them that even WalMart has abandoned products containing the dangerous, hormone-disrupting toxicant. Are Oregon Republicans that beholden to out-of-state chemical manufacturers? Let's hope at least a few of their fellow Republicans show some sense in their final votes on the bill.
|
|
Discuss
:: (14
Comments)
|
|
Mon Feb 01, 2010 at 09:02:34 AM PST
|
|
The Oregon Legislative Assembly will convene in Salem this morning to begin a month-long special session. Oregon is one of only five states which still only mandate biennial sessions, and one thing legislators plan to address this special session is to introduce a state constitutional amendment to be voted on by the public in November, mandating annual legislative sessions.
Other issues under consideration include extension of state unemployment benefits, [PDF] SB 1009, which would prohibit grocery and other stores in Oregon from using plastic bags, SB 1032, which would ban the sale of BPA-containing reusable food and beverage containers for children under 3, and a permanent extension of Oregon's offshore oil and gas drilling ban, which expired last month.
Governor Ted Kulongoski is also going to ask the legislature to put kicker reform to a statewide vote in November, in order to create a financial emergency cushion for the state in the case of any further future massive budget shortfalls, like the one we just saw which was mostly fixed by last week's passage of Measures 66 and 67. Sadly, it looks like the legislature probably won't act on that, though. As for the BPA bill, it seems relatively weak and uninspired, but I guess it's a start. If you're in Oregon, you can contact your state legislators here and share your thoughts.
The current composition of the Oregon House is 36 D, 24 R; and the makeup of the Oregon Senate is 18 D, 12 R. Democrats hold 'supermajorities' in both chambers, and Governor Ted Kulongoski is also a Democrat. February 11 is the day to watch for what will and what won't receive a vote during this special session -
Legislative leaders have set rigid deadlines to ensure adjournment by the end of February. That means the pace will be like a regular session on steroids. Of the approximately 200 bills drafted so far, those that don't get a hearing by Feb. 11 are likely dead.
|
|
Discuss
:: (2
Comments)
|
|
Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 21:36:33 PM PST
|
|
A few weeks ago a friend called me on the phone, rather upset. I hadn't seen her or heard from her in a few years, so to be honest it was a bit of a surprise to get the phone call. She had read news about BPA in can linings and, growing concerned, she wrote to a few companies whose products she bought, including Muir Glen. You may know Muir Glen as a brand of organic canned tomato products but actually they are owned by General Mills. My friend was very upset with the response to her concerns, which was basically: "Too bad, we don't care."
Since then, she's sent me a copy of the letter she received from Muir Glen, which I've pasted below. It's true that BPA is legal for use in can linings in the U.S. but that doesn't mean it's safe or good. Recently, much news has centered around evidence that BPA is not safe - and it's in all of our bodies. There are a few bills in Congress right now aimed at banning BPA and there is a large lobby trying to keep it legal (the food and beverage industry, the aluminum industry, etc).
My response to learning about BPA was to buy a canner and make my own tomato sauce. Sorry Muir Glen, you just lost a customer. I have a hunch my friend won't buy their products again either. Will you?
|
|
There's More...
:: (21
Comments, 217 words in story)
|
|
Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 05:02:57 AM PST
|
The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel brings us news this morning of a new study conducted by the Environmental Working Group which finds 9 out of 10 babies are born with the chemical in their system -
Previous studies have found BPA in the urine of 93% of Americans tested. But Wednesday's study is the first to find it in the cord blood of U.S. newborns.
"It's alarming," Janet Gray, director of the Environmental Risks and Breast Cancer project at Vassar College, said of the study results. "What more evidence do we need to act?"
More than 6 billion pounds of BPA are used each year to make polycarbonate plastics and epoxy resins. The chemical is used in thousands of common products, including the lining of nearly all food and beverage cans and as coating for carbonless paper receipts.
FDA was supposed to complete their latest 'review' on the use of BPA on Monday, but the decision has been postponed. Since we're already into December, I'm assuming the decision will not be made until well after the New Year. Or, just like their first decision in 2008... maybe they'll sneak the news that they plan to do nothing into another end-of-the-week news dump sometime around, say, December 23 or 24? Pardon my cynicism.
Many studies have linked BPA exposure to everything from increased risks for obesity by triggering fat-cell activity, to diabetes, heart disease in women, fertility defects, an increased risk of developing breast cancer later in life from fetal exposure, and erectile dysfunction and other sexual problems in men.
|
|
Discuss
:: (14
Comments)
|
|
Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 17:03:33 PM PST
|
|
Having trouble getting it up? Your problems may have more to do with the chemical BPA (bisphenol A), found in can linings, than with your lack of manhood. How's THAT to get Congress's attention? BPA might be getting in the way of their extracurricular activities on the Hill and in airport bathrooms.
There are a few bills out to ban BPA, and I've recently reported on the large amounts of corporate lobbying to kill those bills. I'd also like to share with you a load of bullshit that reached my inbox this past week. The impartial sounding but corporate funded American Council on Science and Health had the following to say about BPA:
"Well, this whole thing was ignited by the Consumer Reports study saying that BPA is in our food," says Dr. Ross. "Of course it is. So what? There is absolutely no evidence that BPA is harmful to humans from food exposures, and every scientific body that has evaluated this chemical has given it a clean bill of health. However, all the activist hype has forced the FDA to reevaluate it."
"These claims against BPA have become folklore," says ACSH's Dr. Whelan. "They say these things over and over again, and eventually people think they have merit. If the FDA changes their mind and says we have to avoid BPA just to be careful, there's no hope for science. They're only reevaluating it to pacify these people."
ACSH doesn't like to tell where it gets its money, but in the past, it has taken money from ALCOA, American Meat Institute, Anheuser Busch, Archer Daniels Midland, Bristol Myers, Burger King, Campbell Soup, Coca Cola, Dow Chemical, Du Pont, General Mills, Gerber, Kellogg, Kraft Foods, M&M Mars, Nestle, PepsiCo, and Proctor & Gamble. The companies bolded here are on the record as lobbying against bills banning BPA.
|
|
Discuss
:: (1
Comments)
|
|
Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 13:00:43 PM PST
|
|
BPA's getting bigger and bigger headlines these days. First it was the Consumers Union report showing that "almost all of the 19 name-brand foods tested contain measurable levels of Bisphenol A (BPA)." Then a number of groups (including the Breast Cancer Fund, Clean Water Action, Clean New York, Center for Health, Environment & Justice, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Oregon Toxics Alliance) wrote the FDA calling on them to do something about BPA. And now, Nicholas Kristof took on BPA in the New York Times.
|
|
There's More...
:: (8
Comments, 1120 words in story)
|
|
Wed Aug 19, 2009 at 14:43:42 PM PDT
|
FDA announced on Monday that they expect to rule by November on bisphenol A (BPA)'s safety for use in food and beverage containers. FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg will make the decision following the completion of a review by government scientists of all available studies on BPA, including over 100 new studies on the chemical, many of which have been covered here over the past year.
The timeline was criticized by some environmental activists who say the government has had more than enough time to consider the chemical's effects.
[...]
The FDA ruled last August that BPA was safe for all use. The FDA's own advisory board rejected the ruling, noting that it was based on two studies, both of which had been financed by the plastics industry.
Canada and a handful of US States and localities have already banned use of the substance in baby bottles, and others are currently considering doing so.
Bisphenol A 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 in women, fertility defects and an increased risk of developing breast cancer later in life from fetal exposure.
|
|
Discuss
:: (0
Comments)
|
|
Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 17:22:04 PM PDT
|
- Boo! California's Developmental and Reproductive Toxicant Identification Committee, the board charged under that state's Proposition 65 with identifying and listing substances that can cause birth defects, developmental or reproductive harm, quivered and kneeled down before NAMPA and their other BPA industry chronies, voting 7-0 against listing BPA as a chemical believed to cause reproductive harm. The difference between the US and the EU's approach to the public health was clearly on display here - the board members "voiced concerns over the growing scientific research", yet ignored their own concerns because human lives have always taken a back seat to corporate profits in America.
- Beware of stealth Starbucks stores posing as local independent coffee shops, coming soon to a neighborhood near you...
- A massive, jellyfish-entangling mystery blob has been found floating off the Alaskan Coast. The US Coast Guard has ruled out any manmade explanations (i.e. - oil spill); although it may be an algae bloom, none of the researchers have ever before seen anything quite like this.
- A second breeding pair of wolves have now taken up residence in Eastern Washington.
- A Bush Administration-era bull trout protection plan was just tossed by a judge in Montana, now giving the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service six months to come up with a new plan to protect the endangered fish's habitat. Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Interior Julie MacDonald was found in December 2008 to have taken "actions that potentially jeopardized the Endangered Species Act decisional process in 13 of the 20" decisions investigated by the Office of the Inspector General, and this (bull trout habitat protection) plan was deemed "too illogical to withstand legal review" by the court.
- From the Christian Science Monitor, another article on urban beekeeping.
- Homeless advocacy groups, after reviewing policy and practices in 273 US cities, have released a report this week naming Los Angeles as the American city which most criminalizes homelessness; other cities on the "Top 10 Meanest" list include Orlando, Atlanta, Honolulu, San Francisco and Berkeley, CA.
|
|
Discuss
:: (13
Comments)
|
|
Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 16:40:24 PM PDT
|
|
Is this the beginning of industry's pro-BPA offensive? Very smooth of them to plant this just prior to the long holiday weekend, btw. In the New York Times, no less. But there are quite a few problems here. Let's take a look at them...
Filling in for climate change denying, mass-transit and recycling-hating New York Times columnist John Tierney, Gina Kolata (who has quite a history of rabidly defending the corporate line, especially when it comes to endocrine disruptors), highlights a report from the supposedly "independent, non-partisan" group, STATS, which is affiliated with George Mason University (one of the premier "propped-up-by-right-wing-pro-corporate-money-interests" institutions of American higher learning).
STATS' President is Robert Lichter, a regular Fox News contributor and head of the right-wing corporate media front group Center for Media and Public Affairs; and also includes "Editor and Senior Fellow" Trevor Butterworth, an infamous troll on message boards and other pieces (5th comment down) on BPA.
Rather than bring anything new to the discussion, they have decided to take the old tack of poking and prodding at the many, many, many independent studies (and there are over a hundred more where that came from) which have found Bisphenol A to be a serious danger to the public health. Of course, they've found nothing besides "independent studies have financiers, too!". Be that as it may, financers of nonprofit public health studies aren't trying to defend the corporate pushing of poisons upon Americans for private profit.
If this is where the BPA pushers plan to begin their offensive? I've just gotten a little bit more confident that they have nothing, and that we will soon see an end to their dangerous, toxic product in American homes and bodies.
|
|
Discuss
:: (0
Comments)
|
|
Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 06:53:47 AM PDT
|
|
Want to be flame retardant? Eat meat. Apparently, chicken and red meat consumption is linked to a higher body burden of polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) - a chemical used as a flame retardant in consumer products. Unfortunately, while that might be a handy trait if possessed by a human, that's not what you get from eating a lot of PBDEs. Instead, what you get is endocrine disruption.
Endocrine disruptors was the subject of a recent column by Nicholas Kristof who encourages us to learn from the frogs. Amphibians seem to be the canaries in the coal mine for endocrine disruptors. The frogs are showing up with all kinds of genital abnormalities. One such chemical that appears to affect frogs, atrazine, is such a popular herbicide that it contaminates drinking water in some parts of the country. Some countries ban atrazine, but it's perfectly legal in the U.S.
Another endocrine disruptor is BPA (Bisphenol A) which JayinPortland has been reporting on regularly. BPA is used in everything from baby bottles to canned foods. One recent headline was that BPA stays in our bodies longer than previously thought. Then we found out what the FDA was doing about it: Nothing. In fact, worse than nothing. They were siding WITH the pro-BPA lobby.
There are a few bills in Congress to ban BPA, and there's a lot of money going into lobbying against those bills. (You can take action here.) The version of the food safety bill that just passed the House Energy & Commerce Committee included a provision requiring the FDA to study the safety of BPA, which - if it passes in the final bill - will essentially just stall any ban on BPA. In other words, calling for an FDA study is WORSE than doing nothing, because it puts off any ban on BPA that might have otherwise passed.
California, Maryland, Connecticut, and Minnesota also have BPA bans in the works. Minnesota was the first to ban BPA, although they only banned it in baby bottles and sippy cups. Connecticut followed suit soon after. California just passed a BPA ban (in food and drink containers designed for kids 3 and younger) through the Senate so now we're waiting on the Assembly - and the signature of the Governator. If you live in California, you can take action here.
Of course, BPA is not the only endocrine disruptor out there - it's just the one that's in the news, and that we're closest to getting rid of. The question we should be asking ourselves is how we came to legalize so many harmful chemicals in the first place, and how we might reform our system so that we can prevent doing so in the future.
|
|
Discuss
:: (7
Comments)
|
|
Mon Jun 15, 2009 at 16:25:07 PM PDT
|
Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal gets two enthusiastic thumbs up for this -
Attorney General Richard Blumenthal announced today that he has asked several companies -- packaging, beverage and food manufacturers -- to provide details about an apparent campaign to use fear tactics, political manipulation and misleading marketing to fight regulation of bisphenol A (BPA).
Blumenthal has long been an advocate against the dangerous endocrine disruptor bisphenol A in his state, and other CT legislators and public health advocates have also signed onto this effort. They are requesting information from the industry regarding the recent North American Metal Packaging Alliance public relations strategy meeting which I wrote about here.
Published reports indicate that, at a recent meeting, an industry representative described the "holy grail" spokesperson for BPA as a "pregnant young mother who would be willing to speak around the country about the benefits of BPA." Blumenthal said such tactics, if proven true, would be astonishing and appalling in light of mounting scientific evidence about the dangers of BPA, especially to children. [...]
"We are demanding details about industry giants plotting to use deceptive, and possibly illegal, tactics to blur the truth about BPA dangers. This misinformation campaign could menace public health by confusing consumers and convincing them to ignore mounting scientific evidence that BPA, even in minute doses, endangers children and pregnant women."
Just last week, new studies were released linking BPA exposure to heart disease in women and fertility defects. Attorney General Blumenthal now joins the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee, and Reps. Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Bart Stupak (D-MI) in seeking information on the industry's fear tactics.
We'll leave the last word for now to Sarah Uhl, Coordinator of the Coalition for a Safe & Healthy Connecticut -
"If the canning industry spent less time trying to dupe pregnant women and more time switching to alternatives, we would have more safe products on store shelves right now."
|
|
Discuss
:: (0
Comments)
|
|
Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 14:19:55 PM PDT
|
Yeah, it isn't stopping anytime soon...
- A new study finds BPA may contribute to heart disease in women. FDA agreed earlier this month to review their decision on BPA, and hopefully they'll use real science this time.
Women are more likely to die from heart attacks than men mostly because of problems caused by arrhythmias, Belcher said.
"It looks like BPA will be very harmful to the female heart," he said.
[...]
Low doses of BPA "markedly increased" arrhythmias, [Scott] Belcher [leader of the University of Cincinnati research team] said, and the effect was amplified when the heart cells were exposed to both BPA and estrogen.
Two more items below the fold...
|
|
There's More...
:: (0
Comments, 138 words in story)
|
|
Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 08:00:00 AM PDT
|
May be too early to draw anything from, but it looks like Congress is at least starting to consider doing something about FDA's disgraceful handling of the BPA issue until now -
Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry A. Waxman and Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Chairman Bart Stupak sent a letter to FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg relating to the possible dangers of Bisphenol A (BPA), a chemical found in consumer products and food product containers, particularly in infant formula containers and other items used by infants and children. Chairmen Waxman and Stupak asked Commissioner Hamburg to reconsider the FDA's conclusion under the Bush Administration that BPA is safe at current estimated exposure levels.
"It is critical that we know for certain whether BPA is safe to use in consumer products and food product containers," said Chairman Waxman. "We need to make sure that FDA thoroughly and fairly reviews the best science on BPA so that the public - and especially infants and children - are protected."
Much new information has come out about BPA since FDA's decision last year, and none of it has been kind to the chemical and plastics industry. Nor, for that matter, has it been kind to FDA. Let's hope the new administration straightens things out on this.
Rep. Stupak also expressed concern about the Bush Administration FDA's interactions with industry during the approval process and beyond, while both Reps. Waxman and Stupak sent a document request to the North American Metal Packaging Alliance regarding the fear and smear tactics they are reported to be planning to use in their upcoming PR counterattack.
Here are the letters [pdf] sent to FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg, and to the world's leading BPA cheerleader, NAMPA Chairman Dr. John Rost.
|
|
Discuss
:: (0
Comments)
|
|
Mon Jun 01, 2009 at 06:00:00 AM PDT
|
The BPA Gang is apparently not content to just have their lackeys at FDA doing their dirty work; now they're set to launch a full-blown offensive against the babies of America. We all knew they wouldn't go down without a fight, and here it is. From a recent North American Metal Packaging Alliance-hosted BPA Joint Trade Association Meeting on Communications Strategy -
The committee doubts social media outlets, such as Facebook or Twitter, will work for positive BPA outreach.
Yeah, because we do tend not to advocate for things that sicken and kill us. Our bad. But anyways...
The committee wants to focus on quality instead of quantity in disseminating messages (e.g. a young kid or pregnant mother providing a positive quote about BPA, a testimonial from an outside expert, providing positive video, advice from third party experts, and relevant messaging on the GMA website). Members noted traditional media outreach has become too expensive (they have already spent hundreds of thousands of dollars) and the media is starting to ignore their side. The committee doubts obtaining a scientific spokesperson is attainable.
Now why do you think that might be?
As always, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel is right on top of this as well...
I try not to use the religiously-tinged word "evil" in my writings, but the BPA Gang now indisputably deserves that moniker. Much more below the fold...
|
|
There's More...
:: (2
Comments, 2079 words in story)
|
|
Fri May 29, 2009 at 06:00:00 AM PDT
|
|
In "Exposed", Mark Schapiro, Editorial Director of the Center for Investigative Reporting, tells the tale of two continents and their approaches towards environmental regulation, and what that means for our health, American business and even relative global power.
Schapiro takes a look at each of the regulatory approaches favored by both the European Union and the United States when it comes to substances ranging from BPA to GMOs to the chemicals in children's toys and cosmetics and beyond, and concludes that, like it or not, product innovation necessitated by Europe's adoption of the precautionary principle leads to not only safer products for people in the European Union, but is also creating a significant competitive advantage for companies overseas over their American competitors, as more and more of the world simply refuses to take the same leap of faith Americans must unfortunately currently take when it comes to new chemicals and substances being rushed onto the market and introduced into our bodies without sufficient prior testing to ensure they won't harm us. For just one recent example, as we're all seeing with BPA now, it's becoming clearer by the day that the current American laissez-faire approach to environmental regulation does not, and will not, work.
More below the fold...
|
|
There's More...
:: (0
Comments, 274 words in story)
|
|
|
|
|
|
