In addition to big bellies, pregnant women are toting around dozens of chemicals, including some that have been banned for decades and others used in flame retardants, sunscreens and non-stick cookware.
“We looked at data on 163 chemicals and found that many of them are present in virtually all pregnant women,” says Tracey Woodruff, director of the Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment at the University of California-San Francisco (UCSF).
Woodruff counted the number of chemicals that pregnant women are exposed to and discovered that 43 of the 163 chemicals tracked were found in more than 99% of pregnant women. (More on Time.com: Can a New Blood Test Make Babies with Down Syndrome Disappear?)
Those chemicals included polysyllabic tongue-twisters such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), organochlorine pesticides, perfluorinated compounds (PFCs), phenols, polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), phthalates, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and perchlorate. Also found was benzophenone-3, an ingredient in sunscreen.
Some of the chemicals were found in concentrations that have been linked to problems with brain development in childhood and fertility concerns potential, according to Woodruff's research, which is being published today in Environmental Health Perspectives.
Woodruff crunched data on 268 pregnant women from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which collected blood and urine samples from participants in its National Health and Nutritional Examination Survey (NHANES) 2003-2004.
Bisphenol A (BPA), the controversial plastic-hardening chemical that baby bottle manufacturers have phased out in the wake of consumer protests — was found in 96% of the pregnant women. BPA, which is still used as a liner inside metal food and beverage cans, has been associated with hormonal disruption and adverse brain development. (More on Time.com: Study: BPA Exposure May Reduce Chances of IVF)
“We should be concerned about the number of chemicals pregnant women have in their bodies and we should we taking steps to find out what the implications are for exposure to multiple chemicals,” says Woodruff, who is also an associate professor in the UCSF Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences.
The U.S. Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 hasn't been updated since its creation, says Woodruff, which is reason enough to demand an overhaul. The law allows chemicals to be distributed in products without first being declared safe.
“If you go into a drugstore and buy shampoo, it can have chemicals in it that could be harmful,” says Woodruff. “We need to be re-examining the laws because chemicals are not being sufficiently tested and regulated.”
Until then, pregnant women can take some precautions to try to reduce their chemical exposure:
Eat a healthy diet low in fats. “Some of these chemicals like to hang out in fat,” says Woodruff.
Wash your hands throughout the day as dust can harbor chemicals.
Choose personal-care products wisely, opting for those with fewer, less toxic ingredients.
Pregnant Women Awash in Chemicals. Is That Bad for Baby?
By Bonnie Rochman Friday, January 14, 2011
Pregnant Women Awash in Chemicals. Is That Bad for Baby?
Showing posts with label BPA Free. Show all posts
Showing posts with label BPA Free. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Thursday, August 20, 2009
FDA BPA Decision Expected in November
After much controversy and accusations of alleged negligence, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is taking a very serious look at bisphenol A—BPA—a ubiquitous, estrogenic, chemical best known for its presence in children’s products and water bottles.
Newly appointed FDA commissioner, Dr. Margaret Hamburg, recently announced that the agency is reconsidering its decision that BPA is safe at current levels, especially those found in baby bottles, a decision for which the agency has faced fierce criticism under its previous administration.
Get BPA Free breast feeding products at Mom and Baby Shop
UTNE reports that the agency just announced it expects to make a decision by November 30 on the safety of the chemical for its use in food and beverage containers, citing the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Meanwhile, earlier this week, we wrote that House and Senate lawmakers are considering two bills to ban use of the chemical that has been used as a plastic hardener for decades. BPA is a synthetic estrogen found in a variety of plastic containers, including baby bottles; toys and sippy cups; food and beverage containers, to name some.
BPA was just banned in Schenectady County in upstate New York; a similar measure was recently passed by Albany County legislators and takes effect January 1. BPA is banned in Connecticut, Minnesota, Chicago, and New York’s Suffolk County. Wisconsin became the third state to introduce a bill to ban BPA-containing baby bottle and sippy cup sales for children and California voted on a similar bill that is in the Assembly. Twenty-four states have bills in the works to restrict the toxin; Canada was the first country to announce plans to ban BPA, calling it a toxin.
Get BPA Free breast feeding products at Mom and Baby Shop
An emerging study found links between BPA and adverse health effects. Environmental Health News wrote that menopausal women tend to be likelier to suffer BPA-related health effects, such as inflammation and oxidative stress, over women who are still menstruating and men. Just prior, we wrote that another study found BPA might “impair” female reproductive cell growth and function, according to the University of Illinois. Two months ago we wrote that research conducted by the North Carolina State University and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), found BPA to significantly affect reproductive health at levels that are either the same or even lower that those believed not to cause adverse effects, citing Science Daily.
BPA has been connected to a wide variety of other adverse effects, namely: Increased risks of brain, reproductive, cardiac, and immune system diseases and disorders; problems with liver function testing; interruptions in chemotherapy treatment; links with serious health problems based on over 200 studies which found it to have negative effects at doses lower than the FDA’s current standards; retention in the body longer than was previously believed; leeching into liquids being held in containers regardless of the containers’ temperature; and longer lasting damage, which can be passed to future generations.
Get BPA Free breast feeding products at Mom and Baby Shop
Activists are concerned that November is just too long to wait for an answer. Olga Naidenko, a scientist with the Environmental Working Group feels the agency is “working to stall science rather than advance it,” quoted UTNE. Others, for instance, lobbyist Liz Hitchcock, with the Public Interest Research Group, said the group was “heartened that the FDA was taking another look,” wrote the Journal Sentinel, said UTNE, which noted that the FDA’s review involves over 100 new studies of the chemical.
FDA BPA Decision Expected in November
Newly appointed FDA commissioner, Dr. Margaret Hamburg, recently announced that the agency is reconsidering its decision that BPA is safe at current levels, especially those found in baby bottles, a decision for which the agency has faced fierce criticism under its previous administration.
Get BPA Free breast feeding products at Mom and Baby Shop
UTNE reports that the agency just announced it expects to make a decision by November 30 on the safety of the chemical for its use in food and beverage containers, citing the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Meanwhile, earlier this week, we wrote that House and Senate lawmakers are considering two bills to ban use of the chemical that has been used as a plastic hardener for decades. BPA is a synthetic estrogen found in a variety of plastic containers, including baby bottles; toys and sippy cups; food and beverage containers, to name some.
BPA was just banned in Schenectady County in upstate New York; a similar measure was recently passed by Albany County legislators and takes effect January 1. BPA is banned in Connecticut, Minnesota, Chicago, and New York’s Suffolk County. Wisconsin became the third state to introduce a bill to ban BPA-containing baby bottle and sippy cup sales for children and California voted on a similar bill that is in the Assembly. Twenty-four states have bills in the works to restrict the toxin; Canada was the first country to announce plans to ban BPA, calling it a toxin.
Get BPA Free breast feeding products at Mom and Baby Shop
An emerging study found links between BPA and adverse health effects. Environmental Health News wrote that menopausal women tend to be likelier to suffer BPA-related health effects, such as inflammation and oxidative stress, over women who are still menstruating and men. Just prior, we wrote that another study found BPA might “impair” female reproductive cell growth and function, according to the University of Illinois. Two months ago we wrote that research conducted by the North Carolina State University and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), found BPA to significantly affect reproductive health at levels that are either the same or even lower that those believed not to cause adverse effects, citing Science Daily.
BPA has been connected to a wide variety of other adverse effects, namely: Increased risks of brain, reproductive, cardiac, and immune system diseases and disorders; problems with liver function testing; interruptions in chemotherapy treatment; links with serious health problems based on over 200 studies which found it to have negative effects at doses lower than the FDA’s current standards; retention in the body longer than was previously believed; leeching into liquids being held in containers regardless of the containers’ temperature; and longer lasting damage, which can be passed to future generations.
Get BPA Free breast feeding products at Mom and Baby Shop
Activists are concerned that November is just too long to wait for an answer. Olga Naidenko, a scientist with the Environmental Working Group feels the agency is “working to stall science rather than advance it,” quoted UTNE. Others, for instance, lobbyist Liz Hitchcock, with the Public Interest Research Group, said the group was “heartened that the FDA was taking another look,” wrote the Journal Sentinel, said UTNE, which noted that the FDA’s review involves over 100 new studies of the chemical.
FDA BPA Decision Expected in November
Friday, July 24, 2009
Babies "R" Us Price Fixing: Did Retailer Gouge Parents?
Before she gave birth to her first daughter back in October 2003, physicians and fellow mommies alike gave Darcy Trzupek the same advice: If you need a breast pump, get the Medela. "I didn't want to mess around with something that was going to break," says Trzupek, 41, a stay-at-home mom from Chicago. Especially when a hungry, wailing baby is involved.
So Trzupek, an experienced coupon clipper and Web-browsing bargain hunter, searched far and wide for a deal on the Medela. But she says she noticed something odd: the pump was listed at $300 everywhere she looked. For five months, she held out for a discount. Nothing. Finally, a week before going into labor, Trzupek gave in and shelled out $300 for the pump at Babies "R" Us (BRU), the retail outlet that parent company Toys "R" Us started more than a decade ago. Result: satiated baby, smaller wallet. (See seven new iPhone apps for moms.)
But was that breast pump part of a widespread price-fixing conspiracy that protected the profits of Babies "R" Us, the country's dominant big-box baby retailer? According to a federal judge, it appears that could be the case. On July 15, the U.S. District Court in Philadelphia granted class-action status to a complaint that Babies "R" Us coerced manufacturers of high-end strollers, car seats, high chairs, strap carriers and breast pumps into preventing Internet retailers from discounting their products.
No Discounts — or Else!
The dirty deal, according to the suit, was simple. From 2001 to 2006, Babies "R" Us told companies like Medela that they had to enforce resale-price maintenance — i.e., tell the Web retailers, who can more easily discount products since they avoid brick-and-mortar costs, to sell your products at X, or you'll cut off the supply. If they resisted, Babies "R" Us threatened to cut off the manufacturers, according to the suit, and refuse to sell their products in Babies "R" Us stores. Since Babies "R" Us sold 30% to 50% of these companies' products, Medela, which is based in Switzerland, and other brands like BabyBjörn, the Swedish strapmaker, and Maclaren, the strollermaker based in the U.K., had no real choice but to go along.
"I want to let Babies 'R' Us and other retailers know that consumers aren't going to put up with unfair trade restraints," says Trzupek, who joined the plaintiff class in 2006, when the suit was originally filed. The plaintiffs are pursuing an unspecified amount in damages; attorney Beth Fegan says the price agreements affected more than $500 million worth of baby products. (See the top 10 iPhone apps for dads.)
Breast-Pump Bullies?
While Judge Anita Brody's July 15 opinion wasn't a final ruling on the case, Babies "R" Us is portrayed as a tough negotiator intent on protecting its top marketplace position. The other companies named in the suit — Medela; Maclaren; BabyBjörn; Regal Lager, the agent supplying BabyBjörn's products to the U.S. market; Peg Perego, the Italy-based maker of strollers, car seats and high chairs; and Britax, which sells car seats and strollers — come across as weak accomplices in the scheme, which Brody distinctly labels a "conspiracy." For example, Brody writes that effective Feb. 1, 2000, "pursuant to the conspiracy, Regal Lager and BabyBjörn vigorously enforced resale-price maintenance against Internet retailers, gave BRU preferential treatment and stopped opening Internet accounts. During this period, BRU accounted for most of Regal Lager's business. Its founder, Bengt Lager, said about BRU, 'It's hard to say no when they have over 50% of our business!' "
According to the opinion, an executive from BabyAge, an Internet retailer, testified that "Peg Perego's sales representative admitted that Babies 'R' Us threatened to charge Peg Perego for each new sale that BabyAge made unless Peg Perego made BabyAge stop discounting." In spring 2002, Babies "R" Us was unhappy that Internet retailers were discounting Medela breast pumps. So "to send a message," according to the opinion, Babies "R" Us canceled all Medela orders on May 2, 2002. Backed into a corner, Medela terminated 17 Internet accounts two months later. The reason, according to an internal Medela document: "We discontinued Internet sellers to protect BRU's business and margin, and therefore accepted considerable legal risk."
Tough Tactics, but Still Legal?
That risk, however, became somewhat less considerable two years ago. In 2007 the Supreme Court overturned a nearly century-old ruling that used to make these types of pricing deals inherently illegal. Now such practices must be evaluated under "the rule of reason." For the plaintiffs to win, anticompetitive effects of the minimum-pricing agreement between the manufacturer and retailer must outweigh the pro-competitive effects. That's not an easy case to make. If a manufacturer's sales increased as a result of its deal with Babies "R" Us, the company can argue that it will produce a better product because of increased profits. Thus, the consumer ultimately benefits. Babies "R" Us can argue that its higher sales can pay for in-store services — i.e., stroller demonstrations, gift registries — that would not otherwise be possible absent the minimum-pricing agreements with its Internet competitors. Again, the consumer would benefit. (See which businesses are bucking the recession.)
But in the class-certification hearing, an economist provided a regression analysis showing that the overall sales of the manufacturers actually decreased because of the agreements. Britax, for example, admitted that sales fell 5% in the two months after Internet discounting was prohibited. As for Babies "R" Us' argument that preventing competitor discounts allowed it to increase sales and thus fund services valued by consumers, Brody's opinion notes that the plaintiffs "offered evidence that manufacturers had to pay for many services directly. Each manufacturer paid fees reimbursing BRU for advertisements and promotions." Further, the opinion notes that the defense's expert economist "indicated that BRU would maintain gift registries irrespective of resale price maintenance." In other words, Babies "R" Us wasn't responsible for pro-competitive benefits reaped from price deals. The judge's conclusion: "The defendants' argument may be rejected once again."
Babies "R" Us and Peg Perego declined to comment on the case. Maclaren offered a statement that it "strongly denies the allegations and shall continue to vigorously defend this action." The attorneys for Britax, Medela and BabyBjörn did not return requests for comment. Barring a settlement, plaintiff lawyer Fegan expects the case to go to trial in 2010. "These cases are very hard to win," says Lino Graglia, an antitrust expert who teaches at the University of Texas School of Law. "But if this is an instance of a powerful retailer trying to protect itself instead of trying to provide a service to the consumer, it has to be seen as a potential winner." So all you moms who splurged on that $300 breast pump a few years ago: start looking for the receipt.
Babies "R" Us Price Fixing: Did Retailer Gouge Parents?
So Trzupek, an experienced coupon clipper and Web-browsing bargain hunter, searched far and wide for a deal on the Medela. But she says she noticed something odd: the pump was listed at $300 everywhere she looked. For five months, she held out for a discount. Nothing. Finally, a week before going into labor, Trzupek gave in and shelled out $300 for the pump at Babies "R" Us (BRU), the retail outlet that parent company Toys "R" Us started more than a decade ago. Result: satiated baby, smaller wallet. (See seven new iPhone apps for moms.)
But was that breast pump part of a widespread price-fixing conspiracy that protected the profits of Babies "R" Us, the country's dominant big-box baby retailer? According to a federal judge, it appears that could be the case. On July 15, the U.S. District Court in Philadelphia granted class-action status to a complaint that Babies "R" Us coerced manufacturers of high-end strollers, car seats, high chairs, strap carriers and breast pumps into preventing Internet retailers from discounting their products.
No Discounts — or Else!
The dirty deal, according to the suit, was simple. From 2001 to 2006, Babies "R" Us told companies like Medela that they had to enforce resale-price maintenance — i.e., tell the Web retailers, who can more easily discount products since they avoid brick-and-mortar costs, to sell your products at X, or you'll cut off the supply. If they resisted, Babies "R" Us threatened to cut off the manufacturers, according to the suit, and refuse to sell their products in Babies "R" Us stores. Since Babies "R" Us sold 30% to 50% of these companies' products, Medela, which is based in Switzerland, and other brands like BabyBjörn, the Swedish strapmaker, and Maclaren, the strollermaker based in the U.K., had no real choice but to go along.
"I want to let Babies 'R' Us and other retailers know that consumers aren't going to put up with unfair trade restraints," says Trzupek, who joined the plaintiff class in 2006, when the suit was originally filed. The plaintiffs are pursuing an unspecified amount in damages; attorney Beth Fegan says the price agreements affected more than $500 million worth of baby products. (See the top 10 iPhone apps for dads.)
Breast-Pump Bullies?
While Judge Anita Brody's July 15 opinion wasn't a final ruling on the case, Babies "R" Us is portrayed as a tough negotiator intent on protecting its top marketplace position. The other companies named in the suit — Medela; Maclaren; BabyBjörn; Regal Lager, the agent supplying BabyBjörn's products to the U.S. market; Peg Perego, the Italy-based maker of strollers, car seats and high chairs; and Britax, which sells car seats and strollers — come across as weak accomplices in the scheme, which Brody distinctly labels a "conspiracy." For example, Brody writes that effective Feb. 1, 2000, "pursuant to the conspiracy, Regal Lager and BabyBjörn vigorously enforced resale-price maintenance against Internet retailers, gave BRU preferential treatment and stopped opening Internet accounts. During this period, BRU accounted for most of Regal Lager's business. Its founder, Bengt Lager, said about BRU, 'It's hard to say no when they have over 50% of our business!' "
According to the opinion, an executive from BabyAge, an Internet retailer, testified that "Peg Perego's sales representative admitted that Babies 'R' Us threatened to charge Peg Perego for each new sale that BabyAge made unless Peg Perego made BabyAge stop discounting." In spring 2002, Babies "R" Us was unhappy that Internet retailers were discounting Medela breast pumps. So "to send a message," according to the opinion, Babies "R" Us canceled all Medela orders on May 2, 2002. Backed into a corner, Medela terminated 17 Internet accounts two months later. The reason, according to an internal Medela document: "We discontinued Internet sellers to protect BRU's business and margin, and therefore accepted considerable legal risk."
Tough Tactics, but Still Legal?
That risk, however, became somewhat less considerable two years ago. In 2007 the Supreme Court overturned a nearly century-old ruling that used to make these types of pricing deals inherently illegal. Now such practices must be evaluated under "the rule of reason." For the plaintiffs to win, anticompetitive effects of the minimum-pricing agreement between the manufacturer and retailer must outweigh the pro-competitive effects. That's not an easy case to make. If a manufacturer's sales increased as a result of its deal with Babies "R" Us, the company can argue that it will produce a better product because of increased profits. Thus, the consumer ultimately benefits. Babies "R" Us can argue that its higher sales can pay for in-store services — i.e., stroller demonstrations, gift registries — that would not otherwise be possible absent the minimum-pricing agreements with its Internet competitors. Again, the consumer would benefit. (See which businesses are bucking the recession.)
But in the class-certification hearing, an economist provided a regression analysis showing that the overall sales of the manufacturers actually decreased because of the agreements. Britax, for example, admitted that sales fell 5% in the two months after Internet discounting was prohibited. As for Babies "R" Us' argument that preventing competitor discounts allowed it to increase sales and thus fund services valued by consumers, Brody's opinion notes that the plaintiffs "offered evidence that manufacturers had to pay for many services directly. Each manufacturer paid fees reimbursing BRU for advertisements and promotions." Further, the opinion notes that the defense's expert economist "indicated that BRU would maintain gift registries irrespective of resale price maintenance." In other words, Babies "R" Us wasn't responsible for pro-competitive benefits reaped from price deals. The judge's conclusion: "The defendants' argument may be rejected once again."
Babies "R" Us and Peg Perego declined to comment on the case. Maclaren offered a statement that it "strongly denies the allegations and shall continue to vigorously defend this action." The attorneys for Britax, Medela and BabyBjörn did not return requests for comment. Barring a settlement, plaintiff lawyer Fegan expects the case to go to trial in 2010. "These cases are very hard to win," says Lino Graglia, an antitrust expert who teaches at the University of Texas School of Law. "But if this is an instance of a powerful retailer trying to protect itself instead of trying to provide a service to the consumer, it has to be seen as a potential winner." So all you moms who splurged on that $300 breast pump a few years ago: start looking for the receipt.
Babies "R" Us Price Fixing: Did Retailer Gouge Parents?
Sunday, July 19, 2009
California won't warn public about bisphenol!
A state panel's decision not to require warning labels on products containing a chemical that has been linked to cancer and reproductive problems may say more about the limitations of the panel than the toxicity of the chemical.
While more than 200 studies have linked bisphenol A to problems ranging from behavioral issues to cancer, products containing the chemical will not carry warning labels, according to a decision made Wednesday by the California Environmental Protection Agency's Developmental and Reproductive Toxicant Identification Committee.
"This isn't exactly a committee that's on the cutting edge of public health decisions in California," said Gretchen Lee Salter, policy director at the Breast Cancer Fund.
BPA is found in hard plastics and in the linings of cans and baby formula containers.
The seven-member panel of scientists and physicians provides one venue through which products can get slapped with a warning label under California's 1986 Proposition 65 ballot initiative. The panel is charged with identifying chemicals that cause reproductive harm.
Critics point out that the panel was not convinced it should add second-hand smoke to the Prop 65 list of suspect chemicals until 2006, and that it has only added one chemical in the last three years.
The panel's chair, Dorothy Burk, said in a phone interview Thursday that the panel's stringent standards for adding chemicals to the list are a "quirk of Prop 65."
"By law we can only look at prenatal exposure, so that's why we struggle so long," said Burk. "We may be thinking there is something here but we just don't have enough evidence to say it clearly causes this."
Under Prop 65, chemicals can also be added to the list if an "authoritative body" has found that the chemical causes reproductive toxicity.
Immediately following the panel's decision on Wednesday, the Natural Resources Defense Council presented a petition demanding that BPA be added to the list because a study by the National Toxicology Program -- a panel it termed an "authoritative body" -- had found "some concern for effects on the brain, behavior, and prostate gland in fetuses, infants, and children at current human exposures to bisphenol A."
"We believe that this chemical must legally be listed regardless of what the panel said yesterday," said Gina Solomon, a senior scientist at NRDC.
A lawyer for the state EPA's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment said the state agency will need to review the documents.
"We'll have to look at the petition, and then the NTP document to see if it's sufficient for meeting our regulatory critera for listing," said Carol Monahan-Cummings in a written statement Thursday.
While more than 200 studies have linked bisphenol A to problems ranging from behavioral issues to cancer, products containing the chemical will not carry warning labels, according to a decision made Wednesday by the California Environmental Protection Agency's Developmental and Reproductive Toxicant Identification Committee.
"This isn't exactly a committee that's on the cutting edge of public health decisions in California," said Gretchen Lee Salter, policy director at the Breast Cancer Fund.
BPA is found in hard plastics and in the linings of cans and baby formula containers.
The seven-member panel of scientists and physicians provides one venue through which products can get slapped with a warning label under California's 1986 Proposition 65 ballot initiative. The panel is charged with identifying chemicals that cause reproductive harm.
Critics point out that the panel was not convinced it should add second-hand smoke to the Prop 65 list of suspect chemicals until 2006, and that it has only added one chemical in the last three years.
The panel's chair, Dorothy Burk, said in a phone interview Thursday that the panel's stringent standards for adding chemicals to the list are a "quirk of Prop 65."
"By law we can only look at prenatal exposure, so that's why we struggle so long," said Burk. "We may be thinking there is something here but we just don't have enough evidence to say it clearly causes this."
Under Prop 65, chemicals can also be added to the list if an "authoritative body" has found that the chemical causes reproductive toxicity.
Immediately following the panel's decision on Wednesday, the Natural Resources Defense Council presented a petition demanding that BPA be added to the list because a study by the National Toxicology Program -- a panel it termed an "authoritative body" -- had found "some concern for effects on the brain, behavior, and prostate gland in fetuses, infants, and children at current human exposures to bisphenol A."
"We believe that this chemical must legally be listed regardless of what the panel said yesterday," said Gina Solomon, a senior scientist at NRDC.
A lawyer for the state EPA's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment said the state agency will need to review the documents.
"We'll have to look at the petition, and then the NTP document to see if it's sufficient for meeting our regulatory critera for listing," said Carol Monahan-Cummings in a written statement Thursday.
Most groups see the panel's decision as a minor setback in the larger battle to ban BPA. Retailers have already pulled products containing BPA off the shelves and some consumers stopped buying plastic water and baby bottles years ago.
"We see the decision as basically a speed bump on the way to banning a chemical that we think people should not be ingesting, especially pregnant women or infants and toddlers," said Bill Allayaud, Director of Government Affairs for California's Environmental Working Group.
The state senate voted in June to ban BPA in food and drink containers for children under three. The vote will come before the state assembly later this summer.
Although the panel may not have found the scientific evidence strong enough to warn the public against using products that contain BPA, the panel's chairperson said personally subscribes to the "precautionary principle."
"I think if I had a baby I probably would try to use glass," said Burk in a phone interview Thursday.
--Amy Littlefield
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Friday, July 3, 2009
Rethinking the Evidence on BPA
Rethinking the evidence on BPA.
Research shows. Studies have found. Scientists conclude. Each of those phrases can be completed, accurately, with any one of the following: That it's possible to use ESP to see the location of someone far away. That exposure to lead at everyday levels does no harm to the developing brain. That hormone replacement protects women against heart disease. My point is not that science is always tentative and that scientists are fallible, though both are certainly true (since all three of the above are wrong), but that almost anyone with an agenda can find research to support it.
Keep that in mind this summer when the Food and Drug Administration issues its report on bisphenol A, the chemical building block of polycarbonate, the hard plastic used for some baby bottles and water bottles, and of the epoxy resins that line food cans. In her first appearance before Congress as FDA commissioner, Margaret Hamburg told a House panel this month that the agency is reconsidering its decades-old position—reiterated last year—that BPA at current levels of exposure poses no harm to human health. You can be sure that if FDA deviates from that conclusion, the plastics industry will deploy the three phrases above, completing them with "—that BPA is perfectly safe."
Whether that's true can be answered only by empirical data. But not all empirical data are created equal. BPA studies that a spokesman for the American Chemistry Council described as "definitive," for instance, have come in for criticism on three fundamental grounds, not including that they were partly funded by industry (I don't reflexively assume that industry-sponsored research is suspect; whether a study is good or not depends on how it was conducted). First, research in 2002 used a strain of rat that is extremely insensitive to estrogen; it doesn't even show hormonal effects if it's given 100 times the dose of estrogen in human birth-control pills. Since BPA acts like an estrogen, finding no effect in this insensitive rat is about as illuminating as not finding an effect of rain on a waterproof watch. That doesn't tell you that water can't harm machinery. Second, a 2008 study found that prostates in mice not exposed to BPA—these were the control animals—were 70 percent larger than normal. That's a problem: other studies have shown that BPA enlarges the prostate by about 35 percent. If you're looking for a prostate effect by comparing BPA-exposed mice to mice with mysteriously abnormal prostates, it's no wonder BPA gets exonerated. Finally, another 2008 study compared BPA to estradiol, a form of estrogen. But estradiol had never been used to provide such a baseline, so concluding that BPA is less potent than estradiol—as industry does—is like saying one temperature is higher than another when you don't even know if the thermometer works.
Evidence on the other side is both stronger and more convincing. I can regale you until I'm out of space with studies showing that in monkeys, levels of BPA at the upper end of what the U.S. government calls safe harm synapses responsible for learning and memory; that people with the highest levels of BPA are most likely to have type 2 diabetes or heart disease; that BPA given to pregnant lab animals permanently alters the expression of genes responsible for uterine development and damages the reproductive system of their fetuses. More telling than individual studies is the weight and quality of the cumulative evidence. Based on that, the FDA's Scientific Advisory Board last year rebuked the agency for failing to consider all credible evidence when it called BPA safe for use in food containers, and the Endocrine Society issued its first "scientific statement," concluding this month that for chemicals like BPA, "the concern is real."
That concern is likely to rise as the FDA takes account of new data showing that people are exposed to more BPA than it assumed when it concluded that exposure to BPA is within the margin of safety. In a study presented at the Endocrine Society, scientists led by biologist Fred vom Saal of the University of Missouri found that monkeys fed 400 times the amount of BPA that the government assumes people ingest had lower levels in their blood than the average American. For BPA levels in people to be higher than in monkeys that practically gorged on the stuff, we must be ingesting way more than the FDA thinks. Where are the higher amounts coming from? In addition to hard plastic and epoxy can linings, it turns out, newspaper ink and carbonless copy paper—the stuff of credit-card receipts and all sorts of business and medical documents—contain high amounts of BPA. Recycled, they wind up in food containers such as pizza boxes, along with the BPA. It's never a good thing if people are exposed to more of a chemical than safety agencies thought, and if studies giving that chemical a clean bill of health are so troubled. As common sense (never mind research) shows.
Begley is NEWSWEEK’s Science Editor.
Research shows. Studies have found. Scientists conclude. Each of those phrases can be completed, accurately, with any one of the following: That it's possible to use ESP to see the location of someone far away. That exposure to lead at everyday levels does no harm to the developing brain. That hormone replacement protects women against heart disease. My point is not that science is always tentative and that scientists are fallible, though both are certainly true (since all three of the above are wrong), but that almost anyone with an agenda can find research to support it.
Keep that in mind this summer when the Food and Drug Administration issues its report on bisphenol A, the chemical building block of polycarbonate, the hard plastic used for some baby bottles and water bottles, and of the epoxy resins that line food cans. In her first appearance before Congress as FDA commissioner, Margaret Hamburg told a House panel this month that the agency is reconsidering its decades-old position—reiterated last year—that BPA at current levels of exposure poses no harm to human health. You can be sure that if FDA deviates from that conclusion, the plastics industry will deploy the three phrases above, completing them with "—that BPA is perfectly safe."
Whether that's true can be answered only by empirical data. But not all empirical data are created equal. BPA studies that a spokesman for the American Chemistry Council described as "definitive," for instance, have come in for criticism on three fundamental grounds, not including that they were partly funded by industry (I don't reflexively assume that industry-sponsored research is suspect; whether a study is good or not depends on how it was conducted). First, research in 2002 used a strain of rat that is extremely insensitive to estrogen; it doesn't even show hormonal effects if it's given 100 times the dose of estrogen in human birth-control pills. Since BPA acts like an estrogen, finding no effect in this insensitive rat is about as illuminating as not finding an effect of rain on a waterproof watch. That doesn't tell you that water can't harm machinery. Second, a 2008 study found that prostates in mice not exposed to BPA—these were the control animals—were 70 percent larger than normal. That's a problem: other studies have shown that BPA enlarges the prostate by about 35 percent. If you're looking for a prostate effect by comparing BPA-exposed mice to mice with mysteriously abnormal prostates, it's no wonder BPA gets exonerated. Finally, another 2008 study compared BPA to estradiol, a form of estrogen. But estradiol had never been used to provide such a baseline, so concluding that BPA is less potent than estradiol—as industry does—is like saying one temperature is higher than another when you don't even know if the thermometer works.
Evidence on the other side is both stronger and more convincing. I can regale you until I'm out of space with studies showing that in monkeys, levels of BPA at the upper end of what the U.S. government calls safe harm synapses responsible for learning and memory; that people with the highest levels of BPA are most likely to have type 2 diabetes or heart disease; that BPA given to pregnant lab animals permanently alters the expression of genes responsible for uterine development and damages the reproductive system of their fetuses. More telling than individual studies is the weight and quality of the cumulative evidence. Based on that, the FDA's Scientific Advisory Board last year rebuked the agency for failing to consider all credible evidence when it called BPA safe for use in food containers, and the Endocrine Society issued its first "scientific statement," concluding this month that for chemicals like BPA, "the concern is real."
That concern is likely to rise as the FDA takes account of new data showing that people are exposed to more BPA than it assumed when it concluded that exposure to BPA is within the margin of safety. In a study presented at the Endocrine Society, scientists led by biologist Fred vom Saal of the University of Missouri found that monkeys fed 400 times the amount of BPA that the government assumes people ingest had lower levels in their blood than the average American. For BPA levels in people to be higher than in monkeys that practically gorged on the stuff, we must be ingesting way more than the FDA thinks. Where are the higher amounts coming from? In addition to hard plastic and epoxy can linings, it turns out, newspaper ink and carbonless copy paper—the stuff of credit-card receipts and all sorts of business and medical documents—contain high amounts of BPA. Recycled, they wind up in food containers such as pizza boxes, along with the BPA. It's never a good thing if people are exposed to more of a chemical than safety agencies thought, and if studies giving that chemical a clean bill of health are so troubled. As common sense (never mind research) shows.
Begley is NEWSWEEK’s Science Editor.
Sharon Begley
NEWSWEEK
From the magazine issue dated Jun 29, 2009
Begley: Rethinking the Evidence on BPA Newsweek Voices - Sharon Begley Newsweek.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
