Female sex hormone disturbingly omnipresent in consumer products
Ottawa Citizen, Staff
Published May 4, 2007
OTTAWA -- Already, we have exposed our daughters in a myriad of immeasurable ways.
We heated their canned infant formula in plastic baby bottles. We make
homemade spaghetti sauce and chili and black bean soup using canned
ingredients. The steaming chicken soup we routinely pour into our eldest daughter's lunch thermos also comes from a can.
And just a few months ago, the dentist affixed sealants to the deep wells in her molars to prevent cavities.
New evidence reveals that every day, my daughters dine on bisphenol A, a chemical known to act like a female sex hormone.
Also known as BPA, it's the main ingredient in polycarbonate, the rigid, translucent hard plastic used to make some water bottles, many baby bottles and even training and sippy cups. The chemical is also a key ingredient in the hard clear plastic water jugs in which we store our filtered water in and in the food containers that store our leftovers. It's found in the epoxy resins that are used as a protectant inside tin cans and dental sealants.
BPA is also used in impact-resistant contact lenses, helmets, compact discs, adhesives, pipes, thermal fax paper, car dashboards, electronic gadgets and many other household goods.
Plastics containers that contain it are often identified on the bottom by an industry triangle symbol and the number seven.
BPA is in all of us. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced in 2005 that it had detected bisphenol A in 95 per cent of 394 people tested.
How did it get there? The Washington, D.C.-based Environmental Working Group recently revealed startling findings about one in 10 cans of all food tested and one in three cans of infant formula: "A single serving contained enough BPA to expose a woman or infant to BPA levels more than 200 times the government's traditional safe level of exposure for industrial chemicals."
Does BPA poses a risk to our health?
That depends who you ask. I have read and reread dozens and dozens of
conflicting scientific studies looking for sound research, bias and
inconsistencies. As a parent and former science journalist, I find it an incredible challenge to determine if low-level exposure to this chemical is harming my daughters' reproductive health.
It's frustrating to think there is a debate around a chemical that has
already found its way into hundreds of everyday products, many that contain our food and water. Most of us expect the government wouldn't allow anything on the market that would harm children's health.
I say this, then quickly remember that in stores all over the country, we can still buy lead-filled children's jewelry.
The health risks thought to be linked to BPA include prostate and breast cancer, higher rates of miscarriage, immune system dysfunction, testicular abnormalities in boys and puberty in girls younger than eight years old.
Still, companies that use BPA in products insist it's harmless.
In March, California parents launched a class-action lawsuit over BPA
against five leading manufacturers of polycarbonate baby bottles: Gerber, Evenflo, Avent, Playtex and Dr. Brown's. According to one laboratory report cited by the parents, when baby bottles are heated, potentially dangerous levels of BPA leak into the contained liquid -- be it formula or breast milk.
The parents are also concerned that scratched or old baby bottles leak BPA into milk. The lawsuit cites a link between the chemical and such conditions as early puberty and autism.
The baby bottle industry was quick to challenge these claims.
"The weight of scientific evidence clearly ensures the safety of this
material for use in food and drink containers," Playtex Products Inc. said in a statement after the suit was filed. "For nearly 50 years, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has recognized polycarbonate as safe for use in food-contact applications."
The company further noted that BPA levels in polycarbonate are safe and
don't damage reproductive or developmental systems, nor lead to cancer in humans. It cited international studies -- including those from scientists at the U.S. National Academy of Science, the U.S. National Toxicology Program, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the FDA, the European Scientific Committee Commission on Food -- that clear BPA.
In March, the FDA reiterated its belief that low-level exposure to BPA poses no dangers.
"Considering all the evidence, including measurements by FDA chemists of levels found in canned foods or migrating from baby bottles, FDA sees no reason at this time to ban or otherwise restrict the uses (of BPA)now in practice," stated the FDA.
The scientist raising most of the alarm about BPA is biologist Frederick vom Saal, of the University of Missouri, who in 2005 reported that no studies financed by the chemical industry found problems with BPA. Meanwhile, almost all independent studies -- 90 per cent -- found adverse consequences.
Vom Saal looked at 115 published studies concerning lowdoses of BPA and
found that 94 of them reported significant effects in rats and mice, while 21 did not.
Von Saal called the findings "stunning," yet they were dismissed by critics because they were published as an opinion piece in Environmental Health Perspectives, not a peer-reviewed journal.
Vom Saal contends BPA doesn't work like a conventional harmful agent, where the more you're exposed to it, the more harm done.
It's the smallest doses that may cause the greatest harm, by stimulating estrogen receptors to produce more estrogen. High doses may actually shut down estrogen production.
This is why Vom Saal has said we should be concerned about the trace
elements found in consumer products.
The plastics industry dismisses this theory and challenges vom Saal's
credibility. In one statement, it challenged one of his studies, based on 14 mice that found exposure to small amounts of BPA might cause ill effects.
"No scientific investigators have validated these results by repeating
them," the plastics council writes. "In recent months, four studies at three different laboratories, using more than 600 mice or rats, have failed to show any effects on the test animals at doses lower, the same as and higher than those used in the University of Missouri work. Two of these studies followed the University of Missouri methodology rigorously."
Vom Saal, meanwhile, dismisses findings financed by the plastics council and notes that they involved a strain of rats known to be insensitive to estrogen.
The plastics industry, meanwhile, has repeatedly urged everyone not to
worry. In other words, pour some canned formula in your plastic baby bottle, pop it into the microwave and then rock your baby back to sleep.
It's hopelessly confusing.
"They want us to believe it's so safe we can drink it by the gallon," says Rick Smith, executive director of Toronto-based Environmental Defence. "Deny. Deny. Deny."
Smith is encouraged that next month the Canadian government will begin a review of the BPA safety.
Canadian government scientists have already classified BPA as "inherently toxic."
Last year, Environment Canada and Health Canada selected BPA as one of 200 substances that a preliminary review deemed possibly dangerous and in need of thorough safety assessments. Under the assessment, the plastics industry will be challenged to provide data to prove BPA poses no risk to humans or the environment. It could take at least three years to complete.
Smith's group last month urged Canada to ban BPA rather than waiting for the completion of the assessment. The banning would make Canada the first country in the world that has done so. Smith said it's a logical step, considering there are alternatives to the chemical.
The father of a newborn also said he uses glass baby bottles and urges
anyone else who has children to keep them away from products containing BPA.
The back and forth makes me anxious. Who do we believe? The chemical
industry? Some independent scientists? Governing bodies who should be able to sift through conflicting evidence and give us an unbiased answer?
As a parent, I haven't a clue. I want to know, without doubt, that BPA is safe. And I hope it is, otherwise our world of convenience is constructed on pretty questionable grounds.
Many people might decide to side with the FDA and other, obviously respected world bodies.
In my house, we'll err on the side of caution until the Canadian government completes its assessment. After all, if its scientists have declared BPA "inherently toxic," and included it in a list of 200 worrisome chemicals, maybe the safest course might be to keep it away from the food and water we drink.
In recent months, I've replaced our household plastic containers with glass or stainless steel. We've eliminated plastic from my daughter's lunch. We've tried to stop drinking bottled water and cancelled the service that delivered five-gallon water jugs to our home. We're attempting to buy tin cans from the few companies that don't use BPA as an internal resin, but they are in short supply.
We still use our plastic water-filter jug, but I don't put it in the
dishwasher. Of course the sealants are still in my daughter's teeth, so I'm really hoping BPA isn't the hormonal bad guy its made out to be.
