News Coverage
Bisphenol A for dinner -- again?
Published April 21, 2007
Already, we have exposed our daughters in myriad, immeasurable ways. We
heated their canned infant formula in plastic baby bottles. We make
home-made 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
hard, clear, plastic water jugs used for filtered water and in the food
containers in which we store leftovers. It's found in the epoxy resins that
act as a protectant inside tin cans and dental sealants. BPA is also used in
some contact lenses, helmets, compact discs, adhesives, pipes, thermal fax
paper, dashboards, electronic gadgets and many other household goods.
Plastic 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? Last month, the Washington, D.C.-based Environmental Working
Group 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."
Most governments, including Canada, set safe levels of exposure long before
recent studies showed hormone-related changes in mice and rats.
Does BPA poses a risk to our health? Depends who you ask.
I have read and reread many of the 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 Ottawa, we can still buy lead-filled
children's jewelry.
The health risks thought to be linked to BPA -- but not proven -- 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.
Companies that use BPA in products insist it's harmless.
Last month in 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.
And just last month, 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.
Surely such reputable organizations are looking out for my kids' best
interests. Shouldn't they know if it's safe?
Again, it depends who you ask.
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 low doses of BPA and found
that 94 of them reported significant effects in rats and mice, while 21 did
not.
The biologist called the findings "stunning," yet they were dismissed by
critics because they were not peer-reviewed, but instead published as an
opinion piece in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives.
Vom Saal and other researchers believe BPA doesn't work like a conventional
harmful agent, where the more you're exposed to, 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 has said these contrary findings were financed by the plastics
council and notes that they involved a strain of rats known to be
insensitive to estrogen.
The plastics industry continues to urge 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 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, saying there is ample evidence it's harmful. A
ban would make Canada the first country in the world to do so. Smith said
it's a logical step, considering there are alternatives to the chemical. The
father of a newborn, Smith 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.
If it isn't, 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 at
least until the Canadian government completes its assessment.
In recent months, we've turned to using glass and stainless steel
containers, instead of plastic. We've eliminated plastic from my daughter's
lunch. We've tried to stop drinking bottled water and 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.
Of course the sealants are still in my daughter's teeth, so I'm really
hoping BPA isn't the hormonal bad guy it's made out to be.
