The New York Times continues to follow the unfolding BPA story, but in the business pages, not the regular news columns. So for them this isn't so much a health story as it is one about how manufacturers of bottles are coping with growing public alarm about bisphenol-a.
That's a disservice to readers who don't bother with the business section. But the good news is that manufacturers are acting swiftly to find other materials for their bottles. Since February, Aladdin food containers and water bottles have been made with a new plastic (Tritan copolyester) free of BPA. Israeli-based Born Free is making baby bottles of another sort of plastic. Both alternatives are reportedly more expensive right now than BPA-containing polycarbonate.
Let's hope that these new plastics are safer, but bear in mind that people thought polycarbonate was safe also. If I had a baby, I'd breast feed as long as I could to avoid BPA-tained formula, and then shift to glass bottles. (Owens-Illinois has started making glass baby bottles again, after a 20-year hiatus).
Personally, I've been tucking a Sigg aluminum water bottle into my tennis bag for years now. It's not beautiful but it's light-weight and does the job. Another good choice would be steel.
Showing posts with label bisphenol-A. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bisphenol-A. Show all posts
Friday, April 25, 2008
Monday, April 21, 2008
Canada Calls BPA Toxic
It's official: the Canadian government has declared bisphenol-a (BPA) toxic, and has moved to ban sales of baby bottles, cups, etc. made from polycarbonate plastic, which leaches the chemical in normal use.
In addition, California, New York and Maryland are considering laws to ban sales of toys, child care and feeding products made with BPA. To no one's surprise, of course, the industry has filed suit against California arguing that federal law preempts California's action.
This is one of those times when caution should dictate our actions. With easily available alternatives, ditch those BPA bottles and cups and replace them.
In addition, California, New York and Maryland are considering laws to ban sales of toys, child care and feeding products made with BPA. To no one's surprise, of course, the industry has filed suit against California arguing that federal law preempts California's action.
This is one of those times when caution should dictate our actions. With easily available alternatives, ditch those BPA bottles and cups and replace them.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Baby, Water Bottles Dangerous to Health
As I've been telling my friends ever since I wrote an article for Sierra Magazine on the subject, those attractive, hard-plastic water bottles that come in vivid, see-through colors, just aren't safe.
And that goes in spades for the baby bottles made from the same substance, polycarbonate plastic. You can usually identify bottles made of this plastic from the "#7 Other" recycling code on the bottom. One of the most popular manufactuers is Nalgene, but just yesterday, the company announced that it will stop production because of public concern.
The problem is a chemical called bisphenol-A, now recognized as a hormone disrupter that mimics estrogen. Ten years ago, as I reported in Sierra, a geneticist at Case Western University found that mice accidentally exposed to it from their plastic cages developed a high rate of chromosomal abnormalities.
Here's an excerpt from the just-released draft report on it from the National Toxicology Program (click on "draft report" in the right column to read it):
"The NTP concurs with the conclusion of the CERHR Expert Panel on Bisphenol A that there is some concern for neural and behavioral effects in fetuses, infants, and children at current human exposures. The NTP also has some concern for bisphenol A exposure in these populations based on effects in the prostate gland, mammary gland, and an earlier age for puberty in females." (italics from the report)
Bear in mind that this alarming report is coming from a most cautious federal agency. The list of possible other health effects is much longer. Scientists who've reviewed all the studies not funded by industry are very alarmed, and believe the chemical may be a cause of breast cancer. Something in our environment (my italics) is pumping up the breast cancer rate, as women have long suspected, and something is lowering the age of puberty for girls. The frustration has been not knowing which of the myriad chemicals to which we are exposed are causing these effects.
Here's the bottom line: this chemical may very well be particuarly dangerous for fetuses. Tell any pregnant women you know not to use these water bottles. And new parents should use other kinds of plastic baby bottles (soft or cloudy-colored plastic bottles don't contain it) or old-fashioned, but sanitary and safe, glass. Ditto for sippy cups or dishes.
The bad news, however, is that while we can choose to avoid those products, babies drinking infant formula will still be exposed to it. Most canned food sold in America is coate with the stuff. Last year, the Environmental Working Group found it in 55 of 97 cans they tested. And, even worse, they found the highest levels of the chemical in infant formula, at levels that had caused serious adverse harm to animals.
And by the way, don't be persuaded by industry people saying animal studies don't prove anything about how something will affect people. They use animal studies all the time to prove the safety of drugs they want to sell before they test them in people.
It may be years before the U.S. Food & Drug Administration acts to stop use of this chemical, but other countries, as usual these days, are already acting. The New York Times reported Wednesday that Canada is apparently close to declaring it a toxic chemical. And Wal-Mart Canada just announced it will stop selling products containing it.
As I've said before on this blog, we should stop walking for the cure but for real prevention. (Early detection is not prevention, despite the bill of goods sold to so many cancer survivors.) Bisphenol-A may cause cancer as well as birth defects and harm to reproductive organs. It's not filling some essential need. So why should we be exposed to it ?
And that goes in spades for the baby bottles made from the same substance, polycarbonate plastic. You can usually identify bottles made of this plastic from the "#7 Other" recycling code on the bottom. One of the most popular manufactuers is Nalgene, but just yesterday, the company announced that it will stop production because of public concern.
The problem is a chemical called bisphenol-A, now recognized as a hormone disrupter that mimics estrogen. Ten years ago, as I reported in Sierra, a geneticist at Case Western University found that mice accidentally exposed to it from their plastic cages developed a high rate of chromosomal abnormalities.
Here's an excerpt from the just-released draft report on it from the National Toxicology Program (click on "draft report" in the right column to read it):
"The NTP concurs with the conclusion of the CERHR Expert Panel on Bisphenol A that there is some concern for neural and behavioral effects in fetuses, infants, and children at current human exposures. The NTP also has some concern for bisphenol A exposure in these populations based on effects in the prostate gland, mammary gland, and an earlier age for puberty in females." (italics from the report)
Bear in mind that this alarming report is coming from a most cautious federal agency. The list of possible other health effects is much longer. Scientists who've reviewed all the studies not funded by industry are very alarmed, and believe the chemical may be a cause of breast cancer. Something in our environment (my italics) is pumping up the breast cancer rate, as women have long suspected, and something is lowering the age of puberty for girls. The frustration has been not knowing which of the myriad chemicals to which we are exposed are causing these effects.
Here's the bottom line: this chemical may very well be particuarly dangerous for fetuses. Tell any pregnant women you know not to use these water bottles. And new parents should use other kinds of plastic baby bottles (soft or cloudy-colored plastic bottles don't contain it) or old-fashioned, but sanitary and safe, glass. Ditto for sippy cups or dishes.
The bad news, however, is that while we can choose to avoid those products, babies drinking infant formula will still be exposed to it. Most canned food sold in America is coate with the stuff. Last year, the Environmental Working Group found it in 55 of 97 cans they tested. And, even worse, they found the highest levels of the chemical in infant formula, at levels that had caused serious adverse harm to animals.
And by the way, don't be persuaded by industry people saying animal studies don't prove anything about how something will affect people. They use animal studies all the time to prove the safety of drugs they want to sell before they test them in people.
It may be years before the U.S. Food & Drug Administration acts to stop use of this chemical, but other countries, as usual these days, are already acting. The New York Times reported Wednesday that Canada is apparently close to declaring it a toxic chemical. And Wal-Mart Canada just announced it will stop selling products containing it.
As I've said before on this blog, we should stop walking for the cure but for real prevention. (Early detection is not prevention, despite the bill of goods sold to so many cancer survivors.) Bisphenol-A may cause cancer as well as birth defects and harm to reproductive organs. It's not filling some essential need. So why should we be exposed to it ?
Monday, January 21, 2008
Enough Walking for the Cure
Enough walking for the cure. It's time to get serious about stopping the cancer epidemic, and that means shifting activist efforts to prevention. As Devra Davis makes eloquently clear in her book, The Secret History of the War on Cancer, published last fall, cancer wasn't always common. It became common in the 20th century as chemicals of all kinds entered the food supply and the environment, and as workers were forced into contact with cancer-causing substancees. Davis offers proof drawn from unpublished research that there was clear evidence in the 1930s that cigarettes, for example, cause lung cancer. But the information was suppressed. She writes: “For nearly a hundred years, we have known that smoking, sunlight, industrial chemicals, hormones, bad nutrition, alcohol and bum luck, all affect the chance we will get cancer.”
If you want to know who the villains were, this book names them, and they include well-known leaders of cancer organizations and eminent physicians who engaged in both deliberate deceit and wishful thinking, that, for example, a safe cigarette was possible.
But don't read this book just for the history. Read it for the warnings about what we're doing to ourselves and our children. On the list of suspected and known cancer-causing agents are Ritalin, diagnostic X-rays--in particular, CAT scans being used more and more on children--cell phone use by children, and aspartame, the artificial sweetener better known as Nutra Sweet.
What we need is screening of the thousands of chemicals to which we are exposed every day.We should demand a ban on use of the chemical Bisphenol A in the linings of all canned food and beverages (Japan did so years ago) and in those clear, hard plastic baby bottles. I first wrote about this chemical in 2003, after a lab accident caused chromosomal abnormalities in lab animals. This chemical is an artificial estrogen, similar to the DES given to pregnant women in the 1970's that resulted in their girl children growing up with abnormal genitals. It causes changes in tissue that resemble early-stage breast cancer. A leading researcher, Frederic Vom Saal predicts it is only a matter of time before the FDA bans it.
Let's walk for this kind of prevention, and use the money we raise to fund real prevention efforts such as those by Davis at the University of Pittsburgh's Environmental Oncology Center.
If you want to know who the villains were, this book names them, and they include well-known leaders of cancer organizations and eminent physicians who engaged in both deliberate deceit and wishful thinking, that, for example, a safe cigarette was possible.
But don't read this book just for the history. Read it for the warnings about what we're doing to ourselves and our children. On the list of suspected and known cancer-causing agents are Ritalin, diagnostic X-rays--in particular, CAT scans being used more and more on children--cell phone use by children, and aspartame, the artificial sweetener better known as Nutra Sweet.
What we need is screening of the thousands of chemicals to which we are exposed every day.We should demand a ban on use of the chemical Bisphenol A in the linings of all canned food and beverages (Japan did so years ago) and in those clear, hard plastic baby bottles. I first wrote about this chemical in 2003, after a lab accident caused chromosomal abnormalities in lab animals. This chemical is an artificial estrogen, similar to the DES given to pregnant women in the 1970's that resulted in their girl children growing up with abnormal genitals. It causes changes in tissue that resemble early-stage breast cancer. A leading researcher, Frederic Vom Saal predicts it is only a matter of time before the FDA bans it.
Let's walk for this kind of prevention, and use the money we raise to fund real prevention efforts such as those by Davis at the University of Pittsburgh's Environmental Oncology Center.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
