 |
|
|
| 1/19/2010 12:42:00 PM | Email this article • Print this article | The high cost of plastic convenience
Bisphenol A gives consumers more than they bargained for
Opening a can for dinner may have saved Americans time and money over the years, but according to recent research, we're now paying severely for that convenience with our health.
That's because of a ubiquitous chemical, Bisphenol A, an estrogen-mimicking synthetic hormone found in polycarbonate plastics that has been found to disrupt the endocrine system.
These plastics are typically used in water bottles, baby bottles, sippy cups and the inner lining of cans.
While the chemical protects consumers from metal contamination, it introduces a host of other problems, including reproductive abnormalities, a heightened risk of breast and prostrate cancers, diabetes and obesity.
First marketed in the 1940s, by the 1960s BPA was used in almost all can linings.
Now more than 7 billion pounds are produced annually for use not only in food and beverage containers, but also consumer electronics, dental sealants, medical equipment, water pipes, receipts and toys, according to the December 2009 issue of Consumer Reports.
Which explains why more than 90 percent of U.S. adults and children have measurable amounts of BPA in their bodies, according to a statement by the Endocrine Society.
Economic status may also be a contributing factor in BPA-related health concerns.
The Centers for Disease Control and prevention found that people with lower incomes had larger amounts of BPA in their systems, largely because canned goods are the least expensive food items.
While federal guidelines place the daily maximum limit of safe exposure to the chemical at 50 micrograms of BPA per kilogram of body weight, one average serving of canned vegetable soup tested by Consumer Reports found about double that amount.
The FDA's limits are also based on studies conducted in the 1980s. Current studies show instead that adverse effects can occur at much lower levels of exposure, and recommend limiting consumption to only 0.0024 micrograms per kilogram of body weight.
However, estrogen-mimicking hormones don't have linear dose responses; low levels of the chemical simply have different effects on the body, but not necessarily less detrimental, than high doses.
As Robert Moore, a senior scientist at the UW-Madison school of pharmacy, pointed out, nearly any chemical is detrimental when consumed in extreme amounts.
"If you heat Teflon pans until they're melted, that would be poisonous," he said. "But it's been grossly abused."
He said he thinks oftentimes the public preemptively assumes cause and effect relationships, pointing to when the mercury in certain vaccines were linked to autism, a correlation which he said has been disproven.
"People want explanations for things," he said. "I call it 'green peace hysteria.'"
However, he said the uproar over BPA is not unfounded.
"It's difficult to prove anything because there are so many variables," he said. "But based on studies from reputable labs with reputable standards, there is something real here I believe."
The chemical is particularly disruptive to children, who have a higher risk of exposure because of the high prevalence of the chemical in commercial products such as baby bottles and sippy cups.
BPA is more likely to leach out of plastics when temperature is increased, as it is when heating a baby bottle.
Children's endocrine systems are also much more susceptible to the chemical overall, as they are still undeveloped.
Gail Prins, a professor of physiology at the University of Illinois at Chicago and a BPA expert, has studied the affects of early exposure to the chemical extensively.
She said exposure essentially imprints young genes, which affects development in later years by reprogramming inherited genes.
BPA has the ability to affect gender traits and remove protective molecules that would ordinarily hinder diseases, for instance.
"Early exposure 'remembers' later," Prins said. "Rats exposed to BPA right after they're born are much more susceptible to neoplasia [abnormal cell growth] when they're adults than if they hadn't seen the chemical."
The FDA
Though hundreds of studies have shown the detrimental health effects of BPA, the Food and Drug Administration still hasn't banned the chemical.
In fact, the administration issued statements in 2008 assuring the public that BPA is safe for consumption.
These claims were based on two studies funded by the American Plastics Council and The American Chemistry Council.
These were the only studies that followed the industry standard Good Laboratory Practice regulations.
These regulations were put into place as guidelines for industry products. Labs must go through an expensive certification process to become certified.
Academic and independent labs follow their own distinct guidelines.
By limiting the scope of their knowledge on BPA to the only studies that subscribed to Good Laboratory Practices, while ignoring hundreds of academic, peer-reviewed studies in the process, the FDA caused uproar in the scientific community.
"That was a profoundly unscientific judgment that deserves criticism," Moore said. "It's kind of like ignoring the 9/11 attacks because they didn't come from a conventional army."
Prins said that the rat specimens used in the experiment may also have had a lower sensitivity to estrogen, which could have skewed the results.
"The FDA had blinders on," Prins said. "There was a human cry even within the FDA."
In late 2008, a special scientific advisory panel within the FDA did indeed report that the administration's safety standards were inadequate and required re-evaluation.
The following year, a congressional subcommittee also stated that the studies should be re-evaluated due to their heavy reliance on the American Plastics Council study.
Currently, the FDA is going back to the drawing board in terms of research.
A federal proposal that would ban BPA from all food products has also been introduced to the U.S. Congress.
State action
In the meantime, state governments are picking up the slack by introducing legislation banning the chemical.
On Nov. 10, 2009, a state senate committee held a public hearing on the BPA Free Kids Act, which would ban use of the chemical in sippy cups and baby bottles in Wisconsin.
Both Prins and Moore testified to the detrimental health effects of BPA at the hearing, along with Wisconsin Sen. Julie Lassa and State Rep. Kelda Helen Roys.
Non-profit organizations are also pushing the issue through the legislative process.
The Wisconsin Public Interest Research Group is working closely with Lassa and Roys, as well as educating consumers.
"You can't look at a product and know it has a chemical toxin," WISPIRG director Bruce Speight said. "Parents aren't chemists and they don't know if they're buying these products. Toxic chemicals have no place in children's products."
He said the bill would provide transparency by labeling foods as BPA-free.
Eleven other states are currently in the process of developing bans like Wisconsin's.
Similar legislation has already been passed in Connecticut, Chicago, Suffolk County, New York and most recently, Minnesota.
"It was the right thing to do in Minnesota and it's the right thing to do in Wisconsin," Speight said. "There are over 30 co-sponsors on the bill, and a lot of support in the Capitol."
He said the bill would go into effect 90 days after publication. Currently, it is still in the discussion phase and has not yet been passed.
"We've taken the critical first step," he said. "The bill is now moving."
Some corporations aren't waiting for the bill's crawl toward implementation, however.
Wal-Mart, Toys R Us and Playtex all pledged to not sell children's products with BPA.
Vital Choice and Eden Foods are two of the few companies that have stopped using the chemical in cans.
Producing BPA-free food costs about two cents more per can, which adds up to about $300,000 a year.
"Why risk it?" Moore said. "It should be a no-brainer. There are so many other plastics."
Prins also said that more research on alternatives to BPA needs to be conducted.
"I don't think we should go into the dark ages and stop sterilizing food," she said. "But there are plastics that don't have BPA. Ideally, we need to be using those alternative products."
Leah Gernetzke can be reached via email at lgernetzke@lakelandtimes.com.
|
Reader Comments
Posted: Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Article comment by:
Pete Myers
Excellent reporting. Thank you. Consumers should be aware of this but mom's shouldn't have to be chemical engineers to go shopping for their kids. This issue needs to be dealt with by state and national action. Bisphenol A is not safe. Exposure is linked by scientific research to a wide array of health problems. Get it out of products...not just for kids but for adults as well. Just this month researchers have published a replication of crucial research in the Journal of the American Medical Association showing strong associations between BPA exposure and heart disease. What are we waiting for? Let's get this stuff out so people can be healthier!
Posted: Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Article comment by:
Max
I really enjoyed your article. Plastics are a problem and the sooner we fix the problem the better. I would like to clarify one point. The type of plastic (PET) used to make bottles for soft drinks, teas, power drinks, water, etc., does not contain BPA’s. The problem with PET plastic is that it is so durable that it doesn’t go away…ever. But plastics are changing and many companies are now manufacturing biodegradable plastics. Our company, ENSO Bottles has developed a biodegradable plastic bottle that has all the characteristics of standard PET and is biodegradable. When an ENSO bottle biodegrades in a landfill it produces landfill gases that are now being used to create clean energy. What better use of our trash than to turn it into energy.
Max
http://www.ensobottles.com
|
Comment on this story
|
|
|
|
