Bisphenol A: If you're alarmed, learn why

Bisphenol A. The name seems vaguely worrisome -- synthetic (not that this is necessarily a bad thing) and non-apple-pie-ish (I'd argue this is). But the headlines are downright alarming, depending on your reading material. Now the National Toxicology Program, part of the National Institutes of Health, has released its final report on the possible human effects of bisphenol A, or BPA, a chemical added to plastics to make it stronger.

In short: The folks there are concerned. Not alarmed, but concerned.

Specifically, the report states that the program has:

* some concern for effects on the brain, behavior and prostate gland in fetuses, infants and children at current human exposures to bisphenol A.

* minimal concern for effects on the mammary gland and an earlier age for puberty in fetuses, infants and children at current human exposures to bisphenol A.

* negligible concern that exposure of pregnant women to bisphenol A will result in fetal or neonatal mortality, birth defects or reduced birth weight and growth in their offspring.

* negligible concern that exposure to bisphenol A will cause reproductive effects in non-occupationally exposed adults and minimal concern for workers exposed to higher levels in occupational settings.

The final report isn't a surprise, conclusive though it seems, as it essentially backs up the draft report released in the spring. The L.A. Times reported then: Chemical in plastic may harm children.

But now Yale University researchers have announced that the chemical may damage the connections between brain cells, possibly leading to memory problems or depression. That research, published online in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, was conducted in primates and though not exactly final, certainly is provocative. It adds to the growing hysteria, uproar, fear, worry, mild concern, general curiosity, irritation at the hubbub (choose your reaction) about the chemical.

Meanwhile, California legislators are pondering the worthiness of a bill that would ban the chemical from products marketed to children under age 3. Those include baby bottles, sippy cups, formula cans and the like. Said David Lazarus, consumer reporter for the Los Angeles Times, recently: "The fact that U.S. authorities have found at least some risk that BPA could be harmful to children should be sufficient reason to act."

If you've managed to tune out the coverage and are feeling remiss -- or are simply confused about some aspect, we're here to help. Check out these Times offerings:

A Closer Look: Are plastic's safety claims shatterproof? From the story: "The chemical acts a lot like estrogen if it's introduced into the body -- and evidence now shows this happens to just about everybody every day."

Are plastics safe? This provides a look at the evidence on other chemicals too -- phthalates and more.

But the report is the main thing. Not to worry, there's an abstract (a sort of shortened, distilled version) at the beginning. At least read that.

-- Tami Dennis

Photo: Bisphenol A has been found in many plastic baby bottles.

Credit: Don Bartletti / Los Angeles Times

Comments

[cw]

This is bull. There are so many Harvard graduates that have used those bottles. Its micro management of trace chemicals.

[will duff]

Barely mentioned in all the BPA stories is the research that says the endocrine interference probably contributes to obesity, starting in children with early or prenatal exposure.

Wouldn't it be a shock to the chemical industry if the American obesity epidemic was caused by their high-profit plastic? Even partially?

[Darrell]

BPA is in composite fillings. The ones that replace mercury ones.

[Scott Crook]

It seems funny that everyone is so concerned with BPA when the other ingredient in ploycarbonate plastics is phosgene, a nerve gas developed by Germany during World War I.

[Tina D]

I don't get it. Why would anyone in their right mind take the risk with a young child on anything that is questionable, with regard to safety? Use glass bottles and/or plastics that don't contain the stuff.

[Michael]

Isn't it obvious to everyone what is causing the obesity epidemic? Quit trying to blame someone or something else.

[Michael]

You know, one of the ingredients in our drinking water is hydrogen. The Hindenberg used hydrogen and we all know what happened to it. That was developed by Germany in WWI as well!

[JR]

Nearly all canned foods come in cans lined with BPA, and the chemical does leach into the food. It may be wise for pregnant women to avoid too much canned food.

And here's a study that concludes that BPA, at the levels found in human tissue, contributes to insulin resistance. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080904151629.htm

[Darrell]

I fear this is worse news than anyone can imagine.

[George Bittner, Ph.D.]

Legislators, consumers, and regulatory agencies should have well-justified concerns about the estrogenic activity (EA) exhibited by BPA and phthalates in water bottles and other plastics like baby bottles. While estrogens occur naturally in the body, many scientific studies have shown that significant health problems can occur when chemicals are ingested that mimic or block the actions of these female sex hormones; the fetus, newborn, or young child is especially vulnerable.
However, BPA and phthalates are just two of several hundred chemicals that exhibit EA in plastics. These chemicals having EA leach from almost all plastics sold today, including polyethylene, polypropylene, PET, etc. That is, plastics advertised as BPA-free or phthalate-free are not EA-free; almost all these plastics still leach chemicals having EA – and often have more total EA than plastics that release BPA or phthalates.
Current legislation is attempting to solve this problem by removing chemicals having EA (BPA, phthalates) one at a time. This approach, for legislators or the FDA, is not an appropriate solution for consumers because thousands of chemicals used in plastics exhibit EA, not just BPA and phthalates. This approach is a marketing-driven solution, not a health-driven solution. The appropriate health-driven solution is to manufacture safer plastics that are EA-free. This is not a pie-in-the-sky solution, as the technology already exists to produce EA-free plastics that also have the same advantageous physical properties, as do almost all existing EA-releasing plastics on the market today. In fact, some of these advanced-technology EA-free plastics are already in the marketplace. The cost of these safer EA-free plastics are just pennies more than EA-releasing plastics, when both are used to manufacture the same product in similar quantities.