Bisphenol A: Should there be laws?

The Food and Drug Administration's about-face on the chemical bisphenol A (BPA), which is used to harden the plastic of sippy cups and baby bottles and to seal the inside of tin cans, could spur the adoption of bills in the California Legislature and U.S. Congress to restrict the chemical.

Despite a 2008 determination under President George W. Bush that the chemical was safe, the Obama administration said Friday that it would spend $30 million to study the effects of BPA. which has been linked to early puberty, obesity, breast cancer and neurological and behavioral changes.

California bills to curb BPA use have been defeated in recent years. Canada, Connecticut, Minnesota and Chicago have placed restrictions on use of the substance. About 30 states and municipalities have bills pending to restrict BPA.

The FDA announcement "is hopefully the start of comprehensive regulation of this dangerous chemical," said state Sen. Fran Pavley (D-Agoura Hills), author of Senate Bill 797, the Toxin-free Toddlers and Babies Act, which, in conjunction with the California Green Chemistry Initiative, seeks to ban the use of BPA in food and beverage containers for children younger than 3 in California. Pavley said she is "battling the powerful chemical industry," which has defeated previous bills.

In a statement reacting to the FDA decision, the American Chemistry Council said it was disappointed in some of the agency's conclusions. "Extensive scientific studies have shown that BPA is quickly metabolized and excreted and does not accumulate in the body. ... Plastics made with BPA contribute safety and convenience to our daily lives because of their durability, clarity and shatter-resistance."

Consumers checking whether plastic items contain BPA should look for the number "7" at the bottom of the container, an indicator used for recycling.

-- Margot Roosevelt

Photo Credit: Don Bartletti/LA Times

Comments

[thebob.bob]

It's about time. The scientific evidence has bee accumulating for a decade. If the Bush and Republican anti-science ideology hadn't gotten in the way, BPA would have been banned years ago.

The irony is that early exposure to BPA can plausibly result in increased male homosexual identity. The resistance by conservative Republicans to protect he environment and the public health and stop the Plastics Industry from polluting might have resulted in increased numbers of their worst nightmare, homosexual males.

[Jon Theurich]

Since the 1930's when BPA was first formulated, BPA has been known to be a health hazard by the science community and the petro-chemical industry. The link between BPA and autism and many other diseases is clearly established. That the public and our courts have allowed the petro-chemical industry to perpetuate its profit-driven fraud at the expense of our children's health is a crime that needs to be adjudicated.

[call police]

Soon peoples from California Texas Alaska Equador Brasil etc could forever ban use of refined petroleum products This companies Chevron Exxon etc not only that they have polluted environment by emitting toxic greenhouse gases they have poisoned local population and have caused birth defects congenital heart and brain defects asthma diabetes and offcourse CANCER... How many people have died because of corporate greed ahead of human health and environment. State Governments world wide will soon ban use and production of highly toxic flammable petroleum products and driving of diesel vehicles...

[anci]

as most of this products are made from petroleum highly flammable and toxic with highly cancerous chemicals off course so called ACC will defend jobs ahead of human health
someone should call police and charge oil refineries for cause of cancer asthma birth defects diabetes congenital heart and brain defects Micheal Jackson Britany Murphy CHD
burning oil releases toxic greenhouse gases chemicals into food and everything is polluted from food wraped in plastic plastic wraps containers shoes bags clothing toys baby food bottles etc

[Muhammad Iqbal]

What is more dangerous and detrimental to the health: To eat or drink from a container containing BPA or smoking a cigarette?

How many cigarettes are equivalent to one food or drink container that could contain the highest amount of BPA?

[texasgirl]

"Despite a 2008 determination under President George W. Bush that the chemical was safe, the Obama administration said Friday that it would spend $30 million to study the effects of BPA. which has been linked to early puberty, obesity, breast cancer and neurological and behavioral changes."

So the LA Times is making the case that all of this is Bush's fault and Obama is trying to save us from the bad, bad BPA?

This is madness! Obesity has been linked to early puberty and breast cancer. Behavioral changes in children are more likely due to a breakdown of the family specifically and society in general.

[klesb]

Trust the FDA? Which one? The FDA that says Bisphenol A is safe, or the one that says it's a danger? Trust science itself? Which science? "Real" science, or "political" science? And, how do you tell the difference? How does credibility get re-established after it is lost? Have the liars stopped lying when they say the have? Does it make a difference if the lies are to line someone's pocket - or because the end justifies the means (and the liar knows best what is good for the rest of us)?

[RUJoking?!]

A little perspective, please.

One whiff of gasoline fumes at a pump, BBQ smoke, lawnmower exhaust, fresh paint or mom's favorite scented candle will almost certainly deliver more toxins to babies than five years of outgassing from the average plastic bottle.

Seriously, folks, if an empty baby bottle weighs 2 ounces, then over 5 years how much BPA comes out? 1/16 of an ounce? 1/32? 1/128? Less? And at least half of that radiates from the exterior surface, away from the contents, right? Versus maybe half a pound of fumes from 1 scented candle? Oh, but the candles soothe junior's frazzled nerves...

Before the safety police get us to panic like sheeple, let's see better #'s.

[Jesse]

Imagine that, this is only what the powers that may be let us know.... What about all the crud that we the public are not aware of, and we pay the govern-men-t to aid us in protection.....

[mrlewish]

Your right the The American Chemical Council has nothing but our best interest in mind. Gee willikers, you can bet you by golly thing will be good and safe from now on.

[Adam]

***Sorry. To be correct that is 6 billion tons of BPA per year...

[Adam]

Why do we need regulation? The American Chemical Council, who produces 6 billion gallons of it annually, says that it is completely safe. FDA go away! We trust the ACC and their interests with our health!