ABOUT
Smart discussion of the latest science and news on toxins in your food, water, and air, and what government agencies should be doing to protect public health. Written by EWG staff.
DONATE TO EWG TODAY
We need you to help protect your health and environment! Please donate $5 to EWG today.
GET EWG'S TIPS & ACTION ALERTS
Sign Up here to receive email updates and tips from EWG and stay informed on the issues that matter most to you.
Get EWG widgets & blog badges.
ENVIROBLOG TO YOU
ENVIROBLOG VIA EMAIL
You could (almost) eat this furniture
Is your sunscreen in EWG's Sunscreen Hall of Shame?
Fracking: Live chat with EWG & 'Gasland' director Josh Fox
Understanding Sunscreen: 4 Questions about SPF
SEARCH ENVIROBLOG
FEATURED
Why, oh why is there plastic in my aluminum water bottle?
Cell phone radiation series - Part 2: 8 Ways to reduce your exposure
Infant formula: How to choose it & use it
EWG's Tips for Parents: The Series
EWG's Tips to avoid BPA exposure
Let's talk some serious shop about TSCA reform
EWG on TV
Cutting the Pork from U.S. Farm Bill
Sunscreen safety & DC drinking water
Perchlorate in people, kids' personal care products & plastics, and sunscreen
BPA in baby formula & safe cosmetics
What can I do about fluoride in my water?
What is new carpet treated with? What can I do?
Are stainless steel water bottles safe?
Is mineral-based makeup safer?
PEOPLE TALKING TOXICS
TALK TO US
Did we miss something? Email Enviroblog.
« Fire retardants: Disproportionate risk to small children | Main | Who is Elizabeth Perrott? »
BPA: What FDA doesn't know could hurt you
One of the unwritten rules of public relations is, if they’re running you out of town, get out front and say you’re leading the parade.
That’s one way to read the American Chemistry Council’s assertion that it “welcomes” the Sept. 3 National Toxicology Program’s assessment of bisphenol A (BPA), an artificial sex hormone used to manufacture a vast array of plastics. The Washington-based industry group said dismissively that the NTP “identified no serious human health concerns” from exposure to the chemical – which U.S. chemical manufacturers turn out at the rate of 2.3 billion pounds of BPA annually.
No question about it, the NTP, a Chapel Hill, N.C.-based interagency body that evaluates chemicals for risks to humans, has not found smoking-gun proof that BPA causes particular cancers or other illnesses in particular individuals. But after reviewing several hundred animal studies, the NTP spotted enough smoke to express, in a cautious but chilling statement, “some concern” that even low levels of BPA may affect “development of the prostate gland and brain and [cause] behavioral effects in fetuses, infants and children.” As top NTP scientist John Bucher put it, “We see developmental changes occurring in some animal studies at BPA exposure levels similar to those experienced by humans.”
That conclusion – that people, including children whose bodies and brains are still developing, are being exposed to a chemical in amounts that have caused irreversible changes in unborn and young lab animals -- directly contradicts the Federal Food and Drug Administration’s position, reiterated in mid-August, that “FDA-regulated products containing BPA currently on the market are safe and that exposure levels to BPA from food contact materials, including for infants and children, are below those that may cause health effects. “
The FDA statement was lawyerly, and it may have served those who want the BPA debate ended, now. But it didn’t have much traction among scientists who are at home in the world of unresolved questions and who don’t believe that what you don’t know won’t hurt you.
Nearly every day, as more research reports on BPA are published, the cloud over the chemical darkens. On Sept. 3, researchers at Yale School of Medicine made public one of the most disturbing findings yet. Yale scientists had given African green monkeys trace amounts of BPA, equivalent to the maximum dosage the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says is safe for human consumption.
“Our goal was to more closely mimic the slow and continuous conditions under which humans would normally be exposed to BPA,” said study author Csaba Leranth, M.D., professor in the Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences and in Neurobiology at Yale. “As a result, this study is more indicative than past research of how BPA may actually affect humans.”
After just 28 days of trace BPA dosage, the Yale team documented what researcher Tibor Hajszan called “a devastating effect on synapses in the monkey brain.” Humans, the researchers said, would experience this subtle brain damage as memory loss, learning problems and depression.
On Sept. 16, an FDA science advisory panel is set to hear arguments over whether the agency should restrict the use of BPA in can linings, baby, water and drink bottles and other food packaging.
With stakes now reaching to the central nervous system, the reproductive system and behavior, it's a safe bet that many scientists will advise FDA that the benefits of BPA-laden food packaging are not worth the risk.
Photo by babydinosaur
« Fire retardants: Disproportionate risk to small children |
Leave a comment