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!
Help us 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.
ENVIROBLOG VIA EMAIL
Join EWG's live chat with Chef Ann Cooper
School lunch: More fruits & veggies, please!
Texas Schools are Drilling for Dollars
Why do blowouts take so long to fix?
SEARCH ENVIROBLOG
FEATURED
Support the 2010 Safe Cosmetics Act. It's Urgent.
Why, oh why is there plastic in my aluminum water bottle?
Cell phone radiation series - Part 2: 8 Ways to reduce your exposure
Test Your Knowledge of Cosmetics Safety: 8 Myths Debunked
EWG's Tips for Parents: The Series
EWG's Tips to avoid BPA exposure
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.
« Industrial pollution doesn't have to begin in the womb | Main | House holds hearing on broken toxic law »
FDA Science Board talks BPA, again
Yesterday, for the I-don't-even-know-what-time-anymore, the Science Board of the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) held another meeting to discuss the dangers of BPA. Sure, it's important to discuss chemicals and their toxicity for humans. But there comes a time for action. Like right now.
BPA is a toxic hormone disruptor that contaminates canned infant formula, canned foods foods and beverages packaged in hard polycarbonate plastic. Laboratory tests link it to a growing list of serious health problems. Recent studies have found that BPA exposure during early life permanently changes the developing brain and reproductive systems.
EWG senior scientist Dr. Anila Jacob testified during the public comment period, as did Dr. Urvashi Rangan from Consumer Reports and Steve Hentges a.k.a. "the only guy in the world that will look you in your eye and tell you to give BPA to your kids." Steve is, as you can guess, from American Chemistry Council, the industry group representing BPA manufacturers.
Even though these sessions can be very educational, BPA contamination is a very serious public health issue. FDA officials offered little reassurance that they have is a plan to address quickly the known and serious routes of exposure, leaving millions of people at risk. There is enough evidence out there that BPA is harmful. There are also plenty of alternatives.
FDA should have a timely and transparent plan for reducing BPA exposures for children and other sensitive groups. The Canadian government has already deemed infant exposures to be a serious concern and announced prompt action to reduce risks. The U.S. government should do no less.
Jovana, how exactly are you certain that BPA in can liners and polycarbonate bottles is causing health problems, let alone "a very serious public health issue"? You point out that studies have rattled off health effects caused by BPA, but you never point out that these were done under very narrow conditions, and these conditions don't exist in the human body. You completely gloss over the differences between testing cell lines, or animals, or animal cell lines, and what happens when people ingest food with BPA in it. For example, did you know that the human body (even infants) convert BPA to a much safer form in less than 6 hours, or that the concentrations people consume (even little infants) is incredibly low in comparison to the levels fed to animals at which they showed any sign of health effects. Also, why didn't you point out that the Canadian risk assessment found no significant risk from BPA, but the administrators decided to ban it anyway "out of an abundance of caution", but not because the science supported it? This is a very complicated issue. I think you are dramatically oversimiplfying it. Finally, you're right. There are plenty of alternatives. But are you certain that the alternative replacments are any safer. The particulates and CO2 and ozone that would be produced if all polycarb was replaced with glass would kill thousands a year. You know there hasnt been as much study of the plastic replacements as there has been of polycarbonate, we cant be as certain that they are safer. Please do this complicated issue justice by not oversimplifying it.