By Kenneth A. Cook, EWG President and co-founder

Under mounting pressure from consumers, scientists, advocacy groups and lawsuits, the Food and Drug Administration is about to decide whether to ban the ubiquitous industrial chemical BPA (bisphenol-A) from food packaging, including infant formula and canned food.

If the FDA takes that step, it will mark a major turning point in the long-running battle over the presence of BPA and other potentially dangerous industrial chemicals in Americans' food, water, consumer products - and bodies. Introduced 70 years ago and widely used in manufacturing plastics, BPA is present in products as diverse as bicycle helmets, water coolers, baby bottles and even cash register receipts - in addition to food and beverage packaging.

As a result, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) now estimates that BPA is in the urine of 93 percent of all Americans. And over the last decade, a growing body of independent research from around the world has linked the chemical to a number of common and serious health problems such as early puberty, brain and heart disorders, infertility and prostate and breast cancer.

EWG has been at the forefront of BPA research since 2007, when it released a first-of-its-kind study that found that BPA leached from can linings and other containers into more than half the canned foods, beverages and liquid infant formula tested. In 2009, EWG followed up with laboratory tests of umbilical cord blood from 10 newborn infants - and found BPA in nine of them. That showed for the first time babies still in the womb were being exposed to the toxic chemical.

The evidence indicates that the greatest risk of exposure is from canned food and liquid infant formula. Both are sold in cans that commonly have BPA in the linings. Another EWG study showed in 2007 that 1-in-16 formula-fed infants were ingesting levels of BPA shown to be toxic to animals. EWG's tests found the highest concentrations of the chemical in canned soup, pasta and infant formula.

Scientists developed BPA as a pharmaceutical hormone, a synthetic estrogen, in the 1930s. In the 40s and 50s, industry began to use it to manufacture a hard plastic called polycarbonate, to make the epoxy resins that line metal food cans and in a wide variety of other products. We now know that BPA continues to leach out of plastic long after it's manufactured, yet companies have never been required to prove that it's safe.

Recently, several U.S. states, including California, have banned the chemical from baby bottles and sippy cups, and now the FDA, which has authority over a large segment of the food industry, is poised to make a major ruling on BPA in food packaging. That decision is expected by March 31.

Campbell's, the world's largest soup maker, recently said it would begin to seek out a safer substitute for its cans. Other food industry leaders - including ConAgra, Eden Foods and Heinz - are also considering reformulating their food containers to eliminate BPA.

Unless the government acts to remove BPA from all food packaging, American consumers will continue to be exposed through the food they eat. To encourage the FDA to act, EWG has asked its more than 1million followers to sign a petition urging the agency to act. As I write this, more than 100,000 people have already done so.

A chemical that can disrupt hormone function and potentially cause cancers, diabetes, infertility and brain disorders should not be contaminating the food that millions eat every day.

By Elaine Shannon, Environmental Working Group editor-in-chief

Five years ago, tens of millions of baby bottles and sippy cups sold in the United States were manufactured with a petrochemical derivative called bisphenol A.

Today, according to the American Chemistry Council, that number is - zero.

The reason: the market - millions of American parents - has overwhelmingly rejected food containers made with BPA, a plastic hardener that leaches out of the plastic. Environmental Working Group and other consumer and health advocates have helped marshal a consumer revolt against baby bottles and sippy cups made of polycarbonate plastic because a major component, BPA, mimics estrogen and can disrupt the endocrine system. Research studies have linked BPA to cancer and serious brain, cardiovascular and reproductive system disorders, particularly when test animals are exposed in the womb and early life.

On Oct. 4, California became the latest and most populous state to bar the ubiquitous, lucrative chemical in baby bottles and sippy cubs. The California legislation was sponsored by EWG, which in 2009 published the first biomonitoring tests to detect BPA in American newborns. EWG's tests of umbilical cord blood bolstered biomonitoring research by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which has found BPA in the bodies of virtually all Americans over age six. The Environmental Protection Agency has estimated that the United States produced 2.4 billion pounds of BPA worth about $2 billion in 2007.

Two days after the California statute became law, the powerful American Chemistry Council declared that it would no longer battle legislative and regulatory efforts to rid baby bottles and sippy cups of BPA. In fact, the ACC actually petitioned the federal Food and Drug Administration to change its regulations to reflect that "BPA is no longer used to manufacture baby bottles and sippy cups and will not be used in these products in the future." Steve Hentges, Ph.D., of ACC's Polycarbonate/BPA Global Group, said in a press release,"Although governments around the world continue to support the safety of BPA in food contact materials, confusion about these products has become an unnecessary distraction to consumers, legislators and state regulators." (The ACC's categorical statement purports to cover ALL bottles and cups sold in the U.S., but independent research is needed to determine whether some U.S. outlets will still sell cheap BPA-based bottles and sippy cups manufactured overseas.)

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), wrote to EWG on Oct. 12 that she intends to press ahead with her own bill, introduced last January, that would impose a federal ban on BPA in all children's products - not only polycarbonate baby bottles and cups but also cans of infant formula and baby food. Nearly all tin cans are coated on the inside with epoxy resin, which, like polycarbonate plastic, is based on BPA.

"At both the state and federal level, industry has spent millions lobbying against any restrictions on the use of BPA," Feinstein wrote to EWG. "You helped lead the way in California, and now the chemical industry has realized that consumers, advocates and legislators will not stand down against a chemical that could harm their health."

Jeremy Jacobs of Greenwire reported Oct. 12 in the New York Times that the American Chemistry Council has spent nearly $10 million on lobbying in California since 2005, and uncounted more through national campaigns online.

For Feinstein, for EWG and other reformers, the next hurdle is the canned food industry, which has been reluctant to abandon epoxy can coatings, claiming that substitutes are not as readily available and cheap. If Feinstein has her way, the industry would be forced to find a new coating material for cans of infant formula and baby food. Reformulation of those products could lead to even more dramatic market changes - because, as a 2007 EWG study documented, many canned foods like soup and soda favored by older kids and teens are also contaminated with BPA leached from can linings.

Feinstein acknowledged that she faces a tough fight. "As you well know, last year the American Chemistry Council prevented a vote in the Senate on precisely what they now seem to be advocating - a national ban on BPA in baby bottles and sippy cups," Feinstein wrote. "...I know how stubborn this industry has been, and how they have turned a blind eye to the manufacturers, retailers, and states taking action to remove BPA."

By Margot Pagan, EWG Summer Press Intern

Is your reusable water bottle aluminum? In an effort to be more sustainable and protect my health, I made the switch from plastic water bottles to my reliable metal bottle that I carry with me every day. I thought this switch was a positive change, which is why I'm a little concerned to read headlines that "Metal Water Bottles May Leach BPA." Just when I thought I was doing something good for my health and the environment, I learn otherwise. Just my luck!

Aluminum water bottles aren't just aluminum

The issue is that some aluminum water bottles aren't just aluminum - they're lined with a resin meant to prevent that bad aluminum taste in your water. Problem is, the resin is epoxy, and epoxy is made with bisphenol A, or BPA, which is a synthetic estrogen. The epoxy molecule is unstable. It comes apart and releases BPA readily into whatever it touches.

This new study from the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine has discovered that switching from polycarbonate to aluminum might not protect you from BPA exposure as well as you thought. Keep in mind - The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has called for parents to take action to reduce their children's exposure to BPA. The chemical isn't healthy for any age group: it is linked to an alarming list of health conditions - breast and prostate cancer, diabetes and heart disease.

The study found that epoxy-lined aluminum bottles (including older SIGG bottles) leached BPA. But SIGG's new linings, made of a synthetic the company calls Ecocare did not emit the troublesome chemical. Stainless steel bottles, which are unlined, were also free of BPA.

BPA is an essential ingredient of polycarbonate, a hard, clear plastic ideal for safety glasses, safety helmets and computer and cell phone houses. Until a few years ago, Nalgene water bottles were made of polycarbonate. Like epoxy, polycarbonate is unstable and, experiments show, readily leaches BPA into surrounded liquids, even cold water. Nalgene, Camelbak and some other sports bottle makers moved to a non-BPA-based plastic called Tritan. The University of Cincinnati study found bottles made with Tritan did not emit BPA.

BPA leaching by the "worst" water bottles is still less than the amount you'd get from a serving of most canned foods but still important to consider since exposures add up.

The study also examined the effects of BPA on heart muscle cells and found that increasing exposure to this estrogen-like chemical can result in potentially deadly heart arrhythmias in rodents. This finding leads the group to suggest that heart arrhythmias could be an issue for women specifically, because they already have natural estrogen in their bodies.

Does the Claim "BPA Free" Mean Anything?

"BPA free" is not a defined and consistent term, noted the study's author Scott Belcher in an interview with Science News. For "BPA free" to have a useful meaning for consumers there should be regulations to limit its use, Belcher said.

Legislation to control BPA in food containers, especially those made for infants and children, is making its way through lawmaking bodies, with varying degrees of success.

In Maine, a bill to remove BPA from children's products became law without the signature of Gov. Paul LePage. Now Maine's Environmental Health Strategy Center is accusing LePage of foot-dragging and has petitioned the state Attorney General to force LePage to put the law into effect. LePage is famed for declaring that BPA is harmless, except that "some women may have little beards" if exposed to the chemical. (LePage confused it with another sex hormone, testosterone).

Meanwhile, in California, the state assembly is moving the Toxin-Free Infants and Toddlers Act, which would bar BPA in bottles or cups intended for infants or children three years of age or younger.

So what should you do to protect your health?

- Buy a glass or stainless steel bottle without an epoxy liner.

- Examine the inside of a bottle. A golden-orange coating indicates a material that can shed BPA, while a white coating doesn't. Contact the manufacturer to see if it has tested its product for BPA leaching.

- Don't put hot liquids in your water bottles.

Remember, BPA is most harmful during pregnancy and early childhood. Pregnant women, babies and children should take extra efforts to avoid BPA. Check out what EWG has been saying about kid-size Klean Kanteen bottles.

Buying a water bottle might seem like a simple purchase (it should be, right?), but doing your BPA research before you buy could grant you peace of mind that your bottle isn't leaching BPA.

By Bobbie Manning, EWG Environmental Health Outreach Coordinator

Maine just became the ninth state to ban the use of bisphenol A in baby products.

Come January 1, 2012, Maine babies will be protected from this potentially harmful endocrine disrupting chemical. The one man who was standing in the way - Governor Paul LePage, who earned national attention by trivializing health risks of BPA, allowed the ban to become law without his signature. As LePage infamously said,

"There hasn't been any science that identifies that there is a problem. The only thing that I've heard is if you take a plastic bottle and put it in the microwave and you heat it up, it gives off a chemical similar to estrogen. So the worst case is some women may have little beards."

As my colleague Alex Formuzis has pointed out, Governor LePage had his hormones confused. But we did find a possible explanation for his opposition to the bill: one of his former aides now represents the toy industry and drafted a list of laws and regulations the governor should consider axing - including the ban on BPA.

Despite Governor LePage's controversial remark, earlier this month, the GOP-controlled Maine House of Representatives wasted little time in passing the BPA bill by a vote of 145 to 3, with overwhelming bipartisan support. A week later, it was the Maine Senate's turn. This time the vote was unanimous.

Because restricting BPA is a priority issue for EWG and our supporters, we decided to send Governor LePage the facts and a message. More than 19,000 concerned citizens signed our petition and encouraged LePage to re-examine the real science about BPA. And on April 14, an EWG supporter from Maine and her son (pictured above, right) delivered the EWG petition - and a strong message to Governor LePage's office.

We're not sure what "science" has convinced Gov. LePage that BPA isn't a "problem" but his views are certainly at odds with the hundreds of published studies that have linked the toxic chemical to many serious and costly illnesses, including breast and prostate cancer, diabetes, obesity, birth defects, neurological disorders, heart disease and impotency. These are the same studies that have persuaded eight other states, Canada, the European Union and even China to restrict the use of BPA in baby products out of concern over its potent affects on human development.

It has always been EWG's position that reducing harmful chemical exposures is not a Democratic or Republican issue. It is a children's health issue. Though Governor LePage didn't sign the bill into law, the children of Maine will still be protected from this dangerous toxic chemical thanks to the overwhelming support of the Maine legislature.

Don't live in Maine but want to reduce your BPA exposures? Read EWG's tips.

By Alex Formuzis, EWG Vice President for Media Relations

China:

• Where anyone who speaks out against the government will likely languish for years in a prison cell;


• Where crackdowns on the press and Internet access happen again and again;


• Where consumer products contaminated with very dangerous pollutants, such as antifreeze in toothpaste, are frequently sold and exported;


• And now, where the intensely pro-business government is moving to do what U.S. officials have long refused to do - ban the plastics chemical bisphenol-A (BPA) from baby bottles and other products that hold food and drinks for children.

Home Sweet Home, by contrast:

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has never taken steps to get BPA out of children's products, and just last fall the U.S. Senate dropped legislation to restrict BPA in baby bottles and sippy cups at the request of the chemical industry.

When China gets out front of the U.S. on protecting children's health, it's clear that our leaders' priorities are out of whack.

All the same, Beijing's announcement is very good news for American consumers. China probably makes some of the BPA-containing products that end up on U.S. store shelves, including items we give to our children.

In Congress, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) have both re-introduced legislation to get BPA out of baby bottles and sippy cups, but its prospects for passage in the new Congress are slim, at best. The Republican-controlled House just passed a bill that would cut EPA's budget by a third, all but ending the Obama administration's efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions, and slash funding for 57 poison control centers by 93 percent. The new leadership of the "people's house" has tossed protections for children's health over the side so industry can get what it wants.

I was going to pass along some tips on how to avoid BPA, but my colleague at the Natural Resources Defense Council has already done that.

[Thanks to Flickr CC & theogeo for the pretty map of China]

By Alex Formuzis, EWG Vice-President for Media Relations

Good news. Maine governor Paul LePage claims he has read the scientific research on the health dangers posed by bisphenol-A, the plastic component and synthetic estrogen.

His conclusion?

"Quite frankly, the science that I'm looking at says there is no [problem]. There hasn't been any science that identifies that there is a problem. The only thing that I've heard is if you take a plastic bottle and put it in the microwave and you heat it up, it gives off a chemical similar to estrogen. So the worst case is some women may have little beards."

Actually, as many Daily News readers pointed out in comments on the story, it's testosterone, the male hormone, not estrogen, that bears the blame for unwanted hair growth in women. Oops.

Hundreds of actual scientists who have conducted thousands of studies have found very serious health affects associated with BPA. A few of them:

• Cancer


• Diabetes


• Early puberty


• Heart disease


• Infertility


• Neurological disorders


• Obesity

I'm not sure what qualifications or education Gov. LePage has that would make him an authority on chemicals that disrupt the endocrine system.

I was in Walt Hoesel's 11th grade chemistry class back in '89; I even passed it. But when reporters call and ask my opinion about the latest study connecting BPA to yet another serious health risk, I put them in touch with scientists from EWG's research department.

In 2008, lawmakers in Maine passed the Kid-Safe Product Act, which set up a system to set priorities for state regulations aimed at protecting children's health. BPA was to be the first "chemical of high concern" to be phased out of baby products.

The plan passed with near-unanimous support among legislators. But since coming into office earlier this year, LePage has been on the warpath to repeal a number of the state's environmental laws. In fact, Ann Robinson with the law firm Preti Flaherty, who represents the toy industry (which uses BPA-based plastics in many products), was a top aide to the LePage transition team and drafted a list of laws and regulations the governor should consider axing - including the ban on BPA.

You can read more about Robinson and her influence in the LePage administration from before he was even sworn in here.

Whatever you do, don't sit back, relax, and assume the government is keeping your products safe.