Footprint Friday: Bellisima Green Challenge 2009–BPA Part I

I began writing this post last Friday because of a recent article I read in the New York Times. My initial writing led me to do some further research and investigation on my own. What I’ve learned going through articles and research listed on the Environmental Working Group website has left me feeling angry and sad. I am angered that once again, something which has been known to be hazardous to our health has continued to be used for DECADES throughout the world! And even more startling is that for more than a decade now, research continues to show the harm being done, yet no action is being taken in the U.S. So, let me backtrack and explain.

A recent article in the New York Times reported that we probably have a chemical called bisphenol A, or BPA, in our bodies. The article explained that BPA is a synthetic estrogen U. S. factories now put in everything from plastics to epoxies–6 pounds per American per year! The article, written by Nicholas d. Kristof, and published last Sunday, November 8, 2009, states that more than 92% of Americans have BPA in their urine. According to the article, “scientists have linked BPA–though not conclusively–to everything from breast cancer to obesity, from attention deficit disorder to genital abnormalities in boys and girls alike.”

You may have heard about BPA in relation to plastic bottles in recent years. BPA is considered to be one of the hormone-disrupting chemicals. It mimics estrogen in our bodies and wreaks havoc. It has been used in hard plastic baby bottles, 5 gallon water cooler bottles, hard plastic water bottles, plastic silverware, and more. Because of the growing body of evidence that BPA is not safe, many manufacturers are now making non-BPA plastic bottles. Environmental Working Group reported that plastics with recycling labels #1, #2 and #4 on the bottom are safer choices and do not contain BPA. BPA is found in polycarbonate plastic food containers marked with the label #7 and should be avoided. Even though not all #7 labeled products are polycarbonate, it’s a reasonable guideline to avoid this category of plastics. Polycarbonate plastics are rigid and transparent are are used in sippy cups and food storage containers as well as the items listed above. “Some polycarbonate water bottles are marketed as ‘non-leaching’ for minimizing plastic taste or odor; however, there is still a possibility that trace amounts of BPA will migrate from these containers, particularly if used to heat liquids,” stated the EWG.

BPA is in our food as well! Almost all canned food is lined with BPA–the only exception I could find was Eden Foods’ products. This means that the BPA leaches into the food and is then consumed by us. Even many metal water bottles are lined with a plastic coating that contains BPA. According to the NY Times article, “Consumer Reports magazine tested an array of brand-name canned foods for a report in its December issue and found BPA in almost all of them. The magazine says that relatively high levels turned up, for example, in Progresso vegetable soup, Campbell’s condensed chicken noodle soup, and Del Monte Blue Lake cut green beans. The magazine also says it found BPA in the canned liquid version of Similac Advance infant formula (but not in the powdered version) and in canned Nestle’ Juicy Juice (but not in the juice boxes).”

According to survey results posted on EWG in March 2007, “of all foods tested, chicken soup, infant formula, and ravioli had BPA levels of highest concern. Just one to three servings of foods with these concentrations could expose a woman or child to BPA at levels that caused serious adverse effects in animal tests.”

The chemical industry doesn’t think we should be alarmed. However the NY Times November 8th article states, “more than 200 studies have shown links between low doses of BPA and adverse health effects, according to the Breast Cancer Fund, which is trying to ban the chemical from food and beverage containers. ‘The vast majority of independent scientists–those not working for industry–are concerned about early-life low-dose exposures to BPA,’ said Janet Gray, a Vassar College professor who is science adviser to the Breast Cancer Fund.”

EWG further stated in the March 2007 survey, “while traditional toxicology asserts that higher doses confer greater harm, bisphenol A tests show that low doses can be the most toxic of all, below the radar screen of the body’s compensatory detoxifying mechanisms, or below overtly toxic doses that destroy the tissues under study. In one investigation a low dose of BPA produced a 70% higher growth rate of prostate cancer cells in lab animals that did higher doses. In another study lower doses of BPA resulted in higher rates of breast cell growth that can precede cancer.”

The EWG also reported in this same article, “In studies conducted over the past 20 years, scientists have detected BPA in breast milk, serum, saliva, urine, amniotic fluid, and cord blood from at least 2,200 people in Europe, North America, and Asia. Researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently detected BPA in 95% of nearly 400 U.S. adults. BPA ranks in the top two percent of high production volume chemicals in the U.S., with annual production exceeding a billion pounds, and is so common in products and industrial waste that it pollutes not only people but also rivers, estuaries, sediment, house dust, and even air nearly everywhere it is tested.”

Historically, according to EWG, “companies began using BPA in metal can linings in the 1950s and 1960s, fully twenty years after the chemical was first understood to be toxic. These early warnings of toxicity were ignored or forgotten while companies steadily increased their reliance on BPA until it reached an annual U.S. production exceeding one billion pounds around 1990. In 1993 the chemical’s signature toxic property, its ability to mimic estrogen, was accidentally discovered in a failed lab experiment, and the intervening years have witnessed the development of a body of low-dose science that has transformed our understanding of chemical toxicity.”

So with the growing body of evidence pointing to the harmful effects of BPA–not only harmful, but life-altering–why is it still being used all around the world? There is history to this question as well. I will continue this posting this coming Footprint Friday and give you more of the details. Also, this week on Wellness Wednesday, I’ll explore ways you can protect yourself and your family.

The more we are able to educate ourselves, the better able we will be to make the best decisions for ourselves and our families. Stay tuned for more on this topic…