This is the continuing story of BPA… As I researched this chemical, I was appalled to realize that we’ve known about its danger to humans and Mother Earth for decades! Yet, the U.S. continues to “debate” what should be done. Here is some of the recent history of BPA:

In 2008, it was reported by the Environmental Working Group that the chemical industry (BPA is part of this) is a $3 trillion-a-year global industry. So this is no easy “group” to stand up against. For more than a decade, scientists Frederick Vom Saal and Wade Welshons of the University of Missouri-Columbia, have “turned up the first hard evidence that miniscule amounts of BPA, an artificial sex hormone and integral component of a vast array of plastic products, caused irreversible changes in the prostates of fetal mice,” according to a September 2008 EWG article.

Their findings led to a ban on BPA-laden baby bottles in Canada and increasing support for a similar ban here in the U.S. We’ve had major retailers pull plastic products off their shelves (e.g., WalMart and Toys R Us) and consumers seeking glass baby bottles, as well as more scientific reports which raise more questions about the chemical’s dangers at the trace levels to which we are routinely exposed.

Back in early 1997, when Vom Saal and Welshons produced their research on low-dose BPA, it was risky for them to come out with evidence that challenged the chemical industry. Dow Chemical Company, a major BPA manufacturer, apparently sent a scientist to dispute what they were doing and even to threaten them against their continuing research. These two men did not give up and worked even more feverishly to dig deeper into the BPA story. And those trying to silence them attempted such maneuvers as banning them from research convocations.

The financial stakes for the chemical industry are hard to get our arms around. BPA-based manufactured goods include everything from cell phones and computers to epoxy coatings, and tooth sealants and fillings, making its value possibly incalculable. It’s inside our metal cans and pipes and even in medical devices which are meant to help us. Even though scientists have known since the 1930s that BPA mimics estrogen in the body, somehow this same chemical serves as an essential building block of hard, clear polycarbonate plastics and tough epoxy resins, which are everywhere in our modern world. Vom Saal states, “It’s probably the largest volume endocrine-disrupting chemical in commerce. This stuff is in everything.”

We’ve learned through more study what can happen with plastics made with BPA: they break down easily when heated, microwaved, washed with strong detergents or wrapped around acidic foods like tomatoes, and then trace amounts of the potent hormone leach into food from epoxy lacquer can linings, polycarbonate bottles and other plastic food packaging. In 1998, a reproductive scientist, Patricia Hunt, discovered quite by accident the dangers of BPA. When their resulting control data started going crazy, they searched their lab to find out what had contaminated their results. It turned out that the plastic cages and bottles had been cleaned with a caustic floor detergent and “unleashed enough BPA into the control animals’ food and water to scramble the chromosome alignment in their eggs,” according to the EWG article.

Hunt stated after seeing the results of this event, “Like most Americans, I thought my government protects me from this kind of stuff.” This incident convinced her that “we’re up against big industry, and they’re running pretty effective damage control.” She’s now been involved in BPA research for about a decade and has concluded that “exposure to low levels of BPA–levels that we think are in the realm of current human exposure–can profoundly affect both developing eggs and sperm.”

In 2006, Hunt joined Vom Saal, Welshons and 36 other international BPA experts at a conclave sponsored by the National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences where the panel issued a “consensus statement.” As Vom Saal sums it up, “particularly for infants but also for adults, there is an extensive body of evidence from animals that should be taken as a very serious warning that human health is being placed at risk due to the current level of exposure of humans to BPA.”

The chemical industry continues to fight aggressively against more regulation. In early 2008, the industry spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to defeat a California legislative proposal to ban BPA in food packaging. They went so far as to send email to food banks stating that a BPA ban would mean the end of distributions of canned goods for the poor!

Yet, in 2008 more threats to humans were discovered. Last year, a Yale University medical school research team found that BPA causes the loss of connections between brain cells. “We observed a devastating effect on synapses in the monkey brain,” said Yale scientist Tibor Hajszan. “In humans, these losses could lead to memory and learning problems and depression.” The chemical industry’s response: they of course found the study flawed and no proof of BPA danger to the human brain. The Yale team leader said their experiment was meant “to more closely mimic the slow and continuous conditions under which humans would normally be exposed to BPA.” He also said the study was “more indicative than past research of how BPA may actually affect humans.” Their team hopes to conduct additional studies to advance our understanding of BPA effects on the brain.

On May 31st of this year, the Washington Post ran an article entitled, “Industry Lobbyists Devised Strategy To Protect Use of BPA.” Click here to read the article in its entirety. The bottom line: The BPA industry was caught plotting and planning to use the same kinds of tactics used previously to counter efforts again tobacco and asbestos–scare tactics and threats as well as public relations campaigns to make consumers doubt the growing body of evidence against BPA use. And who is their biggest target audience to convince that BPA is safe? The main consumers within households and those most concerned about the health and safety of their families–young mothers.

On June 4, 2009, EWG made a plea to their supporters to demand that both Coca-Cola and Del Monte stop using BPA in their food and beverage containers. Lobbyists for each of these companies were involved in the secret strategy meetings where the goal was to create a plan to defeat legislative initiatives at the state level to remove the toxic estrogen chemical from items designed for small children.

The struggle continues, but my hope is that we will see truth prevail. Current and future generations are being impacted by chemicals such as BPA. In the meantime, it’s imperative that we continue to learn all we can and make informed decisions for the health and well-being of ourselves and all those we love.

DID YOU KNOW…
*You can go to this link and read the internal meeting minutes of the food and chemical lobbyists who met in Washington, DC to save the toxic plastic chemical BPA. These minutes revealed a dangerous and unethical strategy to keep families eating and drinking from BPA-laden containers–despite the mounting scientific evidence that exposure to even extremely low levels of BPA can impact health, particularly during early infancy.
*The EWG put out a call to action of its supporters. They requested that we call this toll-free number to protest: Del Monte 1-800-543-3090. Here is a sample script of what to say when you call:
“Hello, My name is ______________. I’m shocked and disappointed in your unethical approach to business when it comes to BPA – placing profits ahead of my family’s health and resorting to fear tactics to mislead consumers about a clearly dangerous chemical. The BPA needs to go – NOW. Thank you.”

FOR TODAY…I will continue to educate myself on BPA. As I look at the research and findings, I will pay close attention to who is behind the data and whose interests are being served by their results. I will also buy-cott companies that are actively trying to keep BPA in our food and beverage containers.

As part of my discussion of BPA this week and the risks it poses to human beings as well as to our environment, it is important that we take a look at what we can do to protect ourselves and minimize our exposure to this very real chemical threat.

Even though bisphenol A (BPA) first made news as a dangerous chemical in our water bottles, our main exposure actually comes from the linings of canned foods. Most canned foods have BPA in the liner of the can–Eden Foods is the only company I’ve found so far which uses an alternative, custom-made BPA-free liner–their cans cost 14 percent more than the industry standard cans that do contain BPA. Among all the other plastic substances that get into our food, BPA stands out because of its ability to disrupt the functions of hormones–especially estrogen. When BPA is in the liners of the canned foods, it leaches into the food itself. The BPA is then ingested by us and goes into our bloodstream. (As a result of our exposure to BPA, the CDC knows that more than 90% of us have detectable levels of bisphenol A in our bodies.) Canned beverages appear to contain less BPA residues, while canned soup, pastas and infant formula contain the highest levels. Acidic canned goods, such as tomatoes and tuna, also contain higher levels of BPA residue.

1. The first step therefore that you can take is to reduce your consumption of canned goods. Instead, eat more frozen or fresh food. In addition to avoiding BPA, you’ll also get more nutrients and less sodium–both steps toward a healthier diet.

2. When you do consume canned foods, rinse the fruit or vegetables with water prior to heating and serving–this could lessen BPA ingestion. Sensitive groups such as kids and pregnant women should limit canned food consumption.

3. Breastfeed your baby or use powdered formula instead of cans. If your baby needs liquid formula, look for types sold in plastic or glass containers. Also, find baby bottles in glass versions or those made from safer plastics such as polyamine, polypropylene and polyethylene. Soft or cloudy-colored plastic does not contain BPA. Additionally, choose bottles for pumping and storing expressed breast milk which are labeled BPA-free.

4. Avoid bottles and plastic containers that are made from polycarbonate (usually marked with a number 7 or the letters PC) and if you want to reduce exposure to phthalates**, avoid polyvinyl chloride (marked with a number 3 or PVC). Even though leaching from plastic baby bottles and food containers seems to occur at much lower levels, it is still best to take extra precautions.

5. If you use a metal water bottle, be sure to choose one that does not have a plastic liner. Many metal water bottles are lined with a plastic coating that contains BPA.

6. Even though the levels of BPA that leach from hard plastics is generally low, avoid using plastic containers to heat food in your microwave. Ceramic, glass or microwaveable dishware are better alternatives.

7. Finally, throw out old and scratched plastic bottles.

**According to EWG, “Phthalates (pronounced “THAL-ates”) are a group of chemical “plasticizers” that are used in a huge variety of consumer products, from PVC pipes to perfume. With billions of pounds produced annually, phthalates are everywhere. They’re even in the indoor dust we breathe. Random sampling by the CDC shows most people in the U.S. have detectable levels of phthalates in their bodies. Phthalates have been banned in the European Union since 2005. Nine other countries, including Japan, Mexico and Argentina, have also outlawed the chemicals.” Look for more information on this group of chemicals next week.

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…