Chemical Found in Plastic Linked to Reproductive Disorders
by Jeremy Elton Jacquot, Los Angeles on 08. 4.07
Bisphenol A (BPA) — a chemical commonly found in hard plastics — has for the first time been linked to female reproductive disorders in a strongly-worded statement released by 38 scientists and published online in the journal Reproductive Toxicology. The compound, which is used in a variety of consumer items such as polycarbonate plastic baby bottles, microwave oven dishes and sports bottles, often seeps from containers and enters the bodies of humans.
After reviewing close to 700 studies, the scientists determined that people are regularly exposed to BPA levels that exceed those harmful to lab animals — singling out infants and fetuses as the most vulnerable. The statement was accompanied by a new National Institutes of Health (NIH) study that found that uterine damage caused by BPA exposure in newborn animals might predict a host of reproductive disorders in women — including endometriosis, cystic ovaries, fibroids and cancers. While earlier studies had linked early-stage cancers and lower sperm counts in animals to low BPA doses, no study had ever linked exposure to female reproductive diseases.
Not surprisingly, the plastics industry balked at the findings, labeling the scientists as biased and alarmist; they also rejected the BPA link to reproductive diseases as unfounded and based on uncertain science. Representatives cited the conclusions reached by two government scientific committees in Europe and Japan — that decided there was insufficient evidence to restrict BPA's use because of metabolic differences between mice and humans — as proof of BPA's safe use.
Frederick vom Saal, a reproductive toxicologist at the University of Missouri-Columbia, countered by claiming: "There is essentially no difference in the way that rat or mouse cells respond to BPA and the way that humans respond to it," adding that while the amount in humans "may seem like an incredibly small amount, it causes effects in human cells at the part-per-trillion level." Though no studies have yet been conducted linking BPA exposure to direct human effects, the scientists hope to generate interest in human research with their statement.
"We know what doses the animals were given, and when we look at humans, we see blood levels within that range or actually higher, which is a cause of concern and should stimulate more human research," said Jerrold Heindel of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. A panel set up by the NIH's Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction — responsible for a preliminary BPA report released earlier this year that was drafted by a consulting firm with financial ties to the chemical industry — will convene next week to decide whether to declare the chemical a human reproductive toxin.
Here's at least hoping that sound science eventually wins the day in clarifying this worrisome health issue, regardless of the outcome. If BPA is labeled a human reproductive toxin, however, you can bet that we'll soon witness a significant decline in the use of plastics unless measures are taken to replace the chemical with something more benign.
Via ::The Los Angeles Times: Scientists issue warning on chemical (newspaper), ::Wired Science: Reproductive Disorders Probably Caused by Common Plastic Ingredient, Scientists Say (blog)
See also: ::Bag Ban Phase 2: All Retail Stores, ::Smartcycle Offers a Better Alternative to Plastic Packaging, ::Hollywood Pigeons to be Put on Birth Control
Image courtesy of tanakawho via flickr
that is crappy. i bought my polycarbonate water bottle from whole foods because polycarbonate was touted as being heavy duty, thus safe from chemicals leaching into my water from the plastic. i guess it's back to carrying around my voss glass water bottle.....
Rubbish - The top scientists in FDA and the EU have found that it is not a problem - just more cherry picked data to get a headline. The same thing was tried in the 1990's to no avail.
T. Brown, FDA (retired)
T. Brown,
so according to you we should always trust the FDA because they are ALWAYS out for the publics best interest, never for corporate intere$t$ or anything like that.
p.s. ... i'm glad you're retired. im sure there are countless other disinformation campaigns you can get involved with, though.
Well science is about progression, and when the facts from a study come back and indicate that what had previously been thought to be wrong is now, in fact, correct, one cannot disagree based on previous experiments. Sure it brings the findings under scrutiny, but if they stand, they stand, and no amount of complaining will do anything about that. The beauty of science is that it doesn't care how much money you have or what you thought would happen. The facts are the facts, so long as they are reproducible and able to be shown to be true a good number of times.
as for the bottle, there are aluminum bottles now that I don;t think pose any health threat, and are more sustainable.
Top FDA scientists also approved Vioxx, dragged their feet on banning practices that lead to the spread of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy, and continues to allow routine unnecessary use of antibiotics on farm animals (thus helping demonstrate how evolution actually works by breeding antibiotic resistant bacteria). I could go on of course. Sorry T. Brown, the FDA hasn't earned a lot of trust.
Aluminum water bottles I would balk at. I think I remember some studies showing a link between aluminum and dementia? I have also been told that stainless steel water bottle of the type used by backpackers have a very environmentally harmful manufacturing process.
Anyone have any info or links on these two concerns?
With the known concerns about plastics, what are we to use?
I'm so glad the representatives from the government chimed in, surely THEY won't lie to us. It's a good thing science is absolute and permanent so what we knew 20 years ago is still the absolute truth today. Let's see, according to T. Brown smoking is probably good for us, DDT is probably still "good for me", and PCBs are just a good way to reduce the gull population.
Maybe he's retired for a reason? If not, he should have been. I imagine the probably also thinks global warming is just a ploy to sell more ice.
He should try reading...I'd suggest "Our Stolen Futures". That'd be a good place to start.
Is that the same material that is in those Nalgen bottles? What a shame, since polycarboonate has been integrated into so many of our daily use containers. I have a feeling however that the plastic industry is going to do whatever it takes to suppress any further studies on the toxicology of PBA.
I'm so tired of hearing anyone argue that routine use of convenience plastics is anything but ridiculous. We need less plastic in our lives, period.
Here, here to reusing glass Voss bottles!
Maybe since nobody doing basically any thing about this situation, maybe we should just do some thing. Find a solution to the problem, or work around it, cut off your uses with plastic and use some thing else. There are many other things that you could use. A by the by people have survived this long, just adapt or do some thing aout it!
and the FDA won't approve Stevia as a regular sweetener but is ok with us pumping ourselves full of chemical-fake sweeteners. It's legal everywhere but here. FDA is getting pressured by Big Sugar and the other companies to keep it from being on the same shelf.
Bottom line: We need to watch out for our kids. This article doesn't say whether or not BPA is a carcinogen. Perhaps that study is underway or it's well-known and I missed it, but if it damages cell tissue or DNA in any living thing (mice or humans), it's bad.
To think that helpless babies are ingesting toxic chemicals from bottles and other plastics is tragic. Most parents don't know any better, unfortunately, and Americans too often think "they wouldn't make it or sell it if it were bad for us". These thoughts/statements are simply wrong; history has proven that. If you doubt studies like this, research the data and decide for yourself if it is accurate.
In the meantime, error on the side of caution, especially for children. If cheap plastics could cause harmful chemicals to leach into your babies food, shouldn't you just stay away from them and use something else? Yes.