FDA Says BPA Is Safe For Babies
by Lloyd Alter, Toronto on 08.19.08
The Federal Food and Drug Administration, responsible for determining the safety of what Americans put in their bodies, has looked at the dangers of Bisphenol A and concluded that "adequate margin of safety exists for BPA at current levels of exposure from food contact uses.” Their study acknowledges that the stuff gets into our bodies: "FDA estimates that BPA exposure from use in food contact materials in infants and adults is 2.42 µg/kg bw/day and 0.185 µg/kg bw/day, respectively." but also states that the "FDA has determined the appropriate no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) for its assessment of BPA to be the NOAEL for systemic toxicity of 5 mg/kg bw/day (5000 µg/kg bw/day) derived from two multigenerational rodent studies."
The 5 mg/kg bw/day standard was set by the EPA and is questioned by many groups as being way too high. The two multigenerational rodent studies that so impressed the FDA were sponsored by the American Plastics Council.
Other governments are banning BPA in kids' products
The Washington Post reported in April that "Despite more than 100 published studies by government scientists and university laboratories that have raised health concerns about a chemical compound that is central to the multibillion-dollar plastics industry, the Food and Drug Administration has deemed it safe largely because of two studies, both funded by an industry trade group. "
FDA Perfectly Happy with Industry Funded Research
The FDA defended the practice; Mitchell Cheeseman, deputy director of the FDA office of food additive safety, said ""The fact is, it's industry's responsibility to demonstrate the safety of their products," he said. "The fact that industry generated data to support the safety I don't think is an unusual thing." Full FDA report PDF here
Pete Myers, chief scientist for Environmental Health Sciences, is quoted by AP: "It's ironic FDA would choose to ignore dozens of studies funded by (the National Institutes of Health) — this country's best scientists — and instead rely on flawed studies from industry."
National Toxicology Program expressed concern
The National Toxicology Program recently concluded that there was "some concern" about the risks of BPA for infants. Full National Toxicology Program, Department of Heath and Human Services Report PDF here
Some question the timing of the report, noting that California is about to pass a law removing BPA from childrens' products.
"For this to come out on a Friday afternoon, just before California takes action, it definitely raises some eyebrows," said Renee Sharp, a senior analyst with the Environmental Working Group.
Not being a doctor or a chemist, I will not comment on the value of the FDA's report. There appears to be a consensus of opinion in the comments to the Wall Street Journal that "the FDA cannot be trusted. Interference with and suppression of credible science information to the public for the benefit of large corporate interests is what our current federal government is all about."
Marc Gunther wrote in Fortune recently: "I’ve come to the conclusion that the BPA story is, in essence, about trust. It’s another bit of evidence to support my argument that it makes business sense in the long run for companies to be responsible and prudent, even if that costs them money today; regaining trust, once it’s been lost, is both terribly difficult and expensive."
More on BPA in TreeHugger:
Don't Buy A Nalgene Water Bottle Until You Read This
BPA Danger may be greater from Tin Cans than Water Bottles
Nalgene Dumps Bisphenol A Like Hot Potato :
Bisphenol A Is In Your Tomato Sauce
Bisphenol A Could Be In Your Teeth
Polycarbonate Water bottles
Canada Calls Bisphenol A "Dangerous"
Time to Pack In the Polycarbonates
Bottled Water - Lifting the Lid :
MEC Nixes Nalgenes
Health effects:
Hot Water + Polycarbonate Bottles = More Gender-Benders
Gender Bender Chemicals Also Make You Fat
Alternatives:
A Safer Sippy for Your Little Green Angels
Stefani Water Purifiers: an Alternative to Plastic
Kor One: Reinventing the Water Bottle
Are Sigg Aluminum Bottles BPA Free?
O'Burger Offers First Organic Fast Food in Los Angeles
|
FUEL to Open Georgia’s First Corn Ethanol Plant in October
|
Trusting or dismissing completely will make you miss those big marks where they are actually right (or wrong). However in this case it's pretty clear they are taking money under the table for their own benefit. I wouldn't trust this decision with my own kid, would you?
This isn't just about ignoring science. It's about destroying government agencies. The Republicans are deliberately breaking functioning agencies. It's not incompetence or greed. They cannot see government function at any level (except for the military) especially when it comes to protecting the safety and health of citizens.
And if the FDA says it's safe, then.... oh wait.....
First, we only uae glass bottles in my house. They are only slighty more expensive then plastic, and easier to clean.
Second, I don't trust the FDA for anything. CLM, the Republicans don't need to break it. It's always been a disfunctional organization, just like the IRS, EPA, and OSHA (and others). When you let the government tell you what to do and how to do it, you are setting yourself up for failure.
Vote Bob Barr 2008!
Is it my imagination, or does the FDA just seem to think that a little poison is ok? Not only with this, but in countless other areas: pesticides in food, chemical preservatives, toxins in soaps, creams, and shampoos... mostly all are noted as carcinogens. etc...
Are they afraid we'll put the pharmaceutical companies out of business if these children are permitted to grow up healthy?
There is no such thing as a "little bit" of Cancer being ok. We have to stand up for our health and the health of our families! Enough is enough!
Alternatives exist! This is where the consumer now votes with their pocketbook. The multibillion dollar plastics industry will make what we will buy.
Couple this story to the EPA's decommissioning of the program that actually tested pesticides for human concerns (not to mention the 2006 dismantling of the EPA libraries) and you get a very clear picture of an administration that is buoying its buddies on the industrial side (when they are not one and the same) by allowing them free reign to pollute and contaminate anything they'd like, even us.
Nit-picking: FDA stands for Food and Drug Administration, not Federal Drug Administration.
The so-called "no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL)" is useful when working within the classical principles of toxicology: e.g. the 'dose makes the poison'. Even though it makes many people uncomfortable, it is absolutely correct that, for example, a bit of aspirin is good and lot bad. The boundaries for defining good and bad systemic toxicity can be arrived at with acceptable precision.
Conversely, classical toxicology simply does not hold up when applied to endocrine disrupting chemicals. That FDA has simply overlooked endocrine effects (that can take lifetimes to be expressed) is not mentioned in the media coverage.
Note: DDT was not banned because it was a cancer causing substance, contrary to what most of what you will read indicates. DDT was banned for its endocrine disrupting properties: properties that toxicologists completely missed.
Oh my god, 5000 micrograms! This type of scare-mongering is typical. Oh no - be careful - that USB port can shock you with 5.2 million microvolts!
Before we all go lambasting the FDA and the plastics makers, has anyone actually read any of the reports cited above, such as the FDA one (which is a DRAFT report and hasn't yet been released officially by the FDA - thanks for pointing that out TreeHugger!)
Instead of citing the DRAFT report of CERHR, maybe the final report could be cited... http://cerhr.niehs.nih.gov/chemicals/bisphenol/BPAFinalEPVF112607.pdf
Instead of writing off all the research as "industry sponsored", how about acknowledging that the studies above contain hundreds of references to independent research, much of it government funded, and much of which finds no link between BPA and physiological end points. Also please acknowledge that most of the work is in rodents, and human toxicity data for BPA is very scarce. Once you have a decent starting point from an objective viewpoint, then we can have a scientific discourse on this topic.
If you actually bothered to read the reports, you'd get some of the facts, such as... if you rinse a baby bottle in soapy water, then boil it, then add milk/juice and put it in the fridge for 3 days, there's no detectable BPA - it is below the level that can be detected in the assay! If you cut the bottle up into little strips, and put the strips in an alcohol/water mix, then bake in the oven for 30 min., then put the alcohol/water/plastic mix in the fridge for 3 days, you can find BPA in the liquid at 2ppb.
So yes, if you try hard enough you can make the case that BPA leeches out of baby bottles and into milk, just like you can make the case that it's possible to drown in 1" of water in a bowl. Until the plastics industry explains exactly what it is they're adding to bottles INSTEAD OF BPA, and whether it is toxic, I will not be running out the door any time soon to replace everything in our house that's made of plastic.
And no, before anyone asks, I'm not a plastics shill. I'm a biochemist at a US university who is funded by a grant from the NIH, with no industry connections whatsoever. I just don't like it when people get their knockers in a twist because the scare-mongers don't know how to read a scientific report properly.
This is just an important reminder to stay an informed consumer and decide for yourself what is right for your family. Maybe there is some proof that in small enough doses there is no risk, but why risk it when there is BPA free alternatives? Be a smart consumer...
Cheers!
Hey Lloyd's from Toronto, give him a break.
I'm with the Times on this one. Federal agencies have become shills (with the exception of the IRS), and we need to get them back or dismantle them and start from scratch.
This administration is so criminal it's insane. Repairs will take decades.
Thanks to John Laumer for one sane response.
The fear-mongering this article promotes over BPA is the sort of thing that gives tree huggers a bad name.
If you read the science (and there are a lot of good studies on BPA), it's hard to be too alarmed.
Really, this is ridiculous.
We all grew up with plastic bottles. We grew up with lead in our toys and in our paint, we grew up with playgrounds made of molten hot metal and swing sets that lifted off the ground. We grew up with so many more hazards than our kids do today, and you know what? WE'RE FINE!!! Better than fine in fact, because we know what it's like to learn from experience.
We protect our children too much these days, and if we keep flipping out about every little health scare I guarantee we're harming our children a lot more than a few months of feeding off a BPA bottle will.
It sounds like Virgil knows what he's talking about. Plus, I don't have the cash to NEVER buy plastic again! This is ridiculous. I wonder how many of these comments were written by people who smoke?
The FDA is a joke, and the commenters above supporting the agency are in denial.
Last Spring Health Canada (for all intents & purposes, the Canadian equivalent of the FDA) conducted it's own safety review and went so far as to declare it TOXIC, and are now considering a full ban on products containing BPA.
For more info see Health Canada's news release:
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/media/nr-cp/_2008/2008_59-eng.php
And Treehuggers own article on it:
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/04/health-minister-canada-bans-bpa.php