We Need to Protect our Children From BPA

Last week, Connecticut’s ban on the use of bisphenol A (BPA), in infant and baby food cans and jars went into effect.  Other states that have banned BPA from baby bottles and sippy cups include California, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin (not all are in effect yet).  

In Rhode Island, H5499 was introduced in March 2011 to prohibit children’s bottles containing BPA.  The bill was referred to the House Committee of Health, Education, and Welfare, which recommended that the measure be held for further study.  No further actions have been taken. While the FDA has concerns regarding the potential effects of BPA, it has not moved to regulate its use on a federal level.

Much has been written on the hazards or safety of BPA, with pro and con arguments falling along predictable lines.  However, BPA has been shown to be an endocrine disruptor, defined by the National Institutes of Health as “[a] chemical that may interfere with the body’s endocrine system and produce adverse developmental, reproductive, neurological, and immune effects in both humans and wildlife.”  The National Toxicology Program concluded it has “some concern for effects on the brain, behavior, and prostate gland in fetuses, infants, and children at current human exposures to bisphenol A”.[i]   Effects on fetuses, infants, and children.  At current human exposures. 

Read that twice and let it sink in for a while.

What is BPA?  BPA is an industrial chemical that has been used for the past 50 years in a variety of consumer products.  Recent estimates are that about 5 to 6 billion pounds of BPA are produced annually worldwide.  Most BPA is used as a monomer, or a building block, that is polymerized (repeatedly chemically linked to itself in chain-like fashion) to form polycarbonate plastic [(labeled as PC or No. 7 (“Other”)]. 

Another major use of BPA is as one of two chemicals (the other being epichlohydrin) used to make epoxy resin (Part A) that is used as a liner or sealant in metal food cans to protect the contents and lengthen shelf life. Because polymerization is seldom complete when the plastic is made, unbound BPA monomers can leach out of the plastic into the contents of whatever the container is holding.  Factors such as heat, ultraviolet light, microwave radiation, or contact with acidic foods can also cause the plastic or epoxy to break down and  leach BPA into the container’s contents.

Testing of canned or bottled food products packed with BPA materials routinely finds low levels of BPA.  In a CDC study, BPA was found in the urine of nearly all people tested (over 2,000)^[ii].  In 1999 to 2000, BPA was detected in 41.2% of 139 U.S. streams in 30 states.[iii]  Our exposure to BPA is ubiquitous and essentially unavoidable without some type of regulatory intervention. Because of the perceived health effects associated with BPA exposure and consumer pressure, manufacturers of plastic bottles and food packagers have been changing their products or packages to be “BPA-free.”  Whatever that means.  However, under current U.S. regulations, companies are not required to disclose whether their product packaging uses BPA, so it is difficult to know which products do or do not use BPA.

Developing new alternatives to BPA is a slow and expensive process, since testing must consider the typical shelf life of bottled and canned products, which can be two to five years.  And since the alternative may not require testing or disclosure, it would not be immediately known whether the alternative also poses concerns.  In companies that have switched to non-BPA can liners, including Vital Choice and Eden Foods, testing still detected low concentrations of BPA in their products, suggesting that BPA can enter food from avenues other than packaging.[iv]^,[v]

While, presently, BPA is one of only a few packaging product that is on the public radar for its endocrine disruption properties (phthalates being another), other similar products have not been given the same level of public scrutiny.  However, there are reasons for taking a long view on this.  In a study conducted by Yang et al. (2011), various food packaging materials that were being introduced as a replacement for polycarbonate resins were tested for estrogenic activity as a marker for endocrine disruption.  The study found that other materials including polyethylene terephthalate (PET or PETE, plastic #1), high density polyethylene(HDPE; #2), polypropylene (PP, #5), polystyrene (PS, #6), and Eastman  Chemical’s Tritan (introduced as a polycarbonate substitute for plastic dinnerware) also exhibits some estrogenic activity.[vi]

So what does this all mean?  Do I think that BPA poses a real risk? 

I don’t know, but the uninvested consensus seems to be going in that direction.  Am I concerned for my own health?  Not really.  But I and others of my age are not the concern. 

The concern is for babies and yet-to-be babies that rely on their moms to protect them.  Protecting children is our ultimate responsibility as adults.  So many things can adversely affect fetal and child development and information on the chemical presence in consumer products is not widely distributed, or accessible, or always understandable. 

Which is why I believe that intelligent regulation (no, this is not a misnomer) is necessary.  Protection of our collective offspring trumps all corporate freedom from government intervention, and corporate entities should not get protection to the detriment of the people’s right to know.  If there is any indication that a chemical in consumer products might affect “the brain, behavior, and prostate gland in fetuses, infants, and children at current human exposures”, isn’t that reason enough to intervene to prevent those exposures? 

I think so, and I depend on the government to do those studies and make those rules and enforce them.  I certainly don’t want to have to depend on the Dows and DuPonts and Union Carbides of the world to keep me safe.  So, let’s hope that Rhode Island and the federal government step up soon to protect our children.

[i].  http://www.niehs.nih.gov/news/sya/sya-bpa/ [ii].  http://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/ [iii]. Kolpion at al. (2002) Pharmaceuticals, hormones, and other organic wastewater contaminants in U.S. streams, 1999-2000: a national reconnaissance.  Environ, Sci. Technol. 2002 Mar 15;36(6):1202-11. [iv] http://newsletter.vitalchoice.com/e_article001584935.cfm?x=bblvbvn,b7wML... [v] http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine-archive/december-2009/food/b... [vi] Yang CZ, Yaniger SI, Jordan VC, Klein DJ, Bittner GD, 2011. Most Plastic Products Release Estrogenic Chemicals: A Potential Health Problem That Can Be Solved. Environ Health Perspect 119(7): doi:10.1289/ehp.1003220