Stumble This Website!
Canada, the first and only country to ban the use of BPA in baby bottles clearly states that “Bisphenol A does not pose a risk to the general population, including adults, teenagers and children.” So, what is all this fuss?
On April 18, 2008 Canada became the first, and only, country to ban a chemical called Bisphenol A (BPA) from use in baby bottles. The basis for the ban was a concern that BPA could migrate from the lining of cans into liquid infant formula and from bottles into the liquid inside after the addition of boiling water. (More on that in a minute.) Extreme heat releases BPA from the plastic thus causing potential for health concerns. Health Canada, the government agency in charge of public health that led the ban, clearly states that there is insignificant evidence to reach a conclusion about whether or not BPA causes health concerns. However, they know that some level of BPA is released after the introduction of boiling water so they figured, “It’s better to be safe than sorry.”
Following the ban Health Canada issued advice to parents who continue to use plastic baby bottles. They advised, “If you continue to use polycarbonate baby bottles, it is recommended that parents and caregivers do not put boiling water in them.” Why would you put boiling water into your baby bottle? Oh, I know. To wash or sterilize them, right? Surely the extreme heat from the dishwasher could cause BPA to be released. Nope.
Health Canada goes on to advise, “These bottles can be sterilized according to instructions on infant formula labels and can be cleaned in the dishwasher. They should be left to cool to room temperature before adding the infant formula.”
So, what is the problem with using plastic baby bottles that contain BPA? There isn’t any. Here are the reports released by every other government health body since Canada announced its ban.
European Food Safety Authority
Released on July 23, 2008. EFSA reaffirmed that BPA migrates at safe levels (70% less than the safe Total Daily Intake) from “canned foods and into food in contact with PC table ware or storage receptacles.” After exposure to BPA, the human body, including infants, rapidly metabolizes and eliminates BPA and that exposure to BPA is well below the Tolerable Daily Intake (TDI).”
Japanese National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology
Released on May 28, 2008. “It is unlikely that humans, including infants and young children, are at risk from possible BPA exposure.”
U.S. Food and Drug Administration
Stated in Congressional hearings on May 14 and June 10, 2008. “Exposure levels to BPA…including exposure to infants and children, are below those that may cause health effects.”
U.S. National Toxicology Program
Released on June 11, 2008. Out of five levels of concern, the Board of Scientific Counselors accepted the NTP’s conclusions that there is “some” (third level) concern for neural and behavioral, and prostate gland, effects, in fetuses, infants, and children at curent human exposures”. They decided to lower their level of concern from “some” to “minimal” (second lowest level) for BPA’s effects on fetuses, infants and children of neurodevelopmental, prostate gland, mammary gland, and earlier onset of female puberty. They expressed “negligible concern” (lowest level) that exposure of pregnant woman to BPA will result in fetal or neonatal mortality, birth defects or reduced birth weight and growth in their offspring.
European Food Safety Authority
Released January 2007 (prior to the Canadian ban). A review of the most recent scientific information motivated them to increase by five times the safe intake level for BPA that was established in 2002. The increase was based on the panel’s view that there is now more certainty about the safety of BPA.
Who does think that BPA is unsafe?
On April 18 (same day as the Canada ban) Senator Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) filed a bill to ban BPA nationally from all baby products as well as dental sealants and any bottle or container that holds food and drink. The reason that Senator Schumer filed the bill? He is quoted by the Washington Post as saying, “It’s better to be safe than sorry.” Friends, I ask you, is that how we decide to legislate nowadays? Pluck odd paranoid ideas from the ether then decide to ban them? With the proponderance of evidence that has come to light on this topic, including the numerous ways that bisphenols are being used to protect people, I have to wonder if Senator Schumer’s push to ban BPA is more of a ploy to be relevant in the eyes of the constituency, playing off of their fears by riding the coattails of Canada’s dubious ban. We really have to take a critical look at the fact that he filed the bill on the very same day that Canada announced its ban. Since then Senator Carole Migden and Don Perata introduced a California ban on bisphenols. This has become Senate Bill 1713 (SB1713).
Why not ban BPA? What good is it?
BPA is one of the most thoroughly studied substances used in consumer products. Probably its most important application is its use in the lining of food cans to prevent food contamination from germs and can corrosion. Other common products that include BPA: eyeglass lenses, CDs, DVDs, computers, power tools, car headlights, sporting equipment, medical devises including incubators, and food and drink containers.
Aha! You say. We don’t want BPA in food and drink containers because it could make us sick, right? Nope. Health Canada says, “Bisphenol A does not pose a risk to the general population, including adults, teenagers and children.” In fact, they go on to say, the average person “would need to consume several hundred cans of food per day to reach the tolerable level established by Health Canada. A tolerable daily intake is how much of a substance can be taken in on a daily basis over a lifetime without appreciable health risk.” Canada’s “tolerable level” is consistent with the tolerable level identified by other regulatory agencies, including the European Food Safety Authority.
So, what now?
Based on the opinion of food regulatory agencies worldwide including Health Canada, polycarbonate products (plastics) in all current applications, are safe for humans of all ages. They are even safe for use in baby bottles unless you serve your baby boiling liquid in that bottle.
A ban of BPA, at any level (state or nationwide) would have serious consequences for a significant portion of the population that consumes preserved foods. BPA is a key component in the compound of all plastics that are used to protect foods sold in supermarkets. It has not been proven, by any agency, to be dangerous to anyone, including infants. Be careful when voting at the polls. Do more research. Understand that proposals for bans on BPA are without scientific foundation lead by a possibly well-meaning few, who are dangerously unaware of the potential consequences of their misguided actions.
As for your baby. As long as you are not feeding your baby boiling liquids, according to all of the national health organizations worldwide (even Health Canada), your little baby buggy bumper will be just fine, even if she drinks from a BPA bottle.
UPDATE: On August 29th the California State Assembly rejected Senate Bill 1713 by a vote of 35-30. The bill was sponsored by the Environmental Working Group (EWG). Fifteen members of the Assembly were either absent or deliberately did not vote.
UPDATE: On September 5, 2008, the U.S. National Toxiology Program (NTP) finalized their report on Bisphenol A. Here is the link to the final report. NTP Associate Director John Bucher says of the NTP’s conclusions, “There remains considerable uncertainty whether the changes seen in the animal studies are directly applicable to humans, and whether they would result in clear adverse health effects.”
The U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) has released its August 14, 2008 “Draft Assessment of Bisphenol A For Use In Food Contact Applications”. You can download it here. This report is not representative of any new agency determinations. The FDA will be holding a public meeting on Septermber 16th to discuss this draft assessment.
UPDATE: On October 28th, The U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) has released its Statement on Release of Bisphenol A (BPA) Subcommittee Report in which they said, “Consumers should know that, based on all available evidence, the present consensus among regulatory agencies in the United States, Canada, Europe, and Japan is that current levels of exposure to BPA through food packaging do not pose an immediate health risk to the general population, including infants and babies.”
This statement is not to representative of any new agency determinations. The FDA will be holding a review of the subcommittee’s report by the Science Board on Oct. 31, 2008. Read the full statement and the full text of the subcommittee report at:
http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2008/NEW01908.html
________________________
Read more. Decide for yourself.
Sources for this article:
“Health Canada Responds to Concerns Raised About Bisphenol A in Canned Food ” from Health Canada
“Bisphenol A – Fact Sheet” from Government of Canada, Chemical Substances, An ecoACTION Initiative
“EFSA updates advice on bisphenol ” from European Food Safety Authority
“Opinion of the Scientific Committee on Food on Bisphenol A” from Euopean Commission, Health and Consumer Protection Directorate – General
U.S. Food and Drug Administration on Bisphenol A
“Actions on the Draft NTP Brief on Bisphenol A by the NTP Board of Scientific Counselors (BSC), June 11, 2008” from U.S. National Toxicology Program
“Estimation of Daily Bisphenol A Intake of Japanese Individuals with Emphasis on Uncertainty and Variability ” from Japanese National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology
Related reading from other news sources:
“If opponents drive BPA out of the food supply, consumers will pay. Some BPA-free plastic bottles sell for $10 each, more than twice the price of bottles with BPA. Baby bottles made of glass can break, potentially causing injury. Replacing BPA in the lining of cans would mean retooling all that packaging, and it’s not clear that there are safe alternatives.” Read more >>
“The amount of a controversial chemical bisphenol A (BPA) found in baby bottles is tiny and cannot harm human health, the European Union’s top food safety body said on Wednesday reacting to recent health concerns. ” Read more >>
Mommy Myth Buster 
THESE COMMENTS HAVE BEEN TRANSFERRED FROM THIS ARTICLE’S ORIGINAL PUBLISHED LOCATION AT SISTER SITE
http://www.MomstyleNews.com
____________________________________________________
Hmmm. . . not quite all the facts here
written by TheSmratMama, August 08, 2008
I’m disappointed that as a self-proclaimed myth buster, you wouldn’t include all of the information. It really does a disservice to the busy parents you are trying to help.
First, the NTP did not lower the concern from “some” to “minimal” on all of the adverse health effects associated with BPA as you state. On the contrary, the Board of Scientific Counselors accepted the findings of “some” concern (a 3 on the 5 point scale) for neural and behavioral effects on fetuses, infants, and children at current exposures and “some” concern for BPA exposures to fetuses, infants and children based on effects on the prostrate gland.
Second, you don’t even bother to mention the numerous studies involving animal studies (yes, I know that they are animal studies not humans) showing adverse health effects based upon low level BPA exposure – exposures consistent with current exposues in our population. Which can’t be disputed – NHANES studies have shown 95% of us have BPA in our systems. And even the FDA admits in its assessment of BPA that formula fed infants get 11 ug/day.
Now, are these animal studies relevant to humans? That is being widely debated. How do you translate the animals studies into human exposures and human health effects? I wouldn’t pretend to know the answer. But it seems to me that if fetuses and infants don’t have the enzyme to breakdown/metabolize BPA that adults have, then exposure is more significant for fetuses and infants. And some of the laboratory studies involve animal strains that also don’t have the enzyme to metabolize BPA. While that data is not relevant to adults, it may well apply to fetuses and infants.
The EFSA’s recent report states that the animal studies aren’t relevant because the animal species used have mechanisms different than humans. The EFSA relies primarily on a primate study and a study involving 3 human adults about how BPA breaks down in the body – then theorizes for pregnant women. That method has been criticized by many leading scientists with expertise far beyond mine – and they criticism basically boils down to the EFSA overlooks laboratory animal studies with mechanisms similar to humans.
Plus, BPA does leach at room temperature. Yes, leaching is greater with boiling water as compared to room temperature water, but it still occurs at room temperature.
Finally, saying a chemical has been safely used for 50 years isn’t much of an endorsement. Length of use is not an indication of safety. Lead in paint was used for 74 years (until 197smilies/cool.gif in this country after medical journals published accounts of lead poisoning and deaths associated with lead based paint on cribs (published in 1904), and 50-60 years are several countries banned lead based paint – does that mean lead was safe? PCBs, PBDEs and DDT were also all used for many years – are they safe? Asbestos is still being used in the US – do you believe it is safe? We know that BPA has estrogenic effects – that was why it was investigated along with DES as a synthetic hormone in the 1930s – DES was said to be safe . . . and we know where that got us.
So, for baby bottles, with the numerous options at the same price point – why recommend to a parent to use polycarbonate plastic with BPA?
And, you should be aware that there are several options for canned food linings available that don’t involve a BPA based resin. Plus, as a parent, you can always choose fresh, frozen, dired or jarred to avoid BPA-containing linings.
Jennifer
Votes: +6
………………………………………
written by angelinedp, August 08, 2008
I stand by the article on behalf of all parents who are tired of being bullied by false media scares. The science is there. I link to all the primary sources for you to read. They are heavy boring reading, but the facts are all there. The answers to every one of your objections lies at your fingertips with the click of a button.
As for this comment: “So, for baby bottles, with the numerous options at the same price point – why recommend to a parent to use polycarbonate plastic with BPA?” I did not recommend it. I simply reported, what every government health body in the world knows, that BPA is not dangerous unless it is heated to levels that would be unsafe for babies anyway. Along those same lines, why should our country and private industry spend millions of dollars to replace BPA with “several options for canned food linings available that don’t involve a BPA based resin” when BPA, according to all major national health organizations worldwide think that BPA is perfectly safe?
As for the recommendation that “as a parent, you can always choose fresh, frozen, dried or jarred to avoid BPA-containing linings.” This is true and I recommend that any parent who is “green” should avoid synthetics altogether. Any time you begin to use any chemically engineered or modified product, there are health concerns to consider. The only way to avoid the concern is to avoid the products. Grow your own food. Use tools made from organically grown trees and rocks… Please do. I believe in getting back to basics. I make my own shampoo and facial moisturizer because I’m sick of all the chemicals in commercial brands. I don’t like being bullied by cosmetic company marketing either.
Angeline
P.S. Who said anything about 50 years?
Votes: +0
………………………………………
written by TheSmratMama, August 08, 2008
I’ve read every single article you cited and then some.
You omitted some of the BSC statement in the NTP release. While the BSC lowered concern from “some” to “minimal” for one health endpoint, the NTP’s 6/11 press release states that the BSC agreed with the NTP’s draft panel conclusion that “some concern” exists for fetal and infant exposures for neural and behavioral health effects and prostrate effects – not minimal concern as your article suggests. So, the U.S. National Toxicology Program, in the draft report, concludes a 3 out of a 5 on the scale for concern for two health endpoints.
And you’re right – you didn’t say in use for 50 years. But you did say “BPA is one of the most thoroughly studied substances used in consumer products.” Which isn’t quite true, but does suggest the long use of BPA, hence the comment. I think lead is actually the most studied . . .
The FDA’s position is, well, widely criticized for its position since it admitted in its letter to a Congressional panel that it was based on two studies – both studies funded by the American Plastics Council. One study was never published in a peer reviewed journal – usually critical for scientific studies – and the other used Charles River Sprague-Dawley rats, which only respond to estrogen at high doses. Which isn’t true of humans.
The Japanese study isn’t that useful as a comparison for American exposure since the Japanese don’t as heavily rely on BPA linings in canned foods. But, more importantly, the Japanese study only compared exposure in Japanese against the EPA’s reference dose and the European Union’s tolerable daily intake. Basically, the Japanese study calculated exposure and compared with the accepted daily reference intakes. If those reference intakes are incorrect, then the study’s conclusions change. It is really just an evaluation of the Japanese population’s BPA exposure.
I already commented on the EFSA.
So, that brings us to to the EPA’s daily reference dose, which is relevant since you cited the FDA’s position and the Japanese study. It was set in 1997 based upon high dose exposures conducted by the NTP in 1982. Since 1997, over 120 peer-reviewed studies have shown adverse health effects in animals at low dose exposures – well below the EPA’s reference dose.
Sometimes, regulatory agencies just don’t catch up on the science. It isn’t always media scaring consumers.
Votes: +1
………………………………………
Yes the NTP did change it from
written by angelinedp, August 08, 2008
I would dearly love to step away from this debate because the facts are all in the source material cited, but I can’t let this slide. It is written simply in two places within the same report, it can’t be missed. But I’ll actually copy and paste the text here so there can be no question. This is from Actions on the Draft NTP Brief on Bisphenol A by the NTP Board of Scientific Counselors (BSC), June 11, 2008
“The BSC recommended changing the level of concern in the Draft NTP Brief on Bisphenol A from “some” to “minimal” for effects in the mammary gland and an earlier age for puberty in females. The Board recommended the following conclusions: *The BSC accepted (7 yes, 4 no, 1 abstention) that the scientific evidence cited in the draft NTP Brief on Bisphenol A supports the conclusion of minimal concern for bisphenol A exposure in fetuses, infants, and children at current human exposures based on effects in the mammary gland. *The BSC accepted (7 yes, 4 no, 1 abstention) that the scientific evidence cited in the draft NTP Brief on Bisphenol A supports the conclusion of minimal concern for bisphenol A exposure in fetuses, infants, and children at current human exposures based on an earlier age for puberty in females. The five levels of concern used by NTP are from highest to lowest: serious concern, concern, some concern, minimal concern, and negligible concern.”
Votes: +1
………………………………………
written by TheSmratMama, August 08, 2008
You need to read the press release and the report a little more carefully then. I agreed that the BSC lowered the finding from “some” to “minimal” for 2 health endpoints (not one as I posted) – namely, effects on mammary gland (vote of 7, 4, 1) and earlier age for puberty (7, 4, 1). But, as stated in the document you cite – http:;//ntp.niehs.nih.gov/files/BSCactionsBPA_508.pdf, the BSC agreed with the NTP for two endpoints – “some” concern for neural and behavioral and prostrate gland endpoints. Those findings still stand. Read the first sentence and the first two bulleted paragraphs.
Votes: -1
………………………………………
written by angelinedp, August 09, 2008
Why would anyone read a “press release” instead of the primary source? Press releases are marketing pieces. If we are citing press releases as data sources then we are back to my original reason for writing this article. Parents are vulnerable to media (press) scares and will find that in some cases, when presented with actual data (the reports), the facts just don’t support the hype. As in this case. I can’t continue a debate with anyone who is going to recommend a press release as a superior source of information to the original report the release was written to promote. I stand by the article.
Votes: +1
………………………………………
written by TheSmratMama, August 09, 2008
I’m referring to the EXACT SAME one page document you have linked in your list of citations – the summary sheet of Actions on the Draft NTP on Bisphenol A by the NTP Board of Scientific Counselors – (okay, I’ll grant you that perhaps press release isn’t the best description of the document but the summary sheet is what was released by the press – does the NTP really market? – and it is the DOCUMENT YOU CITED). It is a summar of the actions from the meeting.
You do realize that the findings are by health endpoint, right? So the one page document you refer to that summarizes the actions indicates the change from “some” to “minimal” for two health endpoints, but the BSC agreed with the NTP’s draft findings of “some” concern for two other health endpoints – neural & behavioral and prostrate impacts. I can cite to the transcript, or the video, or the one page document I called a press release – but they all say the same thing – “the BSC accepted unanimously (12 yes, 0 no) that the scientific evidence cited in the draft NTP Brief on Bisphenol A supports the NTP conclusion of some concern* for neural and behavioral effects on bisphenol A in fetuses, infants and children at current human exposures” and “the BSC accepted (10 yes, 2 no) that the scientifi evidence cited in the draft NTP Brief on Bisphenol A supports the NTP conclusion of some concern for bisphenol A exposure in fetuses, infants, and children at current human exposures based on effects in the prostrate gland.”
Votes: +0
………………………………………
written by TheSmratMama, August 09, 2008
Sorry – error in my post – not relased by the press but what the NTP released to the press. But it is the document you rely on at http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/files…PA_508.pdf
Votes: +1
………………………………………
written by TheSmratMama, August 09, 2008
And, by the way, I don’t rely upon press releases – and I didn’t say I only read the press release – I said then you need to read “the press release and the report” both more carefully. Yes, I grant you “press release” was a poor description of the document – that document being the 1 page summary of th BSC’s actions on the NTP Draft Report on Bisphenol, but I also cited the source document in my post with a URL reference – and it is the same document upon which you rely in your article and is linked to the source in your citation list.
So, in any event, my comment was that it seems misleading to parents to not point out that the BSC agreed with the NTP’s Draft Brief on NTP for “some” concern for 2 health endpoints (and, also agreed with the NTP’s finding of “neglible” concern for 2 other health endpoints). Since the NTP report is still just a draft, and the NTP may or may not follow the BSC’s recommendations, it seems like the findings should be completely disclosed.
Votes: +0
………………………………………
written by angelinedp, August 09, 2008
I don’t think any new information is being revealed by continuing this debate. The reason I didn’t quote the first part of the report is because it indicated no new change in the findings reported by the NTP. In fact, after hearing the NTP Brief the BCS recommended lowering the level of concern in certain areas. It is all there in the report for anyone to read. I make it very easy to read because I link directly to the NTS Brief. But I’ll tell you what. Since you feel that it is important to spoon feed the readers, who I tend to believe are actually very intelligent people who are eager to make that click and do further research, I will add the passage that seems to be the primary sticking point of your argument, and then, it seems, we will be in complete agreement that all has been revealed. Now that all is out in the open. There is still no evidence of harm that any national government health agency thinks is at a level worth activating against. I, personally, make no recommendations for or against BPA. But I think it is important for people to be informed about the facts because legislation is on the table that will have far reaching consequences for people who rely on inexpensive canned goods as a food source. I state the facts as reported by all of the highest, most credible scientific sources in the world. People can decide for themselves.
Votes: +1
………………………………………
written by tijja, August 09, 2008
I just wanted to say thank you to Smart Mama for thoroughly trouncing all of the evidence cited here about BPA posing no risk. Thank goodness we have moms like you to stand on our side and inform us conumers of those things that can hurt our chidren. No government agency or plastics/chemical company will care enough to do so. I too have researched BPA heavily and I an convinced of what you say. Just because no national government health agency will report it is dangerous doesn’t mean it isn’t…they go where the money leads and chemical companies have oodles of it to hush anyone who speaks the truth. I find it truly NUTS thats any mom would believe otherwise in this day and age. Money talks…safety is secondary. SO again THANK YOU for doing right by othe rmoms out there.
Votes: -2
…………………………………………
Comment copied from discussion of this article referenced at Green & Clean Mom Blog:
“I used to work for one of the evil polycarbonate makers, in the polycarbonate production unit… It is possible to test and assure that there is no unreacted BPA in the final plastic. It only takes time and money and manufacturers just have to be willing to do it. If not they should leave this plastic for DVDs, eye glasses and car parts, which are bigger users anyhow.” – Susan
___________________________
In short there is no reason to ban BPA altogether. That can be circumvented by responsible distribution.
Just found your web site and I LOOOOOOOOOOVE it. Love your reasoning, your writing, your firm way of standing up to the common pastime of plucking paranoid notions out of thin air and deciding that THESE are the ones we’re (for some reason!) all suddenly going to believe, despite hard evidence to the contrary. I just admire the whole take of this site. Lenore (Ms. Free Range Kids)
I have serious doubts about the ‘hundreds of studies’. The reason this is so controversial is the studies that supposedly show that BPA is an endocrine disruptor have tow fundamental problems.
The first is that they can’t be replicated on a large scale. The answer Fred Vom Saal (Mr anti-BPA) gives is that effects are somehow over turn every principle of toxicology. Low dose effects somehow have an effect when high doses have none. Effects are hard to measure because they only occur over time and are inconsistent.
Okay… so suppose this were true and we are looking as something that defies everything we know about toxicology? You’d still expect these effect to show up – at least a little – in large scale studies on lots of different kinds of animals (genetic strains of rodents in this case). But they haven’t so far. The retort is that the large scale studies can’t be trusted because they are ‘industry funded’.
You get this image of evil or possibly spineless men in white coats cooking their results to serve their corporate pay masters. But hang on… these studies take place in large independent professional labs with audited laboratory practice used by a variety of interests including government and non-profits. How would these labs survive if they were simply results for hire? Further, how would their studies ever survive peer review to be published in professional journals?
Contrast these labs to the academic labs where the endocrine disruptor experiments take place. They’re unaudited, and unprofessional to the point where multiple *independent* risk assessments all over the world have found serious flaws in their practice and methodology.
The original Vom Saal study for instance housed young female mice with adult male mice – something that is known to cause early onset of puberty. He used a genetically unique strain of mice that is more sensitive to estrogen than other strains AND he only used 14 of them. These and factors like them are out there waiting for satisfactory explanations of alternatively large scales professionally run studies to back them up. So far there’ s nothing.
Instead, Vom Saal, et. al have essentially said we’re right because all the studies that show we’re wrong were done by the bad guys, industry funded, etc. Apart from the fact that it side steps the argument it’s also untrue. Independent studies have also failed to replicate these results. Are those bad guys too?
The second problem is that what may or may not be true for a rodent isn’t always true of primates. The EU reassessed all the studies of BPA last month including all those considered by the NTP and once AGAIN concluded that BPA is safe and CAN NOT cause act as an endocrine disruptor because the way the substance is metabolized in human beings is far more efficient than in rodents. All the evidence we have shows unequivocally that human beings metabolize all the BPA they ingest.
Furthermore, they point out that many of the supposedly toxic effects of BPA on animals were obtained by injecting BPA directly into tissues. While it might well be the case that injecting BPA into human tissues would yield toxic effects in human beings, we are never exposed to BPA in that way and never likely to be exposed to it in that way.
Think about the consequences of legislating on something as baseless as the BPA panic. Why stop at plastic? How about cell phones? Vaccination?, Chlorination? Magnetic fields? What? You know people who tell you to be worried about these things?
Welcome to the 21st century when being a good parent no longer means striving for rationality embracing fear to the point where any piece of shoddy science and superstition can be treaded as good coin, no matter how implausible.
Nancy is right, we need to rely upon peer-reviewed studies – but the two reports relied upon by the FDA aren’t peer reviewed. And, the over 100 low dose animal studies referenced in the comments are peer reviewed. In fact, the FDA ignored peer-reviewed studies funded by the government’s own well respected NTP, instead relying on industry-funded, not peer reviewed studies. And the FDA is being taken to task for that by a Congressional committee as part of an investigation.
One of the original two NTP panels didn’t consider peer-reviewed low dose animal studies because of the debate over the method of transmission of BPA – injection v. ingestion. Yet, subsequent testing showed that method of transmission does not matter in terms of presence of BPA in the body.
Plus, the studies that the FDA and the other NTP panel are relying upon primarily are high dose studies, but it is low dose that seems to be the issue. Why the difference and how come high dose won’t the same effect? In brief, and very simply put, the endocrine system gets overwhelmed by high dose, but not low dose. That’s really simplying it.
The EU’s recent assessment used a single primate study, and the number of primates in the study was small. But it may not be relevant to fetuses and infants who lack the enzyme necessary to process BPA. It may be applicable to adults, but that isn’t what is at issue here. And there is substantial debate about which rodent species and even whether the primate species used in the EU’s assessment process BPA the same way as adults.
A very good article on this topic is written by Nancy McDermott (see comment by her above). She is a professional writer, mother and Chairwoman of Park Slope Parents Advisory Board.
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/5179/
[…] Here is argument from the other side: Myth 10: Baby bottles with BPA are dangerous. Mommy Myth Buster I personally went out and purchased glass bottles. Of course, all you have to do is turn your head […]
[…] the media is fooling us because we don’t have the facts? Well, according to Mom Style News or Mom Myth Busters (same author), yes. If you follow me on twitter you might know, Friday there was a big twitter […]
Actually there is a nice JAMA article looking at human exposure and whatnot. The baby bottle itself doesn’t scare me (boiling water yadda yadda)– it’s more the canned formula that makes me nervous. Course, there are other reasons to avoid canned formula (cost etc)…
I’m going with glass mostly because it’s cheap as all hell and is a lot easier to clean (ugh– milk off plastic. Gag me). I’m pretty sure that the BPA free plastic alternatives (bottles, sippy cups) are pricey because they can…
Miriam – the environmental working group says that while some of the cans of powdered formula are lined with BPA it doesn’t seem to leach into the formula.
http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/140203/drinking_from_plastic_bottles_%27increases_exposure_to_gender-bending_chemical%27/
New research by Harvard School of Public Health found that participants who drank for a week from polycarbonate bottles showed a two-thirds increase of BPA in their urine.
Experts warned that babies are at greater risk, because heating baby bottles increases the amount of BPA released, and the chemical is potentially more harmful to infants.
Study author Karin B. Michels, associate professor of epidemiology at HSPH and Harvard Medical School, said: “We found that drinking cold liquids from polycarbonate bottles for just one week increased urinary BPA levels by more than two-thirds.
“If you heat those bottles, as is the case with baby bottles, we would expect the levels to be considerably higher.
NewsMom,
Two thirds compared to what? And the question remains is BPA hazardous? Not yet been proven or accepted as such. And is the fact that it is passing through the urine instead of being absorbed by the body not a good thing? The body expels many things it can’t use through the urine. If it didn’t thousands of Americans would be suffering daily of Vitamin C overdose poisoning.
Personally, I am happy to see that because government has thus far refused to condemn BPA, people who are passionate about this subject have been taking their stand at the cash register. Many people are choosing to purchase BPA-free products and certainly manufacturers have taken notice. I am a proponent of taking personal responsibility for ourselves instead of over-regulating everything and everyone. Making thoughtful purchasing decisions is the number one way to do that in the United States. Industry will follow where there is money to be made (and abandon what is no longer profitable). As I always say, we have the power to make changes, but it doesn’t have to include bullying everyone else into lock step with our choices by regulating what they are allowed to do.
What, were you paid to make this claim and the HFCS claim? This is not the truth as you so righteously claim in your headline.
Jazzmax,
Mommy Myth Buster does not monetize. Neither the author nor the website are compensated for the publication of this website. Opinions and truth are both free.
I know that when I drink out of plastic I can taste it and its nasty – I know there is alternatives like PLA plastics, stainless steel and glass which dont leach anything at normal temperatures we live in –
if it takes much to test it and you have to worry about when it heats up during shipping which prob can reach high temps it requires more regulations than the hassle its worth when there are good alternatives that cost the same – but if you want to defend it for defense sake ok
but it is true that it probably is better to label it than ban it and jump to conclusions too soon I mean the market will ban it anyways by looking for alternative products
and it may have good uses elsewhere I agree govt should not ban products but people possibly have a right to sue if companies infringe on there rights and false advertising etc
also because there hasn’t been long term tests; our testing has improved nowadays also and also it can take generations to know the real outcomes, we cant see the forest past the trees, you might think 40 years is long enough but I dont
maybe your head is just filled with bpa’s lol just kidding but better alternative are out there I wish there were more stainless steel and PLA plastics available now even duran glass would be good I think probably – just make sure the stainless steel is not coated with plastic or is aluminum inside
it is better to be safe than sorry when there are alternatives out there that wont break the bank; and who knows – it’s possible there is interest in finding these bad from competing industries (there definaly is the other way) and maybe they will be also found unsafe in the future but I know I am gonna avoid bpa’s
and I am not a baby so I think it would be even worser for a baby
I mean you can feel the oils leaching out and definatley taste it or I can and always have for years thats what made me start to look into this whole thing & just for tastes sake dont feed this to your kids – heres some plastic coming up mmm tasty yumm, some bisphenol a just what I needed mmm – I would rather drink from the tap anyways
there is so much to be concerned with vaccines with mercury and flouride and more but its better we keep trying to find out at least everyone is concerned I suppose
[…] media is fooling us because we don’t have the facts? Well, according to Mom Style News or Mom Myth Busters (same author), yes. If you follow me on twitter you might know, Friday there was a big twitter […]
I breastfeed, and when my baby is old enough and needs to drink water, she will drink it out of a bpa-free sippy cup. ONE cup. How’s that for saving money?
I think the exchange from Angelina and SmartMomma is priceless. It just goes to show you how stupid people are. As a researcher, if I would have this argument with a peer, I would be laughed out of my field. Anyone who cannot form their own opinion from Primary resources and instead reads and swallows the hype of the media is destined for quite a few life failures. Its called Critical Reading. Smartmomma ranks right up there with Bush deranged libtards still blaming the previous administration for everything going wrong today.
Its July 2010, and no laws where passed banning bpa. Because there is no danger if handled properly.
Oh, weeeeee — Richard — calling people with whom you disagree ‘libtards’ is quite nasty. You clearly have an issue with anger management and a lack of respect for people with opposing views.
As it turns out, the movement towards banning BPA is alive and well and the EPA is revising its assessment of this chemical.
If you have a valid opinion, it really does not matter since your nasty behavior is so abysmally bad that no one will really care.
I agree GG. If only there were a way to ban Richard from ever posting here again! Or better yet … Ban him from the internet altogether! 🙂
Best Legal Steroid. Muscle Labs USA is a pioneer in the Bodybuilding Supplement Industry. Our field is in the advancement, study, and production of anabolic steroid supplements, body building supplements, muscle site enhancements. We have a variety of products to enhance your physique. It is usually recommended to order stacks, a combination of supplements. One stack might consist of deccabolan, dianabol, and anadroll.
http://www.musclelabsusa.com/images/muscular-development-ad2.jpg
great article love it guys