[Pharmwaste] "U.S. Cites Fears on Chemical In Plastics", plus links to more articles on the topic

Wed Apr 16 09:41:23 EDT 2008

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/15/AR200804
1501753.html?wpisrc=newsletter

U.S. Cites Fears on Chemical In Plastics

By Lyndsey Layton
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 16, 2008; A01

A federal health agency acknowledged for the first time yesterday
concerns that a chemical found in thousands of everyday products such as
baby bottles and compact discs may cause cancer and other serious
disorders.

The draft report by the National Toxicology Program signaled a turning
point in the government's position on bisphenol A, or BPA, a chemical so
ubiquitous in the United States that it has been detected in the urine
of 93 percent of the population over 6 years of age.

Last year, another expert panel using outside scientists minimized the
health risks of BPA, but its findings were widely assailed after a
congressional investigation found that a firm hired to perform
scientific analysis was also working for the chemical industry.

Used in the production of plastic since the 1950s, BPA may be linked in
laboratory animals to breast cancer, prostate cancer, early puberty in
females and behavioral changes, according to the study released
yesterday. It called for more research into the chemical's health
effects.

Although the National Toxicology Program, an office of the National
Institutes of Health, has no power to regulate BPA, its findings are
used by other federal agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration
and the Environmental Protection Agency, which set safe exposure limits
for chemicals.

"What we've got is a warning, a signal, of some concerns," said Mike
Shelby, director of the Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human
Reproduction, who oversaw the report. "We could not dismiss the
possibility that similar or related effects might occur in humans."

Public health advocates said the report should spur the government to
ban BPA, at least in baby products. Formula-fed infants are most
vulnerable to the chemical, since it is found in baby bottles as well as
in the linings of cans of powdered and liquid formula. "They get a
double exposure," said Anila Jacob, a senior scientist at the nonprofit
Environmental Working Group.

But Steven G. Hentges, executive director of the polycarbonate/BPA
global group at the American Chemistry Council, said the new report does
not mean BPA is unsafe.

"It found no serious or high-level concerns for human health," he said.
"More research is always considered valuable."

The toxicology panel used a five-level rating system, ranging from
serious concern to negligible concern. It labeled the possible cancer
risk of BPA as "some concern," in the middle of the scale. There was not
enough scientific evidence to rank it as a "concern" or a "serious
concern," Shelby said.

Asked in an interview whether exposure to BPA can be eliminated, Shelby
paused. "It's everywhere," he said. "It's not clear that we know what
all the sources of BPA exposure are. The vast majority of exposure is
through food and drink -- cans and bottles. But there could be trace
amounts in water, dust. Your cellphone is probably made out of it."

Since BPA is most readily absorbed through food and drink containers,
health advocates have been particularly focused on how the Food and Drug
Administration is regulating the chemical. An FDA spokesman declined to
comment on the new report, saying the agency has not had a chance to
review it.

The FDA has been under fire from the House Energy and Commerce
Committee, which has been investigating the influence of the chemical
industry on the agency's regulation of BPA in plastic liners in metal
cans of baby formula.

Last month, in response to questions from lawmakers, the FDA said it had
disregarded hundreds of government and academic studies about the cancer
risks of BPA and used just two studies funded by the chemical industry
to determine that the chemical is safe.

Yesterday's report should spur the FDA to reconsider its decisions
regarding BPA, said Reps. John D. Dingell (D-Mich.), the Energy and
Commerce chairman, and Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), chairman of the panel's
oversight and investigations subcommittee.

"These assessments fly in the face of the FDA's determination that BPA
is safe," Dingell said through a spokesman. "I hope the FDA is willing
to reconsider their position on BPA for the safety of our infants and
children."

Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Oversight and
Government Reform Committee, said, referring to the National Toxicology
Program: "It appears that NTP has really listened to the concerns of
scientists in this field. This is an important public health issue, and
we can't afford to get it wrong."

Concern about BPA has been growing for years, and the chemistry
council's Web site has pages devoted to responding to "scare stories"
about the chemical. "The weight of scientific evidence clearly supports
the safety of BPA and provides strong reassurance that there is no basis
for human health concerns from exposure to BPA," one page says.

A number of states, including California and New Jersey, are considering
bans on BPA. Others, such as Maine, may require manufacturers to place
warning labels on products containing it.

The worries have been a boon for a two-year-old company, Born Free, that
manufactures BPA-free baby bottles and sippy cups. The company can't
turn out bottles fast enough, and demand intensifies with new scientific
studies.

"Every time there is a publication, after a few days, we're out of
stock," said Gil Lemel, the company's chief executive. "Every time we
think we are better prepared, it never is enough. We make 80,000 bottles
a day, and we have no inventory."

****
More articles on the Bisphenol A topic:

Report cites BPA's risk. For the first time, the federal government said
Tuesday that a chemical found in commonly used products such as dental
sealants, baby bottles and aluminum cans is potentially dangerous to
human development and reproduction. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel,
Wisconsin. 16 April 2008. 
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=739923

'Toxic' plastic could remain in use. As speculation mounts that the
federal government will declare that common plastic food and drink
containers are officially toxic, an odd twist is also emerging: Being
declared toxic would not force the products off supermarket shelves.
Ottawa Citizen, Ontario. 16 April 2008.

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=1aaf8ca3-a969-4f4
1-9023-f68982899d1e&k=99266

Bisphenol A water-bottle removal expanding among Canadian retailers.
Three of Canada's major retailers said Tuesday they are pulling plastic
water and baby bottles that contain the controversial chemical bisphenol
A, in anticipation of Health Canada labelling it a dangerous substance.
Canadian Press. 16 April 2008. 
http://www.princegeorgecitizen.com/20080415125310/wire/world-news/bisphe
nol-a-water-bottle-removal-expanding-among-canadian-retailers.html

Canada first to label bisphenol A as officially dangerous. Health Canada
is calling bisphenol A a dangerous substance, making it the first
regulatory body in the world to reach such a determination and taking
the initial step toward measures to control exposures to it. Toronto
Globe and Mail, Ontario. 15 April 2008. 
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080415.TOXIC15//TPSto
ry/Environment

Ignore self-serving industry studies and ban plastics chemical. BPA's
propensity to leach from hundreds of everyday consumer products - food
packaging, baby bottles, water bottles, infant formula containers - is
what concerns scientists. San Jose Mercury News, California. Opinion, 14
April 2008. [related stories] 
http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_8917562?nclick_check=1

Deborah L. DeBiasi
Email:   dldebiasi at deq.virginia.gov
WEB site address:  www.deq.virginia.gov
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
Office of Water Permit Programs
Industrial Pretreatment/Toxics Management Program
PPCPs, EDCs, and Microconstituents
Mail:          P.O. Box 1105, Richmond, VA  23218 (NEW!)
Location:  629 E. Main Street, Richmond, VA  23219
PH:         804-698-4028
FAX:      804-698-4032