Conservation 101: the Compete to Conserve Blog

photo credit: Inferis

Last month, the California legislature missed an opportunity to do the right thing and phase out the use of BPA (bisphenol A) in baby bottles, cups, and baby food cans and jars sold in the state. Contrary to what the critics would have you believe, it would have banned the use of BPA only in products intended for anyone under the age of 3.

Senate Bill 1713, introduced by California State Senator Carole Migden, passed in the Senate, but even after several rounds of amendments and votes, failed to pass in the Assembly. This is a real shame. It had been hoped that the bill, if passed, would lead the way for other states to follow suit.

BPA, in case you haven’t heard, is a chemical additive found in clear, shatterproof plastics and in canned-food liners. It’s also a well-known endocrine disrupter that is linked to a variety of ailments, including infertility and breast and prostate cancer.

Would you want to give a known carcinogen to your baby? Remember, babies are in a state of rapid development, so environmental toxins can play a more harmful role in amounts smaller than is needed to harm adults. It’s no wonder that parental outcry has strong-armed manufacturers to produce alternative baby products that don’t use BPA. (With cups at least. So far, it seems, all cans of baby formula contain BPA. Powdered cans contain less, however.)

Most parents, i.e., voters, are overwhelmingly in favor of SB 1713. I know a few parents who are indifferent to it, but none who are clamoring to include even a suspected toxin in products that developing babies use every day. So who sank it? Primarily, the plastics industry. These are the same people who mailed a flyer misleading voters to believe that the BPA phase out would include a wide range of favorite consumer goods, even those intended for adults.

The American Plastics Council insists the amount of BPA that leaches from BPA-containing cups and bottles into food and drink is safe. Unfortunately, the tobacco companies, after decades of knowingly lying about the dangers of smoking, pretty much ruined the industry safety line for everyone. When companies talk about “acceptable levels of risk” these days, do you believe them unquestioningly?

Of course, the FDA, the European Food Safety Authority, and the Japanese National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology also claim BPA is safe. But even the American Plastics Council admits that the U.S. National Toxicology Program says there is “some concern” regarding BPA exposure in infants and children and that “more research is needed.” (That phrase always raises my eyebrows.) Non-Toxic Kids has a good graphic that shows that the “some concern” level is no cause for dismissal.

Both Canada and Japan have taken a “just in case” approach and moved to ban the use of BPA in baby products. Don’t our families deserve the same level of precaution?

What’s Next
The fight is not necessarily over. Senator Carole Migden will be replaced by Mark Leno in November. When I called her office, they suggested letting him know you support the proposed ban. He could draft a new bill if enough people voice their support.

More Resources:
“Caution Is the Right Reaction to Chemical,” Los Angeles Times, August 13, 2008
http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-fi-lazarus13-2008aug13,0,3672425.column

“California Assembly Rejects Two Bills on Chemical Bans,” The Sacramento Bee, August 19, 2008
http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/1167258.html

“BPA in Formula: This Is Not a Call to Panic,” on Enviroblog
http://www.enviroblog.org/2007/12/bpa-in-formula-this-is-not-a-c.htm

photo credit: pfly

You don’t mess with the mama bear. That’s what my husband says when I get angry about an issue that could adversely affect our children. It’s also a major reason there is a rising public outcry over bisphenol A, or BPA, for short.

What Is BPA?

BPA is a chemical compound found in most plastic baby bottles, clear plastic sports bottles, infant-formula cans, drink and food cans, plastic utensils, dental sealants, hospital incubators, dialyzers, and more. It’s also linked to a number of health problems, including (but not limited to):

• Infertility
• Breast cancer
• Prostate cancer
• Insulin resistance (a common precursor to Type II Diabetes)
• Early puberty
• Chromosomal abnormalities that can cause miscarriage and birth defects

BPA is so widely used that even those who compulsively avoid BPA-containing products are exposed to it. BPA’s annual production exceeds a billion pounds. It is found in waterways, sediment, estuaries, household dust, and air. In humans, it is found in breast milk, saliva, urine, cord blood, and amniotic fluid. Many researchers say even low level doses of BPA can have a negative effect on developing systems. So, as with most toxins, BPA is of most concern to pregnant women, infants, and very young children.

If BPA Is Potentially Harmful, Why Is It Used at All?

BPA is added to hard plastics to make them less likely to shatter. Anyone who’s ever dropped and broken a glass in the sink is likely to see the merits of a shatter-proof material. In canned foods and drinks, BPA is used as a liner to prevent the ingredients from reacting to the metal in the can.

What’s Being Done About BPA?

Both the U.S. Federal Drug Administration and European Food Safety Authority insist that BPA is safe in the levels that a typical adult, child, or infant consumes. Their Canadian counterparts at Health Canada feel differently, however, and say it may pose a risk to infants. They suggest reclassifying BPA as “toxic” to human health and the environment. Canada is moving to ban BPA from baby bottles and other infant products.

In the U.S., BPA remains unregulated and the FDA is unlikely to take any action. Consumer demand, though, is driving change. Many of the most popular makers of baby bottles now offer BPA-free plastic and good old-fashioned glass bottles. Nalgene, the makers of clear plastic sports bottles often used by hikers and other cyclists, are promising to offer a BPA-free version soon too. And stores like Wal-Mart and Toys ‘R Us are demanding alternatives from their suppliers. (People tend to get angrier when babies’ health is involved, so traction on removing BPA from canned food and drink liners is going slower.)

More resources:

“BPA Q&A,” The Globe and Mail, April 28, 2008 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080423.wbpadiscussion/BNStory/specialScienceandHealth/home/?pageRequested=all

“Timeline: BPA from Invention to Phaseout,” Environmental Working Group http://www.ewg.org/reports/bpatimeline

“A Survey of Bisphenol A in U.S. Canned Goods,” Environmental Working Group http://www.ewg.org/reports/bisphenola