Not My Breasts

Industry influence exposed--finally

A front-page article in the Washington Post yesterday brought to light an alarming revelation: the FDA has relied on just two scientific studies, both funded by a chemical industry trade group, in declaring bisphenol A safe. The agency has ignored the more than 100 peer-reviewed, journal-published articles saying just the opposite: not only is BPA not conclusively safe, it is linked to increased rates of breast and prostate cancer, among other alarming diseases.

It's vindicating to see this in print, but it's been too long in coming. We've known that the FDA relied on industry studies for BPA safety data, as it does for other industries, including cosmetics. But far too many people for too long have blindly followed the FDA and industry party line on BPA, allowing additional years of unnecessary exposure to this dangerous chemical.

I'm not talking simply about individuals buying Nalgene water bottles or Gerber baby bottles; I'm talking about the opinion-makers in the media, regulators unwilling to take the first plunge and companies trying to maintain their brand images.

Rather than inspiring guilt and shopper's paralysis among parents, weekend athletes or fans of canned pasta, we're working to make sure government regulators do their jobs of protecting us all from toxic chemicals. The burden of proof of harm shouldn't be foisted on citizens, nor should advocates and scientists have to point out to the FDA that it's not looking at all the available evidence.

Watershed week for BPA activists

Until last week, no government agency in the world had been willing to say that an estrogenic chemical called bisphenol A might be dangerous. That was despite the growing body of peer-reviewed science indicating that BPA is a potential risk factor for breast cancer, prostate cancer, behavioral changes, insulin resistance, early puberty, miscarriage and more.

It was Canada that finally said enough is enough, and on Friday--after days of speculation--Health Canada announced that it would conduct a risk assessment of BPA. For the next two months, Canada will consider a ban on the production and sale of baby bottles and cans of infant formula intended for very young children.

We could hardly keep up with what followed.

Shortly after word got out that Canada would be announcing an inquiry into BPA's safety, the U.S. National Toxicology Program announced that it had determined BPA to be cause for concern. It is the first U.S federal agency to make such a determination; by contrast, FDA has repeatedly said that BPA is harmless.

In the days since, Wal-Mart announced that it will stop selling baby bottles that contain BPA in its U.S. stores; Nalgene has said it will stop using the BPA-containing plastic in the water bottles the company is best known for; today Toys 'R' Us said that it plans to stop selling baby bottles and other baby feeding products that contain BPA.

Finally, U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) said in an interview late last week that he plans to introduce a bill banning the chemical and funding a public health campaign about its dangers to infants.

Bisphenol A (BPA) was originally developed as a synthetic estrogen, and was later found useful in the manufacture of hard polycarbonate plastics (labeled #7 Other). BPA is used in baby bottles, 5-gallon refillable water bottles, some Nalgene-brand sports water bottles, CDs, liners on food and beverage cans, dental sealants and more.

Because it's in so many products, a whole lot of it is produced--to the tune of 2 billion pounds a year in the United States and 6 billion pounds a year globally. Not coincidentally, it's found in about 93 percent of Americans over age 6.

The chemical industry likely won't go down without a fight for BPA, but there's an important message in all these company announcements: they're getting rid of this chemical because of customer concerns. That means YOU have a voice and a place at this table, that YOU play a role in deciding to use safe products.

I hope you'll stay tuned and see how this plays out, and lend your voice when needed. We'll be following this story, as we have since we became aware of the BPA link to breast cancer several years ago. Check back here, or sign up for our e-mail alerts.

Baby's Toxic Bottle

The Breast Cancer Fund joined a broad coalition of U.S. and Canadian public health and environmental organizations today in calling for an immediate moratorium on the use of bisphenol A (BPA) in baby bottles and food and beverage containers.  A new study commissioned by the coalition found six major brands of popular baby bottles sold in the United States and Canada leach BPA, a hormone-disrupting chemical linked to breast cancer and other health concerns.   

Baby’s Toxic Bottle: Bisphenol A Leaching from Popular Brands of Baby Bottles tested Avent, Disney/The First Years, Dr. Brown’s, Evenflo, Gerber, and Playtex baby bottles, purchased in nine states at major retail stores, and found that when the new bottles were heated they leached BPA at 4.7-8.3 parts per billion, levels shown in recent animal studies to disrupt development. 

This study further demonstrates the pervasiveness of BPA and follows a congressional investigation into the use of BPA by seven major baby product manufacturers in the lining of metal cans for infant formula.
 
“It’s outrageous that manufacturers of some baby bottles are exposing little girls to BPA, a synthetic plasticizer that mimics estrogen, and possibly increasing that little girl’s risk of breast cancer later in life, especially when safe alternatives are available,” said Janet Nudelman, Director of Program and Policy for the Breast Cancer Fund.
 
Sign a petition now demanding manufacturers remove BPA from baby bottles!

To minimize your child’s exposure to BPA:
• Use glass or polypropylene bottles (#5 plastic) instead of polycarbonate (#7 plastic – hard, shiny, clear) bottles;
• Avoid heating polycarbonate containers.  Use glass or ceramic containers in the microwave and for hot foods.
• Cut back on consumption of canned foods and beverages to reduce exposure to BPA contamination.  Also, avoid canned foods with higher fat content, including infant formulas, which may have higher levels of BPA.

Congress Questions FDA and Manufacturers on Use of BPA in Children's Products

A congressional investigation was launched this week into the use of bisphenol A (BPA) in children’s products.   Rep. John Dingell (D-MI), Chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight Investigations, sent letters to the Food and Drug Administration and seven major baby product manufacturers, including Nestle(Download nestle_bpa_ltr_011708.pdf) and Wyeth, questioning the presence of BPA in the lining of metal cans used for infant formula.

“We have learned that BPA may be contained in the material used to line cans that contain infant formula and that BPA from this lining may leach into the formula itself, thereby exposing babies to BPA.  We are interested to know how often BPA is used in such lining, whether the companies that produce the infant formula are aware that BPA is being used in this manner, and if they have tested their produce for the presence of BPA.”

The legislators specifically questioned the FDA (Download fda_bisphenol_a_ltr_011708.pdf ) on the credibility of a review they conducted in 2007 on the safety of BPA.  According to a November statement, the FDA indicated there was no “safety concern at the current exposure level” and that a dietary exposure of 3.7 parts per billion in canned foods and baby bottles does not warrant regulatory action.  The congressional letter calls on the FDA to release the studies that they used to formulate their claim.

The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel did an investigation into industry studies and panel reviews on BPA and found that disagreements with scientific reviews implicating BPA have come exclusively from plastics industry scientists.  The paper examined a December report by the National Toxicology Program claiming the chemical was of minor concern and found that the panel members gave more weight to industry-funded studies and rejected studies from universities and foreign governments examining the growing concerns of BPA at smaller doses.

BPA is one of the most universal and pervasive chemicals in modern life - found in baby bottles, lining of metal food cans, dental sealants and countless other products - and has been linked to wide array of health concerns, including breast cancer.  Because BPA is an unstable polymer, it can leach into infant formula and other food products.  CDC researchers have found the endocrine disrupting chemical in 95 percent of urine samples from a broad national sample of adults.  A study released this week from the peer reviewed journal Reproductive Toxicology found that the chemical may be far more dangerous for infants and young children because they lack the enzymes necessary to break the chemical down into inactive form.

Warning: Chemical Industry Cover-up of Bisphenol A

In their latest Watchdog Report, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel revealed a chemical industry cover-up of one of the most pervasive chemicals found in modern life, bisphenol A.  Used in baby bottles to food cans, this “everywhere chemical” has been found in 95 percent of more than 300 urine samples and linked to a wide array of health effects, including breast cancer.

The Journal-Sentinel’s investigation found the studies and panels supported by the chemical industry cherry-picked results to assure the public of bisphenol A’s safety.  A panel commissioned by the National Toxicology Program released a report last week finding the chemical, a known endocrine disrupter, to be of minor concern.  “The Journal-Sentinel found that panel members gave more weight to industry-funded studies and more leeway to industry-funded researchers.”  The panel rejected academic studies on the basis of inadequate methods but accepted industry-funded studies that used the same methods to conclude the chemical’s safety.  Universities and foreign governments have also been looking into growing concerns of bisphenol A in smaller doses, and the newspaper found that the panel dismissed studies that examined the impact of BPA at those levels.

The Journal-Sentinel also reviewed 258 scientific studies funded by government agencies and universities and found that four out of five reported a range of health concerns, from allergies to reproductive deformities:

“Just 12% of the studies found that bisphenol A had no ill effects. Most of those studies were paid for or partially written by scientists hired by the chemical industry.   A study funded by the Society of the Plastics Industry found that bisphenol A did not pose harm to developing rats.  Another study discounted any reproductive effects on exposed rats.  The authors included scientists affiliated with Shell Chemicals, Dow Chemical Co. and General Electric – all then makers of bisphenol A.”

Our greatest concern is that government regulators have tended to side with the chemical industry in minimizing the human health concerns around bisphenol A and other known toxins in our environment.  Join BCF in advocating for environmental health policies that place the public’s health first.  Read more about bisphenol A and its link to breast cancer on our web site.