Not My Breasts

The final stretch: Calif. BPA bill vote TODAY!

Check out these two great pieces--one in the LA Times and one in the San Francisco Chronicle--in support of the California bill to ban bisphenol A (BPA) from infant food containers--a bill that will be voted on today. This eleventh-hour support is critical, as the vote will be extremely close, and we're up against a very well-funded chemical-industry PR and lobbying machine.

If you live in California, you can help. Please call your state Assembly person and urge them to vote to protect kids from this toxic chemical that's been linked to breast cancer and many other diseases. Call now... we don't have a moment to waste!

SIGG admits to using BPA in bottles

As an environmental health organization, the Breast Cancer Fund is committed to reducing exposure to the nasty chemicals, like phthalates and bisphenol A (BPA), in plastic food and beverage containers. So it made sense for us to scope out alternatives to plastic water bottles for the hundreds of people who participate in our outdoor challenge events.

And voila! In 2007 we found SIGG, a Swiss company with a very current product: reusable aluminum water bottles in great colors and designs. They provided bottles to our Climb Against the Odds participants in 2007 and 2008, as well as to top fundraisers in our Bike Against the Odds 2007.

In late August, SIGG admitted that its bottles were lined with a resin made with BPA until August 2008. To say we are disappointed is a woeful understatement. Sure, SIGG has a new, BPA-free resin liner -- but what is it made of? The company isn't saying.

BPA is linked to increased breast cancer risk and is tops on our list of chemicals to restrict in the interest of health. We've posted a more lengthy statement regarding SIGG's BPA use and where to go from here.

Moms to Calif. state Assembly: We want BPA-free kids!

On Wednesday morning, over 100 California moms, kids and health  advocates gathered on the steps of the State Capitol in support of banning the synthetic estrogen BPA from feeding products designed for children 3 years old and younger.

Following the rally, the kids, wearing "Make Me BPA-Free!" t-shirts, joined their mothers in visiting Assemblymember offices to deliver messages in BPA-free baby bottles, encouraging their support for SB797.

“Our message to the Assembly is clear: We can’t wait any longer to protect kids,” said Gretchen Lee Salter, policy manager at the Breast Cancer Fund. “No matter what the chemical industry says, scientists, health professionals and parents insist that synthetic hormones have no place in baby food and beverage products.”

Meanwhile, the chemical industry continues their intense public relations blitz to fight efforts to restrict BPA. An investigation by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel revealed a well-funded campaign by the chemical industry to fight legislation, downplay BPA’s risks, and discredit any efforts to warn the public of the dangers of BPA.

The Assembly is scheduled to vote on this important legislation as early as next week. Join the Breast Cancer Fund and concerned Californians in taking action to support for SB797!

View the Breast Cancer Fund's press release on the Sacramento rally.

Calif. Parents to Urge Assembly to Ban BPA in Baby Products

Last Wednesday, Los Angeles mothers rallied to ban the toxic chemical bisphenol A (BPA) from baby bottles and children’s sippy cups. This Wednesday, concerned mothers and health advocates from across the state will gather in the halls of the California State Capitol to move the Assembly to support SB 797, legislation that would ban BPA from food and drink containers designed for children under three.

 

One of the most pervasive chemicals in modern life, BPA is used in thousands of consumer products, including food and beverage containers and the lining of metal cans, and yet exposure to the estrogen-mimicking chemical, especially during gestation and early infancy, is linked to adverse health effects, including later-life breast cancer.

 

If California bans BPA, the state will join Minnesota, Connecticut, Chicago and three New York counties in leading efforts to remove the chemical from children’s products, which has also been supported by movement in the marketplace away from the use of BPA.  Six baby bottle manufacturers have pledged to stop using the chemical and retailers including CVS, Kmart, Safeway, Toys R Us, Wal-Mart and Whole Foods have announced they will stop selling BPA-containing baby bottles.

 

In the Sacramento area? Join the Breast Cancer Fund and concerned California parents on Wednesday, August 26, on the west steps of the State Capitol, and help us deliver “messages in baby bottles” to California Assembly members!

 

Also, view photos from the L.A. rally on our Facebook page.

Toxic baby bottle swap in L.A. tomorrow

As reported by the L.A. Times, you can stop by St. John’s Well Family & Child Center in Los Angeles tomorrow and trade your old, toxic (BPA-containing) baby bottle for a BPA-free bottle.

Why are we giving away baby bottles? Although BPA (bisphenol A) is a synthetic estrogen linked to increased breast cancer risk, it's used in many brands of baby bottles. Babies' growing bodies are especially sensitive to the chemical's hormone-disrupting effects, which may not show up until they're adults. We want BPA out of kids' bottles and bodies!

Also at the bottle exchange will be Dr. Harvey Karp, world-renowned pediatrician and author of “The Happiest Baby on the Block,” along with advocates of California Senate Bill 797, a piece of legislation sponsored by Sen. Fran Pavley that would ban BPA from baby bottles and other food and beverage containers for kids 3 and under.

The Breast Cancer Fund, a co-sponsor of the bill, will be there, too. You can get all the details on Facebook (you don't need to be a member to view the information), but here's the basics:

Date: Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Time: 10 to 11:30 a.m.
Location: St. John’s Well Family & Child Center at Magnolia Place
Street: 1910 S. Magnolia Avenue
City/Town: Los Angeles, CA

Rush to hormone-replacement therapy fueled by industry-funded "science"

Did you catch the front-page story in yesterday’s New York Times chronicling how, from 1998 to 2005, pharmaceutical giant Wyeth paid ghostwriters to produce scientific papers that “emphasized the benefits and de-emphasized the risks” of hormone-replacement therapy ?

You may recall that several years back, hundreds of thousands of menopausal women came off the very popular HRT after researchers documented a link between the hormone drugs and rising incidences of breast cancer (as well as heart disease, stroke and blood clots) among women being treated with HRT.

This should not have come as a complete surprise: the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has listed estrogens as known human carcinogens since 1987, and their component hormones since 1976. But what’s more troubling is that we now know that the rush to HRT was based not so much on a lack of information of the risks, but on a misinformation campaign funded the makers of the HRT drugs

Medical journals have some soul-searching to do. Why is it that they did not (and in most cases still do not) require of their contributors full disclosure of conflicts of interest? Our health, even our very lives, hang in the balance.

Is BPA as harmless as California claims?

The answer, of course, is no, according to just about everyone except the chemical industry and the metal packaging industry.

Yesterday's decision by a panel of political appointees that there isn't "clear and credible" evidence that bisphenol A (BPA) causes damage to the human reproductive system was baffling. Sarah Janssen, a scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council who testified yesterday, summed it up in a blog post, and the decision was widely reported by the Associated Press.

Over the course of the day, the panel -- officially charged with determining whether substances should be added to California's Prop. 65 list of chemicals known to cause cancer or birth defects -- listened to details from hundreds of studies suggesting harm, and to hours of testimony from scientists, doctors, breast cancer survivors, parents and advocates of all stripes.

One of those bold testifiers was our own Strong Voice, Nancy Bellen from Santa Rosa, Calif. Nancy spoke of her own experience with breast cancer and her hope that parents would be able to make safe, BPA-free choices under Prop. 65 (the listing triggers a right-to-know labeling requirement for consumers' benefit). Thanks to Nancy and all the Strong Voices and supporters who came out for the hearing!

And, of course, this isn't the last word. We're still advocating for bills in California and in Congress that would reduce our exposure to BPA. NRDC has already filed a petition with the California EPA to reconsider BPA for Prop. 65 listing.

Climb photos are online!

Photos, photos and more photos of Climb Against the Odds 2009 on Mt. Shasta are now on our Flickr page. We've posted gear check through the trailhead return so far; check back for photos from the Community Celebration and the farewell dinner, too.

California fails to list BPA on Prop. 65

I’m disappointed to report that, despite the overwhelming science linking BPA to health problems, the state’s science advisory board voted this afternoon against adding it on California’s Prop. 65 list of chemicals known to cause cancer or birth defects.

We heard some damning testimony today from scientists, doctors, parents and breast cancer survivors who hoped, as we did, that the California EPA would declare that bisphenol A is too toxic to ignore.
 
This is a missed opportunity. Had the advisory board voted to add BPA to the Prop. 65 list, manufacturers would have been required to report its use in consumer products. Californians most often associate Prop. 65 with the WARNING signs at gas stations, on lead crystal glasses and next to the canned tuna in supermarket aisles.
 
But to the national community of health advocates and legislators working to reduce our exposure to this toxic chemical, today’s vote is by no means the end of the conversation. Prop. 65 listing would have meant a boost to legislation and market changes already underway, but those efforts will continue in California, in Congress and in corporate board rooms.

Prop. 65 testimony done, deliberations beginning

We've heard from parents, scientists, breast cancer survivors, reproductive health professionals, lawyers and other advocates who have all told the panel in no uncertain terms: This panel has a responsibility to all Californians to list BPA on Prop. 65. Californians have a right to know if the products they buy contain this toxic chemical.

Stay tuned: deliberations are starting now.