Why We Must Ban BPA From Products Made For Children
In case you missed the flurry of recent news, scientists have serious doubts about the safety of BPA (bisphenol A). And that's alarming because this hormonally active chemical contaminates the body of virtually every single American.
BPA was first created as a synthetic estrogen, and only later was it discovered to make hard clear plastic (polycarbonate and epoxy resins). Today, billions of pounds of BPA are used in thousands of every day products: from restaurant receipts to toilet paper to the slippery lining of canned food and soda...and infant formula. It's also the plastic in shatterproof drinking tumblers and baby bottles.
The problem is, BPA leaches off the wall of the cans and containers and into our mouths - and our babies' mouths - and into our bodies with every gulp.
In 2007, the CDC reported that over 93 percent of Americans have BPA floating through our bodies. That's a concern because BPA is an endocrine disruptor chemical. That means that even miniscule concentrations of this compound can pervert the normal development of hormonally sensitive tissues, like breast, testicles and brain.
Hundreds of studies on laboratory animals reveal that BPA promotes obesity, diabetes, testicular cancer, breast cancer-like changes (and resistance to life saving chemotherapy) and even reduce sperm counts. This is very worrisome because, over the past 20 years, scientists have noticed rising rates of these problems in people all around the world. In the recently launched National Children's Study, America's monumental evaluation of the adverse health effects of common chemicals, BPA is one of the suspect compounds being evaluated for possible association with autism, cancer, learning disorders, etc.
Newborn and infant exposure to BPA poses an especially disturbing threat during windows of vulnerability. These periods, as short as hours and days, are times when a baby's developing body is exquisitely sensitive to chemical damage. Even minute exposures, during those periods, have the potential of creating lifetime problems.
The National Toxicology Program voiced concern about the "effects on the brain, behavior, and prostate gland in fetuses, infants, and children at current human exposures to bisphenol A." The Endocrine Society, a group of our nation's top scientists dedicated to hormone research, recently warned that BPA and other hormone-twisting chemicals "have effects on male and female reproduction, breast development and cancer, prostate cancer, neuroendocrinology, thyroid, metabolism and obesity, and cardiovascular endocrinology." The Society went on to say that it intends to lobby "for regulation seeking to decrease human exposure" to BPA--an unprecedented move by this 93-year-old institution.
The scientific evidence is broad, growing and convincing. We need to act to protect our citizens from this harmful chemical. That is why California State Senator Fran Pavley crafted SB 797 offering a protective shield for California's most at risk-citizens, its babies. This modest bill has passed the Senate and will soon be voted on by the Assembly. And passage is far from certain. A phalanx of corporate lobbyists from chemical companies has swooped down on Sacramento to misinform and pressure legislators. They are crying their same tired, old song: "It will ruin the economy, it will ruin jobs." That they used to try to fool the public when it came to removing DDT, asbestos, PCBs and many other toxic chemicals.
Of course, their claims are ridiculous. Of all the billions of pounds of BPA in common use, Senator Pavley's bill only phases out only a very tiny fraction: that used in food and drink containers designed for children ages three and younger. Furthermore, removing BPA from these products will likely create jobs and boost the economy by building the market for the safe alternatives to BPA that are already on the market.
Voting for this bill is common sense. In fact, Minnesota, Connecticut and Canada have already enacted similar BPA reductions. Even Chicago has stood up to protect its children. Now it's time for California to act.
Working hard, cooking good dinners, coaching soccer games are the jobs of parents. But, it's not the job of parents to have to inspect every single item they buy in the store for toxic contamination. Keeping unsafe chemicals out of baby formula is the government's job. California will set a great example to the rest of the nation by passing SB 797.
Dr. Harvey Karp is a nationally renowned pediatrician, fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics and spokesman on children's environmental issues for over 20 years. He is the author of the popular parenting guides, The Happiest Baby on the Block and The Happiest Toddler on the Block.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
BPA is indeed a potent endocrine disrupter. Why is everybody so worried about bottles and nobody is discussing a more potent source: composite (white) fillings in teeth? Almost all of them are made with BPA. Studies show increased levels of estrogenic compounds in saliva after a single filling. Great, how many of us have mouthfuls of BPA_laden dental fillings. As usual the dental industry is doing nothing about it. Plastics leach hormone mimics--and many fillings these days are plastics.
So Harvey, what do you think?
Reading articles like this make me sad as a parent. It's a tough job to eliminate toxins from your baby's environment. The gov't needs to step up and regulate.
http://www
http://www
To make matters worse, not all companies can be trusted to say they are compling. SIGG water bottles were found to contain BPA even after the execs said they didn't. Now the company is in severe damage control. So even if laws are enacted or declarations made, it doesn't mean that the products will be BPA free.
Ray Salomone Personal Trainer and Wellness Activist
www.GrecoR
BPA was banned from baby bottles in Canada over a year ago. Within days of the announcement stores were pulling products off the shelves and replaced with BPA free bottles. If you do your research you can find out what companies already offer BPA free products. I am shocked that this is just coming to light in the USA.
Exactly.
free market
I agree with this article as far as it goes, but it does not speak to solving the real problem: eliminating toxins from a baby's (or an adult's) environment.
Let's say we succeed in eliminating BPA. What are we going to replace it with - another toxin?
Are we going to replace BPA plastic with PETE plastics that leach antimony (toxic profile similar to arsenic)? How about LDPE or HDPE, which also contain toxins that have yet to be investigated? How about stainless steel, which can leach nickel, and even hexavalent chromium (of Erin Brockovich fame)?
My opinion for now: use only glass or uncolored ceramic for food/drink containers. You can put them in knitted covers to protect against breakage - use only organic wool/cotton.
What about the need for flexible products such as pacifiers and nipples? Other than a human breast, the closest I can come to something natural is latex. Silicone may be an alternate, but the manufacturing process should be carefully examined for toxic softeners.
I realize many people do not want to lug glass. I have proposed a design for a non-toxic plastic bottle that uses silver to bind the toxins, preventing leaching. It also acts as an antiseptic to keep the contents free of bacteria. I am hopeful I can interest a bottle manufacturer to give it a try.
I discuss this bottle concept, as well as latex allergy, in my book "The Wellness Project."
Roy Mankovitz, Director
http://www
Good info - but leaves me without a satisfying solution. I can't imagine my son carrying around a glass bottle and not breaking it. I didn't know that stainless steel was a problem. It certainly is difficult to steer clear of toxins!
""BPA is one of the suspect compounds being evaluated for possible association with autism, cancer, learning disorders, etc. "
How many other compounds are being evaluated?
What's needed here, in addition to the outright banning of BPA (which may never happen) is a whistleblower with an incriminating internal company document to get things rolling.
Truth is finally surfacing on this greed for profit disease & those that have it couldn't care less about the well being of our people.
It's time they met their Waterloo & it's down hill from here on out for them all, now that our people are finally becoming aware in numbers big enough to make the needed difference.
Shape up or ship out!
Take the money & run or whatever.
But the Gig "is" up!
Justice Department Announces Largest Health Care Fraud Settlement in Its History:
http://www
Surgeon accused of lying quits WU:
http://www
"Renowned scientific publisher Elsevier produced Merck-sponsored publications designed to look like independent scientific journals, with names such as "The Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine," has led to some of the most far-reaching professional fallout from the trial. Elsevier disclosed six other phony "Australasian Journals" last week."
http://abc
The most massive scientific frauds in medical history:
http://www
"Newborn and infant exposure to BPA poses an especially disturbing threat during windows of vulnerability. These periods, as short as hours and days, are times when a baby's developing body is exquisitely sensitive to chemical damage. Even minute exposures, during those periods, have the potential of creating lifetime problems."
Hmmm. But, I thought...
I have witnessed first-hand the impact those clear baby bottles have had on neurological development. I diagnosed and treated 1000s of children with autism.
30 years ago, when bottles and formula cans did NOT contain BPA, autism rates were about 1 per 1500 children (Children who were breast-fed had an even lower rate) Today, it's 1 in 750. That's DOUBLE the incidence in just 30 years..
Of course the chemical companies will continue in the vein they are today, and will never admit their products are toxic. To do so would be to invite huge class-action suits filed by devastated families; it would be too much of a loss for the shareholders.
How anyone in the seats of power in theses corporations can sleep at night is beyond me. Can there truly be so many sociopaths in the world?
Sadly, you know nothing about the complexity and intricacies of market forces. Individual weatlh maximization always leads to the best outcomes and always creates the most efficient systems. We can't regulate BPA to protect consumers because it would decrease profit margins for corporations and would therefore harm rich people in the aggregate. Protect babies from endocrine-
The many people concerned about the possible dangers of amalgam dental fillings should be aware that the alternative composite fillings contain large amounts of BPA.
"BPA is one of the suspect compounds being evaluated for possible association with autism, cancer, learning disorders, etc. "
How many other compounds are being evaluated?
Sorry dink
Posted this in the wrong spot.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
