Late last Friday afternoon, on the eve of its legal deadline and at probably the best possible time to avoid media scrutiny, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced it has rejected the 2008 Natural Resources Defense Council petition requesting that the toxic chemical bisphenol A, or BPA, be declared unsafe and banned from food packaging.
The FDA said it "has determined, as a matter of science and regulatory policy, that the best course of action at this time is to continue our review and study of emerging data on BPA," and that "this announcement is not a final safety determination and the FDA continues to support research examining the safety of BPA."
This weak response is deeply disappointing and calls into question the FDA's ability to take decisive action to protect public health.
The body of evidence against BPA has been mounting over the years we've been calling on the FDA to make a definitive determination on BPA's safety. Most of us are exposed to BPA every day. In fact, the CDC found BPA in 93 percent of all Americans tested, and the National Institutes of Health point to food packaging, including food cans, which are lined with BPA, as a major route of exposure. BPA has been found in blood and urine of pregnant women, in the umbilical cord blood of newborns and in breast milk soon after women gave birth.
Nearly 200 lab studies show that exposures to even low doses of BPA, particularly during pregnancy and early infancy, are associated with a wide range of adverse health effects later in life, including breast cancer. Studies show that BPA exposure can make non-cancerous breast cells grow and survive like cancer cells, and can actually make the cells less responsive to the cancer-inhibiting effects of tamoxifen, a drug used in the treatment of breast cancer.
Yet the FDA is saying it wants even more evidence of harm before acting. If BPA were a potential pharmaceutical drug, it is highly doubtful that, given the adverse effects already seen in animal models, it would ever be allowed into clinical trials in humans. Indeed, we are all currently part of an uncontrolled human BPA experiment.
The rejection of the NRDC petition is far from the last decision the FDA will have to make on BPA, and far from the last word from the public and policy makers. Two weeks ago, Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., formally petitioned the FDA to ban the use of BPA in food packaging. Markey has also introduced legislation, the Ban Poisonous Additives Act, that would instruct the FDA to ban BPA from all food packaging. Even the American Chemistry Council, which represents companies that manufacture BPA and has spent millions lobbying aggressively on behalf of BPA, submitted a petition to the FDA in December requesting that the agency ban the hormonally active chemical from baby bottles.
The FDA's inaction is in stark contrast to consumer, business and legislative action. Last month, the Breast Cancer Fund's Cans Not Cancer campaign publicized the fact that Campbell Soup Company will phase out the use of BPA in its can linings. Baby bottle and sports water bottle manufacturers abandoned BPA over the last few years. At the public policy level, 11 states have banned BPA from baby bottles and sippy cups, and three of those states have also banned it from infant formula and baby food.
Scientists, consumers, retailers, manufacturers and the states are sending clear signals that BPA doesn't belong in our food packaging and that investment in safe alternatives is an investment in the health of the American public. Now the FDA needs to catch up. Inaction is not acceptable. The FDA needs to take decisive, urgent action to ensure that all of us -- regardless of where we live or where we shop -- are protected from this toxic chemical.
World regulatory bodies like the EPA, Europe's EFSA, and the Japanese Ministry of Food Regulation have all come to the conclusion that under current exposure limits there is no evidence that BPA constitutes a health hazard.
"“We encourage the FDA to consider low-dose studies examining important endocrinological endpoints when making policies regarding BPA or other endocrine-disrupting chemicals,” said Hall. ...."
The thing is the FDA did consider these studies. The problem is that they are not reproducible as the following citation describes. The Endocrine Society is proposing a weight-of-evidence approach, however that is really not what science is about - one correct answer outweighs all the incorrect ones.
The FDA is not unique. The German Leibniz Research Centre for Working Environment and Human Factors, published in Crit Rev Tox 4/2011 states:
"Despite the fact that more than 5000 safety-related studies have been published on bisphenol A (BPA), there seems to be no resolution of the apparently deadlocked controversy as to whether exposure of the general population to BPA causes adverse effects due to its estrogenicity. Therefore, the Advisory Committee of the German Society of Toxicology reviewed the background and cutting-edge topics of this BPA controversy. .... After having carefully considered all arguments, the Committee had to conclude that the criticism was scientifically not justified; moreover, recently published additional data further support the reliability of the two- and three-generation studies demonstrating a lack of estrogen-dependent effects at and below doses on which the current TDI is based."
The scientific process which includes careful retesting and re-review is failing to confirm that there are issues with current protocols.
Sadly as we see with many things human health and the environment seemingly take a back seat to money. As a culture, we have looked the other way as profit rose above human health and the environment.
The FDA is saying it wants even more evidence of harm before acting?
Really?
Didn't we go through something like this with smoking?
We know from history that a lack of science does not translate to "safe".
There are a couple of things going on here- some lawmakers are willing to look another way- and then there are others that may be ready to make the "change" but even with their willingness to do so I find that many do not really have a full understanding of the issues and thus have difficulty advocating for what is best for human health and the environment.
I feel lawmakers are not fully prepared. And while the inclination is to say how could they not be with all the above information- it has not made a life connection for them. As an example, they may not have made a connection to the fact that someone they love may have cancer because of the environment or lifestyle.
While there is a wave of change thankfully occurring because of the work you and others are doing -people for the most part do not really fully understand the link to human health and the environment.
Bill Couzens Founder Less Cancer
Exposed: 10 Facts about the Breast Cancer Industry You're Not Supposed to Know (opinion)
(NaturalNews) With Breast Cancer Awareness month fully upon us once again, retail stores have been invaded with everything pink, including "pink ribbon" candies and personal care products made with blatantly cancer-causing ingredients. Retail grocery stores like Safeway even hit up customers for donations at the cash register, promising to raise funds to find "the cure for cancer."
Consumers of course, have virtually no idea where the funds they donate actually go, nor do they know the truths about breast cancer they'll never be told by conventional cancer non-profit organizations. In this article, I'll reveal ten important myths about breast cancer, and the truths that can save your life.
Myth #1: Breast Cancer is not preventable
http://www.naturalnews.com/024536_cancer_women_breast.html
http://youtu.be/uPdnNu8xoWc