Bisphenol A Named Dangerous Substance today

Health Canada and Environment Canada have scheduled a news conference for 12:30 p.m. Friday to make an "important announcement." (source)

There has been a notable increase in web searches for information on BPA this week. For anyone who is just learning about the chemical, here are reasons why it is very dangerous:

Studies in peer-reviewed journals have indicated that even at low doses, the chemical can increase breast and ovarian cancer cell growth and the growth of some prostate cancer cells in animals.

It is going to have a huge impact on how container manufacturers make bottles and cans. Keep in mind, not all types of bottles, plastic containers or cans have Bisphenol A in them. It is often indicated by a # 7 in the recycling symbol at the bottom of bottles. It is used in plastic linings of cans like the one above.

It is funny to hear the industry defence of products with BPA in them.

But the plastics industry has vigorously defended the chemical, noting that it's been widely used for 50 years.

Right, so that makes it safe! Whew, what a relief!

Sorry, bottling and can industry, but your bottom line doesn't compare to the bottom line of people, health and life. You will have to make containers without BPA - others do.

People are definitely more interested in this chemical, a real water cooler topic. Speaking of water coolers, have a look at the bottom of that big plastic bottle, and see if it indicates BPA in the plastic. If you're concerned, contact the company who makes them.

Click here for more posts on Bisphenol A.

Bisphenol A Containers Will Not Necessarily be Taken Off Shelves

Just because there is a great deal of hoopla in the news about Bisphenol A to be listed as a "dangerous" substance, does not mean you should take it for granted that from now on, plastic bottles, containers and some cans will be free of the chemical.

This is why.

Even if BPA is labeled "toxic", it won't force governments to ban or restrict its use in consumer products. Apparently, if it is listed as toxic it falls under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA), and governments still have the option to restrict BPA's use or not.

Even if it's listed as "toxic" under the CEPA law, bisphenol-A will could remain legal to use in baby bottles, liners of food and drink cans, and water bottles.(source: National Post)

According to Kathleen Cooper of CEPA,

And it's been a chronic problem. Lead has been 'CEPA-toxic' since 1988, but that hasn't stopped the flow of lead into thousands of consumer products ever since.

So while it not illegal to put BPA products on the shelves, you'll have to keep checking for the unlucky # 7 on the bottom of bottles. Again, it's used in the plastic liner of cans, including pop cans. At this time I am not sure how it is indicated, what particular cans have BPA in them. If anyone has information on this please post a comment, or email.

There is more information on Bisphenol A, baby bottles, and plastic containers, in previous posts on Bisphenol A.

Bisphenol A to be named a Dangerous Substance

It's about time that Health Canada made some moves to get this chemical out of plastic containers. This source says that it could pave the way for Bisphenol A to be listed as "toxic" under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. The new dangerous chemical substance ( indicated by # 7 in the recycling logo at the bottom of bottles) is in a type of plastic called polycarbonates. Many plastic containers, not just bottles, have this kind of plastic. It leeches into the fluid or food particularly once it is heated, as in microwaving, and is linked to breast cancer, to attention deficit disorder, to obesity and a whole host of developmental problems. Now what other chemicals in plastic container should we be concerned with? This blog has posted more detailed information on Bisphenol A in the past year.

Bisphenol A Dangers were Known before 2003

* Update - Jan. 22. This issue has been broadcast on CBC's Here & Now Monday & Tuesday. It is good to see it becoming more public knowledge. Evening news broadcasts could easily devote a section of their hour long formats to health news/consumer alerts or health education.

You really have to question all plastics, and can liners, or avoid them as much as possible. Check the number at the bottom of bottles and avoid # 7 bottles for sure!

Even five years ago, there were already 40 studies that polycarbonate plastics containing Bisphenol A (BHA) were dangerous. In 2003, it was known that exposure to low amounts of BHA caused genetic defects in mice. In fact, in a major study by Dr. Patricia Hunt & colleagues, mice drank from old baby bottles, that leached (BPA) into their systems. Damage occurred in the egg cells of female mice. Hunt explained, "so when the cells divide, their chromosomes don't line up...In humans, this results in spontaneous abortion, birth defects, or mental retardation."

Other experts were quoted in the same article mentioned above. Biologist Frederick S. von Saal has studied BPA for many years, and had this to add:

In a recent study, fetal umbilical blood shows higher BPA levels than we generated in mice. Human exposure levels are already high. The horrifying thing is that it looks as though these effects in the Hunt study happen at lower doses than what is actually found in human fetal blood - umbilical cord blood.

What about other plastic compounds? Another plastic compound called Antimony, used in PET bottles, has been and is being studied for its potential hazardous effects. How many others are unsafe, and are years aways from garnering the danger status of BPA?

There are food containers of every shape and size that millions use all their lives. Bisphenol A, and any other plastic compound may very well have contributed to a variety of health problems, including prostate enlargement and cancer, and breast cancer because it has been seeping into food and liquid.

The bottling industry has carried out their own studies, and guess what, they have not found any harmful effects from BPA, despite 90% of 150 independent studies which says otherwise. I guess that unless you want to be fired, industry sponsored research designs will have predictable outcomes.

Previous Bisphenol A posts

Parents Beware: Baby Bottles & Canned Baby Food Contain Toxic Ingredient - Bisphenol A

Plastic baby bottles and canned baby food contain a substance that is listed as toxic. It can leach out and be subsequently ingested by infants and any user of containers with that compound.

Here's a big reason to be aware of this:

Bisphenol A is used in polycarbonate baby bottles and the epoxy linings of cans, including those for almost all types of infant formula. Because BPA can mimic estrogen, many researchers suspect it is a factor in health trends linked to sex hormone imbalances, such as prostate and breast cancer. (see rest of Globe article below)

Bisphenol A (BPA) is a synthetic chemical compound used in a wide range of consumer products and is classed by the Government of Canada as a hormone disruptor. (see Bisphenol A Fact Sheet here)

Bisphenol A has been getting a lot of attention in the last year particularly because it's been linked with breast and prostate cancer. I posted last year when it made the news then. Recently an article appeared in the Globe, which I have saved (the online version at the Globe is only available if you purchase it).

Parents can reduce child exposure by avoiding food and beverage containers made of polycarbonate plastic (often identified by the number 7 in the recycling symbol) and by avoiding plastic-lined (white-coloured) canned foods.

Here's the whole article from this Globe & Mail site:

Bisphenol A most harmful to infants, study says

MARTIN MITTELSTAEDT

From Friday's Globe and Mail

January 11, 2008 at 3:58 AM EST

A new U.S. study on the plastic compound bisphenol A indicates that the chemical may be far more dangerous for young children than for adults.

The finding has been submitted to Health Canada for its current safety review of BPA, and bolsters the case for limiting bisphenol A exposure in infants, who lack the capacity that adults have to detoxify it.

Bisphenol A is used in polycarbonate baby bottles and the epoxy linings of cans, including those for almost all types of infant formula. Because BPA can mimic estrogen, many researchers suspect it is a factor in health trends linked to sex hormone imbalances, such as prostate and breast cancer.

In the new study, researchers found that neonatal mice exposed to trace amounts of bisphenol A, either orally or through injection, ended up with similar amounts of the chemical in their blood because they do not have high amounts of the liver enzyme that breaks it down into an inactive form.

Young rodents don't fully develop the capacity to make the enzyme until they are weaned, a trait they share with humans. By contrast, adult rodents fed BPA have been found to rapidly clear it from their bodies using the enzymes.

Similar experiments are not done on babies for ethical reasons, but given the similarity of biological processes among mammals, many scientists consider the results applicable to humans.

The research study is expected to be issued next week by the peer reviewed journal Reproductive Toxicology.

The finding is "extremely scary," said Dr. Frederick vom Saal, a professor in the biological sciences department of the University of Missouri, and a member of the team that conducted the study.

Dr. vom Saal is a leading authority on BPA, and he contended that formula and polycarbonate baby bottles expose children to worrisome amounts of the synthetic estrogen. "You are significantly dosing your baby with bisphenol A every day and every time the baby is consuming food," he said.

Health Canada said in a statement to The Globe and Mail yesterday that "it is too early for us to state whether we have a concern or not with infant formula or baby bottles which contain BPA."

But two major formula makers - Nestle Canada and Mead Johnson Nutritionals - dismissed the concerns.

"Health Canada, as well as other international authorities such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, have approved the use of BPA in food packaging," Nestle Canada said in an e-mail statement.

"The preponderance of valid scientific literature right now upholds the position that BPA and the levels found in the food chain of humans is absolutely safe," said Gail Wood, spokeswoman for Evansville, Ind., based Mead Johnson. She also discounted the significance for humans of research on mice.

Based on a preliminary risk assessment in 2006, Health Canada said that bisphenol A was a chemical for which it had a "predisposition to conclude toxic." It is expected to issue a formal evaluation by May.

The study also contradicts a major contention on the safety of bisphenol A advanced by chemical manufacturers. Many of the nearly 200 studies finding severe health effects from bisphenol A exposure have been done by injecting young or pregnant rodents with the chemical.

The American Chemistry Council, an Arlington, Va., trade group for major BPA manufacturers, has argued that injection study results aren't applicable to humans because people are thought to have most of their exposures from oral sources, such as food, subject to rapid metabolizing by liver enzymes. Delivering BPA by injection bypasses this detoxification process and may cause health effects that wouldn't occur by ingesting the chemical, according to the industry's view.

However, the new research indicates that both oral and injection approaches are equally valid for experiments during fetal and neonatal development.

Health Canada said it hasn't yet decided whether to accept or reject the industry's position on the dosing controversy.

The council did not respond to a request for comment on the new research.