BPA Risks - Hype or Science?

As I understand the issue the early tests were performed using rats but now conclusive studies using human tissue confirm that toxicity is more lethal to humans than rats.

The FDA is primarily an agency for the protection of U.S. based pharmaceutical trade not a health advisory group. Given the lassitude of recent FDA interest in the health of our citizens nothing about the FDA ruling is surprising.

I have read a lot about BPA on DR. Mercola's site ... here is a link to his postings ... Jaan

http://search.mercola.com/Results.aspx?q=BPA&k=BPA&start1=1

The jury's still out on this to me. It seems that every substance on the face of the earth can be found harmful if you study it long and hard enough.

Am I going to buy anything with BPA in it? No. However, whatever replaces it, will probably be found harmful a few years from now.

Children should be exposed to the world around them at a very early age. That builds a strong immune system, and a tolerance to the chemicals they'll have to deal with for a lifetime.

I heard a scientist on the national radio discussing the danger of BPA that he has known of for some time and was pleased that the government considered to ban it.

Regarding chemicals - it is always better to err on the cautious side than be lax and sorry later on ... if we were able to develop immunity to chemical substances, then smoking and smoking in the presence of children should not be an issue ... Pb in children toys should not be an issue ... I do not think that our body develops immunity to the carcinogens or heavy metals ... I know that we develop immunity to the pathogens and therefore it is smart to expose children to them at an early age ... however, too much of an exposure can become a disease ... my mother-in-law worked for a chief cardiologist ... this doctor had a friend who took her little girl to see the family physician because the girl developed a bad cough ... the girl sat next to a child sick with a serious disease, encephalitis ... the little girl got it and died ... my son suffered from severe asthma and was in a coma because of it ... he stopped breathing a week before his first birthday and did not breath on his on for a week ... we all have different thresholds of tolerance ... for this reason the best is to work with minute amounts of toxins that are released into our bodies and bodies of animals living in the wild ... we do not know how chemicals react among themselves and what impact the new compounds have on the living organisms ... there is a point when the human body gives in and a disease develops because the cells, DNA, genes and chromosomes become defective.

If the industry can do without or replace the substance with a safer one, then why not, a small change can go a long way ... Jaan.

The first environmental exposure most children experience is a shot with a dose of mercury intended for a 250LB adult. Of course their system can't tolerate the high dose and they are permanently damaged by it.

Glass bottles are safe, unless they are broken.

Easy to sterilize, heat resistant, easily recycled and well-proven technology.

All plastics emit toxins of various types.

We should never contain food or drink in plastic containers, no matter how convenient the plastics seem to be.

Kind Regards....

Roger that

Any chemical whether organic, inorganic, aromatic or aliphatic may display synergistic or antagonastic effect with the materials incontact and consequently with the body of the user. The important thing is to know upto which level it is not harmful and also the sense of utilizing the material is more importan. For BPA it is teseted in laboratories with time to time and found at low dose BPA has no adverse effect on human body. Articles (baby bottles, water storage containers) containing BPA must be used according to the instruction written on the articles and careless attitude towards the use of these articles may cause adverse effect. For other food contacting use polypropylene is considered to be more friendly to human body and environment.

Neaz Ahmed

I heard that BPA is in the paper coffee cups and take-out containers ... if it is in numerous products how can the scientist determine that even if used as directed, that we are exposed to the safe levels? - Jaan

The first precautionary statement regarding the effects of BPA were ignored in 1887 why set a precedent now are we any less dominated by business or government??

Let's just party on and somebody will eventually discover the merit of each anyway right IDIOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hello bwire

<"....The first precautionary statement regarding the effects of BPA were ignored in 1887....">

As I understand the situation, there were no issues with BPA back in 1887, which was many years before the widespread usage of plastics became common.

Did your keyboard have a typo, and you intended 1987 (100 years later).

Now you know that your Posts are being read.

Kind Regards....

Duh! A typo

The first precautionary statement regarding the effects of BPA were ignored in 1931.

Thanks I needed that

www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisphenol_A

Monday, November 3, 2008
FDA Faulted for Stance on Chemical in Plastics
BPA widely used in baby bottles, food containers; has been linked to diabetes, heart disease

By Steve Reinberg
HealthDay Reporter

(HealthDay News) -- A U.S. Food and Drug Administration advisory panel agreed Friday that the agency had erred in August when it said that a chemical widely used in baby bottles and other plastic packaging for foods and beverages posed no health risks.

On Wednesday, a panel of toxicology experts said the FDA hadn't properly assessed the potential health risks posed by the chemical bisphenol A (BPA), which some studies have linked to cancer, diabetes, heart disease and developmental delays in children. The toxicologists said the FDA had relied too heavily on studies funded by the chemical industry to make its decision, and had failed to consider other studies that questioned the safety of BPA.

The panel of toxicologists had been convened by the FDA after the agency ruled that BPA was safe at current exposure levels -- a stance that prompted criticism from some lawmakers and consumer groups.

On Friday, the FDA's Science Board, which consists of scientists from academia, government and industry and advises the FDA commissioner, seconded the toxicologists' concerns about the FDA's August ruling. The issue will now go to FDA Commissioner Dr. Andrew von Eschenbach. It's unclear how the FDA might respond, the Washington Post reported.

"Let me be clear: There's no shame for having" your hypothesis disproved, von Eschenbach said during Friday's session, referring to BPA without mentioning it by name, the Dow Jones news service reported.

The FDA's position on BPA has been controversial because it contradicted more than 100 studies, as well as a finding by the U.S. National Toxicology Program, that there was "some concern" that BPA may affect the brain and behavioral development in fetuses, infants and small children, the Post said.

Norris Alderson, associate commissioner for science at the FDA, told Dow Jones that the agency will probably start research early in 2009 to determine the toxic effects of BPA on babies less than 1 month old. Babies are considered the most susceptible group to BPA's effects. It's unclear when those studies would be done, the news service said.

In September, a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association said that people with high levels of BPA were more likely to have heart disease, including heart attack, or diabetes. High BPA levels increased the risk for these diseases by 39 percent, the researchers reported.

Speaking at Friday's hearing, Steven G. Hentges, of the American Chemistry Council's Polycarbonate/BPA Global Group, said: "The Science Board is receiving many diverse viewpoints on bisphenol A. But the common ground we all share is a commitment to do what's right to protect the health and safety of American consumers -- adults and children alike."

Hentges called the FDA's August draft assessment "consistent with the conclusions of other scientific and government bodies worldwide, such as the European Food Safety Authority, Health Canada, the European Union, and NSF International, all of which completed or updated their assessments this year. We rely on their conclusions, which are that polycarbonate plastic and epoxy resins are safe for use in food contact applications."

Earlier this month, Canada moved to ban plastic baby bottles containing BPA. Several U.S. states are considering restricting BPA use.

Commenting on Friday's developments, Dr. Hugh S. Taylor, director of the Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility at Yale University School of Medicine, said: "While the dangers of BPA exposure are far from definitively proven, the clear and mounting evidence that BPA is very likely to be harmful should not lead to a statement from the FDA that there is no concern. The panel's recommendation was misleading and gave people false reassurance. Decisions that may affect the health of the next several generations (due to the effects on the fetus as well) should be made cautiously and with input from all interested parties. The FDA is to be commended for this re-evaluation."

More information

To learn more about BPA, visit Environment California.
SOURCES: Hugh S. Taylor, M.D., director of the Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, and professor of obstetrics and gynecology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn.; American Chemistry Council, news release, Oct. 31, 2008; Washington Post; Dow Jones

BPA Tied to Impotence in Men
Chinese factory worker study suggests more potential hazards from the plastics chemical

By Jennifer Thomas
HealthDay Reporter

(HealthDay News) -- Exposure to high levels of the controversial plastics chemical bisphenol A (BPA) significantly raised the risk of sexual dysfunction, including impotence and low sex drive, among Chinese factory workers, a new study has found.

The researchers stressed that the workers were exposed to BPA levels about 50 times higher than what most Chinese or Americans would be exposed to in everyday life.

Even so, they said the study adds to a growing body of research that shows that the ubiquitous chemical may be harmful to humans. BPA, used to make polycarbonate plastic (hard, clear plastic) and epoxy resin, is found in electronic and medical equipment, cars, sports safety equipment, and food and drink containers, including plastic bottles and the lining of cans.

"We found that male workers who had high exposure to BPA in the workplace had a much higher risk of male sexual dysfunction compared to other workers in the same city who were matched for age and other factors," said lead study author Dr. De-Kun Li, a reproductive and perinatal epidemiologist at Kaiser Permanente's Division of Research in Oakland, Calif. "A caveat here is those workers did have a much higher BPA exposure than most Americans or Chinese in the general population."

The study is published in the Nov. 11 online edition of Human Reproduction.

In the study, Li and colleagues examined 230 workers in four Chinese factories near Shanghai that either manufactured BPA or used BPA to manufacture epoxy resin. The men worked as packagers, technical supervisors, laboratory technicians and maintenance workers.

The workers were compared to 404 workers in factories that made products ranging from textiles to machinery, in which there was no heightened BPA exposure. The workers from the two groups were matched by age, education, gender and employment history.

Workers in the BPA factories were four times more likely to report erectile dysfunction, reduced sexual desire and overall dissatisfaction with their sex life. They were also seven times more likely to have ejaculation difficulties.

BPA workers were also more likely to report reduced sexual function within one year of beginning employment at the factory, the researchers found.

Researchers measured BPA exposure levels by taking air samples, reviewing factory records and interviewing workers about personal hygiene habits, use of protective equipment and exposure to other chemicals. Levels of BPA in the urine was also tested for a subset of workers.

Among BPA workers, the higher the exposure, the more likely they were to have sexual difficulties.

Most human exposure to BPA occurs when the chemical leaches into food and drink from packaging. Earlier this month, Consumer Reports announced that tests showed BPA in nearly all of 19 brand-name canned foods, including soups, juice, tuna and green beans.

In recent years, concern about the effects of BPA, particularly on fetuses and young children, have been growing. Animal studies have shown that BPA can cause reproductive abnormalities in both males and females by disrupting the endocrine system, according to background information in the study.

Other research has linked BPA to an increased risk of diabetes, cancer and heart arrhythmias. Male sexual dysfunction may be an early indicator of BPA-related problems that take longer to develop, Li said.

One chemicals industry representative took issue with the findings. Steven Hentges, executive director of the American Chemistry Council's Polycarbonate/BPA Global Group, said the occupational exposure of these factory workers far exceeds what the average person would ingest. Furthermore, the study did not make clear if the factories or the workers were following adequate worker-protection measures, such as wearing gloves and face masks and having proper ventilation.

"It is important to note that the study has little relevance to average consumers who use products that contain trace levels of BPA," said Hentges.

Dr. Hugh Taylor, director of the division of reproductive endocrinology and infertility at Yale University School of Medicine, said the findings are "very suggestive" but do not prove cause and effect.

"The results of the study are probably important for people who are working at BPA factories, but the results don't support condemning BPA based on what people are exposed to at normal levels," Taylor said.

Yet Taylor recommends that pregnant women and children in particular avoid BPA. Well-controlled animal studies have shown the chemical is linked to reproductive harm that may be irreversible during critical stages of development. In response to such concerns, some countries have banned the sale of baby bottles made with BPA.

"The totality of the literature suggests BPA has terrible consequences for human health," Taylor said. "I tell my patients to stay away from hard plastics and canned goods while pregnant."

More information

There's more on bisphenol A at the U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.
SOURCES: De-Kun Li, M.D., Ph.D., reproductive and perinatal epidemiologist, division of research, Kaiser Permanente, Oakland, Calif.; Hugh Taylor, M.D., professor and director, division of reproductive endocrinology and infertility, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn.; Steven Hentges, Ph.D., executive director, Polycarbonate/BPA Global Group, American Chemistry Council, Arlington, Va.; Nov. 11, 2009, Human Reproduction