BPA In The News

  

Low amount of BPA can increase cardiac risk by 45%, study finds

 Martin Mittelstaedt Environment Reporter

Tuesday, Jan. 12, 2010  

Elevated exposure to bisphenol A has been linked in a new study to a significantly increased risk of cardiovascular disease, the second time researchers have made a connection between the widely used plastic-making compound and heart ailments.The finding, released Tuesday, is likely to add to the controversy over the risks to adults of bisphenol A, which has been designated as a toxic compound by Health Canada and removed from plastic baby bottles as a safety precaution, but is still used as a liner inside almost all food and beverage cans sold in Canada.

According to the new research, 60-year-old American males with the highest amounts of bisphenol A in their urine had about a 45 per cent greater risk of cardiovascular disease than men the same age with lower exposures, confirming the results of a previous study on the topic released in 2008 and based on a different sample of people.  That earlier study was the first large medical review to show human health effects from BPA, as the chemical is also known, and could have been a fluke. Up until now, most research linking the chemical to harm has been done on laboratory animals, where it has been associated with such conditions as breast cancer and earlier sexual maturity in females.

The second finding of a heart-disease connection “underlines the question mark over the human health safety of BPA; it means that [earlier] association wasn’t just a one-off thing,” says David Melzer, an epidemiologist at Peninsula Medical School in Britain and a member of the team that conducted both studies.  The research has renewed calls for Health Canada to cut adult exposure to bisphenol A by banning the compound from food and beverage cans, which are thought to be the main place people pick up residues of the chemical.  “The evidence is now overwhelming that human exposure to bisphenol A is at the root of significant human disease, and that one of the most important things we could do for public health is to reduce human exposure to this chemical,” said Rick Smith, executive director of Environmental Defence, an advocacy group.

Health Canada said in an e-mailed statement that it hadn’t had a chance to review the new study, but it “continues to monitor new scientific evidence … and will take further action to protect the health of Canadians, if necessary.”  While Health Canada has previously expressed concerns that infants might be getting too much of the chemical, it has said adult exposures were not a health threat.

BPA is a man-made compound not found in nature, and able to mimic estrogen, which creates worries that exposure to it amounts to an extra dollop of the female hormone. BPA is one of the largest-volume manufactured chemicals in the world, used in such everyday products as polycarbonate plastic water jugs, the plastic-like liners on the insides of tin cans, and some types of carbonless cash-register receipts, among other items.  Traces of BPA leak from consumer products, and that’s the reason biomonitoring surveys in the U.S. have found that more than 90 per cent of the population carries detectible levels of it. Although the amounts in canned foods and drinks are minuscule – typically only a few parts per billion – this is still about 1,000 times the natural concentration of estrogen in people over all.

While the new study found an association between higher-than-average BPA levels and heart disease, Dr. Melzer cautioned that the research, published in the open-access journal PLoS One, doesn’t prove the chemical causes heart-related ailments.  Such definitive proof would require dosing humans in clinical trials to observe heart-disease rates, something that wouldn’t be allowed for ethical reasons. While BPA may be an additional risk factor for heart problems, Dr. Melzer recommended that people continue to be mindful of more proven steps to reduce risks, such as quitting smoking and monitoring cholesterol.

In the study, researchers compared reports of cardiovascular disease among about 1,500 people who participated during 2005 and 2006 in the most recent BPA biomonitoring survey funded by the U.S. government. The United States is the only country to have conducted and released results of its two population-based surveys for BPA. The newest survey found average levels of the chemical at 3.3 parts per billion, a drop of about 30 per cent from the only previous monitoring, done in 2003 to 2004.  It is not known why BPA levels fell over the period, but Dr. Melzer speculated it might be due to worried manufacturers removing the chemical from some uses that contact food.  Research based on the first survey also linked BPA to adult-onset diabetes, an association that was weaker in the second batch of people, possibly due to the decline in bisphenol A levels.

Statistics Canada has taken BPA samples in about 5,000 people, the largest such biomonitoring effort in the world. It expects to report results this summer, which will allow researchers to check whether the association with heart disease is occurring in Canadians.  The American Chemistry Council, an industry trade group representing BPA manufacturers, criticized the study and defended the safety of the chemical, which has been approved for use by regulatory bodies. “The study itself does not establish a cause-and-effect relationship between BPA exposure and heart disease,” commented Steven Hentges, a spokesman for the group.

 

 ___________________________________________

 

Yale study details how and why of BPA’s dangers
Published: Tuesday, March 9, 2010

By Ed Stannard, Register Metro Editor

NEW HAVEN – Exposing a female fetus to a chemical found in plastics causes permanent changes in a daughter’s uterus that might result in cancer – and a research team led by a Yale doctor has figured out why.

Bisphenol A is commonly found in plastics (those with a “7″ code on the bottom), in the lining of aluminum cans and in dental sealants. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has expressed concern about potential effects of BPA on the brain and reproductive organs, though the link is not definitive.

Dr. Hugh S. Taylor, director of reproductive endocrinology and infertility section of the Yale School of Medicine, said even brief exposure to BPA in the uterus causes permanent damage.

“We already know that mice that are exposed to BPA already have a higher risk of breast cancer, uterine cancer and infertility,” he said.

In this study, one group of mice was exposed to BPA as fetuses and compared to a control group to see how much the DNA in the uterus had been modified. The findings, Taylor said, reveal that BPA strips off a part of the DNA, which permanently alters the genetic structure.

“It chemically modifies the DNA by removing methyl groups from the DNA backbone and that makes the DNA more accessible,” he said. The genes then become permanently altered to be supersensitive to estrogen, which can lead to cancer and other consequences.

He said the damage might occur in females after birth as well.

“It’s not as clear,” he said. “It very well may be. I think that’s still more controversial. I think pregnancy is the more dangerous time.”

Taylor said the effect of BPA is reminiscent of the problems with DES (diethylstilbestrol), which was prescribed to women from 1938 to 1971 to prevent miscarriages, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. DES was linked to a rare form of vaginal cancer.

“Now it looks like (as they grow older) those women who were exposed as a fetus have a higher risk of breast cancer,” Taylor said. He also is studying a potential link between BPA and breast cancer.

Taylor said it’s a good idea for women who may become pregnant to avoid BPA, especially products that are brand new and unwashed or old and cracked. Plastics with BPA shouldn’t be microwaved, he said.

Environmental groups also have called for BPA to be removed from consumer products; some companies have begun manufacturing BPA-free items, such as water bottles.

“I always tell my patients, as a physician as well as a scientist … to me it’s an easy decision. There’s so much benefit of eating fresh vegetables instead of (eating) out of a can,” he said.

The new findings were reported in the March issue of the Journal of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology.

___________________________________________

Toxic chemical still found in ‘BPA-free’ bottles: Health Canada

By Sarah Schmidt, Canwest News ServiceJuly 30, 2009

Health Canada scientists have found bisphenol A leaching into the liquid of plastic baby bottles marketed to parents as being free of the toxic chemical. The study says “traces” of the toxin were found in “BPA-free” bottles while internal correspondence between a department official and the lead scientist went further, characterizing the amounts in two brands as “high readings.”
OTTAWA – Health Canada scientists have found bisphenol A leaching into the liquid of plastic baby bottles marketed to parents as being free of the toxic chemical.
The study says “traces” of the toxin were found in “BPA-free” bottles while internal correspondence between a department official and the lead scientist went further, characterizing the amounts in two brands as “high readings.”
Manufacturers of non-polycarbonate plastic baby bottles, however, were quick to challenge the “shocking” results, saying there must be a problem with the way the agency conducted the research.
Government scientists conducted the tests on non-polycarbonate bottles last year after Health Canada announced an imminent ban on polycarbonate plastic baby bottles.
By then, the market had already been flooded with “BPA-free” alternatives made of substitute plastics without any bisphenol A, which were pitched as an option for parents concerned about the health risks associated with the newly labelled toxin.
Bisphenol A, a hormone disrupter that can cause reproductive damage and may lead to prostate and breast cancer in adulthood, is used as a building block in polycarbonate plastic, but not in the substitutes, such as polypropylene.
The test results surprised Health Canada scientists involved, according to records released to Canwest News Service under the Access to Information Act.
“This bottle is labelled polypropylene which should contain no BPA,” the lead scientist wrote to a colleague, recommending another analysis be done to “verify the claim” and “check more samples.”
The brand mentioned in the correspondence is blacked out on the grounds that the information could result in financial loss or prejudice the competitive advantage of a company.
In separate correspondence, a Health Canada official wrote to the scientist – under the subject heading “Migration of Bisphenol A from ‘BPA Free’ Baby Bottles and Liners” – to thank him for other results.
“We would definitely like to do a material characterization for the two brands with high readings and would also like to test the other brands too at the same time.”
The records show Health Canada tested about nine different brands of baby bottles using non-polycarbonate plastic for possible leaching of BPA, chosen because they’re made with a type of plastic that does not use the chemical as a building block.
In a recently published summary of the test results, researchers suggest the “traces of BPA found to migrate from these bottles could be artifacts of the manufacturing process.”
And since these “BPA-free” bottles leached less than polycarbonate plastic bottles under conditions designed to simulate repeated normal use, the government researchers concluded these bottles made of polysulfone, polystyrene or polypropylene (non-PC) are a “reasonable alternative” to the banned polycarbonate (PC) bottles.
“The average BPA concentration in non-PC baby bottles after 10 days at high temperature (60 C) was similar to the levels found in PC bottles after 24 hours at 40 C. This is a good indication that non-PC baby bottles may be considered as appropriate alternatives to PC bottles, in order to minimize exposure BPA from PC-plastic baby bottles.”
University of Missouri’s Frederick vom Saal, a leading researcher into bisphenol A and other endocrine disrupters, said Health Canada’s test results are a “wake-up” call for bottle manufacturers and consumers.
“This really is a truly ubiquitous chemical. It’s very sticky. It’s on dust, it’s on everything. It is possible at very, very small amounts that you could maybe detect it in something, but most of these assays are not sensitive enough to pick up a hitchhiker,” he said.
“You’re picking it up because it’s actually a component of the plastic that it’s in, and that’s a little unnerving to find that people are reporting this coming out of other plastic products like polypropylene.”
And even if trace amounts can be explained away as a result of environmental contamination, companies need to revisit their manufacturing processes, said vom Saal.
Leading manufacturers of non-polycarbonate plastic baby bottles said there’s no way their bottles leach any amount of bisphenol A, even in trace amounts.
“We have not only three major global testing labs that test our products, but we also do biologic testing on our bottles, and the biologic type of testing is even more sensitive than anything that Health Canada could ever pull off, and it would pick up anything that even behaved like BPA,” said Kevin Brodwick, founder and president of thinkbaby, whose products are made with medical-grade plastic specifically formulated to be free of bisphenol A, PVC, nitrosamines, phthalates, lead, melamine and biologically toxic chemicals.
Test results, conducted at least every quarter, consistently show “zero, complete non-detect for BPA,” said Brodwick.
“It sounds more like Health Canada has an issue of their equipment not being clean.”
BornFree Canada president Tony Ferraro echoed this sentiment, saying several independent tests have all found “no detection” of the chemical in his company’s bottles.
“It is extremely difficult to comprehend otherwise” because bisphenol A is not contained or added to the resin or additives during the manufacturing practice,” said Ferraro. “I can conclude with 100 per cent accuracy and confidence that any possibility of trace amounts of bisphenol A in BornFree products is unlikely and impossible.”
Corina Crawley, meanwhile, wants Health Canada to fully release the study’s details, including brands and methodology.
The Ottawa mother sought out BPA-free bottles when her son was born two years ago, expecting all products to be “100 per cent free” of the chemical.
She said details should be released “for the public to decide.”
“As a parent, there are risks associated with BPA, but I don’t know anything about the science of trace amounts,” said Crawley. “What are the amounts that matter?”
© Copyright (c) Canwest News Service

___________________________________________

 

 

Harvard study backs bottle concern
Says plastic used leaches bisphenol A
By Beth Daley
Globe Staff / May 22, 2009
A Harvard study released yesterday supports what many public health specialists have long assumed: Hard plastic drinking bottles containing bisphenol A are leaching notable amounts of the controversial chemical into people’s bodies.

Researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health found that people who drank for a week from the clear plastic polycarbonate bottles increased concentrations of bisphenol A – or BPA – in their urine by 69 percent.

The study is the first to definitively show that drinking from BPA bottles increases the levels of the chemical in urine, researchers said. It was published on the website of the journal Environmental Health Perspectives.

BPA is used in hundreds of everyday products. It is used to make reusable, hard plastic bottles more durable and to help prevent corrosion in canned goods such as soup and infant formula.

“If you heat those bottles, as is the case with baby bottles, we would expect the levels to be considerably higher,” said Karin B. Michels, senior author of the report and associate professor at the School of Public Health and Harvard Medical School. “This would be of concern since infants may be particularly susceptible to BPA’s endocrine-disrupting potential,” she said.

Canada banned the use of BPA in baby bottles in 2008, and Massachusetts health officials are now weighing whether to warn pregnant women and young children to avoid food, drinks, and other items containing the chemical.

Numerous animal studies in recent years suggest that low levels of BPA might cause developmental problems in fetuses and young children and other ill effects. The health effects on adults are not well understood although a recent large human study linked BPA concentrations in people’s urine to an increased prevalence of diabetes, heart disease, and liver toxicity.

The Food and Drug Administration has said that products containing BPA are safe and that exposure levels, including those for infants and children, are below those that would affect health. But the FDA’s own scientific advisory board criticized agency officials for relying on industry-funded studies to declare the chemical safe.

Michael L. Herndon, an FDA spokesman, said in e-mail to the Globe yesterday that newly appointed chief scientist Jesse Goodman will “provide new leadership and take a fresh look at this important issue from a scientific and policy position, incorporating emerging science and appropriate input from both inside and outside the agency.”

Yesterday, an official with the American Chemistry Council discounted any suggestion that the Harvard study underscores a health risk.

In an e-mail, Steven G. Hentges said the study shows that exposure to bisphenol A from use of the bottles is “extremely low” and below the mean BPA amounts reported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for the US population, “indicating that even exclusive use of polycarbonate bottles does not lead to unusually high levels of bisphenol A in the urine.”

The Harvard study was sparked by a discussion in Michels’s class after she warned students who regularly swigged water from hard plastic bottles that they might want to limit their BPA exposure. The students countered by asking how much BPA they were getting from the bottles – and soon, a study was born.

Led by Jenny Carwile, a Harvard School of Public Health doctoral student, 77 Harvard students in the study drank all cold beverages from stainless steel bottles for a week to wash BPA out of their bodies and minimize exposure. Most BPA is flushed from people’s bodies within a matter of hours. During that week, the students gave urine samples.

Then the students were given two refillable polycarbonate bottles made with BPA to drink all cold beverages from for one week. Urine samples taken over that week showed the students’ BPA levels spiked the second week to levels normally found in the general population. Because the students did nothing different in their schedules other than drink from the BPA bottles, the researchers determined their urine concentrations largely came from the bottles.

“While previous students have demonstrated that BPA is linked to adverse health effects, this study fills in a missing piece of the puzzle – whether or not polycarbonate plastic bottles are an important contributor to the amount of BPA in the body,” said Carwile.

___________________________________________

Stainless Steel Baby Bottles Are the Best Alternative to Plastic

April 06, 2009 by
Jennifer Wiley

Even though they have been out and about for some time now, not as many mothers are aware of stainless steel baby bottles as they should be. While at first I saw nothing wrong with feeding my babies with plastic bottles, all of the news and research that was surfacing about the dangers of chemicals in plastic alarmed me. That was the turning point for me and that is when I started looking for alternative bay bottles.

But just what is it about the plastic baby bottles that could be so dangerous to your precious little one? The harmful chemical bisphenol A (BPA) is found within a lot of the plastic baby products that are sold. Everything from the mattress liner to the baby bottle, there is a good chance your baby is coming into an extremely harmful chemical. It is so harmful in fact that the Canadian government placed a ban on the use of BPA in baby bottles sold within their country. But what is America doing? The government is doing a lot of things, but nothing about the use of BPA in baby bottles.

Wal-Mart and Toys ‘R’ Us has reported that they would be phasing out the products for baby feeding that contain BPA. This means that I can still find unsafe plastic baby bottles being sold. So what about alternative baby bottles? When I started searching I found that I had two options. There are the glass baby bottles and then there are the stainless steel baby bottles. At first I did not like the idea of the stainless steel baby bottles and preferred the idea of the glass. In my mind, glass was safer in terms of possible chemicals and poisoning.

While I found that glass is in fact a great alternative to the plastic bottles, I learned that stainless steel baby bottles were just as safe as any other alternative baby bottles. The difference between the two is that the glass could harm the baby in ways the plastic or stainless steel baby bottles could not. As my baby started to carry around bottles, there seemed to be an endless amount of bottles hitting the ground. Imagine if one of those glass bottles broke and the harm that could be done to the baby.

This is why I decided to stick with the stainless steel baby bottles. They are just as earth friendly and baby friendly as glass. And the best part about these alternative baby bottles is that they will not poison my baby with BPA. It is my responsibility and the responsibility of every parent to make sure that their baby is safe from all danger. Until the government steps in to place a ban on the use of BPA, we have to protect ourselves.

___________________________________________

Health Canada to ban chemical in kids’ toys

Phthalates, found in rattles and other soft vinyl products, could lead to reproductive problems

By Sarah Schmidt, Canwest News ServiceJune 20, 2009

Conceding a decade-old voluntary ban on hormone-disrupting chemicals in children’s toys hasn’t worked, Health Canada Friday announced regulations requiring companies to get phthalates out of soft vinyl toys.
The proposed ban will prevent the use of six phthalates in bath toys, teethers, rattles and other children’s products, such as vinyl bibs. The chemical additive, used to soften vinyl can cause reproductive problems.
Health Canada is taking the step after doing a survey last year that found the widespread presence of phthalates in soft plastic toys and other items for young children that are likely to be chewed on, such as rubber ducks.
The survey, released to Canwest News Service under access to information laws, found elevated levels of phthalates ranging from 0.2 to 39.9 per cent by weight of the plastic known as polyvinyl chloride in three-quarters of the items — or 54 of 72 of the children’s products tested.
A similar phthalates ban has been in place in the European Union since 1999, where pthalate levels cannot exceed 0.1 per cent in children’s products. A ban in the United States came into effect last year.
The government won praise from nearly all corners on Friday.
“This is great news for parents,” said Aaron Freeman, policy director for Environmental Defence, which has been lobbying for a ban for years.
Judy Wasylycia-Leis, health critic for the New Democrats, raised the issue in 1997 when she was first elected. She was even “scolded” by the Speaker of the House of Commons 12 years ago, when she brought in a prop, a pink plastic backpack, to make her point.
“It’s good news. Finally, the government has acted. It’s been a long, hard struggle. I think the science has been in for a long time. Other countries have acted, even the United States has acted.”
The American Chemistry Council said the proposed ban isn’t necessary.
“There is no scientific basis to believe that Health Canada’s decision to restrict certain phthalates in children’s products will improve public health, or meet the stated objective of protecting the health and safety of Canadian children. Phthalates have a long history of safe use, and have been extensively reviewed by governments around the world,” Sharon Kneiss, a council vice-president, said in a statement.
“Because phthalates neither migrate out of products easily, nor build up in the body, research has not demonstrated adverse effects to humans from phthalates at typical exposure levels.”
Until the regulations come into effect, Health Canada is advising parents and caregivers to monitor their children’s use of soft vinyl toys. If parents observe their children sucking and chewing on soft vinyl toys not specifically designed to be placed in a child’s mouth, they should take these items away from their children, according to the department.
The new regulations will also effectively ban lead in these children’s products by proposing a maximum of 90 milligrams of lead per kilogram of product. The current lead limit for toys intended for children under three years old is 600.

___________________________________________

Avoid bisphenol A when you can
May. 26, 2009 11:04 AM
.
Question: I have been reading about the debate over whether BPA is a safe chemical to use in plastics. Should I be using BPA-free products for my family?

Answer: Bisphenol A (BPA) is a compound found in polycarbonate plastics commonly used in items such as baby bottles, tin-can linings and food storage containers. A study conducted by British researchers, which was reported in the September 2008 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association, concluded that there is a link to higher incidence of cardiovascular disease, diabetes and liver-enzyme abnormalities in people exposed to high levels of BPA. However, at this time, the Food and Drug Administration states that BPA is safe at current levels and there is no risk to people.

While completely eliminating your family’s exposure to BPA products may be impossible, there are some steps you can take to minimize it.

• Whenever possible, try to avoid plastic containers marked with PC and recycling label No. 7. Plastics with recycling labels Nos. 1, 2 and 4 are safer choices and are BPA-free.
• Use (stainless steel) glass baby bottles, or those made from a safer plastic, such as polyamine, polypropylene or polyethylene. Plastics that are soft or cloudy-colored doesn’t contain BPA. Additionally, Medela bottles used to pump or store expressed breast milk are also made of BPA-free material.
• When selecting a water bottle, consider using one made of stainless steel. Those made of stainless steel are not lined with plastic inserts as other metal varieties.
• Try to avoid eating or drinking foods out of these plastic containers, especially if they have been exposed to heat, in a hot car or placed in the microwave.

Until more research has been conducted and there is a more conclusive answer to the overall safety of BPA, try to reduce your family’s exposure to these products. Many Web sites offer additional tips on reducing your exposure to BPA products like the Environmental Working Group, www.emg.org. If you have additional concerns, speak with your primary care physician or your child’s pediatrician.

- Dr. Albert Tejada
Tejada is a physician at Catholic Healthcare West’s Urgent Care in Ahwatukee

___________________________________________

Bisphenol A poses disease risk for adults, study says
MARTIN MITTELSTAEDT
Globe and Mail Update
September 16, 2008 at 9:43 PM EDT
An influential new study linking bisphenol A to heart disease and diabetes is raising the possibility that Health Canada erred in April when it concluded that the chemical used to make plastic poses no risk to adults.
The new research, the largest investigation to date on the chemical’s possible effects in humans, found that those with higher exposures to bisphenol A had 2.9 times the odds of having cardiovascular disease and 2.4 times the odds of having adult-onset diabetes, compared with those with lower exposures. Those with more of the chemical also had liver enzyme abnormalities.
The study, issued Tuesday in the Journal of the American Medical Association, was based on the typical ranges of bisphenol A found in American adults.
Health Canada made regulatory history in April by proposing to place bisphenol A on the government’s list of toxic substances and banning it from baby bottles. That made Canada the first country in the world to recommend such actions against the ubiquitous compound used in everything from polycarbonate plastic office water-cooler jugs to the resin linings inside nearly all tin and pop cans.