Shocker: FDA BPA Study Flawed
By Jenn (TinyChoices.com) | November 11, 2008
If you recall (and who could forget?), back in September the FDA released a study declaring that the small amounts of BPA which leach from polycarbonate containers and canned foods were perfectly safe.
Well, now an advisory panel ruled that the FDA “made mistakes when determining that a widely used chemical found in baby bottles and other plastics was harmless and the agency should redo its risk assessment.” This isn’t particularly shocking, considering that certain scientific folks have known about the potential risks from BPA for decades.
And another quote from the same Washington Post article: “The report, released earlier this week, said the FDA ignored scores of government-funded studies that linked exposure to low doses of BPA to increased risk of diabetes, heart disease, hyperactivity and cancer in laboratory animals and that its margin of safety was “inadequate.” Scientists, lawmakers, and environmental and consumer groups contend the FDA should ban the substance from food and beverage containers until they are certain that it is safe.”
That’s exactly what Canada did earlier this year, by listing BPA as a toxic substance. Canada, I think you’re really smart!
In addition to the litany of potential health issues BPA raises, we can now add “interfering with cancer treatment” to the list.
So my question is: if plastics manufacturers can make BPA-free polycarbonates, why in the world do they continue to use this controversial chemical?
Related Posts:
- More BPA News
- FDA Says BPA A-OK
- Down With BPA
- Water Bottles: How Necessary Are They?
- Mason Jars & Further Water Bottle Insanity
- Water Bottles, Again…
- Mountain Equipment Coop Stops Selling Bisphenol-A
- Reusable Water Bottle Options
[Image by NIOSH via Creative Commons]
Topics: Health | 13 Comments »
FDA Faux-Pas! I bet the FDA is feeling totally awkward. But seriously, why did it have to take so long?
[...] Tiny Choices says the BPA study was flawed. [...]
Wow! I’m NOT so shocked based on everything I read from Canada! And I don’t think it’s going to stop with BPA.
Researchers at the University of Alberta issued a warning to other scientists last week when they identified two chemicals leaching from polypropylene. Described as “so biologically active that they ruined a drug experiment,” the chemicals are known as quaternary ammonium biocides and oleamide are routinely used in polypropylene. Polypropylene can be identified by the recycling code 5 – yogurt containers, cream cheese containers…
They don’t know what effect that these chemicals may have on the human body – oleamide – which is used to “improve the fluidity of molten plastic” actually occurs naturally in the body, but do we want extra leaching from plastic? I don’t!
THANK YOU for keeping us up to date on all of this!
Yeah, it’s definitely not shocking that BPA is potentially very harmful and these new details are profoundly depressing. My question is, what can we as consumers do to make any kind of impact on the manufacturers who use it to persuade them to change this industrywide practice? Do you have any suggestions, beyond all of us agreeing in detail that yes, it’s bad?
I can avoid it to some degree as an adult, but my main concern is that it is in each and every baby formula sold in the US. To my knowledge it’s in the packaging of every single container, in varying concentrations. Sure, there are BPA-free baby bottles and other paraphenalia, but unless an infant is exclusively breastfed, he or she will receive a daily, even hourly, dose of the stuff – at a size and age where it could make the most impact, rather than a full-grown adult whose exposure is much less pound for pound. (The only suggestions I have for other parents in the same situation who want to minimize the current levels of BPA is to consider using the powdered form instead of ready-made liquid, and to take the powdered concentrate out of its original packaging and store it in something benign like a glass jar right away.)
I’m not interested in engaging with anyone about the merits of formula as a food for babies, just looking for ideas on how we can help make it as safe as possible for everyone who uses it. Thanks so much for any constructive suggestions.
When I traveled for work with my oldest, I used to special order formula in glass bottles that you could just screw the nipple onto. I had to ask for it at the pharmacy counter, as it wasn’t regularly stocked at the store. I only used it for travel because it was so expensive. I think it was enfamil.
I think what has frustrated me the most about the BPA issue is the fact that our pediatrician advised us not to use glass because it leached nutrients out of the breast milk or formula. As a result, my three boys have had their fill of BPA.
I’ve seen so many great options for glass bottles out there now. The rubber coated ones are awesome!
Thank you, Julia! We use the evenflo glass bottles (which I’ve seen rubber sleeves for) and they are definitely the best option I’ve found. We used to use the BPA-free Medela plastic ones and they leaked and were not nearly as durable, and before that we had a hard-plastic Avent bottle in the rotation until we found out it had BPA in it.
It really is so frustrating, it seems like I hear a million confusing and contradictory things too.
thanks again!
[...] One thing nearly all parents need is a bottle–or a lot of them. Even if you choose to stay at home and breastfeed, eventually you’ll want a night off, and somebody’s going to need to feed the baby! I had my daughter in 2005, and bottle choices were complicated enough then. Now there’s a new factor in the equation: BPA. [...]
A little perspective please. Everything poses a risk. Nothing is absolutely safe. BPA is one of many risks, but the risk is crazy small. Smaller than: bacterial infection with homemade or un-pasturized formula; poor nutrition from homemade formula, and WAY smaller than driving to the store to buy new bottles.
Also important is that BPA does not leach out of polycarbonate bottles into formula or breast milk in any significant levels. The only way the scientists could measure it was boil the crap out of the bottles and then concentrate the contents several hundred fold. The part of the risk assessment the outside science board had no problem with focused on how the levels from bottles are soo increadibly far below the levels found to have adverse affects in tox. studies.
Finally, even though there are BPA-free products, there arent as many studies on these chemicals as there are on BPA, so there is a distinct possiblity that their risk might be higher. Life is tough. We dont have all the answers. Science doesnt know everything. We make decisions with the information we have. If it seems complicated it probably is. Anyone who tells you otherwise is trying to sell you something.
While I respect your call for perspective, I think any amount of BPA that I can control entering into my body – or my kids – I’ll take. That means I’ll opt for non-leaching stainless water bottles, BPA-free cans…anything to decrease our exposure to something I wouldn’t knowingly and willingly consume.
Everything in moderation…including moderation, right? It’s easy to go off of the deep end on so many of these reports, but to deny there’s any risk associated with it is careless on the part of the FDA.
I didnt ‘deny there’s any risk’ with BPA (and neither did the FDA). Your right, moderation helps. But youre missing the point, everything has a risk! Your stainless steel bottles produce way more emissions in mining, smelting, and refining, BPA free cans have other linings with their own risks, glass bottles are heavy, produce way more emissions to make and ship, can break, and suck some nutrients out of breast milk and formula. So the real question is HOW MUCH risk and of what kind?
The science board criticized some of the FDA approach to estimating the actual risk, but it also recognized that most of it is based on the best science. All I am saying is dont be duped into thinking that BPA is something to worry about just because there exists a science debate over how much risk. Nobody ever said that BPA poses no risk, just that BPA in packaging poses no significant risk at present levels.
[...] rambled on about BPA before, and realize that while not everyone is particularly concerned about the purported health threat it [...]
I don’t understand the concern about BPA. As it has been said in every bit of research on the subject, BPA doesn’t leach out of bottles until you start mistreating the bottles so badly that you have to intentionally want to take some in.
I’d be much more concerned about the stuff in the BPA-free bottles than the BPA-laden bottles.
Oleamide doesn’t worry me at all. It’s a cannabimimetic, ie: it produces cannabis-like sedative like effects. It may make your baby a little tired (at first, anyway) but these sorts of cannabinoids are well known to be neuroprotective and actually better cognition (after acute intoxication, anyway).
[...] been awhile since I’ve gone on a water bottle/BPA rant here at TC, mostly because I’ve been using my stainless steel Klean Kanteen bottles almost [...]