News
Editorial: The FDA must act now to restrict bisphenol A
For years, the federal government has ignored mounting evidence that bisphenol A may be harmful to kids.
Study after study suggested that exposure to the chemical caused serious problems in laboratory animals.
Yet the U.S. Food and Drug Administration leaned on research that concluded otherwise, nearly all of which was bought and paid for by the chemical industry.
The FDA’s contempt for American consumers ran so deep, its coziness with Big Chem became so habit-forming, that the agency’s August report claiming BPA was safe was largely written by the plastics industry and others with the most to gain by suggesting there was nothing to fear.
But even now, the FDA still can do the right thing.
The opening for a change in policy came in a blistering report from a scientific panel late last month charging the FDA with ignoring evidence when it concluded that the chemical was safe.
On Oct. 31, the FDA’s Science Board adopted the panel’s recommendations and suggested that FDA scientists reopen their investigation into the chemical. FDA Commissioner Andrew von Eschenbach has vowed a response to the board’s recommendations within 30 days.
But Von Eschenbach needn’t wait even one more day.
The FDA should act now to spare young children the risk of exposure to BPA.
If he doesn’t act, the lame-duck Congress should.
In a groundbreaking report last year, Journal Sentinel reporters reviewed 258 scientific studies of BPA. Most of them showed that the chemical is harmful.
The studies found that it caused breast cancer, testicular cancer, diabetes, hyperactivity, obesity, low sperm counts, miscarriage and other reproductive failures in lab animals.
A small number of studies, nearly all paid for by the chemical industry, found BPA to be safe.
These are the studies to which the FDA paid the most attention.
BPA was developed in 1891 as a synthetic form of estrogen, but it didn’t come into widespread use until the 1950s, when it began to be used to make polycarbonate plastic and epoxy resins to line food and beverage cans.
BPA can be found in an array of products, ranging from dental sealants to sippy cups for small children.
It also can be found in the urine of 93 percent of Americans. Children, especially infants, are most at risk, because they are unable to metabolize and excrete the chemical as quickly as older children or adults.
The fear is that prolonged exposure to what is essentially a sex hormone could cause lifelong harm.
“You cannot tell parents with a straight face that BPA is safe,” said Sonya Lunder, a senior analyst with the advocacy group Environmental Working Group.
Based on the weight of independent research, the government should:
Ban the use of metal containers for infant formula or food products clearly intended for young children until a liner that doesn’t use BPA can be developed.
Already, some liquid formulas are sold in plastic containers, which eliminates BPA contamination.
Ban BPA from polycarbonate bottles and tableware intended for small children.
Require the food and beverage industry to find an alternative to BPA epoxy liners in cans—and give manufacturers a firm timetable.
This process may take time, because industry spokesmen say there is no good alternative at the moment.
Can liners help prevent exposing food to bacteria, so it’s imperative to get this right, but there is no reason that the FDA cannot establish a reasonable time frame for compliance.
Inform the public in a public service campaign about the risks of BPA. Label products that contain it.
“The system is running the risk of losing credibility with the public unless we take some definitive action that the public can understand,” Larry Sasich, an assistant professor at Lake Erie College of Osteopathic Medicine, said during the Science Board’s meeting Oct. 31.
He is the board’s consumer representative.
Canadian health officials have been far quicker to address concerns about BPA than their American counterparts.
Canada is set ban the chemical in plastic baby bottles and reduce exposure in canned infant formula.
In this country, the National Institutes of Health National Toxicology Program recently expressed “some concern” over the effects of the chemical on a baby’s brain and reproductive systems.
And a growing number of businesses have moved to pull plastic products containing BPA off the shelf, including CVS, Toys “R” Us, Wal-Mart, Safeway and the bottle maker Nalgene.
The Bush administration long ago lost all shame on regulatory matters, and we have little faith that it will get religion now.
It will likely be left to a new FDA commissioner and a new Congress to take the common sense steps that should have been taken years ago to keep kids safe.
There is no reason to wait any longer.
Reprinted from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Distributed by Creators Syndicate, Inc.
Study after study suggested that exposure to the chemical caused serious problems in laboratory animals.
Yet the U.S. Food and Drug Administration leaned on research that concluded otherwise, nearly all of which was bought and paid for by the chemical industry.
The FDA’s contempt for American consumers ran so deep, its coziness with Big Chem became so habit-forming, that the agency’s August report claiming BPA was safe was largely written by the plastics industry and others with the most to gain by suggesting there was nothing to fear.
But even now, the FDA still can do the right thing.
The opening for a change in policy came in a blistering report from a scientific panel late last month charging the FDA with ignoring evidence when it concluded that the chemical was safe.
On Oct. 31, the FDA’s Science Board adopted the panel’s recommendations and suggested that FDA scientists reopen their investigation into the chemical. FDA Commissioner Andrew von Eschenbach has vowed a response to the board’s recommendations within 30 days.
But Von Eschenbach needn’t wait even one more day.
The FDA should act now to spare young children the risk of exposure to BPA.
If he doesn’t act, the lame-duck Congress should.
In a groundbreaking report last year, Journal Sentinel reporters reviewed 258 scientific studies of BPA. Most of them showed that the chemical is harmful.
The studies found that it caused breast cancer, testicular cancer, diabetes, hyperactivity, obesity, low sperm counts, miscarriage and other reproductive failures in lab animals.
A small number of studies, nearly all paid for by the chemical industry, found BPA to be safe.
These are the studies to which the FDA paid the most attention.
BPA was developed in 1891 as a synthetic form of estrogen, but it didn’t come into widespread use until the 1950s, when it began to be used to make polycarbonate plastic and epoxy resins to line food and beverage cans.
BPA can be found in an array of products, ranging from dental sealants to sippy cups for small children.
It also can be found in the urine of 93 percent of Americans. Children, especially infants, are most at risk, because they are unable to metabolize and excrete the chemical as quickly as older children or adults.
The fear is that prolonged exposure to what is essentially a sex hormone could cause lifelong harm.
“You cannot tell parents with a straight face that BPA is safe,” said Sonya Lunder, a senior analyst with the advocacy group Environmental Working Group.
Based on the weight of independent research, the government should:
Already, some liquid formulas are sold in plastic containers, which eliminates BPA contamination.
This process may take time, because industry spokesmen say there is no good alternative at the moment.
Can liners help prevent exposing food to bacteria, so it’s imperative to get this right, but there is no reason that the FDA cannot establish a reasonable time frame for compliance.
“The system is running the risk of losing credibility with the public unless we take some definitive action that the public can understand,” Larry Sasich, an assistant professor at Lake Erie College of Osteopathic Medicine, said during the Science Board’s meeting Oct. 31.
He is the board’s consumer representative.
Canadian health officials have been far quicker to address concerns about BPA than their American counterparts.
Canada is set ban the chemical in plastic baby bottles and reduce exposure in canned infant formula.
In this country, the National Institutes of Health National Toxicology Program recently expressed “some concern” over the effects of the chemical on a baby’s brain and reproductive systems.
And a growing number of businesses have moved to pull plastic products containing BPA off the shelf, including CVS, Toys “R” Us, Wal-Mart, Safeway and the bottle maker Nalgene.
The Bush administration long ago lost all shame on regulatory matters, and we have little faith that it will get religion now.
It will likely be left to a new FDA commissioner and a new Congress to take the common sense steps that should have been taken years ago to keep kids safe.
There is no reason to wait any longer.
Reprinted from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Distributed by Creators Syndicate, Inc.
Copyright © 2009 - The Sahuarita Sun