Browse > Home /

Health News, Top Stories

/ Is there an artificial sex ho...

Is there an artificial sex hormone in your baby’s bottle? Canada says “yes;” FDA says “we’ll see”

2008-08-22 13:53:01 (GMT) (Caymanmama.com - Health News Top Stories News)

Bisphenol A Moleculer Structure Wiki

Washington, DC (CaymanMama.com)–Canada banned it, but the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is taking a “let’s wait and see” attitude.The artificial sex hormone in question is bisphenol-A, an ingredient used in polycarbonate plastics as a hardener. Polycarbonate is used for a wide variety of consumer products, including baby bottles, “sippy” cups, refillable “sports” water bottles, microwave ovenware and eating utensils, food containers, and some clear plastic pitchers used for filtering water. In general, any hard, clear, unbreakable plastic is probably made of polycarbonate.

Epoxy resins made with bisphenol-A (BPA) are used to line the insides of food and beverage cans and bottle tops. Some polymers used in dental sealants and tooth coatings contain bisphenol-A. These resins are also used to coat water supply pipes.

So what is all the fuss about?

BPA mimics the sex hormone estrogen in the body, and estrogen is linked to all kinds of health problems, from cancer to diabetes to neurological, reproductive and developmental disorders.

There’s no doubt about the effects estrogen can have in the human body. The controversy over BPA is whether its estrogenic effects are similar in magnitude and scope as the “real” thing, and how much of the chemical, once it’s in the body, may cause heath issues.

The study of BPA’s potential harm to human health has been going on since the 1980’s. Products containing or made from BPA have been on the market for more than 50 years, and it has been suspected of being hazardous to humans since the 1930’s. It was first developed in 1891.

But little attention was paid to BPA until April of this year when the National Toxicology Program of the National Institutes of Health released a draft report agreeing with the findings of a November 2007 study conducted by the Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction on the reproductive and developmental toxicity of BPA.

And then everybody went ballistic.

Or misinterpreted the conclusions of the report, or exaggerated them, or minimized them, or just became completely confused.

Because nothing in the NTP April draft report or the CERHR November study was absolute or definitive. The NTP report used words like “possibility” and “may;” and the phrase “some concern” a couple of times.

But that was enough for Congress to hold hearings in May and June, and for some media outlets to stretch the truth a bit.

On Monday, a report on CNN’s Lou Dobbs program claimed ‘a report by the NIH a year ago raised alarms about BPA and links to prostrate and breast cancer, attention deficit disorder in children, and infertility.’

Well, not exactly.

The Dobbs report is misleading because it leaves out crucial information contained in the report, and indicates that the NIH is claiming that BPA is linked to prostate and breast cancer in adults, ADD in children and infertility.

What they didn’t say was that every single study done on the toxicity of BPA was conducted on rodents, and there is continuing controversy over whether those study results can be translated to humans with any accuracy. The NIH-NTP report does not unequivocally state that BPA is linked to cancer, ADD, or infertility in humans or rodents. Some rats in some of the studies reviewed by the NIH developed pre-cancerous lesions in the prostate and mammary glands, but that is a long way from stating that BPA is linked to prostate and breast cancer in adult humans.

The report does not even mention ADD.

As for infertility, the report stated that “laboratory animal studies consistently report that bisphenol-A does not affect fertility.”

The Dobbs report also stated that Canada had labeled BPA a “hazardous material” and has banned its use.

Well, that’s about half-true. Canada labeled BPA “toxic,” but only to those 18 months old and younger. And BPA was indeed banned, but only in products designed to be used by those 18 months and younger, such as baby bottles, cups, and toys.

Inaccurate or sensationalized reporting only confuses the issue and makes it nearly impossible for consumers to make choices they feel comfortable with.

The NIH-NTP study and report did not say that BPA is harmless. What it did say was this:

“The NTP concurs with the conclusion of the NIH-CERHR Expert Panel on Bisphenol-A that there is some concern for neural and behavioral effects in fetuses, infants, and children at current human exposures. The NTP also has some concern for bisphenol-A exposure in these populations based on effects in the prostate gland, mammary gland, and an earlier age for puberty in females.” (in animal studies)

“The scientific evidence that supports a conclusion of some concern for exposures in fetuses, infants, and children comes from a number of laboratory animal studies reporting that ‘low’ level exposure to bisphenol-A during development can cause changes in behavior and the brain, prostate gland, mammary gland, and the age at which females attain puberty.”

“These studies only provide limited evidence for adverse effects on development and more research is needed to better understand their implications for human health. However, because these effects in animals occur at bisphenol-A exposure levels similar to those experienced by humans, the possibility that bisphenol-A may alter human development cannot be dismissed.”

But the FDA is not recommending that anyone discontinue using products that contain BPA. The agency is “continuing its safety assessment process,” according to an FDA spokesperson.

At about the same time the NIH-NTP report was issued, another government-financed group, made up of about 40 scientists with expertise in bisphenol-A, reviewed more than 700 relevant studies. (In contrast, the Nov. 2007 NIH study was conducted by a 12-member panel.)

But University of Missouri biology professor Frederick vom Saal, the lead author of the scientists’ report, said their findings were far less benign.

“There is a very high level of concern about the potential harm caused by bisphenol-A in animals,” he said, “including potential for cancer, diabetes, and obesity.”

“The prediction by this panel is that we can expect similar harm in people.”

Professor vom Saal has been in the forefront of bisphenol-A study since the 1980’s. And he has been sounding the clarion call against it for over two decades.

It seems that people are starting to listen, even people in government (but not the FDA). Thirteen states, including California, Hawaii, Minnesota, Illinois, Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Maryland, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Vermont and Maine currently have legislation pending to ban BPA in baby products.

U.S. Senator Charles Schumer (D–N.Y.) has introduced legislation that would ban bisphenol-A nationally from products for infants. The Energy and Commerce Committee in the House of Representatives is investigating the use of BPA in baby products as well as the FDA’s approval of the chemical.

In asking the FDA to reassess its approval of bisphenol-A, committee chairman Bart Stupak (D–Mich.) said “We would expect the FDA to make decisions based on the best available science…yet the FDA relied on only two industry-funded studies, while other respected authorities used all available data to reach vastly different conclusions.”

The fight for and against BPA is ongoing, with studies being conducted in countries all over the world. Tomorrow, in part 2, “Tracking Bisphenol-A on the Consumer Trail,” learn which retailers and manufacturers are discontinuing BPA products, and how to identify which plastics are BPA-free.

This is brought to you by CaymanMama.com News / Press Release Distribution Service



renwrite · Filed Under Health News, Top Stories 

CaymanMama.com - Press Release Distribution Service

Comments

Comments are closed.



Articles