BPA News

Several days ago an article titled “Is Your Shower Curtain Making You Fat?” appeared in the magazine Spry and was then reprinted in the Dodge City Daily Globe.  The article drew readers’ attention to the dangers of endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs), giving 5 examples of chemicals used in everyday consumer products (BPA, phthalates, PVC, PFC’s, and PBDFs).

And as such, it will come as a surprise to many women concerned about such risks—or at least repeatedly warned about them by the media—that bisphenol A (BPA), a ubiquitous component in cans and plastics, is not on the list, even though there is a section for “endocrine disrupting” chemicals. Instead, the study draws attention to much more potent estrogenic chemicals than BPA, such as Estradiol-17b, a component of oral contraceptives and hormone therapies, which has entered domestic wastewater—and possibly drinking water—via urination. 

As part of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s (CFIA) routine testing of various food products, a survey released today reported that all of the canned foods tested for Bisphenol A (BPA) were safe to consume. BPA was not detected in 98.5 per cent of canned foods analyzed in this survey. In 2011-12, the CFIA tested 403 canned samples of domestic and imported fruits, vegetables, juices, other beverages, legumes, pasta, and soups for BPA, as these products are likely packaged in cans treated with epoxy coatings. Imported samples came from 15 different countries.

Conspiracy, incompetence, a federal agency out of control. A recent Mother Jones story by Mariah Blake indicts the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as a threat to science and public health over the way it’s conducting research into bisphenol A (BPA), the never-ending chemical scare story of the 21^st century. Raise the alarm (again), stir the pot (again), marshal outrage (again).

In June 2013, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) answered the question “Is BPA safe?” with a simple and unambiguous answer – “Yes.”

Maybe BPA isn’t so bad after all. The plastic additive has been vilified by environmental advocacy groups. But the chemical had no effect on rats fed thousands of times the amount a typical person ingests, government scientists are reporting in the journal Toxicological Sciences. The results “both support and extend the conclusion from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration that BPA is safe as currently used,” says Daniel Doerge, a research chemist with the Food and Drug Administration’s National Center for Toxicological Research.

Toxic chemicals lurk in the “typical” Thanksgiving meal, warns a green activist website. Eat organic, avoid canned food, and you might be okay, according to their advice. Fortunately, there’s no need to buy this line. In fact, the trace levels of man-made chemicals found in these foods warrant no concern and are no different from trace chemicals that appear in food naturally.

One of the big problems in science journalism is the tendency to hype scientific research. You’re familiar with the routine: A new study comes out on, say, how coffee might lead to a slight increase in a particular disease. Then, plastered all over the front pages of websites and newspapers are headlines like, “Too Much Coffee Will Kill You!” Of course, the following week, a different study will report that coffee might protect you from another disease, and the media hysteria plays out all over again, just in the opposite direction.

It was the late astronomer and author Carl Sagan who popularized the phrase “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,” and originated the closely related concept of scientific skepticism. In the case discussed here, skeptics we should be. Last week we saw a flurry of media articles with headlines suggesting that exposure to the common chemical bisphenol A (BPA) increases the risk of miscarriage. Considering how much research has been conducted on BPA already, in particular extensive research on laboratory animals that examined the potential for BPA to cause any effect on reproduction, that’s a rather extraordinary claim that has not been corroborated or replicated. 

What is most striking about Nick Kristof’s latest column about endocrine disruption is what’s missing from it.

Granted, one has to know the science and regulatory considerations well enough to see all of the angles this article could have and should have covered. But what readers got instead was a very selective viewpoint, revealing a very narrow understanding of a hotly debated scientific issue about whether certain chemicals interact with the endocrine system to cause adverse effects in humans.

Contrary to Kristof’s charges against the chemical industry, ACC has supported scientific research on the endocrine disruption issue from its inception. We regularly engage with the scientific community and regulatory agencies to enhance the scientific understanding of endocrine disruption, to promote sound decisions, and to effectively manage risks that may exist from exposure to some chemicals. We have also supported federal appropriations for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) research on endocrine disruption.