Blame lawns. And Big Ag. A new study looking at the effects of the common pesticide atrazine has found that it emasculated three-quarters of the male frogs exposed to the chemical.

It turned one in ten of the male frogs into females.

African clawed frog (Photo: Columbia University)

The study suggests that a key reason for the vast worldwide decline of frogs could be their exposure to atrazine and similar pesticides. “The 75 percent that are chemically castrated are essentially ‘dead’ because of their inability to reproduce in the wild,” says Dr. Tyrone B. Hayes, a University of California-Berkeley professor and lead researcher of the study.

“These male frogs are missing testosterone and all the things that testosterone controls, including sperm….” Hayes says in a UC Berkeley news report.

The peer-reviewed study, published by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, was released Monday.

Hayes’ earlier work with frogs and atrazine had shown that the chemical disrupted the development of both male and female frogs, creating hermaphrodites that had features of both sexes.

The new study of 40 African clawed frogs, which were housed in water contaminated with atrazine, shows that the hormonal imbalance can be even more extreme.

The frogs were exposed to a level of the chemical (2.5 parts per billion) below the level deemed safe by the EPA (3.0 ppb).

Syngenta AG, the large manufacturer of atrazine,  responded by calling Hayes’ work, past and present, flawed.

“For 50 years, atrazine has been used safely in agriculture with no effect to amphibians, fish, birds and other wildlife at concentrations found in the environment,’’ the company said in a statement. Syngenta maintains that independent research in labs has shown “no association between atrazine and declines in frog numbers.”

The European Union banned atrazine in 2004 over health concerns. The EPA is reviewing its use in the United States, and some states are suing over the use of the chemical, which leaches into groundwater and has been found above safe levels in drinking water supplies.

The Center for Biological Diversity has called for a U.S. ban on atrazine.

“It’s time to ban atrazine to protect our drinking water and our most imperiled wildlife,” said Jeff Miller, a conservation advocate with the Center for Biological Diversity, in August, 2009. “There is no reason to continue use of this poisonous contaminant given the building evidence of harm to humans and endangered species.”

The chemical is used on corn and soybeans in the United States to control weeds and increase crop yields. Its tendency to contaminate streams and ground water caused the EPA to set a maximum level (3 parts per billion, ppb) for its presence in water. Water departments are required to test for atrazine at regular intervals and take action if levels rise above that.

The EPA reports that short-term exposure to atrazine can cause heart, lung and kidney problems; longterm exposure can cause cancer and other health effects.

Atrazine was the second most common pesticide found in well water by EPA researchers. It can break down in water and soil, but sunlight does not “reduce its presence,” according to the federal agency. (See the EPA fact sheet.)

Contamination is the Midwest is high, because of the proximity to agricultural use. Studies of atrazine and frogs in the Midwest have found eggs in the testes of native leopard frogs taken from atrazine-contaminated streams.

However, the chemical has been shown to travel hundreds of miles, with the EPA detecting unsafe levels in wells in New York and Delaware, as well as Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri and Nebraska.

Atrazine also is found in many common products for home weed control. The EPA has put out a list of trade names of products that contain atrazine.

Other studies show that atrazine also acts as an endocrine disruptor in fish, birds, reptiles, laboratory rats and in human cells. Recent studies hint that is could produce human birth defects, according to the UC Berkeley news report.

Syngenta and others advocating conventional chemical farming argue that strong weed killers are needed to produce high crop yields and make U.S. farms more productive.

Recent research on soils and organic production has been challenging those assumptions. Studies on soil conditions in the US have found that the use of synthetic fertilizers and herbicides is depleting soils. Organic organizations, like the Organic Consumers Association, maintain that small, organic farms can produce enough to feed the world, without degrading soil or groundwater.

For more information on the dwindling world populations of frogs, see our previous story.

Concerned about all those dangerous household chemicals you keep hearing about: BPA, phthalates and pesticides with cryptic names like 2,4-Dioxane?

We’ve found just the book for you.

Slow Death By Rubber Duck:The Secret Danger of Everyday Things (Counterpoint, 2009. U.S. $25) will take you on a chilling, but informative ride through our chemically enhanced consumer product world. Starting with your kid’s Rubber Duck, which contains five chemicals of concern, imagine what the rest of the household contains.

Frankly, I worried that this cleverly titled book about the dangerous additives lurking in our house dust, furniture, hand soaps and Teflon pans would be just that, an inspired title followed by surface information. But I was quickly relieved of that concern. Co-authors Rick Smith and Bruce Lourie are not just scratching the stick-resistant surface here.

Dr. Smith, executive director of Environmental Defence Canada, and Lourie, a longtime environmental adviser to governments and corporations, look at how dangerous chemicals got into our products — because they were invented! and people wanted eggs that slipped off pans before we knew much about the chemistry of those pans, and manufacturers wanted to protect us from flaming couches by dousing them with flame retardants, now linked to increased cancer risks and neuro-motor deficits in children. And, well, there’s a story behind every chemical load in every product. The takeaway: Often these added chemicals are needless, or of dubious added value.

Perhaps more importantly, Smith and Lourie looked at how toxic ingredients leap from consumer goods into our bodies. Despite the reassurances of manufacturers that PBDEs (flame retardants), Teflon and Bisphenol A remain locked into their respective products, scientific studies have revealed that PBDEs turn up in household dust; Teflon fumes can fry not only eggs but the lungs of pet birds and BPA, as you’ve likely heard, leaches from polycarbonate plastic containers, getting into food and drinks. (and it’s in the resin lining food cans everywhere.)

Our Rubber Duck guides don’t just recite that science, or take it on faith, they test it. Smith and Lourie become the guinea pigs for their inquiry, exposing themselves systematically to common problem ingredients and then having their urine and blood tested to see whether their levels of contamination increased.

For instance, Smith tested his levels of phthalates, a plastics-additive found in toys and dozens of  body products, before and after exposing himself to a pre-selected list of highly scented deodorants, toiletries, dish soap and an air fresheners containing phthalates.

His levels of one type of phthalate, DEPs (diethyl phthalates, which turn up in the body as MEPs, monoethyl phthalates, and which have been linked to male reproductive problems) shot through the roof.

“It worked all right,” Smith writes. “I was actually shocked at the results…And my little experiment showed how amazingly easy it is to dramatically crank up levels of MEP after a simple change in toiletries for two days. Who knew that conditioning your hair could be hazardous to your health?”

Of course, the upside is, if you can make the levels of chemicals in your body go up, you can also make them go down, in many cases, as the authors also demonstrate.

I don’t want to spoil other outcomes here, but let’s just say, Smith and Lourie’s findings ranged from interesting to hair-raising. Their escapades with phthalates, flame retardants,  BPA, Teflon, mercury, anti-microbials and pesticides, were at turns humorous and dismaying. It left me riveted. I grew so fond of this book, I threw over my usual fiction for several nights running to curl up with the adventures of these chemical detectives.

And while I was provided a free review copy of the book, that will hardly cover the cost of the stainless steel pans I’ll now be buying to replace my non-stick set. Hmmpff!

Copyright © 2010 Green Right Now | Distributed by GRN Network

Having just read and reviewed Slow Death By Rubber Duck: The Secret Danger of Everyday Things, I had a few questions for co-author Rick Smith, head of Environmental Defence Canada.

And since his book was costing me — some $120 for a new set of stainless steel cookware to replace my stick-free, Teflon-coated set — I thought he owed me some answers.

We chatted earlier this week, while he took advantage of Family Day in Canada, visiting a playground with his young boys, a strong impetus behind his work to educate the public about harmful environmental and household toxic chemicals. The younger generation, he worried, has an even higher ‘body burden’ of chemicals than we adults grew up with.

In the book, he and co-author Bruce Lourie, an environmental consultant, test common toxics to find out how they get from consumer goods and food into our bodies. In fact, they ingest or expose themselves to these chemicals to chart the effects.

The basic idea: Since many of these toxic ingredients have been shown in lab experiments to act as endocrine disruptors and cancer triggers figuring out how to limit or reduce our exposure could have positive health effects, for kids and adults.

The chemicals the two examined included:

• Phthalates, used as plasticizers and preservatives or binders in many things, notably, body products, toys and pliable plastic good. Phthalates are endocrine disruptors suspected of interfering with the sexual development of boys, in particular.

• Bisphenol A – A plastic-making chemical found in clear, hard polycarbonate plastic. Once nearly ubiquitous in baby and water bottles, a huge campaign by angry mothers in Canada (and led by EDC) and protests in the U.S. and elsewhere has persuaded manufacturers to make alternatives out of safer plastic; glass and stainless steel bottles also serve as safer options. Studies have shown BPA interferes with the endocrine system, even in tiny doses, and could pre-dispose people to cancers, particularly of reproductive organs.

• PFOAs, classified as “likely carcinogens” and present in the “Teflon family of chemicals” which includes stick-resistant pans and Stainmaster treatments.

• PBDEs and other flame retardants, linked to cancers in studies.

• Triclosan, an antibacterial agent that has proliferated in hand soaps and crept into many other consumer items, and is implicated in the rise of “super-bugs” in the environment, and prompting health agencies to advise the public to return to plain old soap and water for hand hygiene.

• Mercury, a natural compound whose presence has been magnified in the world by industrial pollution, such as emissions from coal plants. Mercury can turn to super toxic methyl mercury in fish. That aside, even the regular mercury contamination of freshwater and ocean fish has governments concerned enough to warn people, particularly child-bearing women and children, to limit their exposure by tempering their consumption of seafood.

• Pesticides, in particular, 2,4-Dioxane, a chemical used in lawn treatments, that has been linked to Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma,  neurological impairment, birth defects, asthma and reproductive problems, according to the authors.

Onward with the interview, starting with me (in bold) followed by Dr. Smith’s answers.

It seems that your book aims to make the connections between all these toxic chemicals in everyday items get into and affect our bodies. Was that the idea behind polluting yourselves?

The point of the book was to demonstrate number one how easily these chemicals are absorbed by our bodies, and then how predictable the levels are, depending on the product that you use. Quite often enviros will say avoid this product or avoid that product because this will increase your pollution level. We wanted to demonstrate that cause and effect in real time. The results of our experimentation was quite disturbing and quite dramatic.”

Tell me how the idea of polluting yourselves evolved?

It started off as a joke between Bruce and I. We were talking about how we could illustrate the problem of toxic chemicals in consumer products. One of us said well, if we were really serious about this we would experiment on ourselves, and it sort of went from there, much to our family’s alarm.

We did expect to see some increases in these chemicals (internally). But the rapidity and the scale of the increases really surprised us. Nobody had really done this work before, maybe because nobody had been stupid enough. Nobody had tried before to manipulate their internal levels of  pollution in this way.

What was the effect on your personally of seeing the effect of some of those chemicals, the mercury and others, that you absorbed?

It reinforced, it very dramatically underlined for us how important it is in our own lives and the lives of others to avoid these chemicals if you can. I mean over a 48 hour period my levels of tricosan, this common antibacterial chemical  increased by 2,900 times. That’s just just a mind boggling experiment in a 48 hour period. That experiment really reinforced for me how important it is to avoid antibacterial products, something I was trying to do anyway, but I now avoid them like the plague.

Antibacterial chemicals have gotten a lot of attention for what they can do to the outside environment (fostering superbugs), but what’s your understanding of what they can do internally?
The direct harmful health effects.

First of all, the use of this chemical has dramatically increased in the last few years. You can find it in a huge number of products, whether its antibacterial chopsticks or if you’re renovating your kitchen you can now buy a countertop that’s impregnated with Tricolsan and you can buy cutting boards with TRiclosan. You can buy hot tubs with Triclosan in the sides. There’s just a ludicrous number of applications for this product now. And it’s very strongly linked to thyroid problems, and doctors are now very concerned aboiut how commonplace it’s become because of the evidence that it’s leading to the rise of antibiotic resistant bacteria. So these superbugs are becoming more and more common and causing serious illness. It’s out of that concern that the American Medical Association and the Canadian Medical Association have both called for a ban on the use of Triclosan antibacterial products.

I should point out that there are a lot of hand sanitizers on the market now and the ones that are alcohol-based…are safe to use.

Didn’t you worry that you were going to get sick doing these experiments?

The one cardinal rule of our experiments was that our tests had to mimic everyday life. Because obviously it would be very easy to dramatically increase your levels of Teflon if you were willing to go to the nearest hardware store and buy a jug of Teflon, which you can do, and paint yourself with Teflon, or it would be easy to increase yr levels of mercury if you were willing to swallow a few drops of mercury from your thermometer. But nobody does that. So those extreme tests wouldn’t have any applicability to everyday life….

We weren’t really doing anything that millions of people aren’t already doing every dayWe were just extremely deliberate about sampling the levels of these chemicals in our blood and urine for about a week. So thought it felt strange to be deliberately poisoning ourselves, that anxiety was kind of offset by the fact that our tests were so mundane. The actions we were undertaking were so mundane and commonplace.

When you sat in the room that had been treated with the Stainmaster chemicals…I don’t think I could have done that.

Ironically that was the one experiment where we didn’t see a dramatic increase in our pollution levels. But it was certainly the experiment that was the most unpleasant to conduct. So even though  we followed the directions of the guy who stain-mastered our carpet and opened the windows to let it air out, the off-gassing was quite nauseating. And that was the one experiment where we didn’t see any discernable increase in our pollution levels. We went back to talk to the scientist who helped us design the experiment to look at why it hadn’t worked, and his conclusion was that, perversely, Teflon chemicals are so ubiquitous that we all start off with such elevated levels anyway that it would be very difficult to see a discernable increase in a two day period.

That was ironic.

Why do you think consumers and governments tolerate all this toxicity in products?

Until recently here’s been a real lack of information for consumers. I think that has changed dramatically, especially in the last year or two. It’s very difficult now if you are a company manufacturing chemically intensive consumer products to hide what is in your product. There’s an amazing amount of information online now. People are trading information about the stuff they’re buying. So if you’re a manufacturer today, the name of the game is transparency and getting toxic chemicals out of your product. And if you’re not doing that then you’re liable to lose market share.

I think until now there’s been a real lack of awareness and that is changing fast.

But I think for the last several years people would look at having Microban in pillows and nanosilvers in socks and they would think, Yippee, Something positive has been done here to protect me from germs. I mean the marketing claims seemed good, if you didn’t know any more about it.

I think that’s entirely right. You can see the indication of how quickly things are changing in like the new Clorox line of Greenworks products or FP? Johnson,  a very old family company producing chemically intensive cleaning products – all of a sudden they’re disclosing all the ingredients in their products and they’re trying to get toxic chemicals out of their products. That’s a very interating development.

You see that in other areas too, like toys. I’m talking with you from this park and I’m surrounded by literally 200 kids under the age of 5 and I bet if I went around and talked to the parents around me and I mentioned names like Bisphenol A (BPA) and Triclosan and other chemicals, they would know what they are and they’ve already been making choices to shield their children from them.

We’re in the middle of a very profound market shift away from these toxic chemicals.

But don’t you think people doubt that these chemicals are really harmful? I mean isn’t it hard to prove that exposure to a certain chemical, say PFOA’s, caused a cancer, when we’re all exposed to a tank full of chemicals?

I think that’s right. But I think many people have a deep sense that something is wrong with the way things are made. I don’t know anybody who hasn’t had a brush with cancer themselves, or had a family member that’s had cancer. People you know who have breast or prostate cancer seems to grow every day. Illnesses like childhood asthma are at an all-time high.

I think most people, certainly parents, have a strong sense that there must be a link. And they have a sort of commonsense better safe than sorry approach and it’s changing their buying habits. You can see this with baby bottles for instance where over the last two years millions of young parents decided that given the choice between buying (those containing) Bisphenol A or nontoxic glass, they would err on the side of caution.

That’s the good news about a lot of these toxic chemicals – they’re not necessary. There are competitive products on the market right now that parents can choose other than these toxic products.

You dealt with flame retardants, non-stick coatings, phthalates and parabens, mercury, synthetic antibacterial products and to some extent nanoparticles. What scares you the most? What really worried you in going throught this exercise.

Generally the effects on my kids worry me. There’s no question that for a lot of these chemicals our children are growing up with a greater burden than we did.”

As for the specific chemicals that really freaked me out, I have to say the Teflon family of chemicals concern me greatly. These are chemicals that scientists now say may never break down. Every molecule of Teflon that was ever created still exists, is floating around in the atmosphere or is lodged in someone’s body somewhere or in the tissue of a killer whale or a polar bear or  a penguin, and no amount of stomach acid or time will break these chemicals down. That’s freaky and concerning. We need to not only discontinue the use of thse chemicals but address how we get rid of the tons of chemicals that have already been produced.

The section of your book on Parkersburg, Ohio (where residents have been harmed by pollution from a Teflon factory) was alarming to me also.

That’s a very troubling story and those folks have really suffered.

How do we get companies to reduce this pollution? You seem to be focusing on education of consumers and transparency.
People need to be smarter as consumers, and as citizens demand more from our government. I’m not saying we can shop our way to safety. But the good news from our experiments, that was shown conclusively, is that if you’re careful with what you buy; if you’re careful reading the ingredients list, you casn dramatically decrease your levels of personal pollution, sometimes within hours.

So while we are pushing governments to better protect us, to regulate, in the interim, making different choices as consumers can have a very positive impact on our and our children’s levels of pollution.

Copyright © 2010 Green Right Now | Distributed by GRN Network

A new study shows that chemicals found in flame retardants also are turning up in certain meat — and no, they’re not there intentionally to quell that internal fire from the barbecue.

These chemicals, known as PBDEs (polybrominated diphenyl ethers) have been shown to have negative health consequences; they’re suspected of interfering with the human endocrine system and fertility and causing neurological damage. Until now, that meant we might want to evaluate the PBDEs in our upholstered furniture and mattresses, get our babies out of “flame retardant” clothing, and reduce our exposure to other things made with polyurethane foam and fabrics required to be flame retardant.

Researchers publishing in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives this month suggest we might want to also consider what we’re putting on our plate. They’re not quite sure how they’re getting there, but they’ve found that PBDE accumulation in the human body is associated with eating high-fat poultry and red meat.

The scientists, from the Boston University School of Public Health, speculated in the June article that the animal’s feed may have been contaminated or that PBDEs accumulated during the packaging and processing of the meat. PBDEs tend to aggregate in fat tissue and do not easily degrade.Somehow, though, their research found that this meat increased the levels of PBDEs in human consumers.

The researchers, however, found no similar accumulation related to the consumption of dairy or fish.

“Our study offers the first large-scale look at the effect of the American diet on PBDE body burdens showing significant associations with poultry and red meat consumption,” wrote the research team in a statement. “As PBDE-containing products continue to degrade and enter the waste stream in larger amounts, future exposure to PBDEs may begin to shift more heavily from the indoor environment to the outdoor environment and, consequently, the diet.”

EHP is an open access journal published by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Fleas happen. So do ticks. With the trees in full leaf and the woods thick with weeds, I know the hounds will soon be targets. Typically, I just shave them (the dogs not the parasites), wash them with something obnoxiously fragrant and hope for the best.

I gave up chemical dog collars awhile back. But knowing that the dogs are miserable with fleas (not to mention how miserable we’d be sharing their fleas) and that they can get Lyme disease if they pick up a tick, I’m aware that we need solutions. I have fed them garlic powder, a home remedy, but with mixed success.

So I’ve been looking into natural alternatives, and today I found some great ones. But first, a relevant story: This week the Natural Resources Defense Council sued pet product manufacturers and retailers (16 of them are named) for failing to warn consumers in California about the toxicity of some of the ingredients in flea collars. The suit was filed in California because that state regulates propoxur, and is considering regulating TCVP (tetrachlorvinphos), two of the compounds at issue.

While the EPA has said that flea collars pose no threat to humans, the lawsuit alleges that chemical residues on pet fur can far exceed safe levels. The suits cites NRDC research showing that after several days, most dogs and cats carried residues levels considered unsafe for toddlers having “average” contact with pets. The San Francisco Chronicle website SFGATE has more on this story.

Now for the practical part, as you consider how to keep the mutts parasite-free this summer season: The NRDC has put together a list that will help you sort out the options. The Green Paws report tells you which flea/tick treatments to avoid, which to use with caution and which are the safest to use. (It undersells the non-toxic products a bit, saying they’re safe to use when “chemical control is needed,” which implies that au naturel is safest for Fifi and Thunderbolt. I’d argue that no control carries risks too — unless you enjoy fleas in the carpet and sick pets.)

Still, we are grateful for this research. Read the list and you’ll understand why — many of these chemicals are believed or known carcinogens, endocrine disruptors and irritants that aggravate asthma. It’s little wonder, they’re pesticides. You know, like the stuff you carefully wash off your fruit.

Anyhow, we’re going to try an essential oil. Green Paws lists oils of cedarwood, lemongrass, peppermint, rosemary and thyme as safer oils to use on pets. Some of the essential oils, like those from lavender and geranium, it does not recommend for pets. Good to know.

It also advises discussing these issues with your veterinarian (kind of like how you’re supposed to discuss Boniva, Celebrex and Viagra with your doctor). But I have to take issue with this advice. Our veterinarian — and I would guess the majority of vets — sells many of those toxic pet collars and treatments. He’s a great guy, but last time I asked him about flea control, he told me to use a neurotoxin.

I did notice on the Green Paws list that there are some “stripe on” products using a chemical called Pyriproxyfen, which is considered safer to use. So not every chemical with a difficult to pronounce name is a problem, necessarily.

Confused? Green Paws also offers a guide to take to the store.

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

The EPA has issued a list of pesticides that will be screened for possibly disrupting the human, as well as animal, endocrine system. The list, released Wednesday, focuses on “endocrine disruptors” which are chemicals that can negatively impact hormones produced by the endocrine system. The system regulates all biological processes in the body – specifically, growth, metabolism and reproduction.

“Gathering this information,” said EPA Adminstrator Lisa P. Jackson, “will help us work with communities and industry to protect Americans from harmful exposure. Endocrine disruptors can cause lifelong health problems, especially for children.”
The endocrine, or hormone, system is found in all mammals, birds and fish. It is made up of glands, hormones that are produced by the glands and receptors in different organs that respond to the hormones.

The EPA will have the makers of 67 pesticide chemicals test their products this summer to see if their chemicals are responsible for disrupting the endocrine systems.

The testing will be done through the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (ESDP) set up by the EPA, which commonly relies on companies to test their own products.

The list of all 67 chemicals can be found here. The EPA stresses that this list is not a definitive collection of known endocrine disruptors. The chemicals selected were chosen because there is a high potential for human exposure through food and water, residential activity or agricultural pesticide application. Many of the chemicals found on the list are present in commonly used lawn treatments, insect sprays, solvents and other household products.

“These pesticide chemicals were picked because we wanted to start with ones that more people might be exposed to,” says EPA spokesperson Suzanne Ackerman. “They were not selected based on which ones are considered most dangerous. We won’t know that until we have them tested.”

Several chemicals on the list, though, have been flagged for health concerns. Atrazine, for instance, has been banned in the European Union. Atrazine is among the most common, if not the most common, herbicide used in the United States.

Other recognizable chemicals on the testing list, include diazinon, malathion, carbaryl and permethrin. Diazinon has been banned for household use in the U.S., but remains available for agricultural use as an insecticide. Permethrins turn up on flea collars for dogs, which some health groups consider too toxic for household use.

Endocrine disruptors work in several ways. Sometimes, the chemical mimics a natural hormone, tricking the body into over-responding to the stimulus. The endocrine disruptor can also block the effects of a hormone from certain receptors. In other cases, the chemical can stimulate or inhibit the endocrine system, causing the overproduction or underproduction of hormones. Sometimes, as in the birth control pill, a chemical intentionally inhibits the endocrine system.

Impaired endocrine function can result in lowered fertility and other health conditions.

The direct connections between human diseases of the endocrine system and the system’s exposure to environmental contaminants, are still not clear, according to the EPA. This is why the establishment of the screening program is considered an important step.
Copyright © 2009 | Distributed by Noofangle Media

After an outbreak of bad publicity earlier this year over bisphenol-A (BPA), the plastic additive which dozens of studies identify as a potential carcinogen and endocrine disruptor, the U.S. government promised to take another look. Its conclusion: BPA is safe.

The Federal Drug Administration had previously cleared BPA for use in an array of consumer products, such as clear plastic baby bottles, the resin lining in food cans and many other items. It promised a new review of the science after Canada proposed a ban of BPA in baby bottles and manufacturers of polycarbonate water bottles began voluntarily giving up BPA. All cited concerns over the plastics’ tendency to leach when when warmed and possible harmful effects on humans, particularly children.

The results of the new FDA review were released last Thursday, about a month earlier than promised.

Lest anyone think the agency didn’t look very hard — the FDA had relied on plastics industry studies to support its initial approval of BPA — the regulators put out a 105-page draft on the topic. (Warning: You need medical expertise to read most of it.)

It found that the “”margins of safety” for human were sufficient for baby bottles and those epoxy can liners used in virtually all canned foods (shout out to Eden Organics for using better quality cans without BPA).

Those of us who would like to continue to eat canned chili and beans can take comfort that the U.S. report cites a similar review by the European Union in which regulators there also found no concern for alarm for BPA at “current exposures.”

Or we can heed the call to err on the side of caution, a sentiment implicit in the FDA’s own “message to consumers” put out during the reassessment period on its BPA info page:

“At this time, FDA is not recommending that anyone discontinue using products that contain BPA while we continue our risk assessment process. However, concerned consumers should know that several alternatives to polycarbonate baby bottles exist, including glass baby bottles.”

It’s unclear whether and when this advice will change because the FDA has promised to continue to consider new BPA studies and has called a September meeting on the topic for scientists. Meanwhile, the enduring controversy of BPA is unlikely to abate.

The FDA promised to put out a later safety report on BPA exposure from other FDA-regulated products.

Copyright © 2008 | Distributed by Noofangle Media