Coca-Cola is getting kudos from environmentalists for meeting them half way on the subject of BPA, bisphenol-A, a toxic chemical used in food packaging.

On May 28 of this year, lobbyists from the chemical industry and food companies gathered at the Cosmos Club in Washington, D.C. According to the Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting public health and the environment, the focus of the meeting was to white-wash the risks of BPA.

An internal memo leaked to EWG included the “brainstorm” of recruiting a “pregnant young mother who would be willing to speak around the country about the benefits of BPA.” Many scientists consider BPA toxic in utero to developing babies.

Last month, Coca-Cola executives met with EWG to discuss the DC meeting. Coca-Cola was among a number of companies present, but their executives deny that they were part of any misleading marketing efforts regarding BPA. Other companies at the meeting included Alcoa, Del Monte, the North American Metal Packaging Alliance, the Grocery Manufacturers Association and the American Chemistry Council.

As EWG president, Ken Cook, said, “while the Coca-Cola executive made clear that they differ with EWG on the science of BPA and have concluded based on available evidence that the material is safe as used in packaging for its products, they are interested in hearing more about our views about emerging research on BPA and other chemicals used in packaging. Coca-Cola has not found a substitute for BPA that meets its packaging needs, but will continue to assess alternatives – as we’re urging it to do.”

None of the other companies attending the May meeting has responded to EWG, according to spokesman Alex Formuzis. Currently EWG is encouraging supporters to put pressure on Del Monte, in particular, by demanding it no longer use BPA in its products.

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

As toxicologists see it, our chemical world is neither as dangerous as portrayed by the mainstream media and environmental groups, nor as safe as the American Chemistry Council and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) would have us believe.

That’s according to a survey of 937 members of the Society of Toxicology in early 2009. The survey, released Thursday, was administered by Harris Interactive and conducted by the nonprofit Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) and Center for Health and Risk Communication at George Mason University.

“This survey suggests that the public doesn’t get a full and balanced picture of chemical risk,” said Dr. Robert Lichter, the survey director.

While the toxicologists surveyed believed that certain chemicals portrayed as dangerous in media stories actually pose little risk — such as those used in Teflon and the Bisphenol A used in plastic – more than half of them said they believed that pesticides pose a “significant health risk” and that chemicals cause hormonal disruptions in humans.

Distortions occur when the media pay too much attention to individual cases and also to the agenda set by environmental groups, according to the survey findings. More than 90 percent said they felt media coverage of chemical-related issues lacked balance and failed to distinguish good studies from bad studies and also to explain that “the dose makes the poison” (that chemicals that are dangerous in high doses can be safe in small doses).

They also said that WebMD and Wikipedia offered more balanced coverage than more established media outlets.

A majority of toxicologists felt that most government agencies do a better job than the media, environmental groups or trade associations of accurately portraying chemical risks, though they rated the Environmental Protection Agency (40 % ) and Consumer Product Safety Commission (47%) lower.

The findings:

When asked to agree or disagree with statements about chemical safety and regulation:

• 26% believe cosmetics pose a significant health risk
• 33% believe food additives pose a significant health risk
• 55% believe pesticides pose a significant health risk
• 53% believe chemicals cause endocrine disruption
• Only 10% believe organic or “natural” products are inherently safer
• Only 6% believe that any exposure to a harmful chemical is unacceptable
• 69% say chemicals do not need to be regulated according to the precautionary principle
• Only 23% say the U.S. regulatory system is inferior to Europe’s
• 54% say U.S. regulators are not doing a good job explaining chemical risks

Despite recent controversies in the news over the safety of commonly used chemicals, few toxicologists believe they pose a high health risk:

• 3% see Teflon as having a high degree of risk
• 3% see genetically modified organisms as high risk
• 9% see Bisphenol A, a component of many plastics, as high risk
• 11% see phthalates, which make vinyl flexible, as high risk
• 12% see high fructose corn syrup, used in soft drinks, as high risk

The toxicologists overwhelmingly say that environmental activist groups overstate the health risks of chemicals. But they also say industry groups underplay the risks:

• 96% say Greenpeace overstates the health risks of chemicals
• 80% say the Environmental Defense Fund overstates chemical risks
• 79% say the Environmental Working Group, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Center for Science in the Public Interest overstate the risks
• 57% say the American Chemistry Council understates chemical risks
• 60% say the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) understates chemical risks
• In contrast, majorities say that most U.S. governmental agencies accurately portray risk, with only the EPA (40%) and the CPSC (47%) falling below a majority

The study has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.4 percentage points, according to Harris Interactive, a survey research firm.

Minnesota has become the first state to ban the toxic plastics chemical Bisphenol-A (BPA) in baby bottles and sippy cups. Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) signed the legislation last week and the ban will take effect Jan. 1, 2010.

California and Connecticut are among the other states that also may ban the toxic chemical. The plastic additive has been found to leach from hard plastic water and baby bottles when they are heated, as well as when certain disposable containers labeled as “microwave safe” are heated. Children’s developing bodies are considered more susceptible to chemical insult.

Canada has already taken steps to ban BPA. In the U.S., Sen. Charles Schumer, (D-New York) and nine other senators introduced legislation in 2008 to treat BPA as a hazardous substance under federal law for any product targeting kids, ages 7 and younger.

“Minnesota now leads the way in protecting American children from BPA,” Renee Sharp, senior analyst and director of Environmental Working Group’s California office, said in a statement. “Minnesota’s action should pave the way for California. “BPA has been banned by everyone from Wal-Mart to Sunoco, Canada and now Minnesota. Any questions about the viability of alternatives have clearly been resolved.”

Even if the marketplaces sort out the issue with baby bottles, many of which are now being made of glass or BPA-free plastic, BPA turns up in a troubling array of consumer products, including the lining of most canned foods, though the Food and Drug Administration considers the levels contained in these products to be safe for humans of all ages.

Related links:

• State of Minnesota’s Introduction to Bisphenol A
• Tests show how toxic substances turn up in Americans’ blood
• Health fears about BPA plastic spread with Canada pushing for a ban
• BPA – now a potential saboteur of breast cancer treatment
• Help contain plastics by knowing your plastic containers

We hear every day about dangerous chemicals in household products that are linked to cancer, infertility, autism and other diseases – yet many Americans may not realize just how many of these harmful substances they’ve actually ingested in the course of everyday living.

The answer? About 48. That’s according a study by the Environmental Working  Group and Rachel’s Network, in which five leading minority women environmentalists from different parts of the country volunteered to have their blood tested for toxic substances. The results, say EWG experts, show that regulation of chemicals in the U.S. is weak and “antiquated” and needs a major overhaul.

The tests, performed by four independent labs in the U.S., Canada and the Netherlands, looked for traces of 75 common chemical contaminants that might turn up in people because they are used in household goods, plastics, beauty products and food and water.

It found, in the aggregate, traces of 48 chemicals in the women, notably flame retardants (used to treat some furniture and clothing), synthetic fragrances (from body care products and perfumes), the plastics ingredient Bisphenol A (found in bottles, canned food liners and other products) and the rocket fuel perchlorate (which has been found in some drinking water).

“We are fighting the things we know that are there, the things (pollutants) outside,” said Suzie Canales, founder of Citizens for Environmental Justice in Corpus Christi, which has pushed for a cleaner environment in a city with a concentration of oil refineries. “But it’s a double injustice to find out that the products put on the market are also killing us.”

Canales report showed that her blood contained traces of chemicals from BPA, musks, rocket fuel, lead and mercury. The profiles of the other women tested also turned up several chemicals, at levels above average, that have been linked to harmful health effects; though the toxic mix varied by individual.

The findings made concrete the suspicion that all Americans are being exposed to a daily brew of chemicals that advocates now call our chemical “body burden”.

“I was frustrated to learn about the industrial chemical contamination through this study. I am a mother and I have a 7 year old daughter. I try to live a sustainable life style,” said Jennifer Hill-Kelley, a member of the Oneida Nation who’s worked to clean up environmental pollution outside of Green Bay, Wisc.  “… I don’t have the information about the personal care products or the plastics I use…and I feel that as a consumer I deserve that information to be shared with me.”

Beverly Wright, a New Orleans sociology professor working to fight pollution in the heavily industrialized Lower Mississippi River Valley area, said she was “disturbed” to discover that her tests showed a high level of musks, which are potentially hazardous compounds in synthetic fragrances.

Bisphenol A, the controversial component found in plastic baby bottles, took another image hit last week when the Canadian government announced it would be drafting regulations to ban the sale or importing of bottles containing the chemical.

Canadian Minister of Health Tony Clement called the step a milestone for Canada, which he said would be the first country to take regulatory action against the chemical. BPA is commonly found in polycarbonate or clear, hard plastics and can usually be identified by the number seven stamped within the recycling triangle on the bottom of containers.

The United States could follow Canada’s lead. U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer, (D-New York), with nine other senators, introduced legislation in 2008 to treat BPA as a hazardous substance under federal law for any product targeting kids, ages 7 and younger. Childrens’ developing bodies are considered more susceptible to chemical insult.

Even if the marketplaces sort out the issue with baby bottles, many of which are now being made of glass or BPA-free plastic, BPA turns up in a troubling array of consumer products, including the lining of most canned foods, though the Food and Drug Administration considers the levels contained in these products to be safe for humans of all ages.

“Based on our ongoing review, we believe there is a large body of evidence that indicates that FDA-regulated products containing BPA currently on the market are safe and that exposure levels to BPA from food contact materials, including for infants and children, are below those that may cause health effects,” the agency says in its latest statement on the topic. “However, we will continue to consider new research and information as they become available.”

BPA also is used to make sport plastic water bottles, eyeglass lenses, dental sealants and many more products. Despite its wide use, critics say it has not been well tested because the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has relied heavily on industry-backed studies that show low levels of BPA are not harmful.

Concerns about BPA center on what happens when it becomes warm or hot. When food or formula is heated in the polycarbonate, the plastic has been shown to leach BPA. There are questions, too, about how much BPA leaches from the resin-lining of food cans, especially when acidic foods, such as tomatoes or tomato sauce, are involved.

Environmentalists critical of the U.S. government’s approval, point to studies showing that BPA is suspected of playing a role in cancer, neurologic damage and insulin resistance or diabetes and other health problems affecting both babies and adults. They raise concerns about low-level but constant exposure to BPA and point also to the persistence of the compound in the environment, where it’s been shown to harm fish and other aquatic life.

The Natural Resources Defense Council feels so strongly about the potential health hazards from BPA that it called for a ban of the chemical and started a citizens’ petition. The petition contains a survey of alarming research on the topic:

“NRDC strongly disagrees with the draft FDA conclusion that current levels of exposure to BPA are safe for human consumption. In laboratory animal studies, exposure to BPA within the range of human exposure levels has been associated with the wide array of adverse outcomes discussed . . . These effects include neuro-behavioral changes, pre-cancerous lesions in the prostate and mammary glands, obesity and metabolic disturbances, early puberty and other reproductive abnormalities. These studies have been done by a number of investigators in different laboratories who have no financial interest in or affiliations with the manufacturers or users of BPA.”

Digging into the issue, the NRDC found that a group of 38 top-level scientists recently said that lab experiments with primates showed links between BPA and the development of breast cancer, neurological damage, diabetes and cardiovascular disease, which mirrored suspected “similar adverse effects in humans.”

The NRDC survey of research also turned up a study on primates showing that bispenol A could has “an adverse affect on the brain” affecting mood and cognition.

Are these just Americans’ afflictions, which are being wrongly corraled into a cause-and-effect role with BPA? The NRDC doesn’t think so and quotes scientific findings taht have extrapolated that about 93 percent of Americans have measurable BPA in their blood.

The NRDC wants a ban of all BPA from all food packaging and offers this advice to consumers in the meantime.

• If you have a newborn, opt for the baby bottles now being manufactured without BPA. Click here for a list of BPA-free bottles, including some you can buy at Whole Foods.

• Don’t microwave food in plastic containers; use glass or ceramic. Many plates and cups made for babies and toddlers are made with plastics that contain BPA. Be especially careful not to microwave these, since high heat has been shown to increase the leaching of BPA.

• Buy packaged soups and broth in cardboard “brick” cartons, which are made of safer materials.

• Opt for glass jars and bottles instead of cans when buying soda, preserved vegetables, or soup.

• Avoid plastic jugs labeled #7. That includes the popular Nalgene water bottles which we especially urge pregnant or breast-feeding mothers to steer clear of.

Find more info at the NRDC website on BPA.

Copyright © 2008 | Distributed by Noofangle Media

The news on bisphenol A or BPA just doesn’t get better. The chemical, used to make plastic baby bottles and food can liners, could deliver a double-whammy to women, paving the way for breast cancer, and then boomeranging back to interfere with the treatment for cancer recovery.

A study by University of Cincinnati scientists released this week found that BPA exposure may reduce the effectiveness of chemotherapy treatments for breast cancer patients.

Researchers found that this man-made chemical – already implicated as a potential trigger in breast cancer because it is structurally similar to the estrogenic DES – induced a group of proteins in the body to protect breast cancer cells from the chemotherapy.

Resistance to chemotherapy is already a “major problem for cancer patients, especially those with advanced metastatic disease,” said UC’s Nira Ben-Jonathan, a professor of cell biology who’s been studying BPA for more than a decade.

Dr. Ben-Jonathan’s team discovered the BPA-chemotherapy problem by exposing human breast cancer cells to low levels of BPA, similar to those found in the blood of humans. The BPA mimicked estrogen, inducing the protein cells to protect the cancer cells.

Estrogen has been known to block chemotherapy treatment, but this new finding could help explain why some post-menopausal women, with lower levels of estrogen, suffer from chemotherapy resistance, Dr. Ben Jonathan said. Her study was underwritten by the U.S, Department of Defense, the National Institutes of Health and the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation and is discussed in Science Daily.

BPA has been suspected of playing a role in a variety of health issues, acting as a hormone disruptor in children and adults and possibly inducing neurological changes in kids. Studies with rats and mice have shown changes in tissue that some believe presage breast or prostate cancer development.

Last month, an article published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, added another concern. It found that a group of adults with the highest levels of BPA detected in their urine were nearly three times as likely to develop heart disease and had twice the risk of diabetes compared with those who had the lowest levels of BPA.

In recent months, many medical and environmental science groups, notably the Washington-based Environmental Working Group, have been cautioning parents of infants to forego baby bottles made of polycarbonate plastic, and manufacturers began offering alternatives in glass or other types of plastic (look for the BPA-free label).

The problem with food cans, in which BPA is used within the epoxy liners to keep food from chemically eroding the metal casing, has been less publicized and there’s been little public response from manufacturers.

The EWG advises lowering exposure to BPA by simply avoiding products containing the chemical. Among those:

• Hard, clear plastic polycarbonate baby bottles or sport water bottles. They can sometimes be identified by their plastic notation on the bottom of the bottle showing they’re made with #7 plastic.

• Food sold in cans, and watching particularly acidic foods, like tomatoes, which may cause leaching from the BPA liner. Look for food in glass jars, or seek refuge in the produce section.

• Soda in cans (The levels of BPA may be lower here, but the volume of consumption could be higher.)

• Pre-mixed liquid baby formula sold in cans

The U.S. Federal Drug Administration has green lighted the current use of BPA in food cans, for instance, saying that the amount of the chemical ingested by humans is very small. But critics say the agency has relied on plastics industry-backed studies.

As cause for concern, scientists point to a 2004 Centers for Disease Control study showing that 95 percent of people tested had traces of BPA in their urine.

Copyright © 2008 | Distributed by Noofangle Media

Eastman Chemical may have come out ahead in the recent move by the Canadian government to label bisphenol-A, a chemical found in some forms of plastic, as toxic.

That is because the company already manufactures plastic without the noxious chemical, which could put its product in great demand. Last fall, the company rolled out its Eastman Tritan co-polyester product after about five years of research and development, said Tracy Kilgore, a communications specialist whose company is based in Kingsport, Tenn.

“We came up with the product while collaborating with our customers to come up with a more heat resistant product that could withstand many, many cycles in the dishwasher,’’ Kilgore said. “It was a nice coincidence that it was BPA free.’’

Eastman, the manufacturer of diverse plastics and fibers, already supplies to sports bottle makers such as CamelBak and Aladdin, which worked with the company to develop the plastic, Kilgore said. (Aladdin’s new BPA-free bottle is called the “Clean and Clever Water Bottle.“)

Nalgene another sports bottle maker that used to use BPA plastic in its clear, rigid water bottles, also now uses Eastman Tritan. Under public pressure to switch, the company issued a statement earlier this year that it was “confident” its previous polycarbonate bottles were safe, but that consumer demand for BPA-free bottles dictated a change to the new material.

Bisphenol-A, also known as BPA, is a hormone disruptor that can be found in almost everyone, according to the Environmental Working Group, a watchdog organization based in Washington, D.C. Some studies in animals have linked BPA to breast and prostate cancer, and infertility. In April, the National Toxicology Program raised concerns that exposure to BPA during pregnancy and childhood could impact the developing breast and prostate, accelerate puberty, and affect behavior in children.

BPA is used in polycarbonate plastic products such as reusable water bottles, including baby bottles, food can linings, water pipes and dental sealants. It became popular because it mimics glass in its transparency, but is resistant to breaking. Canada banned only infant bottles made with BPA.

In the United States, concerns have not yet reached the same fever pitch as in Canada. Still, 10 states and Congress are working on proposals to impose legislative bans on the chemical. And U.S. Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-NY) announced plans to introduce legislation to ban BPA from all children’s products and “food contact’ consumer products such as water bottles. The legislation also would require a public health campaign for expecting mothers about the risks of using plastics containing BPA.

While switching to materials such as Eastman Tritan may be more expensive for companies, some bottle makers see it as a viable alternative to polycarbonate plastic.

“CamelBak’s success comes from delivering consumers innovative products,” the company’s CEO Sally McCoy said in a news release. “This ground-breaking polymer allows us to better meet the needs of our customers by giving them a BPA free choice in re-usable bottles.”

The makers of plastic water bottles are not the only companies seeking to provide consumers with alternatives to polycarbonate. Owens-Illinois, one of the world’s largest manufacturers of glass containers, recently began production of glass infant bottles after a 20-year hiatus, according to recent news reports. And SIGG, the maker of aluminum sports bottles, saw sales more than triple over that of the same period last year, according to reports.

Born Free, a baby bottle maker in Israel, relies on polyethersulfone instead of polycarbonate, but little is known about the supplier, according to some reports.

Playtex Infant Care last month announced plans to stop using BPA in its products and offered consumers a chance to immediately switch to BPA-free infant products, said Gary Cohen, vice president and general manager of Playtex, Energizer Personal Care Division. “We know recent news coverage has created significant confusion about the use of BPA in plastic baby products,’’ Cohen said.

Indeed, concerns over BPA have caused paroxysms of confusion among health-conscious consumers across the globe. Many do not know which plastic products to avoid, or which to use.

“I am having the hardest time eliminating plastic from my life (or at least from my kitchen, which is where I’m starting)…’’ one commenter wrote on a Web site in response to the problem.

Another wrote, “…What about the cheap plastic cooking utensils we use? Most of them are not marked so we don’t know what kind of plastic they are made of. I threw all of mine away and wood or silicone for my no stick plans that I occasionally use.’’

In trying to avoid products containing BPA, Amanda Hanley, the web communications coordinator for Environmental Working Group, urged everyone to take a deep breath.

“You have to take a top down approach to the problem and look at the things that will give you the greatest amount of exposure,’’ she said. “For most people that will be canned food.’’

BPA apparently migrates into canned food from the plastic epoxy lining. So, Hanley says consumers should restrict or reduce their consumption of canned goods, especially women who are breast-feeding or pregnant. In general, consumers should avoid canned products: soup, pasta, and liquid infant formula.

Only one manufacturer, according to EWG, uses non-BPA lining in some of their food cans. Eden organic beans are packed in lead-free tin covered cans in a process that costs the company about $300,000 more to produce, the group says. Eden’s tomato products, however, continue to be packaged in cans laced with BPA lining, the group says. For more information go to the EWG’s blog on BPA.

Consumers can also seek out foods in aseptic cardboard boxes, like many soups and broths found in natural food stores and conventional groceries, which are BPA-free, according to a BPA advisory published by Center for Science in the Public Interest.

Ironically, the solution to avoiding BPA in sodas is to buy plastic containers instead of canned soda. The cans are lined with the BPA epoxy, whereas the plastic bottles are generally made of a different plastic that’s non-toxic and also recyclable, according to the CSPI.

Instead of liquid baby formula, the EWG advises parents to consider powdered formulas packaged in non-steel cans. Also, select glass baby bottles or use specially marked plastics that do not leach BPA.

When it comes to determining which plastic to use, consumers should avoid any hard translucent plastic marked by the No. 7 (inside the triangle with the rotating arrows at the bottom of the product) because it is likely to be polycarbonate, according to Environmental Working Group. Polycarbonate leaches BPA, especially when heated. The advocacy group urges consumers to toss polycarbonate water bottles in favor of stainless steel.

Most food containers such as Ziploc do not contain BPA, Hanley says. However, some plastic container makers, like Tupperware continue to use BPA in some of their products.

Consumers can sort out their questions about Tupperware — which maintains that BPA is safe in its microwavable, heat-resistant products — at the company’s FAQ.

Hanley’s view is that consumers should not heat plastic in the microwave, but instead should use ceramic or glass.

“Our organization has been working for a while to push the issue of BPA to the forefront,’’ Hanley said. “We think that it should be banned. But we’re thrilled with the progress we’ve made recently. The National Toxicology Program came out and said it’s a risk and it’s something we should be paying attention to.’’

Copyright © 2008 | Distributed by Noofangle Media

A flurry of action regarding a chemical called bisphenol-A, or BPA, broke out last week after word leaked that Canada’s chemical review board was set to deem the substance toxic. Though its name is exotic, the plastic material itself is commonplace, used to make clear polycarbonate bottles that are highly durable, perfect for baby formula or sporting gear. It also turns up in dental sealants, the liners of food cans and many other household products. Studies have suggested that under certain conditions, BPA degrades or leaches into the surrounding liquid or food. When formula is poured into a polycarbonate bottle while still hot, for instance — BPA can migrate into the liquid. While groups like the National Institutes of Health have stopped short of attributing health risks to the chemical, Canadian announcements assert: “Based on the results of our assessment some laboratory studies on animals suggest that bisphenol A at low levels of exposure can affect neural development and behavior when the animals are exposed in very early life.”

As a result of the publicity, companies such as Nalgene (maker of sports water bottles) and Playtex (maker of baby bottles) quickly announced they will stop using BPA in their products, though Nalgene maintains on its website that studies on the dangers of BPA are inconclusive or even support its continued use.

Now, New York Senator Charles Schumer has announced plans to introduce a bill banning the substance and funding a campaign to inform the public of its risks. Shumer expressed frustraton that the U.S. Federal Drug Administration had signed off on BPA as a safe product, despite studies showing it may interfere with human hormones and other functions.

“At best FDA gave Americans a false sense of comfort about a questionable substance,” Schumer told the Associated Press. “At worst, they put millions of Americans directly at risk.”

Copyright © 2008 | Distributed by Noofangle Media