BPA was first created as a synthetic estrogen, and only later was it discovered to make hard clear plastic (polycarbonate and epoxy resins). Today, billions of pounds of BPA are used in thousands of every day products: from restaurant receipts to toilet paper to the slippery lining of canned food and soda…and infant formula. It’s also the plastic in shatterproof drinking tumblers and baby bottles.

The problem is, BPA leaches off the wall of the cans and containers and into our mouths – and our babies’ mouths – and into our bodies with every gulp.

In 2007, the CDC reported that over 93 percent of Americans have BPA floating through our bodies. That’s a concern because BPA is an endocrine disruptor chemical. That means that even miniscule concentrations of this compound can pervert the normal development of hormonally sensitive tissues, like breast, testicles and brain.

Hundreds of studies on laboratory animals reveal that BPA promotes obesity, diabetes, testicular cancer, breast cancer-like changes (and resistance to life saving chemotherapy) and even reduce sperm counts. This is very worrisome because, over the past 20 years, scientists have noticed rising rates of these problems in people all around the world. In the recently launched National Children’s Study, America’s monumental evaluation of the adverse health effects of common chemicals, BPA is one of the suspect compounds being evaluated for possible association with autism, cancer, learning disorders, etc.

Newborn and infant exposure to BPA poses an especially disturbing threat during windows of vulnerability. These periods, as short as hours and days, are times when a baby’s developing body is exquisitely sensitive to chemical damage. Even minute exposures, during those periods, have the potential of creating lifetime problems.

The National Toxicology Program voiced concern about the “effects on the brain, behavior, and prostate gland in fetuses, infants, and children at current human exposures to bisphenol A.” The Endocrine Society, a group of our nation’s top scientists dedicated to hormone research, recently warned that BPA and other hormone-twisting chemicals “have effects on male and female reproduction, breast development and cancer, prostate cancer, neuroendocrinology, thyroid, metabolism and obesity, and cardiovascular endocrinology.” The Society went on to say that it intends to lobby “for regulation seeking to decrease human exposure” to BPA–an unprecedented move by this 93-year-old institution.

The scientific evidence is broad, growing and convincing. We need to act to protect our citizens from this harmful chemical. That is why California State Senator Fran Pavley crafted SB 797 offering a protective shield for California’s most at risk-citizens, its babies. This modest bill has passed the Senate and will soon be voted on by the Assembly. And passage is far from certain. A phalanx of corporate lobbyists from chemical companies has swooped down on Sacramento to misinform and pressure legislators. They are crying their same tired, old song: “It will ruin the economy, it will ruin jobs.” That they used to try to fool the public when it came to removing DDT, asbestos, PCBs and many other toxic chemicals.

Of course, their claims are ridiculous. Of all the billions of pounds of BPA in common use, Senator Pavley’s bill only phases out only a very tiny fraction: that used in food and drink containers designed for children ages three and younger. Furthermore, removing BPA from these products will likely create jobs and boost the economy by building the market for the safe alternatives to BPA that are already on the market.

Voting for this bill is common sense. In fact, Minnesota, Connecticut and Canada have already enacted similar BPA reductions. Even Chicago has stood up to protect its children. Now it’s time for California to act.

Working hard, cooking good dinners, coaching soccer games are the jobs of parents. But, it’s not the job of parents to have to inspect every single item they buy in the store for toxic contamination. Keeping unsafe chemicals out of baby formula is the government’s job. California will set a great example to the rest of the nation by passing SB 797.
***

Dr. Harvey Karp is a nationally renowned pediatrician, fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics and spokesman on children’s environmental issues for over 20 years. He is the author of the popular parenting guides, The Happiest Baby on the Block and The Happiest Toddler on the Block.

* Canada
* Health

In case you missed the flurry of recent news, scientists have serious doubts about the safety of BPA (bisphenol A). And that’s alarming because this hormonally active chemical contaminates the body of…
In case you missed the flurry of recent news, scientists have serious doubts about the safety of BPA (bisphenol A). And that’s alarming because this hormonally active chemical contaminates the body of…

Karp, Harvey. “Why We Must Ban BPA From Products Made For Children.” The Huffington Post. Web. 10 Sept. 2009. .

TTAWA — Consumer groups on Tuesday ramped up their campaign to shame food and beverage companies to take a hormone-disrupting chemical linked to breast and prostate cancer out of their packaging by outing their business plans.

The survey of 20 publicly trade companies with products for sale in Canada, by U.S. shareholder groups As You Sow and Green Century Capital Management and released in Canada by Environmental Defence, found that all but four have failed to develop safer alternatives — and only one company has begun using a substitute.

“No single company that responded stands out as a clear leader in addressing the risks of BPA (bisphenol A). None of the companies presented clear plans for phasing out BPA from all applications for which alternatives exist,” the report, titled Seeking Safety Packaging, states.

The report highlights some positive first steps, though.

Hain Celestial, makers of Rice Dream and Soy Dream, Heinz and Nestle received the top grades, ranging from C to D+. These companies are researching and testing alternatives to BPA and are planning to phase out the chemical, but only Hain Celestial has a firm time frame.

The report highlights Heinz as the only company surveyed currently using an alternative to BPA in some of its tins, specifically for its baby food can lacquers.

Kellogg, General Mills, PepsiCo and ConAgra were each assigned a D (Kellogg) or a D- (the remaining three); all are exploring alternatives, but any phase-out of the estrogen-mimicking chemical is not imminent, the report notes.

Campbell, Coca Cola, Kraft, Hershey, J.M. Smucker, McCormick and Del Monte each received a failing grade — either because they failed to indicate that they were making any effort in this area besides monitoring the industry or made only passing references to their efforts to identify safe alternatives.

Six companies did not respond to the survey before the deadline, and flunked on the question of transparency. They include Unilever, Chiquita, Dean Foods, Hormel, Sara Lee and SYSCO.

The report comes as pressure builds for the food and beverage industry to follow the lead of the manufacturers of polycarbonate baby bottles and water bottles. After widespread consumer pressure — and a pending ban of BPA in baby bottles in Canada coming into effect later this year — makers of hard plastic bottles have switched to BPA-free products.

They include Nalgene and Philips Avent.

“One segment of BPA users has learned their lesson, and unfortunately, the tin-can manufacturers haven’t learned a darn thing,” said Rick Smith, executive director of Environmental Defence. “The lesson is when there’s an easy alternative available, consumers won’t tolerate any level of a known hormone disrupting chemical in their food and drink packaging.”

Health Canada said “uncertainty” raised in some studies about the possible detrimental health effects on babies when exposed to “low levels”‘ of the chemical warranted the drastic action on baby bottles. The first step to the ban was listing the chemical as a toxic substance.

Citing new research linking exposure to the chemical, even at low doses, to birth and development defects, breast and prostate cancer, heart disease and diabetes, Smith said it’s time Health Canada takes the next step.

“This report clearly highlights the need for the federal government to set another international precedent by removing BPA from all food and beverage containers,” said Smith, co-author of the forthcoming book Slow Death by Rubber Duck: How the Toxic Chemistry of Everyday Life Affects Our Health. “Companies on their own are obviously not doing enough to ensure that Canadian adults and children, who are most susceptible to BPA’s effects, are not exposed to this harmful chemical.”

Unilever, for one, isn’t moved to change its business practices.

In a statement, spokesman John Coyne said that while the company uses the lowest possible level of BPA in its can liners, “the best science available indicates that BPA found in (food) packaging materials, used to ensure product quality and safety, presents no concern to any portion of the population at current levels of exposure,” including infants and children.

In a statement, a spokesman for Heinz, which has eliminated BPA from its baby-food can lacquers, said he’s pleased his company’s efforts were acknowledged in the report.

“Heinz is pleased to be recognized for our leadership in moving to alternative materials that are BPA-free,” said Michael Mullen.

He added, though, that he disagrees with the authors of the report about the safety of the chemical. “Although scientific bodies worldwide have concluded that minute levels of BPA are safe, Heinz is proactively exploring alternatives to BPA in response to consumer opinion.”

Schmidt, Sarah. “Companies should get BPA out of packaging: Groups.” Canwest News Service. Calgary Herald. Web. 30 Aug. 2009. <http://www.calgaryherald.com/health/Companies+should+packaging+Groups/1519284/story.html>.