The bill received a majority of votes in two separate votes last week in the state Assembly, but fell six votes short of the 41 needed for passage. It was then moved to the inactive file Sept. 11 at the request of Assembly Majority Leader Albert Torrico, D-Fremont, so it can be considered again in 2010.

The proposed ban had passed the Senate 21-16 June 2, and received a majority 35-31 vote twice in the Assembly on Sept. 7, but proponents could not muster the additional votes needed for passage.

The California bill would have banned the manufacture, sale and distribution of any liquid, food or beverage that comes in a bottle or cup that contains more than parts per billion of BPA and is intended by use by children three or younger.

It also would have banned the use of BPA as a liner in powdered infant formula cans, but not liquid infant formula cans.

“It is a shame that we have failed to protect our most vulnerable citizens” from BPA, said Sen. Fran Pavley, D-Santa Monica, and a co-sponsor of the bill. She said she would renew her effort to protect children from BPA in the next legislative session.

Connecticut, Minnesota, Chicago and Suffolk County, N.Y., have banned the sale of polycarbonate baby bottles, food containers and cups that contain BPA.

The Suffolk County ban went into effect in July. The Minnesota ban goes into effect Jan. 1, 2010; the Chicago ban on Jan. 31, 2010; and the Connecticut ban on Oct. 1, 2011. The Connecticut ban also applies to infant formula cans and all reusable food and beverage containers.

A number of laboratory studies have linked BPA to birth defects, low birth weights, cancer, early puberty and other health problems in rats. However, 11 safety agencies around the world have said that BPA is safe for use in food contact applications.

The Food and Drug Administration is currently reviewing and said it will decide by Nov. 30 whether it needs to change its long-held stance that there is not enough data to support a ban on the use of BPA in food packaging — in particular, baby bottles.

The six major baby bottle manufacturers in the U.S earlier this year agreed not to use BPA in polycarbonate baby bottles, making BPA bans largely symbolic for plastic bottles. But an FDA decision could have a huge impact on manufacturers of canned foods that use containers lined with BPA.

Verespei, Mike. “California effort to ban BPA fails.” PlasticsNews.com. Web. 14 Sept. 2009. .

Companies that use bisphenol A in food packaging are lobbying against a proposed state ban of the controversial chemical.

The International Bottled Water Association and the Midwest Food Processors Association have written letters urging the sponsors to withdraw their bills, saying a ban would create unwarranted economic hardship. They also asked that any state action be postponed until after a federal decision is made about the chemical’s safety.

“During these especially challenging economic times, we need help to keep the jobs we have and not create new impediments to the sales of Wisconsin grown and processed foods,” said Nick George, president of the food processors group.

The bottled water group noted that the bills’ provisions to require bottlers to label products as BPA-free would be costly and “furthermore, could easily and unnecessarily call the safety of all bottled water products into question. That could be extremely unfortunate for Wisconsin’s vibrant bottled water industry.”

State Sen. Julie Lassa (D-Stevens Point) and state Rep. Kelda Helen Roys (D-Madison) introduced legislation in June that would ban BPA in children’s products. Similar measures have passed in the city of Chicago and New York’s Long Island, as well as Minnesota and Connecticut. Massachusetts has issued a health advisory warning pregnant women and parents of young children to avoid the chemical.

BPA, used to make hard, clear plastic, is found in thousands of household items. It has been detected in the urine of 93% of Americans tested. Studies have found that it causes cell changes that can lead to neurological disorders and breast and testicular cancers. It has been shown to interfere with chemotherapy for breast cancer patients.

The Food and Drug Administration ruled last year that BPA is safe. But those findings were criticized after it was revealed that the agency had relied on two studies, both paid for by BPA-makers. A Journal Sentinel investigation found more than 90% of all independent studies found the chemical caused harm in laboratory animals.

Margaret Hamburg, the newly appointed FDA commissioner, has promised a new ruling on BPA safety by the end of November.

In Wisconsin, the bills have been assigned to the Senate’s Committee on Small Business, Emergency Preparedness, Technical Colleges and Consumer Protection and the Assembly’s Committee on Consumer Protection.

Neither committee has scheduled public hearings.

Dear SIGG Customer,

(STAMFORD CT) – Last month, I wrote a letter to try and provide you with as much factual and historical information as I could in regards to the evolution of the SIGG bottle liner. I also suggested that people could email me if they had any questions and comments.

After reading and responding to hundreds of emails and viewing nearly as many blog & Twitter posts, I realize that my first letter may have missed the mark. What I should have said simply and loudly to all of our loyal SIGG fans is: I am sorry that we did not make our communications on the original SIGG liner more clear from the very beginning.

I have learned much over the past 2 weeks. I learned that many of you purchased SIGG bottles – not just because they were free from leaching and safe – but because you believed that SIGGs contained no BPA. I learned that, although SIGG never marketed the former liner as “BPA Free” we should have done a better job of both clearly communicating about our liner as well as policing others who may have misunderstood the SIGG message.

For over 100 years, SIGG has earned a reputation for quality products and service – and we do not take that for granted. From the day we made our announcement last month, we made a commitment consistent with SIGG values that we would offer anyone who is concerned about BPA an opportunity to swap their old SIGGs for new SIGGs with the new EcoCare liner. Today, I am announcing that this voluntary Exchange Program will be in place until October 31, 2009 to ensure that our customers have ample time to send their former liner bottles back to us should they choose to do so.

Once again, I truly apologize for the lack of clarity in our previous communications. All of us at SIGG hope that we will have an opportunity to regain your confidence and trust.

Sincerely,
Steve Wasik
CEO, SIGG Switzerland

Previous Letter from CEO – August, 2009

Hohan, Shawna. “SIGG reveals BPA was in their bottles.” Examiner.com. Web. 11 Sept. 2009. <http://www.examiner.com/x-621-Green-Business-Examiner~y2009m9d4-SIGG-reveals-BPA-was-in-their-bottles>.

Oops. I feel like I was duped.

That being said, SIGG water bottles have regularly been tested, and despite the small amount of BPA said to be in the liner, tests haven’t detected it.

But this case of misinformation shouldn’t keep you from ditching the flimsy Costco bottles of water for a new, BPA-free container. Here’s why:

1. Bottled water costs money. Tap water is essentially free. The cost of a reusable water bottle is well worth it in the long run — and even in the short run. Also consider the fact that many bottled water companies are basically filling up their bottles with tap water.

2. There are fewer regulations regarding bottled water than tap, according to the New York Times. And there are many claims that plastic bottles leach small amounts of chemicals such as antimony.

3. Plastic is made from oil — a nonrenewable resource — and 17.6 million barrels are required each year in the United States for the production of bottles, according to Take Back the Tap (http://takebackthetap.org/learn-more/environment).

4. Because water bottles aren’t recycled as often as they should be, the majority — 86 percent —
end up in the trash, and therefore the landfills.5. Reusable water bottles are sturdy, keep water colder and they’re fashionable. There are so many cute, or manly, bottles out there that you might even want one for work.

6. Did I mention that tap water is virtually free? Let me remind you: Instead of spending money on bottled water, why don’t you save it for something more important, like a trip or food or a Nintendo Wii?

Doshi, Supriya. “6 reasons to ditch that plastic bottle.” MercuryNews.com. Web. 11 Sept. 2009. <http://www.mercurynews.com/homeandgarden/ci_13302117>.

It seems that between intense lobbying and hundreds of peer-reviewed studies, industry and public health advocates, among others, were involved in what were described as “emotional debates,” reported the LA Times. Under the recent Bush administration, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was negligent in its action regarding BPA, arguing that current levels were safe, said the LA Times. Congress later accused the FDA of being influenced by industry, it added. The topic is so controversial and the evidence against BPA so compelling, that the FDA is taking another hard look at the chemical and is planning on announcing its findings at the end of November.

Limited BPA bans are in place in Schenectady County in upstate New York—a similar measure was recently passed by Albany County legislators and takes effect January 1—in Connecticut, Minnesota, Chicago, and New York’s Suffolk County. Wisconsin became the third state to introduce a bill to ban BPA-containing baby bottle and sippy cup sales for children and 24 states have bills in the works to restrict the chemical; Canada was the first country to announce plans to ban BPA, calling it a toxin.

BPA has been connected to a wide variety of adverse effects, including increased risks of brain, reproductive, cardiac, and immune system diseases and disorders; problems with liver function testing; interruptions in chemotherapy treatment; links with serious health problems. Studies have overwhelmingly found it to have negative effects at doses lower than the FDA’s current standards; retention in the body longer than was previously believed; leeching into liquids being held in containers regardless of the containers’ temperature; and longer lasting damage, which can be passed to future generations.

Industry believes that scientists and consumer advocates are exaggerating the adverse effects of the plastic-hardening, estrogenic chemical, continually citing two industry studies. But, points out the LA Times over 200 peer-reviewed studies have linked BPA to health problems.

Opponents claim the bill would adversely affect California’s 2008 green chemistry law that prioritizes substances requiring restriction or banning, said the LA Times. But, as Nancy Skinner (Democrat-Berkeley) said to the Assembly, “Babies as we all know, are very little, very helpless and very dependent … their body weights cannot tolerate toxins at the rates adults can,” quoted the LA Times.

Apparently, the original California bill, which was sponsored by Fran Pavley (Democrat-Agoura Hills), called for a total BPA ban, but was amended in the Assembly to allow California’s Department of Toxic Substances Control additional time to determine if the chemical should be regulated under the green chemistry law, reported the LA Times. “It gives them two years to act … they could decide it is completely safe and it would preempt this ban” said Bob Blumenfield (Democrat-Woodland Hills), quoted the paper.

“California Delays BPA Vote.” Newsinferno.com. Web. 10 Sept. 2009. <http://www.newsinferno.com/archives/12250>.

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. .

On Wednesday the California State Assembly will vote on Senate Bill 797, which would ban the use of Bisphenol A (BPA) in food products and packaging designed for children under 3 years old by 2011. BPA is a widely-used chemical found in food and beverage can linings and a building block of polycarbonate plastic used to make a range of products such as sports bottles, food-storage containers, baby bottles, and “sippy” cups.

Numerous studies have shown that BPA can leach from containers into foods and beverages. Never meant to be ingested, BPA has potential links to an array of human health problems, including diabetes, heart disease, cancers, infertility, obesity, and neurological disorders. A 2007 Centers for Disease Control study showed that 93 percent of Americans have BPA in their urine. And a recent study suggests that BPA stays in the body longer than previously believed. Babies and young children may be particularly vulnerable because they may metabolize BPA more slowly than adults.

“California should continue the state’s powerful tradition as a national policy leader and a pioneering watchdog of consumer health and safety, especially when it comes to protecting small children from the dangers of BPA,” said Elisa Odabashian, Director, West Coast Office and State Campaigns, for Consumers Union, nonprofit publisher of Consumer Reports. “We urge the State Assembly to vote yes on S.B. 797 and ban BPA for our youngest and most vulnerable consumers.”

The bill, authored by California Senator Fran Pavely, D-Santa Monica, would ban BPA in products such as baby bottles, sippy cups, infant formula and baby food jars designed for children ages three and younger. The bill passed the Senate but faces stiff opposition in the Assembly due in part to lobbying by the chemical and infant formula industries.

With the recently released Health Canada concerns on the controversial chemical bisphenol A (BPA) many parents are concerned about the safety of their baby’s bottles. Here’s the lowdown on some recent findings:

Bisphenol A (or BPA) is a chemical compound used to make polycarbonate plastic. A variety of food and drink containers are made from this hard, clear or tinted, lightweight plastic, including baby bottles.

Results from laboratory tests show that BPA imitates estrogen, and in animal studies very small amounts of BPA produced harmful effects. The fear is that exposure to this hormone disruptor causes adverse health risks, including breast and prostate cancer, early puberty in girls, attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder, and obesity.

The plastics industry has vigorously defended the safety of BPA, which has been used for 50 years. Until recently, both Health Canada and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) stated the chemical poses no health risk to humans.

Nevertheless, Canadian retailers Mountain Equipment Co. Whole Foods and Lululemon Athletica pulled their polycarbonate containers from their shelves last year.

HEATED BOTTLES MAY LEACH BPA

It’s one of the latest studies, performed by the Canadian group Environmental Defence, that has parents most concerned. Researchers from the University of Missouri-Columbia heated polycarbonate baby bottles by filling them with boiling water, to simulate how the plastic reacts to constant washing, sterilizing and heating.

Researchers noted that heating the bottles caused BPA to leach into the liquid held in the bottles at very significant levels. The complete study can be viewed at www.toxicnation.ca.

Plastics containing BPA are labelled # 7 inside a triangular recycling symbol, found on the bottom of the bottle.

CARING FOR POLYCARBONATE BOTTLES

Environmental Defence offers the following suggestions for reducing your child’s exposure to BPA:

Canada’s announcement comes six months after Health Minister Tony Clement surprised the chemical industry by announcing the government’s plan to place bisphenol A on its list of toxic substances and ban its use in baby bottles.

In unveiling the “precautionary and prudent” move, Clement proposed a limited ban of the widely used chemical, also found in hard plastic sports bottles and the lining of food cans.

Health Minister Tony Clement surprised the chemical industry by announcing the government’s plan to place bisphenol A on its list of toxic substances six months ago.

Most Canadians “need not be concerned” about the health effects of bisphenol A, Clement said at the time. “This is not the case for newborns and infants.”

The government’s final decision will appear in the Canada Gazette, which publishes the official regulations of the government.

Rick Smith, executive director of Environmental Defence and co-author of the forthcoming book Slow Death by Rubber Duck: How the Toxic Chemistry of Everyday Life Affects Our Health, said the expected declaration is a “good start.”

But he said new evidence continues to pile up, pointing to the detrimental health effects of bisphenol A on adults.

“There’s new science coming out on a weekly basis pointing to this chemical being a health concern for adults. Baby bottles are a good start, but the government now needs to take a look at getting this chemical out of the lining in cans.”

The latest research, the first large BPA study in humans published last month by the prestigious Journal of the American Medical Association, found a “significant relationship” between exposure to the ubiquitous estrogenic chemical and heart disease, diabetes and liver problems.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is under fire after determining last month in a draft report that BPA was safe for food storage. On Thursday, the Washington Post published an editorial arguing the FDA’s final recommendation, expected this month, could be “seen as less than fully independent.”

The influential newspaper cited the recent donation of $5 million to the University of Michigan’s Risk Science Center from Charles Gelman, the retired head of a medical device manufacturing company and outspoken proponent of bisphenol A.

The acting director of the university centre is Martin Philbert, a toxicologist who is also head of the FDA advisory panel poised to deliver its risk assessment of BPA.

Philbert did not disclose the gift to the agency as part of the disclosure process when he was appointed to the panel; he told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel he did not need to, since he does not stand to gain from it. The FDA is looking into a possible conflict of interest.

Schmidt, Sarah. “Health Canada makes it official: BPA is health hazard.” The Vancouver Sun. Web. 9 Sept. 2009. <http://www2.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=e81a7270-aec9-48cb-aad3-b74df38feec0>.

Canada is the first country in the world to complete a risk assessment of bisphenol A in consultation with industry and other stakeholders, and to initiate a 60 day public comment period on whether to ban the importation, sale and advertising of polycarbonate baby bottles which contain bisphenol A.

The comment period will begin on April 19, 2008, once the Government publishes a summary notice of its assessment findings in Canada Gazette, Part 1.

“Canada has been the first country in the world to conduct risk assessments on a number of chemicals of concern, as a result of a new initiative announced by the Prime Minister on December 8, 2006 known as the Chemicals Management Plan,” said Minister Clement. “We have immediately taken action on bisphenol A, because we believe it is our responsibility to ensure families, Canadians and our environment are not exposed to a potentially harmful chemical.”

Health Canada’s screening assessment of bisphenol A primarily focused on its impacts on newborns and infants up to 18 months of age; however, health risks for Canadians of all ages were considered in the screening.

It was determined that the main source of exposure for newborns and infants is through the use of polycarbonate baby bottles when they are exposed to high temperatures and the migration of bisphenol A from cans into infant formula. The scientists concluded in this assessment that bisphenol A exposure to newborns and infants is below levels that may pose a risk, however, the gap between exposure and effect is not large enough.

To be prudent, the Government of Canada is proposing to reduce bisphenol A exposure in infants and newborns by proposing a number of actions: to ban polycarbonate baby bottles; to develop stringent migration targets for bisphenol A in infant formula cans; to work with industry to develop alternative food packaging and develop a code of practice; and to list bisphenol A under Schedule 1 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

Environment Canada scientists also found that at low levels, bisphenol A can harm fish and aquatic organisms over time. Studies indicate that it can currently be found in wastewater and sludge treatment plants.

“When it comes to Canada’s environment, you can’t put a price on safety,” said Minister Baird. “Not only are we finding out about the health impacts of bisphenol A, but the environmental impacts as well. That’s why our Government will be moving forward and will work with the provinces and stakeholders to keep bisphenol A out of our environment, and take the necessary measures to ensure its safe use and disposal.”

“Government of Canada Takes Action on Another Chemical of Concern: Bisphenol A.” Health Canada. 18 Apr. 2008. Web. <http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/media/nr-cp/_2008/2008_59-eng.php>.