Bisphenol A is a chemical used to make polycarbonate plastic and epoxy resins. BPA is a synthetic estrogen. Estrogen is a hormone that helps girls develop into women and allows them to reproduce. Two billion pounds of BPA are manufactured in the U.S. each year, and about 92 percent of us have BPA in our bodies.
The problem with BPA is that it interferes with hormone levels, and several studies show strong evidence that it is linked to cancer and other health risks. However, the only thing the BPA organizational Web site, bisphenol-a.org, admits to in its toxicology report is a decrease in body weight. It’s still relying on studies that were conducted more than two decades ago.
On April 18, 2008, Canada declared BPA as a toxin. They banned the chemical from use in baby bottles. This is a big concern because BPA is found in many everyday consumer products, such as liquid canned Similac Advance infant formula, Campbell’s condensed chicken noodle soup, some bottled water and canned Nestlé Juicy Juice.
In a study done on pregnant rats, there were malformed genitals in the offspring. Richard Morrissey of U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health sciences says rats exposed to doses of BPA in levels considered to be toxic did not alter the effects of fetal development or their birth.
Although the studies are conducted on animals, the Journal of American Medical Association reported last year that humans with high levels of BPA in their blood levels had an “increased prevalence of cardiovascular disease, diabetes and liver-enzyme abnormalities. It has also been noted that continuous administering of estrogen increases the frequency of cancer.”
The Food and Drug Administration has refused to restrict BPA use in food packaging. BPA is a billion dollar industry. There is too much at stake for companies who use BPA. They would have to reconstruct assembly lines, which takes time and money companies just don’t want to invest.
Many manufacturers are not willing to repackage their products because it would be a hassle. More recent studies show that higher levels of the chemical in the body are now being linked to obesity, diabetes and miscarriages.
The FDA has been nonchalant about regulating chemicals in packaging for companies. Last year it reported on its Web site “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.”
Another concern is that children are exposed to BPA at a very young age. This may have an effect on brain development. Some companies that have BPA-free products are Beech Nut’s plastic juice containers and the Brita water filtration pitcher. Amazon has a BPA-free products section on its Web site.
Rubbermaid, a top seller in plastic ware, has a few products that do contain BPA, but the majority of its products are BPA-free according to its Web site. The Frequently Asked Questions Web site stated “we are aware of these recent reports [...] use of plastics made with BPA fully complies with the standards from FDA.”
Then there is the argument that BPA is not harmful because humans metabolize and excrete BPA more quickly than rodents. The fact is, if something is harmful, people shouldn’t ingest it. Perhaps it is like the global warming debate; some say ‘yes’ and some say ‘no.’
The real question is why we continue to accept anything that is handed to us. We want freedom but we don’t want responsibility. It’s likely that BPA is harmful, and the FDA is sleeping on the job. They need to do a better job of regulating products for public consumption. Consumers shouldn’t continue to get thrown under a bus.
Jessica Harris is a junior journalism major.
BPA: do we get the whole story?
Perceptions
Published: Monday, November 23, 2009
Updated: Monday, November 23, 2009
 "Photo: N/A")
1 comments