The current issue of Fast Company has a fantastic and eye opening article investigating the BPA controversy between government agencies and the only five BPA manufacturers in the U.S; Bayer, Dow, Hexion Specialty Chemicals, SABIC Innovative Plastics (formerly GE Plastics),and Sunoco.
It’s no wonder manufacturers want to keep it unregulated, BPA is their cash cow, with more than $6 billion dollars per year in combined revenue and 7 billion pounds produced in 2007.
Found in more than 90% of Americans bodies, BPA is dangerous to our health and has been found to cause infertility and cancer by mimicking the female hormone estrogen.
It is used in adhesives, dental fillings, and the linings of food and drink cans. It is a building block for polycarbonate, a near-shatterproof plastic used in cell phones, computers, eyeglasses, drinking bottles, medical devices, and CDs and DVDs.
BPA is used in infant-formula cans and many clear plastic baby bottles; exposing babies to a high risk of exposure since their undeveloped digestive systems does not metabolize it well. Studies have also shown that it can leach into food and drink, especially when containers are heated or damaged.
In August 2008, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration declared that “at current levels of exposure” BPA is safe. Even after the FDA’s own science board questioned the rigor of this analysis in late October, the agency didn’t change its position. However, in September of that same year, the National Toxicology Program (NTP), which is part of the the National Institutes of Health, reported “some concern” that BPA harms the human brain and reproductive system, especially in babies and fetuses.
When BPA manufacturers were questioned about BPA’s safety they referred questions to The American Chemistry Council. Steve Hentges, the council’s point person on BPA was quoted saying “Our view would be, Well, no, there isn’t anything to be concerned about.” In a sense, you could have ’some concern’ about just about anything.”
90% of more than 100 independently funded BPA experiments found the compound to have adverse health effects to humans. Yet industry- funded studies (14 total), showed no such effects, helping regulators decisions to be swayed. You can thank a small group of “product defense” consultants, also funded by the chemical industry, for bringing doubt to BPA’s negative effects by what the author of the article describes as ” a playbook that borrows from the wars over tobacco, asbestos, and other public-health controversies.”
Here’s some other interesting facts Fast Company learned in their investigation:
- Products are deemed safe until proven otherwise leaving the more than 80,000 registered chemicals never undergoing a government safety review. BPA is one of them.
- Sciences, the firm that had passed its verdict on BPA, under oath, even before it began the government review has a conflict of interest.
“In 2003, Sciences provided expert testimony for the defense in a lawsuit over BPA. On an archived page of the firm’s Web site, the company bragged that, for a private client, it had acted as an expert witness “challenging the validity” of the science on BPA’s health risks. “The case was decided in favor of the defendants,” the site said. (Anderson, who sold Sciences for $5.1 million in 2001 and left for rival Exponent in 2006, confirmed by email that the testimony happened but declined to provide details. Herman Gibb, who took over as president of Sciences, says the staff working on the CERHR contract was not aware of the testimony.)”
- The NIH terminated the Sciences contract in April 2007, and the firm is now down to four employees. The Environmental Working Group has since reported that Sciences had client relationships with the makers of nearly every chemical it reviewed under the CERHR contract.
Pretty scary stuff! The article is pretty lengthy, 8 pages to be exact, but I do feel it is a must read!