Showing posts with label Plastic and It's Effects. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Plastic and It's Effects. Show all posts

Plastic (Not) Fantastic: Food Containers Leach a Potentially Harmful Chemical Is bisphenol A, a major ingredient in many plastics, healthy for children and other living things?

Monday, May 2, 2011

Bisphenol A (BPA) is a ubiquitous compound in plastics. First synthesized in 1891, the chemical has become a key building block of plastics from polycarbonate to polyester; in the U.S. alone more than 2.3 billion pounds (1.04 million metric tons) of the stuff is manufactured annually.

CHEMICAL LEACHING: When exposed to hot water, plastic bottles--including baby bottles--leach a chemical that is known to mimic estrogens in the body. Image: COURTESY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI

Since at least 1936 it has been known that BPA mimics estrogens, binding to the same receptors throughout the human body as natural female hormones. And tests have shown that the chemical can promote human breast cancer cell growth as well as decrease sperm count in rats, among other effects. These findings have raised questions about the potential health risks of BPA, especially in the wake of hosts of studies showing that it leaches from plastics and resins when they are exposed to hard use or high temperatures (as in microwaves or dishwashers).

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) found traces of BPA in nearly all of the urine samples it collected in 2004 as part of an effort to gauge the prevalence of various chemicals in the human body. It appeared at levels ranging from 33 to 80 nanograms (a nanogram is one billionth of a gram) per kilogram of body weight in any given day, levels 1,000 times lower than the 50 micrograms (one millionth of a gram) per kilogram of bodyweight per day considered safe by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the European Union's (E.U.) European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).

Studies suggest that BPA does not linger in the body for more than a few days because, once ingested, it is broken down into glucuronide, a waste product that is easily excreted. Yet, the CDC found glucuronide in most urine samples, suggesting constant exposure to it. "There is low-level exposure but regular low-level exposure," says chemist Steven Hentges, executive director of the polycarbonate / BPA global group of the American Chemistry Council. "It presumably is in our diet."

BPA is routinely used to line cans to prevent corrosion and food contamination; it also makes plastic cups and baby and other bottles transparent and shatterproof. When the polycarbonate plastics and epoxy resins made from the chemical are exposed to hot liquids, BPA leaches out 55 times faster than it does under normal conditions, according to a new study by Scott Belcher, an endocrine biologist at the University of Cincinnati. "When we added boiling water [to bottles made from polycarbonate] and allowed it to cool, the rate [of leakage] was greatly increased," he says, to a level as high as 32 nanograms per hour.

A recent report in the journal Reproductive Toxicology found that humans must be exposed to levels of BPA at least 10 times what the EPA has deemed safe because of the amount of the chemical detected in tissue and blood samples. "If, as some evidence indicates, humans metabolize BPA more rapidly than rodents," wrote study author Laura Vandenberg, a developmental biologist at Tufts University in Boston, "then human daily exposure would have to be even higher to be sufficient to produce the levels observed in human serum."

The CDC data shows that 93 percent of 2,157 people between the ages of six and 85 tested had detectable levels of BPA's by-product in their urine. "Children had higher levels than adolescents and adolescents had higher levels than adults," says endocrinologist Retha Newbold of the U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, who found that BPA impairs fertility in female mice. "In animals, BPA can cause permanent effects after very short periods of exposure. It doesn't have to remain in the body to have an effect."

But experts are split on the potential health hazards to humans. The Food and Drug Administration has approved its use and the EPA does not consider it cause for concern. One U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) panel agreed, but another team of government scientists last year found that the amount of BPA present in humans exceeds levels that have caused ill effects in animals. They also found that adults' ability to tolerate it does not preclude damaging effects in infants and children.

"It is the unborn baby and children that investigators are most worried about," Newbold says, noting that BPA was linked to increased breast and prostate cancer occurrences, altered menstrual cycles and diabetes in lab mice that were still developing.

Fred vom Saal, a reproductive biologist at the University of Missouri–Columbia, warns that babies likely face the "highest exposure" in human populations, because both baby bottles and infant formula cans likely leach BPA. "In animal studies, the levels that cause harm happen at 10 times below what is common in the U.S." says vom Saal, who also headed the NIH panel that concluded the chemical may pose risks to humans.

Amid growing concern, Rep. John Dingell (D–Mich.) chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, has launched an investigation into BPA, sending letters last month to the FDA and seven manufacturers of infant products sold in the U.S. requesting information on any BPA safety tests as well as specific levels in the baby goods. The companies that make Similac, Earth's Best and Good Start have already responded, confirming that they coat the inside of their cans with BPA but that analyses did not detect it in the contents. They also emphasize that FDA has approved BPA for such use.

"Based on the studies reviewed by FDA, adverse effects occur in animals only at levels of BPA that are far higher orders of magnitude than those to which infants or adults are exposed," says FDA spokeswoman Stephanie Kwisnek. "Therefore, FDA sees no reason to ban or otherwise restrict the uses now authorized at this time."

FDA first approved BPA as a food container in 1963 because no ill effects from its use had been shown. When Congress passed a law—the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976—mandating that the EPA conduct or review safety studies on new chemicals before giving them the nod, compounds like BPA were already on the market. Therefore, they were not subject to the new rules nor required to undergo additional testing unless specific concerns had been raised (such as in the case of PCBs). "The science that exists today supports the safety of BPA," ACC's Hentges says, based largely on research his organization has funded.

But other studies since 1976 have shown that small doses (less than one part per billion) of estrogenlike chemicals, such as BPA, may be damaging. "In fetal mouse prostate you can stimulate receptors with estradiol at about two tenths of a part per trillion, and with BPA at a thousand times higher," vom Saal says. "That's still 10 times lower than what a six-year-old has." In other words, children six years of age were found to have higher levels of BPA's by-product glucuronide in their urine than did mice dosed with the chemical that later developed cancer and other health issues.

Further complicating the issue is the stew of other estrogen-mimicking chemicals to which humans are routinely exposed, from soy to antibacterial ingredients in some soaps. The effects of such chemical mixtures are not known but scientists say they may serve to enhance the ill effects of one another. "The assumption that natural estrogens are somehow immediately good for you and these chemicals are immediately bad," Belcher says, "is probably not a reasonable assumption to make."

The chemical industry argues that unless BPA is proved to have ill effects it should continue to be manufactured and used, because it is cheap, lightweight, shatterproof and offers other features that are hard to match. "There is no alternative for either of those materials [polycarbonate plastics and epoxy resins] that would simply drop in where those materials are used," Hentges says.

Not so, says vom Saal, who notes that there are plenty of other materials, such as polyethylene and polypropylene plastics, that would be fine substitutes in at least some applications. "There are a whole variety of different kinds of plastic materials and glass," he says. "They are all more stable than polycarbonate."

Concern over BPA is not confined only to the U.S. Japanese manufacturers began to use natural resin instead of BPA to line cans in 1997 after Japanese scientists showed that it was leaching out of baby bottles. A subsequent study there that measured levels in urine in 1999 found that they had dropped significantly.

A new E.U. law (Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemical Substances, or REACH), which took effect last year, requires that chemicals, such as BPA, be proved safe. Currently, though, it continues to be used in Europe; the EFSA last year found no reason for alarm based on rodent studies. European scientists cited multigenerational rat studies as reassuring and noted that mouse studies may be flawed because the tiny rodent is more susceptible to estrogens.

For now, U.S. scientists with concerns about BPA recommend that anyone sharing those worries avoid using products made from it: Polycarbonate plastic is clear or colored and typically marked with a number 7 on the bottom, and canned foods such as soups can be purchased in cardboard cartons instead.

If canned goods or clear plastic bottles are a must, such containers should never be microwaved, used to store heated liquids or foods, or washed in hot water (either by hand or in much hotter dishwashers). "These are fantastic products and they work well … [but] based on my knowledge of the scientific data, there is reason for caution," Belcher says. "I have made a decision for myself not to use them."

Problems of plastics

Saturday, August 28, 2010

When people ask me where to start going green, one of the first things I always suggest is to reduce the use of plastics, particularly disposable plastics. I say this because it is one way to go green that is easy to do, healthier for you, better for the planet, and puts money in your wallet. It’s a win-win for everyone. But first, what’s the problem with plastics?

The toxicity of plastics is not fully understood or adequately tested. Most plastics contain chemical additives to make the plastic more pliable, or UV resistant, etc. Some of these ingredients or additives are not thoroughly tested, and other we know are harmful, like bisphenol-A (BPA) and phthalates (a chemical used as a plastics softener). These chemicals are both shown to be potent hormone disruptors and are increasingly linked to adverse health effects like cancer, infertility, early puberty, obesity, behavior changes, and reproductive system damages.

BPA is a chemical used to make polycarbonate plastic or items marked with the number 7 on the bottom. BPA also is used to line the inside of metal food and soda cans and can leach from the can liner into the food. Phthalates are found in number 3 plastic, made with polyvinyl chloride or PVC and marked with the number 3. In addition to the health concerns with PVC-plastic, the production of and burning of PVC plastic releases dioxin, a known carcinogen, into the atmosphere. Basically, it’s bad for us, and bad for the environment.

We also know that plastics chemicals leach into the food and water they contain. So that means, BPA, phthalates and a host of other chemicals found in plastics end up in our food and water, and eventually, our bodies. While the amount may be small, it is still of concern. In fact, plastics are considered safe not because they have been proven to be safe, only because they have not been proven to be unsafe. As EWG senior scientist Dr. Anila Jacob says, "There is very little published research on the potential adverse health effects of chemicals that leach from plastic food containers, so it's difficult to say they're safe with any degree of certainty, especially with long-term use."

The second problem with plastics is that they are an environmental nightmare. First, they are a non-renewable, fossil fuel based substance. Plastics are made from petroleum so they never ever biodegrade. In fact, every piece of plastic ever produced is still in existence in some form today. Over time (a long period of time) plastics actually photodegrade into smaller and smaller toxic pieces but never disappear. Many of these tiny pieces end up in our oceans and waterways and are eaten by marine life.

There is so much plastic in the ocean, that we have inadvertently created something called the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. It is roughly the size of Texas, containing approximately 3.5 million tons of trash, primarily plastic. In this accidental dump floating midway between Hawaii and San Francisco, plastic to sea life ratios are 6:. Birds and mammals are dying of starvation and dehydration with bellies full of plastics. Fish are ingesting toxins at such a rate that soon they will no longer be safe to eat.

“But I recycle my plastic” people argue. The fact is, most people don’t. Only 3% of the 380 billion (that’s right, billion) plastic bags used in the U.S. each year get recycled. Even if you are one of the few who does recycle your plastic waste correctly, recycling plastic is an inefficient system. It’s actually referred to as “downcycling”. Unlike aluminum or glass, plastic degrades so not only can it never be made into the same form of plastic (like a plastic water bottle into another plastic water bottle), but we also need to introduce new virgin plastic during the recycling process. So while recycling plastic is certainly better than throwing it away, it’s not the silver bullet to solve our plastics problem. If avoiding plastic completely is not practical for you, what’s the answer? I think it’s to use plastics more wisely and more sparingly. You can reduce your use of disposable plastic, and choose safer plastics, particularly for those items that are likely to come into contact with your mouth, which is the most common way the chemicals in plastic enter our bodies.

The first step to choosing safer plastics is to understand what the numbers represent. So turn your plastic container over, check out the number inside the triangle, and read on to see what those numbers mean.

Safer plastics include:


#1 PETE or PET (polyethylene terephthalate) – this plastic is used for most clear beverage bottles, such as water bottles, and two-liter soda bottles. It is one of the most commonly recycled plastics on the planet. The key here is to think about the No. 1 meaning “one-time use”. So don't reuse single-use plastics. They can break down and release chemicals into your food or beverage when used repeatedly.

#2 HDPE (high-density polyethylene) - used to make most milk jugs, shampoo bottles, and laundry detergent bottles. Because No. 2 plastic has been found not to leach, Nalgene water bottles are now made from this plastic rather than No. 7 as they were previously.

#4 LDPE (low-density polyethylene) - used in most plastic shopping bags, food storage bags, some cling wraps and some squeeze bottles.

#5 PP (polypropylene) - used in opaque, hard containers, including some baby bottles, cups and bowls, and reusable storage container (i.e. Tupperware). Drinking straws, yogurt containers, and cottage cheese containers are sometimes made with this.

Avoid These Plastics:

#3 PVC (polyvinyl chloride) – commonly called “vinyl” is used in commercial plastic wraps and salad dressing bottles, shower curtains, and believe it or not, kids toys, backpacks, lunch bags, and binders. PVC contains phthalate (softeners need to make the plastic bend) and they have been found to interfere with hormonal development. The production of and burning of PVC plastic releases dioxin, a known carcinogen, into the atmosphere. It’s bad for our health and bad for the environment.

#6 PS (polystyrene) – used in Styrofoam cups, meat trays and “clam-shell”-type containers. No. 6 plastics can release potentially toxic materials (including styrene), especially when heated. Yep, that’s right, when heated. So that insulated Styrofoam coffee cup and the “to go” container that you put hot food in, well those don’t seem like such a good idea do they?

#7 Other - A wide-range of plastic containers are lumped into this category – basically any plastic not rated 1-6. The plastic to be concerned about in this category are the hard polycarbonate plastic bottles which contain bisphenol-A (BPA). No. 7 plastic is used in some reusable water bottles, baby bottles, and some metal can linings. Soft or cloudy colored plastic is not polycarbonate. Avoid polycarbonate, especially for children's food and drinks. Trace amounts of BPA can migrate from these containers, particularly if used for hot food or liquids.

In addition to understanding the numbers, you can also use plastics more safely:

• Don't microwave in plastic containers. Heat can break down plastics and release chemical additives into your food and drink. Use ceramic or glass instead. Cover food in the microwave with a paper towel instead of plastic wrap.

• Use plastic containers for cool liquids only, not hot.

• Don't reuse single-use plastics (the number one – PET plastics). They can break down and release plastics chemicals when used repeatedly.

• Do not use old, scratched plastic containers. Exposures to plastics chemicals may be greater when the surface is worn down.

• Wash plastics on the top rack of the dishwasher, farther from the heating element, or by hand.

• When using an electric mixer, use a glass or metal bowl instead of plastic to avoid chipping bits of plastic into your food.

• Use wooden cutting boards instead of plastic ones.

• Pick a cotton shower curtain instead of vinyl.

• Choose glass or BPA-free baby bottles with a clear silicone nipple.

• Avoid plastic to mouth contact, especially for babies and kids. Give your baby natural teethers like frozen washcloths.

• Look for toys made of natural materials, like wool, cotton, and uncoated wood.

• To avoid PVC in school supplies, check out the Center for Health Environment and Justice’s (CHEJ) Back-to-School Guide to PVC-Free School Supplies, which lists the most common back-to-school supplies made out of toxic PVC and suggests safer PVC-free products in over 20 product categories.

Finally, when rethinking and reducing your plastic, remember to recycle any that you don’t need or don’t feel safe using any more. Keep in mind that No. 1 and No. 2 are almost universally recyclable. No. 5 plastics are usually not recyclable in curbside programs. Other numbers depend upon the recycler. To simplify plastics recycling, here is the basic rule of thumb – if the plastic bottle has a neck that's smaller than the body and has "alor2" symbol on the bottom, nearly every recycling program will accept it. But please remove the caps from the bottles and throw them in the trash or participate in a program to recycle them. If left in with the recycling, those little caps can ruin a whole batch of recyclables.

Plastic Facts

Friday, August 20, 2010

1.The NIU 3R Program accepts plastics coded 1 or 2. Please check your container to see if it is in the appropriate category. If you do not know, please recycle it. Waste Management, Inc. will sort the plastics before processing them.

2.
Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) - 23% of all plastic bottles. This type is also used to package boil-in-bag foods, meat, cosmetics, and carbonated soft drinks.

3.High-density polyethylene (HDPE) is used to make 62% of all plastic bottles, most commonly containing milk, detergents, shampoos, pharmaceuticals, juices, bottled water and antifreeze.

4.In 1987, the U.S. used almost 1 billion barrels of oil, just to make plastics.

5. When buried, some plastic material may last for 700 years. (Manufacturers add inhibitors that resist the decomposition process necessary to break down the plastic.)

6. Over 46,000 pieces of plastic debris float on every square mile of ocean.

7.Although polystyrene foam (commonly known as Styrofoam) is completely non-biodegradable, it is recyclable. If you lined up all the polystyrene foam cups made in just one day, they would circle the earth.

8.According to Dr. Miligram, a plastics analyst, "Recycling plastics saves twice as much energy as burning them."

9.Americans use 4 million plastic bottles every hour!-Yet only 1 bottle out of 4 is recycled.

10.Americans make enough low-density polyethylene (LDPE) plastic every year to shrink-wrap the state of Texas. Most of it ends up in landfills.

  • Plastics are part of the waste stream: although they account for only 8% of the waste by weight, they occupy about 20% of the volume in a landfill due to their low bulk density.
  • In 1988 we used 2 billion pounds of HDPE just to make bottles for household products. That's about the weight of 900,000 Honda Civics.
  • Since the introduction of PET containers in the late 1970's, the industry has reduced the weight of PET in 2-liter bottles from 67 grams on average to about 48 grams; a 28% reduction.
  • It takes 5 recycled two-liter bottles to make enough fiberfill for one ski jacket.
  • It takes 1,050 recycled milk jugs to make a 6-foot plastic park bench.
  • About nine billion plastic bottles are produced annually in the U.S. about two-thirds of which end up in landfills or incinerators. Most of the rest go to Wellman Inc. a recycling facility in South Carolina. Wellman annually recycled about 2.4 billion plastic bottles into a polyester fiber known as Fortrel EcoSpun, which ends up in active wear.

Will Drinking from Plastic Bottles Kill You?

Today we're going to place our plastic water bottle, which has already been used three or four times, in the car on a hot sunny day, and then drink its noxious chemical contents to see if we get sick and die. The idea is that chemicals in the plastic get released into the bottle's contents when the bottle is reused, and especially if it's heated up.

So let's point our skeptical eye at the issue and see whether it has any merit. Do we need to be concerned about this? The only really fair answer is that it's a complicated question. "Plastic" is not a single compound. There are almost as many different types of plastic as there are types of substances contained by them. Some plastics do contain poisonous chemicals. Some plastics do leech chemicals into liquids. In some plastics, this process can be accelerated by heat. The reason for this variety is to provide the product distributor with enough choices that they can select a plastic type that's best for their product. This permits a distributor of drinking water to use a bottle that is absolutely safe to contain water for humans under the whole temperature range that the bottle is likely to be subjected to. But, put gasoline into that same bottle, and you might see that plastic dissolve away. Plastics are designed for their particular application, and misusing a plastic product can produce undesired consequences.

One time, in college, I was moving to a new apartment a block or two away. My brother and I had built a koi pond, and we needed to move the fish and store them long enough to build a new pond at the new place. We went out and bought a cheap plastic kids' wading pool. We put it in the garage and filled it with the hose, treated the water with all the usual fish-friendly chemicals, and walked the koi over in buckets and placed them in their new temporary home. Well, we learned a harsh lesson about chemicals in plastics. After a day or two the koi didn't look so good. Some of them died. Then all of them died. It was pretty horrible, because, and I'll spare you the details, they didn't look very good. We had no idea what the problem was. Was it the shock of being transported? Did we not add enough stuff to kill the chlorine? On a whim I called the manufacturer of the swimming pool and asked if they knew any reason why this would happen. They did. On products like this, they always add a mold inhibitor to the plastic. In this case, they used cyanide. For a children's pool, they add a safe low level of cyanide that's harmless to the children, but is enough to prevent mold from growing that would make the pool gross and unsightly. Evidently, a level of cyanide that's safe for a human is lethal for a fish, since they breathe it directly into their blood through their gills. The guy we spoke to was the company's head scientist, and he seemed to relish this rare opportunity to discuss his work. He went into all sorts of detail about their different products, and how they use the right plastic for each different job. Ever since then, whenever I work on a koi pond, I always call the manufacturer of any plastic products I'm using and talk to their chemists.

Here's the long and the short of it. Whether you're microwaving food in a plastic container, refilling your plastic water bottle, or making a koi pond, use plastic products that are intended for that use. The manufacturers do employ chemists to determine how best to package their products to ensure their safety, this process is strictly policed by the FDA, and this is always going to be more reliable than random information you read on the Internet or receive in a chain email.

And yes, it is our good old friend the Internet that seems to be the basis for this particular fear's place in popular culture. For example, there's one hoax email going around that says Sheryl Crow believes she contracted breast cancer from toxic chemicals by drinking water from a bottle that had been left in a car. Not true. Sheryl Crow doesn't claim this, there are no chemicals in water bottles that have been linked to cancer, and heating a water bottle to car temperatures does not leech anything into the water. There's another chain email that says freezing your water bottle, like so many people do, will leech dioxin into your water. Again, not true. No plastic containers designed for containing food or drinks contain dioxin, and colder temperatures stabilize plastics; it's heat that will accelerate their breakdown.

Most famously, a 2001 study by the University of Idaho found that reuse of plastic water bottles does release risky levels of diethylhexyl adipate (DEHA) into the water, which is potentially carcinogenic. This study was widely reported by the popular media and largely touched off the chain emails and most of the current perceived controversy. But is it true? No. Such a paper was written, but it was not a formal study. It was, in fact, merely the master's thesis of one student. It was not subjected to any peer review, and cannot accurately be characterized as a study performed by the university. It does not represent any position held by the University of Idaho. And unfortunately, it was not well performed research. DEHA is not classified by the FDA as a carcinogen, but more importantly, DEHA is not used in the type of plastic water bottles that the student evaluated. But it is used in many other plastics, and is present in a lab setting. "For this reason", concluded the International Bottled Water Association (which is, granted, not a very objective source), "the student's detection is likely to have been the result of inadvertent lab contamination." The FDA requires a higher level of scrutiny than that applied by the student writing his paper. DEHA is actually approved for food contact applications, but the fact that it's not present in the type of plastic that was studied, discredits the entire paper. But the mass media is often more interested in headlines than facts, so the dangers of reusing water bottles had no trouble becoming a fixture in pop culture.

Some people allege a conspiracy among distributors of bottled water, who know that their products are poisonous but who have analyzed the cost savings against the projected lawsuits from wrongful death and have concluded that it's more profitable to sell dangerous products. I do not find this theory very compelling. First, the products demonstrably do not contain the toxic agents claimed by the theory. Second, like all conspiracy theories, it's just too implausible that something of that magnitude could be kept secret for so long by so many people and so many victims, with nobody ever blowing a whistle or calling a newspaper. If corporate Men in Black were sent out to silence the whistleblowers and families of the victims, this would just multiply the number of reasons for someone to blow the whistle. This conspiracy theory just doesn't hold any water — pun intended.

There are absolutely plastics that are unsafe for containing or heating food. Look what happened to my koi. Or, let's say you sealed some food inside a length of PVC pipe and heated it over a campfire. Is that safe? I don't know, but I wouldn't eat it. Just like everything else in life, use products for their intended purpose, and you will not have any problem. Be assured that intended use of water bottles does include high temperature cycling. You will not get sick from any reasonable use of a water bottle or other food-containing plastic product.

Are plastics harming your health?

Are plastics harming your health? 4 facts to help you decide

Are the chemicals in your plastic food containers, water bottles and even baby bottles harming your health? I guess I’m not sure anymore.

The risks are not something I really want to take a chance with. Recently the Food and Drug Administration said that a chemical widely used in plastics is safe for children and adults, even though recent research has raised questions about its safety. Studies have linked the chemical bisphenol-A, or BPA, to increased risks for heart disease and diabetes, according to The New York Times, and to the development of precancerous lesions and reproductive issues in animals.

I realize that plastic food containers, reusable water bottles and plastic baby bottles are so popular because they’re convenient. Which is not to be overlooked. But the price of convenience might have a dark side.

I used the facts from an article in a recent issue of EatingWell magazine to help me decide whether to replace my plastic containers with glass or another non-leaching option. Check out these four facts to decide for yourself:

1. Polycarbonate plastics, often used to make reusable water bottles, clear plastic food-storage containers and some baby bottles, contain BPA, an estrogenlike chemical also used in the linings of some food and drink cans. Studies link BPA to the development of precancerous lesions and abnormal development of reproductive systems in animals. While BPA can leach into food and drinks, whether it actually affects human health is currently not known. However, consumer concern peaked in April after the National Toxicology Program (part of the National Institutes of Health) issued a draft report noting that, given the current science, the possibility couldn’t be ruled out.

2. What is known is that we’re all exposed to plenty of the chemical. In a 2005 study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control, 95 percent of people screened tested positive for BPA.

3. Hot liquids and foods exacerbate leaching in BPA-containing plastics, suggests a study published earlier this year in Toxicology Letters. When researchers poured boiling water into polycarbonate drinking bottles, it caused up to 55 times more BPA to seep out than room-temperature water had.

4. Whether washing containers in hot water causes them to break down and release BPA the next time they’re used isn’t clear: Only a handful of studies have been conducted, and results are conflicting. While heating these plastics in the microwave hasn’t been studied, it’s not recommended. Anila Jacob, M.D., a scientist with the Environmental Working Group, says that we can assume there is increased leaching with any kind of heating.

The Bottom Line: Manufacturers currently aren’t required to label BPA, so there’s no way of knowing if it’s present in the plastics or cans you use. For now, the best way to reduce your exposure is to use stainless steel, glass or plastics labeled “BPA-free.” If you’re not sure about a product contact the manufacturer for more information.

Sexual Problems in Human Males Exposed to High BPA Levels

Wednesday, August 18, 2010

Barely one week after Consumer Reports found unexpectedly high levels of the chemical Bisphenol A (BPA) in name-brand food products, a federally-financed study says the substance appears to cause erectile dysfunction and other sexual problems in men. A study released last month linked exposure to BPA during pregnancy to hyperactivity and aggression in girls.

BPA, a synthetic version of estrogen, is used in everything from plastic baby bottles to canned food linings and has been detected in the urine of 93 percent of the U.S. population. It has been linked to a wide array of health effects including reproductive abnormalities, heightened risk of breast and prostate cancers, diabetes, and heart disease.

The latest study, published in the journal Human Reproduction, was conducted on male workers at four factories in China, is the first to study the effects of BPA on human males. Previous studies have used mice and rats, a point often seized upon by industry-backed critics who have claimed there is no evidence of ill effects on humans.

"Critics dismissed all the animal studies," said De-Kun Li of the Kaiser Foundation Research Institute, which conducted the study with funding from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, The Washington Post reported. "Now we have a human study and this can't just be dismissed."

Nevertheless, the American Chemistry Council (ACC) -- which represents the chemical industry -- was quick to discount the findings.

“This study of occupational exposure to bisphenol A (BPA) among male factory workers in China provides interesting new information, although its relevance to average consumers who use products containing minute amounts of BPA is limited, at best," said Steven G. Hentges, Ph.D., of the ACC's Polycarbonate/BPA Global Group. "Based on the significant differences between occupational exposure and consumer exposure, the study’s authors state, ‘the findings from this study probably do not apply to populations that are exposed to low levels of BPA.’" he noted.

600 workers

Researchers followed more than 600 workers over a five-year period and compared their sexual well-being with that of male workers in other Chinese plants where no BPA was present. They found that men handling BPA were four times as likely to suffer from erectile dysfunction and seven times as likely to have difficulty ejaculating.

Researchers said they did not have to wait long to see the results of BPA exposure. Within just a few months of starting to work at the factories, the study's subjects began to develop sexual dysfunction.

While exposure levels in the Chinese group were as much as 50 times what an average U.S. male faces, Li said the findings nevertheless raise questions about the safety of exposure at lesser levels.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) last week said it would spend $30 million to examine the safety of BPA and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is expected to release its own findings from an ongoing study within the next month.

A recent EPA study found that exposure to low levels of BPA had no effect on a range of reproductive and behavioral activities measured. But the FDA's scientific advisory board has cited more than 100 studies linking BPA with health effects and the Obama administration has pressed agencies to take a "fresh look" at the issue.

FDA panel

An FDA special scientific advisory panel reported in late 2008 that the agency's basis for setting safety standards to protect consumers was inadequate and should be reevaluated. A congressional subcommittee determined in 2009 that the agency relied too heavily on studies sponsored by the American Plastics Council. The FDA, now under the leadership of Dr. Margaret Hamburg, is expected to announce soon its reassessment of BPA safety. Bills are currently pending in Congress that would ban the use of BPA in all food and beverage containers.

Consumers who are concerned might be able to reduce, though not necessarily eliminate, their dietary exposure to BPA by taking the following steps:

• Choose fresh food whenever possible.

• Consider alternatives to canned food, beverages, juices, and infant formula.

• Use glass containers when heating food in microwave ovens.



By Truman Lewis
ConsumerAffairs

BPA In Canned Soups, Juice



The latest tests of canned foods, including soups, juice, tuna, and green beans, have found that almost all of the 19 name-brand foods tested contain measurable levels of Bisphenol A, or BPA.

The new findings by Consumer Reports show that BPA can be found in a diverse assortment of canned foods including those labeled "organic," and even in some foods packaged in "BPA-free" cans. The magazine's tests of a few comparable products in alternative types of packaging showed lower levels of BPA in most, but not all cases.

"The findings are noteworthy because they indicate the extent of potential exposure," said Dr. Urvashi Rangan, Director of Technical Policy, at Consumers Union, nonprofit publisher of Consumer Reports. "Children eating multiple servings per day of canned foods with BPA levels comparable to the ones we found in some tested products could get a dose of BPA near levels that have caused adverse effects in several animal studies. The lack of any safety margin between the levels that cause harm in animals and those that people could potentially ingest from canned foods has been inadequately addressed by the FDA to date."

The Food and Drug Administration is soon expected to announce the findings of its most recent reassessment of the safety of BPA. The chemical has been linked to a wide array of health effects including reproductive abnormalities, heightened risk of breast and prostate cancers, diabetes, and heart disease.

Consumers Union has previously called on manufacturers and government agencies to act to eliminate the use of BPA in all materials that come in contact with food and beverages. In the wake of CR's new finding, Consumers Union sent a letter to FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg reiterating its request that the agency act this year to ban the use of BPA in food- and beverage-contact materials.

Consumer Reports' tests convey a snapshot of the marketplace and do not provide a general conclusion about the levels of BPA in any particular brand or type of product tested. Levels in the same product purchased at different types or places or in other brands of similar foods might differ from the test results. CR tested three different samples of each canned item for BPA and found:

Green beans

Highest levels of BPA in our tests were found in some samples of canned green beans and canned soups.

• Canned Del Monte Fresh Cut Green Beans Blue Lake had the highest amount of BPA for a single sample in Consumer Reports tests, with levels ranging from 35.9 parts per billon (ppb) to 191 ppb. Progresso Vegetable Soup BPA levels ranged from 67 to 134 ppb. Campbell's Condensed Chicken Noodle Soup had BPA levels ranging from 54.5 to 102 ppb.

• Average amounts in tested products varied widely. In most items tested, such as canned corn, chili, tomato sauce, and corned beef, BPA levels ranged from trace amounts to about 32 ppb.

Given the significance of BPA exposure for infants and young children, CR tested samples of Similac Advance Infant Formula and Nestlé Juicy Juice All Natural 100 percent Apple Juice. The findings revealed:

• Similac liquid concentrate in a can averaged 9 ppb of BPA, but there was no measurable level in the powdered version.

• Nestlé Juicy Juice in a can averaged 9.7 ppb of BPA, but there were no measurable levels in the samples of the same product packaged in juice boxes.

Juicy Juice

"The BPA levels in our samples of Nestlé Juicy Juice, at about 9 ppb, were not among the highest in the foods we tested. However, considering how many servings of juice young children may consume daily, a child still could exceed a level that Consumers Union thinks would provide an adequate margin of safety," said Dr. Rangan. Bypassing metal cans in favor of other packaging such as plastic containers or bags might lower but not eliminate exposure to BPA, but this wasn't true for all products tested.

• Campbell's Chicken Noodle Soup in plastic packaging contained detectable amounts of BPA but at levels that were significantly lower than the same brand of soup in the can. StarKist Chunk Light canned tuna averaged 3 ppb of BPA, but BPA levels in the same brand in a plastic pouch weren't measurable.

• Bird's Eye Steam Fresh Cut Green Beans, frozen in a plastic bag, contained very low levels of BPA, about 1 ppb or less.

• However, in one item tested, the alternative packaging contained higher levels of BPA than the canned version. Chef Boyardee Beef Ravioli in Tomato and Meat Sauce packaged in a plastic container with a metal peel-off lid had BPA levels 1.5 times higher than the same brand of food in metal cans.

"BPA-free"

BPA was found in some products packaged in cans that claimed to be "BPA-free."

• Although tests of the inside of the cans found that the liners were not epoxy-based, suggesting BPA was not used, samples of Vital Choice's tuna in "BPA-free" cans were found to contain an average of 20 ppb of BPA and those of Eden Baked Beans in "BPA-free" cans averaged 1 ppb BPA.

BPA, which has been used for years in clear plastic bottles and food-can liners, has been restricted in Canada and some U.S. states and municipalities because of potential health effects. But, there are no federal restrictions on BPA in food packaging.

Federal guidelines currently put the daily upper limit of safe exposure at 50 micrograms of BPA per kilogram of body weight. But that level is based on experiments done in the 1980s rather than hundreds of more recent animal and laboratory studies indicating that serious health risks could result from much lower doses of BPA.

Several animal studies show adverse effects, such as abnormal reproductive development, at exposures of 2.4 micrograms of BPA per kilogram of body weight per day, a dose that could be reached from a person eating one or a few servings daily or an adult daily diet that includes multiple servings of canned foods containing BPA levels comparable to some of the foods the magazine tested.

In keeping with established practices that ensure an adequate margin of safety for human exposure, Consumer Reports' food-safety scientists recommend limiting daily exposure to BPA to one-thousandth of that level, or 0.0024 micrograms per kilogram of body weight, significantly lower than FDA's current safety limit.

FDA panel

An FDA special scientific advisory panel reported in late 2008 that the agency's basis for setting safety standards to protect consumers was inadequate and should be reevaluated. A congressional subcommittee determined in 2009 that the agency relied too heavily on studies sponsored by the American Plastics Council. The FDA, now under the leadership of Dr. Margaret Hamburg, is expected to announce soon its reassessment of BPA safety. Bills are currently pending in Congress that would ban the use of BPA in all food and beverage containers.

Consumers who are concerned might be able to reduce, though not necessarily eliminate, their dietary exposure to BPA by taking the following steps:

• Choose fresh food whenever possible.

• Consider alternatives to canned food, beverages, juices, and infant formula.

• Use glass containers when heating food in microwave ovens.


By James Limbach
ConsumerAffairs



BPA May Harm Sperm

Another study points to yet another potential health effect from the chemical Bisphenol A, or BPA, widely used in food and beverage containers.

In one of the first human studies of its kind, researchers have found that urinary concentrations of BPA may be related to decreased sperm quality and sperm concentration.

Exposure to BPA, used in the manufacture of polycarbonate and other plastics, has been shown to interfere with reproductive development in animals and has been linked with cardiovascular disease and diabetes in humans, according to Harvard researchers.

The Harvard study, released last year, reported BPA from water bottles and other plastic containers showed up in the urine of men used in a study. It suggested that exposure to BPA was greater that health authorities think.

In this latest study, the researchers are quick to point out that these results are preliminary and more study is needed. Several studies have documented adverse effects of BPA on semen in rodents, but none are known to have reported similar relationships in humans.

BPA is a common chemical that's stirred much controversy in the media lately over its safety. Critics say that BPA mimics the body's own hormones and may lead to negative health effects. BPA is most commonly used to make plastics and epoxy resins used in food and beverage cans, and people are exposed primarily through diet, although other routes are possible. More than 6 billion pounds of BPA are produced annually.

The new study suggests that more research should focus on BPA and health effects in adults, says John Meeker, assistant professor of Environmental Health Sciences at the University of Michigan School of Public Health.

Meeker is the lead author on the study, along with Russ Hauser, the Frederick Lee Hisaw Professor of Reproductive Physiology at Harvard School of Public Health. Colleagues at Massachusetts General Hospital and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also contributed to the research.

"Much of the focus for BPA is on the exposures in utero or in early life, which is of course extremely important, but this suggests exposure may also be a concern for adults," Meeker said. "Research should focus on impacts of exposure throughout multiple life stages."

BPA in 89 percent of urine samples

Meeker and Hauser recruited 190 men through a fertility clinic. All gave spot urine samples and sperm samples the same day. Subsequently, 78 of the men gave one or two additional urine samples a month apart. Researchers detected BPA in 89 percent of the urine samples.

Researchers measured sperm concentration, sperm motility, sperm shape and DNA damage in the sperm cell.

"We found that if we compare somebody in the top quartile of exposure with the lowest quartile of exposure, sperm concentration was on average about 23 percent lower in men with the highest BPA," Meeker said.

Results also suggested a 10 percent increase in sperm DNA damage.

The results are consistent with a previous study by Meeker and Hauser suggesting that certain hormones, specifically FSH (follicle-stimulating hormone) and Inhibin B, are elevated or decreased in relation to BPA, respectively, a pattern consistent with low sperm production and development.

Meeker stressed that further study is necessary due to the study's relatively small sample size and design.

BPA Exposure Linked to Aggression

Will BPA Exposure Make Your Baby Daughter Aggressive?


null

A recent study suggests there may be a link between prenatal exposure to the chemical and increased aggression in little girls, but many find the association to be unfounded.

BPA Exposure Linked to Aggression

Preliminary research at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, suggests that fetal exposure to the chemical bisphenol A (BPA), commonly found in plastics, could be related to increased aggression and hyperactivity in little girls, Sarah Avery reports for the News & Observer.

BPA is generally found in everyday plastic items such as water bottles, the liners inside canned goods and food containers. A small percentage of the chemical leaks through the material, and is typically present in most people’s systems. As Avery explains, the debate around the chemical’s possible dangers relates to its potential to “mimic estrogen,” a key hormone in the establishment of sex differences in growing fetuses. Consistent fetal exposure to the chemical could have the effect of “abolish[ing] or revers[ing] inherent behavioral differences between the sexes,” resulting in female children acting more aggressive.

The study, published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, suggests that “[p]renatal exposure to Bisphenol A (BPA) increases offspring aggression and diminishes differences in sexually dimorphic behaviors in rodents.” The scientists studied 249 pregnant women, monitoring the BPA concentration in their urine and correlating it to their children’s behavioral patterns up to 2 years later. The scientists concluded that there could be an association between prenatal BPA exposure and “externalizing behaviors in two-year old children, especially among female children.”

Joe Braun, a UNC-Chapel Hill researcher and coauthor of the study, explained that when implementing the Behavioral Assessment System for Children-2 (BASC-2), “[t]he girls had aggression scores that were similar to those of boys,” but “[b]oys appeared unaffected by BPA,” Liz Szabo reports for USA Today. Braun notes, however, that the team will continue to monitor the children until the age of 5, because behavioral changes are possible over the years.

Opinion & Analysis: Should BPA worry consumers?

Some scientists and physicians don’t believe the correlation between prenatal BPA exposure and increased aggression in young girls. Pediatrician Lawrence Diller, for instance, says other factors could have played a part in the girls’ behavior, and suggests that “a more comprehensive study” is necessary before coming to any steadfast conclusions, USA Today reports. Similarly, Michelle Macias, spokeswoman for the American Academy of Pediatrics, pointed out that “the increases in aggression were subtle,” and did not point to a serious behavioral disorder.

Scientists from the American Chemistry Council said the study had “significant limitations” that in their opinion “failed to establish cause-and-effect relationships,” CBC News of Canada reports.

On the other hand, Bruce Lanphear, a Simon Fraser University professor of children's environmental health and coauthor of the study, expressed his concern about the potential dangers of BPA if health authorities don’t take this initial warning seriously. “What this study shows—along with the other animal toxicity studies—is that if we want to protect kids, it would suggest we need to protect pregnant women as well,” he told CBC News.

More research with far larger groups of women is planned to see whether the results are valid.

Background: A call for BPA-free plastics

Last year, health officials in Canada banned the use of BPA in baby bottles and other baby products.

The United States has yet to take similar action. According to Deborah Mitchell in EmaxHealth, the Secretary of Health and Human Services must notify Congress before Dec. 31, 2009, as to whether “the available scientific data support a determination that there is a reasonable certainty of no harm, for infants, young children, pregnant women, and adults, for approved uses of polycarbonate plastic and epoxy resin made with bisphenol A.”

Although it is up to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to determine whether to ban the use of BPA in containers and other items, particularly those meant for baby use, many companies are already taking the initiative to do so.

From
Findingdulcinea

What is Bisphenol A?

There has been a lot of talk about the chemical Bisphenol A and the possible negative health effects it has on humans - but what exactly is it? Bisphenol A, or BPA, is an organic compound that is used for the production of polymer plastics, industrial-strength epoxies, dental fillings, fungicides, plastic containers, home electronics, and many other things. It has been used commercially for over 50 years and the current worldwide production of BPA is estimated to be over 3.3 million metric tons.

First created in the late 1800's, BPA's effects on animals were not extensively tested until the 1930's. Tests on laboratory mice revealed BPA's ability to mimic estrogen in the body and it was even considered a possible estrogen replacement for human consumption. However, a series of tests performed in the 1990's raised concerns about human exposure to BPA.

In the laboratory, even low-dose exposure of BPA to rats caused early developmental problems, neurotoxicity, hormone disruption, and even carcinogenic effects. BPA is now suspected to promote the precursors to breast cancer and, due to its ability to active fat-cell activity, has even been linked to obesity.

The BPA Controversy: Is BPA Dangerous?
Scientists and research firms are divided on the actual affects BPA exposure has on humans, though both sides agree that BPA causes acute health problems in laboratory animals and that over 90% of the US population, including infants and children, have measurable levels of BPA in their bodies.
As consumer awareness grows, the lack of conclusive evidence for either side of the case has caused heated debate.
The Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Drug Agency, the plastics industry, and others have insisted that normal, everyday exposure to BPA is not harmful to humans. However, the US National Institutes of Health, the US National Toxicology Program, Canada's Department of Health, and other federal and private organizations have expressed concern over BPA's toxicity and have called for more independent study. A recent article by the Washington Post, discussing the influence funding has had on BPA study results, illustrates the intensity and depth of this controversy.
The Search for BPA Free Alternatives
Meanwhile, parents and other health-conscience consumers have began taking active steps to reduce BPA exposure in the home. An entire industry of BPA free products has surfaced as big box retailers like Toys R' Us, Patagonia, Whole Foods Markets, and even Wal-Mart have emptied their shelves of many products containing BPA.
It is known that most BPA exposure occurs through ingestion, prompting water bottle, toy, and food container companies to create BPA free alternatives. Polycarbonate plastics, the main suspect in BPA leaching through plastics, are becoming more and more scarce among top name brand products.

How to limit your exposure

Daily BPA exposure comes from 4 major sources; water bottles, baby bottles and sippy cups, storage containers, and canned foods. By replacing polycarbonate containers and slightly modifying your eating habits, you can help limit BPA exposure to yourself and your family.

Water Bottles

Water bottles are everywhere. For years, the scientific equipment company, Nalge Nunc International dominated the market with their Nalgene water bottles. Using cheap and durable polycarbonate plastic, they scored huge profits while reusable water bottles became nearly ubiquitous in everyday life. Other companies such as Camelbak and Rubbermaid also shared in the spotlight.
That is until recently.
As BPA awareness spread, consumers began looking for alternatives to polycarbonate. Some have switched to metal bottles, such as Sigg and Klean Kanteen though many people have voiced concern over the possibility of BPA occurring in Sigg’s inner-bottle epoxy lining, the contents of which are a secret. Others have claimed a metallic taste when using Klean Kanteen’s stainless steel bottles.

Human placenta cells die after BPA exposure.

Exposure to very low concentrations of the plastic monomer bisphenol A (BPA) causes cellular damage and death in cultured human placenta cells, researchers report. The doses used for this study are similar to blood levels found in pregnant women. A particularly worrying finding is that effects were most pronounced at the lowest – rather than the highest – concentrations of BPA indicating that placental development could be particularly sensitive to BPA exposure. Damage to the placenta can induce a range of adverse pregnancy outcomes including premature birth, preeclampsia or even pregnancy loss. It is not known if exposure to BPA is associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes in humans.

2010-0131pregnantbelly


What did they do?

The researchers obtained placentas from five women who had normal pregnancies and deliveries. Human cytotrophoblast cells were collected from the placentas and cultured. This type of placental cell is important for the exchange of oxygen, nutrients and waste products between mother and fetus.

The cells were exposed to BPA for 24 hours at one of seven different concentrations, ranging from 0.002 to 200 micrograms per milliliter (µg/ml). These doses were selected because they approximate levels of BPA measured in fetal and maternal blood. The researchers then looked to see if BPA exposure damaged the cells.

Release of the protein adenylate kinase was used as a marker of cell death because this protein “leaks” from cells with damaged membranes. Presence of the protein cytokeratin 18 was used as an indicator of apoptosis, a specific type of cell death. Apoptosis is a normal part of placental development but altering the rate or degree to which this takes place can indicate abnormal placental growth.

What did they find?

Damage to the cell membrane was 1.3 to 1.7 times higher in placental cells exposed to BPA for 24 hours compared to cells that were not exposed to BPA. Apoptosis was 2 to 3 times higher in the BPA treated cells. These results indicate that cellular development was adversely affected by BPA.

BPA also increased the expression of tumor-necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α), a protein associated with apoptosis. This finding was used as another indicator of increased cell death in the cultured cells. Elevated expression was most pronounced at the lowest, not the highest, BPA exposure levels and provides further evidence that BPA can induce cell death in the placenta. This pattern, known as a non-monotonic (or 'inverted-U') dose-response curve, has been observed in multiple experiments with BPA previously and is a characteristic of many endocrine disruptors and endogenous hormones.

What does it mean?

These results indicate that BPA, at levels within the range a pregnant woman is likely to be exposed, can damage human placental cells in ways that could affect fetal development.

BPA impacted cell death through two different mechanisms. Higher doses of BPA increased the rate of apoptosis type cell death but lower doses weakened cell membranes, an effect that also damaged and ultimately killed the placental cells.

The altered timing and amounts of cell death can lead to adverse pregnancy outcomes, such as preeclampsia, prebirth growth restriction, prematurity and pregnancy loss. While the results do not show BPA causes these conditions in people, the study provides a model for how BPA may change the signals and chemical controls that guide the development of important pregnancy cells.

Importantly, the exposure levels tested are similar to those measured in pregnant women's blood, placental tissue and chord blood.

This work was done in cultured human placental cells, a techniqe that has both benefits and drawbacks. One advantage of using this type of cell culture model instead of a laboratory animal model is that it uses human cells. Rodent placenta structure is very different from humans so BPA may produce different effects in rodents than humans.

A potential drawback of cell culture, however, is that it requires the direct application of BPA, a process that bypasses metabolism and therefore the opportunity for BPA to be changed into a less active form. To control for this, the researchers were careful to use a range of doses that have been measured in human blood.

The results of this study provide yet more evidence that exposure to BPA is a potental threat to human reproductive health.


From

Environmental Health Sciences

Bisphenol A exposure

Two-year-old Travis Bean plays with a protest sign during rally at Queen's Park November 20, 2007. A new Canadian study found concentrations of BPA in urine were higher for children aged 6 to 11 than they were for adults aged 40 to 79.

Two-year-old Travis Bean plays with a protest sign during rally at Queen's Park November 20, 2007. A new Canadian study found concentrations of BPA in urine were higher for children aged 6 to 11 than they were for adults aged 40 to 79.


OTTAWA—It's found in some plastic bottles and in the linings of tin cans — and probably in your urine, too.

Most Canadians have low levels of a chemical called bisphenol A in their urine, a new federal study has found.

The Canadian Health Measures Survey, released Monday by Statistics Canada, found the chemical in 91 per cent of Canadians aged six to 79.

The study, conducted between 2007 and 2009, analyzed blood and urine samples for indicators of more than 80 environmental contaminants and chemical substances.

Researchers also found the amount of lead in people's blood has fallen dramatically since they were last measured 30 years ago, while most blood tests turned up detectable levels of mercury.

But the findings didn't alarm Health Canada's senior medical adviser.

“We live in an environment where we use chemicals very, very widely,” Dr. Paul Gully said.

“Therefore exposure and finding them is not a surprise. We take all the chemicals seriously, which is why action is being taken already.

“But in terms of any particular result, bisphenol A being one of them, we will look at them carefully. But there are no results which demand immediate action.”

This is the first time the government has measured bisphenol A concentrations across the country. The chemical is used to harden plastic in water bottles, canned food lining and hundreds of other household items.

The federal government has already banned the sale of polycarbonate plastic baby bottles that contain bisphenol A.

Many retailers pulled plastic water and baby bottles from their shelves before the government announced the ban in 2008, as consumers began demanding products without bisphenol A in them.

The Chemical Industry Association of Canada urged caution in interpreting this latest study.

“Thanks to advances in analytical chemistry, researchers are able to measure extraordinarily low levels of natural and man-made substances in human fluids and tissues — often as little as one part per billion (a single drop in an Olympic-sized swimming pool),” the group said in a statement.

“Of course, health researchers know that the simple presence of an environmental chemical in a person's body does not mean that it will cause health effects or disease.”

Some scientists believe exposure to bisphenol A can harm the reproductive and nervous systems and possibly promote cancers. They point to dozens of animal studies, though the negative effects have not been recorded in human studies.

The survey says those measured had a mean concentration of 1.16 micrograms per litre in their urine. That's consistent with results from international studies, which have been reporting mean or median concentrations of one to three micrograms per litre.

The Canadian study found concentrations of BPA in urine were higher for children aged 6 to 11 than for adults aged 40 to 79. The study found the highest concentrations in teens.

“Given the short half-life of orally ingested BPA and the high frequency of detection, the ... data suggest continual widespread exposure in the Canadian population,” it said.

One of the country's leading toxicology experts said he isn't overly worried by the findings.

“I don't think we should alarm the public that there's a huge problem there. I don't think there is,” said Dr. John Giesy, a professor at the University of Saskatchewan and the Canada Research Chair in Environmental Toxicology.

“But, at the same time, all chemicals can be toxic. We know lead and mercury do cause effects at small levels, and we should always be prudent and we should always be vigilant.”

Health Canada will look at the results of the study before deciding if further action is necessary, Gully said.

But Rick Smith of the lobby group Environmental Defence predicted it's only a matter of time before bisphenol A is banned in all products sold in Canada.

“The writing's on the wall for this chemical,” he said.

Smith added that he was encouraged the study found the amount of lead in people's blood has dropped.

Although everyone tested positive for lead, fewer than one per cent had concentrations at or above the intervention level of 10 micrograms per decilitre of blood.

Older adults and males had significantly higher lead concentrations.

“Lower household income, being born outside Canada, living in a dwelling at least 50 years old, current or former smoking, and drinking alcohol at least once a week were associated with higher (lead levels),” said the study.

“Although ... concentrations have declined dramatically since the 1970s, socio-demographic characteristics, the age of dwellings, and certain lifestyle behaviours are associated with higher levels.”

The study also found 88 per cent had detectable concentrations of mercury in their blood.

Mercury concentrations were lower for children and teens aged six to 19 than for adults aged 20 to 79.

Bisphenol A

Bisphenol A


What is bisphenol A?

Bisphenol A (BPA) is a chemical produced in large quantities for use primarily in the production of polycarbonate plastics and epoxy resins.

Where is BPA found?

Polycarbonate plastics have many applications including use in some food and drink packaging, e.g., water and infant bottles, compact discs, impact-resistant safety equipment, and medical devices. Epoxy resins are used as lacquers to coat metal products such as food cans, bottle tops, and water supply pipes. Some dental sealants and composites may also contribute to BPA exposure.

How does BPA get into the body?

The primary source of exposure to BPA for most people is through the diet. While air, dust, and water are other possible sources of exposure, BPA in food and beverages accounts for the majority of daily human exposure.

Bisphenol A can leach into food from the protective internal epoxy resin coatings of canned foods and from consumer products such as polycarbonate tableware, food storage containers, water bottles, and baby bottles. The degree to which BPA leaches from polycarbonate bottles into liquid may depend more on the temperature of the liquid or bottle, than the age of the container. BPA can also be found in breast milk.

Why are people concerned about BPA?

One reason people may be concerned about BPA is because human exposure to BPA is widespread. The 2003-2004 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III) conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found detectable levels of BPA in 93% of 2517 urine samples from people six years and older. The CDC NHANES data are considered representative of exposures in the United States. Another reason for concern, especially for parents, may be because some animal studies report effects in fetuses and newborns exposed to BPA.

Number seven recycling symbol

If I am concerned, what can I do to prevent exposure to BPA?

Some animal studies suggest that infants and children may be the most vulnerable to the effects of BPA. Parents and caregivers, can make the personal choice to reduce exposures of their infants and children to BPA:

  • Don’t microwave polycarbonate plastic food containers. Polycarbonate is strong and durable, but over time it may break down from over use at high temperatures.
  • Polycarbonate containers that contain BPA usually have a #7 on the bottom
  • Reduce your use of canned foods.
  • When possible, opt for glass, porcelain or stainless steel containers, particularly for hot food or liquids.
  • Use baby bottles that are BPA free.
Back to top

Early Puberty in Girls on the Rise

Friday, August 13, 2010

Study: Early Puberty in Girls on the Rise

By: Talea Miller

A growing body of research indicates puberty is starting earlier among girls in the United States and Europe, raising new questions about the roles of obesity and exposure to chemicals in accelerating development.

More girls in the United States are showing some breast development by the time they are 7 or 8 years old than past generations, according to new research published this week in the journal Pediatrics.

The findings are in line with previous studies showing breast development is not uncommon at a young age in the United States, including a 1997 study from the University of North Carolina that first raised alarm about early puberty rates. A study published in 2009 also found that breast development in Denmark is beginning in girls at an average age of 9 years and 10 months, a year earlier than in 1991.

Obesity is considered a major contributing factor to early puberty, but there is also growing concern among some researchers that environmental exposure to chemicals commonly used in plastics and consumer goods, like BPA or phthalates, could be playing a role.

For the Pediatrics paper, researchers at the Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center studied 1,239 girls from New York, San Francisco and Cincinnati. They found that while a larger proportion of all 7-and 8-year-old girls have breast development now, the increase was especially pronounced in Caucasian girls, where the rates of early breast development doubled since the early 1990s.

"The results definitely indicate that the age of puberty, the beginning of breast development, is decreasing in girls in the United States," said Susan Pinney, one of the paper's co-authors.

About 10 percent of Caucasian girls, 15 percent of Hispanic participants and 23 percent of black girls in the study showed some breast development by the age of 7, and the rates climbed to 18 percent, 31 percent and 43 percent respectively by the age of 8. The study did not include data on the beginning of menstruation.

"Our data clearly show that in girls that are overweight and obese they are definitely more likely to go into puberty earlier," Pinney said, but for chemical exposure there are no definitive studies that show a connection between the two. The researchers did collect blood and urine samples from the girls and plan to test them for levels of certain environmental chemicals in future research as they continue to follow the participants.

"I think [obesity] is contributing to the decrease of the age of puberty but I'm not convinced it's the whole story," said Paul Kaplowitz, chief of endocrinology at Children's National Medical Center.

"I think that something else may be going on, and I think we simply don't have the answers right now -- nobody has come up with a solid study for BPA or phthalates."

BPA has been shown to mimic estrogen in animals, but studies in humans are limited.

Kaplowitz says earlier puberty is not only seen in Western countries and has been reported around the world, but has been "observed to different degrees." Socioeconomic status certainly plays a role, he said, in poorer countries where there is a shortage of food, as malnutrition can delay puberty.

He said the Cincinnati study reaffirms a lot of what was already known in the field, but warns parents not to read too much into these results.

"I don't think it's fair to assume that every child who has early breast development is going to rapidly progress through puberty and have early periods," he said.

Pinney said the study has raised many questions about chemical exposure that still need to be answered, but that she hopes parents can focus on what is a known contributing factor.

"As a society we really need to pay attention to the relationship we see between obesity and early puberty," Pinney said. "It's not easy to tackle, but we know by reducing childhood obesity that will have many positive effects."

Thanks
PBS newshour.

Environment impact of plastic shopping bags

Tuesday, August 10, 2010





Environment impact of plastic shopping bags
•The raw material of plastic bags is oil. Therefore, the more we
use plastic bags, the more we waste oil - a non-renewable
energy source.
•Reuse your plastic shopping bags: use them as trash so as not to
buy others that are more energy wasting; use them for storage
•Use paper bags rather than plastic bags when you are given the
choice
•Use reusable grocery bags, which always have a lower
environmental impact.
For the past few years, there has been rising international awareness regarding the
damaging and dangerous impact on the environment of plastic bags.
Governments all over the world have decided to get involved in that particular issue:
Some governments have decided to ban them: Bangladesh, Bhutan and Zanzibar.
Plastic bags should no more be given for free in China from June 1st. These bags are
surcharged in Germany, South Africa, Ireland and Israel.
Several countries try and promote, trough major retailers, the use of cloth bags, paper
bags or grocery bags: United Kingdom (with Tesco), France (with Carrefour), New
Zealand…
•The petroleum-based plastic bags take decades to
break down, so if they are not recycled they litter. It
creates visual pollution: in the streets, on the
beaches etc. Also, they can clog roadside drains,
which could cause street flooding during heavy
rainfall
•Plastic bags can be recycled but it rarely happens: according
to the United States Environmental Protection Agency, only
1% of plastic bags were recycled in 2000, against twenty
percent for paper bags.
•They endanger wildlife and particularly sea life such as sea turtles and dolphins which can
die of entanglement, suffocation, and ingestion because they assume that these bags are
jellyfish.
What YOU can still do!
What is being done!
IN THE US:

Plastic bags are already used less than paper bags by American
consumers, and there have been no government actions to further
curb their use. But large cities such as San Francisco and
Portland, OR, have planned or plan to ban plastic bags, whereas
Seattle, WA will certainly launch a 20 cent “green fee” on plastic
bags.

What is plastic?

An introduction to plastics
What is plastic?

Plastic is a common name for Polymers: materials made of long strings of carbon and other elements. Each unit in a string is called a monomer, and is a chemical usually derived from oil.

The monomer is made into polymer by chain-linking reactions. This is like making a daisy chain. Instead of flowers, carbon atoms are joined together. The appearance of the daisy chain will be different if you use different coloured flowers, and so will polymers.

There are many different types of plastic, depending on the starting monomer selected, the length of polymer chains, and the type of modifying compounds added. Each plastic has been developed for a special purpose.
There are two main groups of plastics:

1. THERMOPLASTICS soften with heat and harden with cooling.

* Some typical thermoplastics are: Acrylic (Perspex)
* Acrylo-nitrile (Nylon)
* Polyethylene (Polythene)
* Polypropylene
* Poly Vinyl Acetate (PVA)
* Poly Vinyl Chloride (PVC)
* Polystyrene and ABS
* PTFE (Teflon)

2. THERMOSETS are cured or hardened by heat.

Some typical thermosets are:


* Bakelite
* Epoxy
* Melamine
* Polyester
* Polyurethane

Properties

Plastics are used because they are:

* Attractive
* Hard and slippery
* Soft and rubbery
* Tough and slippery
* Flexible
* Good insulators of heat or electricity
* Light weight
* Hygienic
* Non-rusting
* Easy to shape and colour
* Cheap

10 Reasons Why Single-Use Plastic Bags Blow

Sunday, August 8, 2010

This article was posted on Aug 05 2010 by Plastic Pollution Coalition

By Lisa Kaas Boyle, Esq.

You know the obvious reason why plastic bags blow. They are light-weight wind socks that catch the air to travel greats distances and heights. Found blowing across every freeway, plastic bags have become known as Urban Tumbleweeds. Plastic bags clog our storm drains, and litter our shores. In the oceans they become mock jellyfish, endangering the sea life that depends on real jellyfish for nutrition. The list below takes us beyond the obvious and literal reasons why plastic bags blow to some facts that might surprise you. How many of these facts did you know?

1. Californians use 19 million single-use plastic bags a year, amounting to 147,000 tons of unnecessary waste that doesn’t biodegrade. A single reusable bag, on the other hand, can last for years and be used thousands of times before it enters the waste stream or is recycled.

2. Single-use plastic bags are nearly impossible to recycle. Despite all the lobbying by the plastics industry to push recycling of plastic bags, the rate is less than 5% in California. Because they are thin and lightweight, recycling plastic bags is difficult and the return on the effort to recycle them is minimal or non-existent. In Los Angeles County, over 90% of the bags collected in municipalities surveyed ended up being shipped to a landfill rather than recycled, due to contamination from food or pet waste, and the tendency of plastic bags to jam recycling machinery.

3. The typical plastic grocery bag is manufactured from polyethylene, a byproduct of petroleum and natural gas – both nonrenewable resources that create more greenhouse gases and increase our dependency on foreign oil. The energy used to make about 9 plastic bags is equivalent to the energy it takes to drive a car one kilometer, or more than half a mile!

4. There are no free plastic bags! The cost of plastic bags is 3-5 cents buried in the purchase price of your groceries or consumer goods. Then, there is the clean up cost for plastic bag pollution… One study found that the cost of cleanup amounts to 17 cents a bag, that translates to the average taxpayer paying about $88 per year on plastic bag waste – What a waste!

5. What if every disposable plastic bag you used this year was still in your car? That would be around 600 bags per shopper in your family. These bags are designed to be used once and thrown away, but where do they go? The majority end up in our landfills, choke our rivers and storm drain systems, and make their way to the ocean where they threaten marine life.

6. According to The Wall Street Journal, Americans go through 100 billion plastic shopping bags annually. (Estimated cost to retailers is $4 billion.)

7. During a three-hour clean up on International Coastal Cleanup Day in 2008, plastic bags were the second most common trash item found on beaches, lakes and streams, accounting for 1.4 million bags!

8. Discarded plastic bags are so common in our environment that in a catch basin cleanup of along the Los Angeles River, plastic film and bags were 43% percent of all trash collected!

9. Plastic bags have been documented in the remains of birds, ocean mammals, fish, turtles, and even camels.

10. California taxpayers spend $25 million just to collect and landfill plastic bag waste each year. That figure does not include external costs, e.g., resource extraction and depletion, quality of life issues, economic loss due to plastic bag litter and loss of wildlife due to plastic bag consumption.

China, Mexico City and at least 40 countries and municipalities around the world have banned plastic bags (representing at least 25% of the world’s population). In 2008, the Ocean Protection Council called upon the California Legislature to ban or place consumer fees on commonly littered items, including plastic single-use bags. The United Nations Environmental Programme Secretariat has also called for a worldwide ban of plastic bags. The California Senate is currently considering a single-use plastic bag ban.

For more information and to send a letter supporting the California Single-Use Bag Reduction Act (AB 1998) please see:

Why Plastic is Bad!

Saturday, August 7, 2010

Thousands of people have read my post on “Why Styrofoam is Bad” and I think people are also curious as to why plastic is bad. There has been alot in the news lately about how plastic is not good for our health, it has made the baby product industry particularly evaluate their products and many carry labels professing that they are free of the “bad” plastic.

What is bad plastic called on labels or chemically? Studies have shown that Polyvinyl Chloride or PVC, polycarbonate, bisphenol A (BPA) and the chemical phthalates which soften other chemicals to make the material pliable.

What are the health effects?The chemical typically found in plastic items with a recyclable symbol number 3, Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) leaches the chemical phthalates out into the items/liquids within the containers. The health effects of these chemicals is decreased lung function, increased weight gain, increased resistance to insulin, low sperm count and DNA damage to sperm. There have also been studies that show infant males exposed to this chemical have negative reproductive development.

Polycarbonate which contains bisphenal A (also known as BPA) can also leech into the contents/liquids that plastic container is holding. While there has not been a ton of human studies done on the human effects these chemicals have there have been extensive animal studies and it is know that bisphenal A mimics estrogen so there are known health effects related to this finding. There has also been studies that showed bisphenal A increases the occurrence of diabetes, heart disease, and high levels of certain liver enzymes. Women who have everyday contact with this chemical can have an increase in miscarriages, polycystic ovarian syndrome which is known to cause infertility, baldness in women, and ovarian cysts. There have been 100′s of studies in animals that have shown obesity, breast and prostate gland cancer, early puberty, low sperm count, infertility, and reproductive organ defects. The scary fact is the CDC found that BPA was found in 95% of adults and 93% of children urine (source: wikipedia).

So who makes these plastics? Bayer, Dow Chemical and General Electric produce 6 BILLION pounds per year worldwide. Between 1980 and 2000 production grew 5 times just in the US.

Environmental effects of the use of plastic? We all know that plastic does not disappear on its own and everything we throw out made of plastic will be here at least 500 years from now so recycling is the only option. The recycling of plastic is an extremely expensive because there are 7 different plastic recycling codes so all plastics need to be sorted before they can be processed and that is only the plastic products that do not need to be disassembled. Many plastic items are made with different kinds of plastic and would need to be taken apart to be recycled. The cost of disassembling and recycling is usually more than the value of the plastic so that obviously that presents a whole host of problems.

What can you do? Stop purchasing products that are in plastic containers, use less plastic in your home, and if you need to buy plastic items make sure it does not contain BPA. Do not microwave your food in plastic containers and do not put your plastic containers in the dishwasher. You can also appeal to your government to make laws that do not allow these chemicals to be used in the products that we buy. Several states and other governmental bodies have worked to create legislation that protects the consumer. There have also been some recent class action lawsuits that have help sharpen the landscape of this issue.

It is important to note that MANY infant and child products have stopped using the chemicals listed above but as a consumer you should mindful of the health effects and work to avoid exposure. As consumers it is very hard to avoid plastic but the more you try the better it will be for your health and the environment.

Alot of the information I read in preparation for this article talks about how serious the effects of chemicals on fetus’ and small children. I also found that these chemicals have increased significantly in the last 20 years in average everyday item. I seriously wonder how this will affect the fertility and obesity of the children born in the last 20-25 years. They had plastic baby bottles, plastic lunch boxes, plastic bags with all their snacks in it, plastic toys…etc.

I recommend you read a very detailed artcile of the studies and results that have been done on the health effects of plastic. It very readable for the average reader and can be found at salon.com here. Here is another article that you find interesting here.

Another note: Plastic is found in canned goods as well. Many cans are coated in a thin layer of plastic on the inside so you are exposed to these chemicals with canned goods.

Below is a list of the recycling codes for plastic and what kind of plastic products carry those symbols.

No. 1: Polyethylene terephthalate (PETE or PET). Used in food and drink containers, including milk jugs. Generally considered safe.

No. 2: High-density polyethylene (HDPE). Used in food and drink containers, detergent bottles, grocery bags, trash bags. Generally considered safe.

No. 3: Polyvinyl chloride (PVC or vinyl). Used in food packaging, cling plastic wraps, vinyl-lined lunchboxes. Gets its flexibility from phthalates, which are possible carcinogens.

No. 4: Low-density polyethylene (LDPE). Used in dry-cleaning bags, bread bags, frozen food bags, squeezable bottles. Generally considered safe.

No. 5: Polypropylene (PP). Used in food and medicine containers. Generally considered safe.

No. 6: Polystyrene (PS) Also known as styrofoam (see my post here for more details on the health effeccts). Used in egg cartons, packing peanuts and disposable cups, plates and cutlery. Some scientists worry about the health effects of the styrene, which can leach into food and drink.

No. 7: Other (often polycarbonate, PC). Used in hard plastic sports bottles, baby bottles, 5-gallon water jugs. BPA, the chemical that the U.S. is being urged to ban, is found in polycarbonate products. There are BPA-free products made from polyethersulfone (PES), which will be marked with 7 but not PC. Consumer Reports recently tested a handful of BPA-free baby bottles and found that they contained only negligible amounts of the chemical.


Search This Blog

Total Pageviews

Blog Archive

Followers