It’s best to avoid BPA, federal official says

The head of the primary federal agency studying the safety of bisphenol A said Friday that people should avoid ingesting the chemical – especially pregnant women, infants and children.

“There are plenty of reasonable alternatives,” said Linda Birnbaum, director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the National Toxicology Program, in an interview with the Journal Sentinel.

While stressing she is not a medical doctor, Birnbaum said she has seen enough studies on the chemical to be concerned about its effects on human health.

A grandmother, Birnbaum said she advises her children to avoid using food packaged in containers made with BPA.

Asked if consumers should be worried about BPA, Birnbaum said, “Absolutely.”

In August 2008, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, charged with regulating the use of chemicals in food products, declared BPA to be safe for all uses – a decision chemical-makers routinely point to as proof their product is safe.

However, the agency is reconsidering that ruling after its own advisory board found that FDA scientists ignored valuable studies that found the chemical caused harm.

The agency missed a self-imposed Nov. 30 deadline to review its finding but is expected to issue a new determination any day.

A Journal Sentinel investigation found that lobbyists for industry wrote entire sections of the FDA’s original assessment. E-mails obtained by the newspaper found that FDA scientists relied on chemical industry lobbyists to examine BPA’s risks, track legislation to ban it and even monitor press coverage.

In formulating its decisions, the FDA considers assessments made by the national institute, Birnbaum’s agency.

BPA, developed as an estrogen replacement, is used to make polycarbonate plastic and epoxy resins. It is used to line most metal food and beverage cans and to coat carbonless paper receipts. Last year, six major baby bottle manufacturers promised to discontinue BPA in their products, citing concern for their consumers’ safety.

Sunoco, one of the companies that makes BPA, said it would no longer sell the chemical without a guarantee that it would not be used to make baby bottles.

Canada has declared BPA to be a toxin and prohibits its use in baby bottles.

On Friday, health and environmental groups stepped up their call for a ban on BPA.

“About 125,000 babies have been born in the United States since Nov. 30, the FDA’s missed deadline,” the Breast Cancer Fund said in a news release. “It’s time for the FDA to issue an immediate ban on BPA in hard plastic food containers and require labeling of all other food packaging containing BPA.”

By Meg Kissinger of the Journal Senti

Decision on BPA ban hoped for soon

After the FDA missed its self-imposed deadline for a new ruling on the safety of bisphenol A, a spokesman said Monday that agency scientists are “pushing hard” to get a decision within a few weeks.

But health and environmental advocates are unhappy with the delay about how much BPA is safe for use, particularly in food containers and items that come in contact with food.

Jennifer Sass, senior scientist for the Natural Resources Defense Council, said plenty of scientific data exists for the Food and Drug Administration to declare the chemical a threat to human health and to order it removed from food contact items.

“We are recommending that consumers do not use items with BPA,” said Sass.

The group has been joined by other organizations in calling for a consumer ban, including the Breast Cancer Fund, the Environmental Working Group and the Consumers Union, which publishes Consumer Reports.

Michael Herndon, the FDA spokesman, urged patience.

“We are pushing hard for some decision soon,” he said. “Too soon for anyone to be frustrated.”

The FDA ruled last year that BPA was safe for all use.

That ruling, however, was based on two studies, both of which were paid for by BPA makers. And the Journal Sentinel found that FDA scientists allowed BPA makers to write entire sections of their review of the chemical.

The FDA’s own science board later recommended that the agency re-examine the safety and consider more of the hundreds of studies that measure BPA’s effects.

Margaret Hamburg, the new FDA administrator, said in June a decision would be made by early fall. The agency announced in October the decision would come Nov. 30.

“Some things happened that I can’t go into that were beyond our control,” Herndon said of the delay.

The American Chemistry Council, which serves as the lobbying group for BPA makers, maintains that the chemical is safe for all uses. Stephen Hentges, the group’s main BPA lobbyist, has argued that nothing has changed that would require the FDA to change its position that the chemical is safe in food and beverage containers.

But concern continues to mount.

Last year, Canada declared BPA to be a toxin and has outlawed its use in baby bottles.

Similar bans have been put in place in Minnesota, Connecticut, the city of Chicago and two counties in New York. A federal ban has been proposed. Wisconsin is considering a ban on baby bottles.

A study released in November of male factory workers in China who had been exposed to huge amounts of the chemical found that they were four times more likely to experience erectile dysfunction and seven times more likely to have problems with ejaculation.

By Meg Kissinger of the Journal Sentinel

BPA NO LONGER IN YOUR BOTTLE

but it still lives in the linings of your food cans-

There has been lots of buzz around BPA, the chemical Bisphenol A, which was used for years in clear plastic (polycarbonate) bottles. In the past few years, every outdor company that made bottles containing BPA dropped them. The latest was Sigg, which finally got rid of the BPA in its bottles (we think) in the midst of a scandal and accusations of lies and deceit. According to Consumer Reports, BPA-containing bottles and food can liners have been restricted in Canada and some U.S. states and municipalities due to a link with reproductive abnormalities, heightened risk of breast and prostate cancers, diabetes, and heart disease. According to Consumers Reports, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is in the process of making a decision on what it deems a safe level of exposure to Bisphenol A (BPA).

For the rest of Berne Broudy’s article, click HERE

A day in the ‘normal’ life of a Nobel Prize winner

Baltimore, Maryland (CNN) — She was folding laundry when the call came at 5 a.m. After she hung up the phone, Dr. Carol Greider went upstairs to wake her children. She had to tell them, even if it meant getting them out of bed early.

“I said, ‘By the way, I just won the Nobel Prize. You can go back to sleep now,’ ” she recalled.

Until this past October, many would have described Greider as your typical working woman. A molecular biologist at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and the mother of two children — Gwendolyn, 10, and Charles, 13 — she splits her time between job and family. But “typical” no longer applies.

Winning the 2009 Nobel Prize for Medicine may help her career, but it hasn’t changed her attitude about home life. “I could have basked in the moment, but I had to tell my kids first. And they were thrilled, but then they wanted to know, ‘Do we have to go to school today?’ ” she said. “Of course I said, ‘No, you don’t.’ And they came to work with me.”

to read more of  Val Willingham’s article, click HERE

Lawmakers considering smoking ban at NH beaches

check this out…

Surfer Michael Sander believes firmly in New Hampshire’s “Live Free or Die” state motto when it comes to smoking” and that includes his right to smoke on state beaches.

Sander, 24 of Rye, surfs regularly at North Beach and says he would not obey a proposed law to ban smoking on the beach to eliminate second-hand smoke and discarded butts.

“Ban the tourists,” Sander said. “They’re the ones that litter. We put our butts in our pockets. … It’s ridiculous that anyone can tell me where I can and cannot smoke.”

State Rep. Judith Day has filed legislation to ban smoking on beaches in New Hampshire’s 23 state parks, an idea she got from neighboring Maine, which this year became the first state to ban smoking on its beaches.

The Maine law’s sponsor, Sen. John Nutting, said a mother’s complaint prompted the ban.

“The 2-year-old daughter was playing at the beach and all of a sudden she realized that her daughter’s cheeks looked like a chipmunk’s cheeks, just as full and distended as you could get them,” said Nutting, D-Leeds. “When she examined the reason for that, her little girl’s mouth was plum full of cigarette butts that she’d picked up on the beach from people smoking and discarding.”

for more of this AP article, click HERE

BPA found in 90% of newborns

A study released Wednesday which found that nine of 10 babies tested were born with bisphenol A in their systems has renewed calls for the chemical to be banned.

In the study commissioned by the Environmental Working Group, scientists found the chemical in nine of 10 randomly selected samples of umbilical cord blood.

Previous studies have found BPA in the urine of 93% of Americans tested. But Wednesday’s study is the first to find it in the cord blood of U.S. newborns.

“It’s alarming,” Janet Gray, director of the Environmental Risks and Breast Cancer project at Vassar College, said of the study results. “What more evidence do we need to act?”

More than 6 billion pounds of BPA are used each year to make polycarbonate plastics and epoxy resins. The chemical is used in thousands of common products, including the lining of nearly all food and beverage cans and as coating for carbonless paper receipts.

BPA, which was developed as a synthetic estrogen, has been linked to breast and prostate cancer, cognitive and behavioral problems, reproductive failures, heart disease, diabetes, asthma and obesity.

Scientists and health advocates have called for the chemical to be banned but the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has declared it to be safe for all uses – though that decision, based on two studies paid for by the chemical industry, is being reviewed.

The FDA’s decision had been due Monday, but the agency postponed its decision. Agency officials said they are working to complete it within weeks.

BPA makers maintain that BPA is safe.

“The mere presence of a chemical in our bodies does not mean there is a threat to human health,” said Steven Hentges, chief lobbyist for the American Chemistry Council, representing BPA makers.

News of the cord blood study came on the same day a U.S. Senate subcommittee met to consider an overhaul of laws governing the nation’s toxic chemicals.

The Toxic Substances Control Act was passed in 1976, intending to give the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to ban toxic chemicals. Since then, however, the agency hasn’t banned a single substance, including asbestos.

Loopholes have allowed companies to withhold information about the chemicals they manufacture – including the names of the chemicals.

Linda Birnbaum, director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, testified the law needs to be strengthened. She urged a review of BPA which, she said, has been found to interfere with the body’s endocrine system, even at small doses.

“We need to protect our children at critical times of their development,” she said.

Chemical makers and their lobbyists say they support an overhaul of the laws. But they do not advocate restrictions on BPA. Canada has banned BPA for use in baby bottles. Similar bans have passed in Massachusetts, Connecticut, the city of Chicago and two counties in New York. Most major baby bottle manufacturers have stopped using BPA.

Laws have been introduced in Congress to ban BPA in all food contact items.

A hearing in the Wisconsin Assembly on a proposed state ban is set for 10:45 a.m. Wednesday in the State Capitol, Room 300 NE.

By Meg Kissinger of the Journal Sentinel