If the Senate retains the provision and Congress passes a final bill that includes it, the measure would put the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on a short deadline (the end of 2009) to determine whether the chemical Bisphenol A (BPA) is safe. If the FDA concludes that BPA is harmful or is unable to make a clear decision, then it must require manufacturers to eliminate BPA in products for pregnant women, infants and young children.
The official FDA position is that Bisphenol A is safe, but the agency has been criticized for ignoring independent research and basing its conclusions solely on a couple of studies sponsored by the chemical industry.
BPA is used in hard plastics—from baby bottles to children’s toys—the lining of food and beverage cans, and the glossy coating on paper used for a variety of purposes, including the customer receipts handed out by many retail businesses.
Bisphenol A is also found in the bodies of nearly all Americans, and research has linked the chemical to a wide range of serious illnesses and other medical conditions such as heart disease, diabetes, liver abnormalities, miscarriages and breast cancer, as well as brain and hormone development problems in fetuses and infants.
Canada has already banned the use of Bisphenol A in many products, and several U.S. states and cities have either taken a similar course or are contemplating bans.
Also Read:
Comments
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/484739
-human exposure is now about 0.001-0.1mcgm/kg/d
-lowest exposure at which toxic effects are found is 50mg/kg/d, ie- 500 -50,000 times the usual exposure.
-we regularly fly in airplanes built only 1.5 times stronger than borderline safety demands.
Is bisphenol A a problem?
I caught my own arithmetic error this time: exposure is in mcgm & toxicity is in mg, so toxic level is actually 500,000 – 5,000,000 x higher than exposure level.
What has become clearer lately is that no one can say with any authority how safe or potentially dangerous BPA is at various levels. We know the chemical shows up in the bloodstreams of most people, that it is associated with a number of serious health issues, and that it poses higher risks for fetuses and young children.
Most official rulings about “safe” and “toxic” levels have become suspect because of too much reliance on industry studies and too little on independent research that points to higher risks.
The whole point of the BPA-related provision in this legislation is to get the FDA to take a clear-eyed, unbiased look at the potential risks of a chemical we encounter and ingest every day, and to develop guidelines based on solid information consumers can trust.
The link I provided above is a review of the literature on the subject: there is NO evidence it causes ANY systemic problems in humans, even in production workers exposed to high levels. Animal models show problems only at those absurdly high exposures mentioned, and human studies show we clear the chemical more rapidly than rats do, so it’s even less toxic to us.
This is clearly another effort at govt meddling in our lives with regulations not based on the science. With all the dangerous chemicals to which we are exposed, surely they could find a more appropriate devil to exorcize than bisphenol A. The govt loses more credibility every time it chases the wrong demon.