Last month the FDA assured citizens that the chemical BPA, which is found in everyday plastic items such as sports bottles, baby bottles, food containers and compact discs, does not pose a health risk to consumers.
The agency issued a similar reassurance in May, after another federal agency, the National Toxicology Program, issued a warning in April about BPA, saying it may be harmful to young children and fetuses, and linking it to health problems, including prostate and breast cancer, and early puberty.
Bisphenol A, which has been in commercial use since the 1950s, gives a shatterproof quality to polycarbonate plastic and has been found to leach from plastic into food.
It was reported this week that researchers at the Yale School of Medicine and the University of Guelph in Ontario have linked BPA to problems with brain function and mood disorders in monkeys — the first time it has been connected to health problems in primates.
The National Toxicology Program, which is part of the National Institutes of Health, reiterated its conclusion that “the possibility that BPA may affect human development cannot be dismissed.”
Last month, researchers at the University of Cincinnati linked BPA to heart attacks and adult-onset diabetes, the Globe and Mail reported.
Consumers are naturally concerned about such reports, and the contradictory reactions to them. Of course, trade groups such as The American Chemistry Council state that “there is no direct evidence that exposure to bisphenol A adversely affects human reproduction and development.” But that’s what the FDA says, too, despite evidence to the contrary.
Even though the National Toxicology Program issued a warning about BPA, it has no power to regulate the chemical, the Washington Post reported, but its findings are used by regulatory agencies. The FDA’s report reiterating the safety of BPA, however, was based largely on two studies, both funded by the chemical industry, the Post reported. The FDA’s conclusion: “An adequate margin of safety exists,” when BPA comes into contact with food.
Somehow, an “adequate margin of safety” is not reassuring when we are talking about healthy brains, hearts, reproductive systems, etc.
Members of Congress took issue with the FDA’s stand and now the House Energy and Commerce Committee is investigating the agency’s handling of BPA.
Meanwhile, as governmental agencies contradict themselves, Canadian officials, federal lawmakers, nearly a dozen states and several major retailers have already proposed various BPA bans, mostly from baby products. What is the point of having an FDA if citizens’ health isn’t its first priority?
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
