Issues > May/June 2006 (#114) > The Bisphenol-A Debate: A Suspect Chemical in Plastic Bottles and Cans

RELATED

Eau de Plastic
by P.W. McRandle
Picnic Perfect Plastics
by Danielle Masterson

about CATHERINE ZANDONELLA, M.P.H

Catherine Zandonella lives in Princeton, New Jersey, and writes for New Scientist, The Scientist, and Nature.

More By CATHERINE ZANDONELLA, M.P.H

page 3 of 4 | PREV 1 | 2 | 3 | 4  NEXT 

Photo: The Bisphenol-A Debate: A Suspect Chemical in Plastic Bottles and Cans

So far, regulatory agencies agree. "Based on all the evidence available at this time, the FDA sees no reason to change its long-held position that current [BPA] uses with food are safe," George Pauli, Ph.D., associate director for science and policy at the FDA's Office of Food Additive Safety, wrote in a November 28, 2005, letter.

Vom Saal counters that the studies showing BPA is safe are "profoundly flawed and in some cases exhibit outright fraud." Last year, he published a paper showing that 100 percent of the industry-funded studies, 11 in all, found no harmful effects from BPA, while 90 percent of government-funded low-dose studies, 104 in number, found harmful effects. "Among people who have actually read this literature there is no debate, just an illusion of controversy," he says.

Meanwhile, new studies continue to reveal the potential for harm. A January 2006 study indicates that BPA may enhance the risk of developing Type II diabetes. Angel Nadal, Ph.D., and his team at the University of Miguel Hernández de Elche in Alicante, Spain, found that BPA altered the function of mouse pancreatic cells, which produce insulin. Unhealthy diet, a lack of exercise and a genetic predisposition are the main factors in triggering diabetes, says Nadal. "However, our feeling is that these factors could be exacerbated by the presence of environmental pollutants such as bisphenol A."

Human studies might settle the controversy over BPA, but so far they have been too limited to prove much. One study linked women with ovarian disfunction to elevated blood levels of BPA, and another found that blood levels of BPA were three times higher in women who'd suffered recurrent miscarriages than in women with successful pregnancies. While intriguing, these studies were from a small sample group. A more definitive result could be gained from a large-scale study to track people's exposures, follow them for years and look for health effects. The National Toxicology Program is planning a future evaulation of BPA.

Some scientists urge that action be taken now, regardless. "Science is not in the business of demonstrating anything beyond a shadow of a doubt," says Ana Soto, M.D., a professor and researcher at Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston, who has found that BPA alters mammary-gland development in mice. "We cannot wait that long to discover whether this chemical is harming human reproduction and development." However, because government agencies remain unconcerned, it is unlikely that BPA will disappear from consumer products anytime soon. A California bill to ban BPA in baby toys and feeding products was defeated in January. In the meantime, see the sidebar for what you can do to reduce your exposure.

PREV 1 | 2 | 3 | 4  NEXT 

Filed under: Plastics, Green homes, Green living, food safe, Bisphenol A

Green Guide 114 | May/June 2006 | For Your Health