The FDA has once again delayed their ruling on the safety of the toxic chemical Bisphenol A (BPA) and its potentially harmful health effects from contamination in food packaging products.

On June 3, 2009, FDA Commissioner Dr. Margaret A. Hamburg had testified before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce’s Subcommittee on Health. In response to a House Committee question regarding BPA, Dr. Hamburg stressed that she takes the questions raised about BPA very seriously. She stated that the FDA’s new Acting Chief Scientist, Dr. Jesse Goodman, is working with FDA scientists to take a “fresh look” at the science of BPA. Hamburg went on to promise that the FDA would reconsider its earlier 2008 conclusion that BPA was completely safe–a ruling that contradicted a finding by the National Toxicology Program, according to the Journal Sentinel. Dr. Hamburg and the FDA released statements saying that they would reach their new decision in regards to BPA by late summer or early fall in 2009.

However, it is now a new season and a new year, and the FDA’s decision on BPA’s fate is still undecided. In the fall of 2009 the FDA first delayed their self-imposed ruling on BPA, pledging that they would reach a decision no later than November 30, 2009. In late December FDA spokesman Michael Herndon then released that the FDA would not be making a decision before the end of the year. Herndon as well refused to answer any questions on whether or not consumers should continue to assume that the BPA is safe for all uses in the time before the FDA reaches a new conclusion.

As expected, many health advocates and environmental agencies who consider BPA to be a harmful threat to consumers are extremely upset by the FDA’s self-imposed promises and delays. Janet Nuldeman, policy director at the Breast Cancer Fund, was quoted by the Journal Sentinel as saying,

“I’m extremely frustrated by the FDA delay, and I’m even more frustrated by their silence about the delay. Each day it further delays taking action, more newborn babies, children and pregnant women are left unprotected from this hormone-disrupting compound linked to breast cancer and birth defects.”

The Journal Sentinel also states, “Alex Formuzis, spokesman at the Environmental Working Group, a health advocacy organization that has conducted several tests to measure consumer exposure to BPA, said evidence of the chemical’s risks is ‘overwhelming.”

What is Bisphenol A (BPA)?

Though BPA is becoming more of a casual household term, many consumers are still not exactly sure on what it is.

According to the National Toxicology Program (NTP), BPA is defined as, “A high production volume chemical used primarily in the production of polycarbonate plastics and epoxy resins.”

BPA is an endocrine disruptor, which can mimic the body’s own hormones and can lead to negative health effects. From scientific research it has been found that BPA’s harmful health effects are most sensitive in early childhood development, which is why having BPA-free containers and baby and water bottles are extremely important for infants, children, and even pregnant mothers.

BPA is a toxic chemical that can be found in many common products including canned foods, baby bottles, water bottles, compact discs and dvds, medical devices, dental sealants, and so on. Each year, more than 6 billion pounds of BPA are produced in the United States, adding up to more than $7 billion in sales.

According to the Journal Sentinel “[BPA], which is found in 93% of Americans tested, and 90% of newborns, is believed to interrupt the body’s endocrine system, even at extremely low doses.”

The Environmental Working Group (EWG) as well states in regard to BPA’s potential health risks,

“In September 2008 the National Toxicology Program of NIH determined that BPA may pose risks to human development, raising concerns for early puberty, prostate effects, breast cancer, and behavioral impacts from early-life exposures. Pregnant women, infants and young children are most vulnerable to the harmful effects of BPA, although a recent study linked BPA exposures to risk of heart disease, diabetes, and liver toxicity.”

For more information regarding BPA check out our recent blog post: What is BPA? The Facts and Details of BPA.

Past FDA Decisions on BPA Have Left Many Frustrated and Confused

The FDA’s delays on their self-imposed BPA decision is not the first time that they have upset health and environmental advocates regarding BPA policy (as shown on the right with protesters in Bangor, Maine).

Many health advocates fighting against BPA consumption question the FDA’s intentions and speculate that there may be hidden agendas regarding the FDA’s 2008 ruling that deemed BPA to be safe, along with other moments where the FDA has been surprisingly lenient–regardless of disproving research results.

The EWG has an outlined BPA timeline, which shows the BPA history for the last hundred years. The proven research results and information is alarming–especially that that has been concluded since the 1980’s and up. And, what is more alarming, is that in 2003 when BPA was being evaluated and assessed for toxicity by a government advisory panel they deliberately excluded from the panel all scientists who have significant expertise with BPA, due to concerns that expertise may inject bias into the evaluation process.

If BPA is harmful to everyone, why does it sound like a popularity contest? Bias for what? Shouldn’t the scientific results speak for themselves? Do the “biased” scientists really have anything to gain besides trying to keep the public safe? And, overall, isn’t the war against BPA starting to sound surprisingly familiar to that of the tobacco industry?

Emails Prove Connection Between FDA and Industry Lobbyists

In a ConsumerAffairs.com article titled Emails Suggest Cozy FDA-BPA Industry Relationship, information is shown on how the Journal Sentinel reviewed past emails between FDA scientists and chemical industry lobbyists and found that the agency allowed the chemical-makers to write entire sections of the FDA opinion. The FDA decision on declaring BPA to be harmless in low doses was based on two studies, both of which had been paid for by BPA-makers.

ConsumerAffairs.com reports,

“The emails show the lobbyists examined BPA’s risks, tracked legislation that would have limited or banned it, and even monitored news coverage. In one case, the newspaper reports the FDA’s deputy director requested information from the chief industry lobbyist to discredit a study that found the chemical caused miscarriages in workers exposed to it.”

The FDA’s own science board later found that the FDA wrongly ignored BPA studies that found harm, and they recommended that the agency re-review the chemical’s safety.

ConsumerAffairs.com states,

“In a report last October, a scientific panel assembled by the FDA to study the agency’s position on the controversial found a lot to criticize. While not taking a position on whether BPA is safe, the panel criticized the FDA for allegedly ignoring studies that claim BPA is dangerous.

In ignoring that research, the panel said, the FDA is creating what it called a false sense of security among consumers, who assume products containing BPA pose no threat because the FDA says its safe.”

Want to learn more about what the BPA Joint Trade Association is scheming behind closed doors? Be sure to check out the Journal Sentinel’s article fittingly titled, What Goes on Behind Closed Doors–we have no doubt that the leaked meeting minutes included will leave you as shocked as we were.

Obama’s Administration May Shed Optimism on BPA Ruling

The following information was provided by the EWG’s article, FDA Under Pressure for BPA Food Safety Rules:

“During the Bush administration, the FDA contended that traces of BPA leached into food and drink from packaging were safe, even for pregnant women, infants and young children. Despite contradictory findings from the National Toxicology Program (NTP), which last year said that BPA might damage the brains, reproductive systems and behavior of fetuses, infants and children, the FDA has refused to restrict BPA use in food packaging, provoking protests from scientists and environmental and health advocates.

Since President Obama took office, the agency’s leadership has given mixed signals, on one hand promising a “fresh look” at BPA safety but suggesting, on the other, that further studies could delay decisive regulatory action.”

The Obama administration announced that it was dedicating $30 million to the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences to study the effects of BPA in October of 2009. Though everything is still up in the air, it’s hopeful in knowing BPA’s potential toxicity is on the president’s radar.

Recent Developments in BPA History

Linda Birnbaum, director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, told the Journal Sentinel on Dec. 11, 2009 that people should avoid ingesting BPA–especially pregnant women, babies, and children. Birnbaum urged consumers to seek alternatives and when asked if consumers should be worried about BPA, Birnbaum answered, “Absolutely.” Health advocates state that from Birnbaum’s widely publicized remarks a sense of urgency to the FDA’s decision has been added.

In 2008, Canada banned BPA from baby bottles, and many European countries are trying to do the same. As for the United States, similar bans have passed in Minnesota, Connecticut, Chicago and some New York counties. California has as well been trying to pass a similar ban. Billsto ban BPA in food contact items are currently pending in Congress. In December of 2009, a number of legislators renewed their support for this BPA ban.

According to the EWG, 33 university and independent experts on BPA and other chemicals that disrupt the endocrine system have written FDA commissioner Margaret Hamburg urging her not to postpone restrictions on BPA while agency scientists conduct a five-year, $10 million study of BPA. The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) has awarded $30 million in federal stimulus funds to fill research gaps on BPA.

Consumer Reports, published by the non-profit Consumers Union, has made new tests of canned foods public, finding that nearly all brands tested contained BPA that had migrated from the containers. Even foods labeled “organic” and packaged in “BPA-free” cans showed low levels of BPA contamination, Consumers Union said.

Frederick S. vom Saal, a professor for the Division of Biological Sciences at the University of Missouri and a pioneer in BPA studies, was quoted as saying,

“If you have a thousand papers and they’re showing that this estrogenic chemical impacts every system you look at adversely, how can you possibly say, we’re going to tell you it’s safe? We cannot tell the American public this chemical is safe.”

Public Opinion on the BPA Ruling Delays

As we noted earlier, health advocates and consumers alike are worried about the BPA ruling, and more so about when it will actually happen. Jenn Savedge, author of the environmental blog The Green Parent says,

“The [FDA] is apparently waiting to see the results of a host of new government-funded studies before taking a stance on the contentious issue of banning BPA from products designed for children.

The results from some of the studies will be available in a few months; others will take years. It’s unclear exactly how long the agency will postpone its decision. “

Here is one consumer’s remark on the BPA ruling delay that we’re sure sums up a question that is on everyones mind: “But doesn’t the FDA have enough information right now to at least update its previous position (declaring BPA as completely safe)?”

For now, we can only keep our fingers crossed and hope for the best, though it would seem that at least the FDA is possibly finally being backed into a BPA-free (or at least regulated) corner. Dr. Ben and the staff at StainlessWaterBottles.com are committed to helping make the public aware of current BPA news, the possible ruling to come, and any of the FDA’s indiscretions regarding BPA regulation.

How Can the Public Help?

If you are interested in having your voice heard regarding the FDA’s BPA ruling delays, or in general want to show your concern about BPA’s toxicity and its harmful effects on public health check out the FDA’s information on public comment. You can also email the FDA’s spokesman, Michael Herndon at Michael.Herndon@fda.hhs.gov.

Also, contact your local government representatives and senators–let them know you will not stand for unsafe products and raised health risks, especially those in infants, young children, and pregnant women. The new documentary film on the bottle water industry, Tapped, has a great link under the tab “Take Action” for finding senators and representatives in your area.

StainlessWaterBottles.com is Here to Help!

All of the stainless steel water bottles found on StainlessWaterBottles.com (SWB) are completely BPA free, safe for your health and the environment, and 100% recyclable. Dr. Ben and the SWB staff strongly recommend using stainless steel reusable water bottles or glass bottles instead of containers that could potentially leach BPA into your food or beverages.

Dr. Ben and StainlessWaterBottles.com are Here to Help!

If you have any questions or comments regarding the FDA’s delays on the BPA ruling let us know, Dr. Ben and the staff at StainlessWaterBottles.com are here to help! Feel free to call us at (800) 594-4916, comment down below, or email us at any time.