Jan 15: In a letter to Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Margaret Hamburg, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) President Ken Cook questions why FDA has remained silent when other Federal public health and environmental agencies have targeted the plastics ingredient bisphenol A (BPA) as a chemical of concern to human health [See WIMS 6/10/08].
Cook wrote, “Other federal agencies have singled out BPA as a major focus of research and potential regulation. In December, the National Institutes for Environmental Health Sciences launched a $14 million research initiative in hopes of filling in the research gaps about the human health risk of BPA. The Environmental Protection Agency has identified BPA as a possible human health threat and priority for risk assessment. Yet the FDA has remained silent. How much more does the FDA need to know to be convinced it must protect the national food supply from further contamination? We urge you to act now to prohibit the use of BPA in food and food containers.”
In a release, EWG notes that Cook’s letter to Hamburg came only days after British scientists reported finding that Americans with high concentrations of BPA in their urine were more likely to report having heart disease or diabetes than people with lower BPA measurements. EWG indicates that authoritative studies by U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that nearly all Americans test positive for traces of BPA. An EWG study released late last year detected BPA in the umbilical cord blood of 9 of 10 infants born in 2007 and 2008. Cook wrote to Hamburg, “We cannot quantify the cost to our society, in terms of medical bills, lost productivity and troubled lives. But we are sure of this: the price, whatever it is, is too high, and it is unnecessary.”
In major breaking news the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and FDA announced today (January 15) that it has "some concern" about BPA and will undertake new research. In a posting entitled, "Bisphenol A (BPA) Information for Parents" on the DHHS website it was indicated, ". . .recent studies have reported subtle effects of low doses of BPA in laboratory animals. While BPA is not proven to harm children or adults, these newer studies have led federal health officials to express some concern about the safety of BPA. It is clear that the government and scientists and doctors need more research to better understand the potential human health effects of exposure to BPA, especially when it comes to the impact of BPA exposure on young children.
"The Department of Health and Human Services -- through its Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) -- is investing in important new health studies in both animals and humans to better determine and evaluate the potential health effects of BPA exposure, including $30 million in studies at NIH. We expect to have the results of this scientific research in approximately 18 to 24 months. While we learn more, the Food and Drug Administration is supporting current efforts by industry to stop the manufacture of infant bottles and feeding cups made with BPA from the U.S. market. The FDA is also seeking to strengthen its oversight of BPA so the agency can respond quickly, if necessary, when more scientific evidence becomes available."
Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA), Chair of the House Energy & Commerce Committee, issued a brief statement saying, "The announcement today by the Obama Administration regarding BPA is a very positive step that sets us back on a path of science-based decision-making. I am pleased that the Administration is taking the steps necessary to ensure that the public health is protected. We need to do a more effective job of preventing harmful chemicals from entering the marketplace, and for this reason, I look forward to considering reforms of the Toxic Substances Control Act in the coming months."
Environmental Health News (EHN) reported that, "FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg said that her agency has embraced the conclusion of the National Toxicology Program, which announced two years ago after a review of the science that there is “some concern” about developmental and reproductive problems in children exposed to BPA." EHN said the announcement is "a major shift for the agency because two years ago it concluded that BPA was safe. The FDA at that time agreed with the plastics industry, which maintained that the animal studies were flawed and that there was no evidence that human babies were in danger."
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) issued a statement in reaction to the Health and Human Services (HHS) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announcement on BPA and said, “The HHS statement today confirms that exposure to BPA in food contact products has not been proven harmful to children or adults. However, the agency suggests that more research needs to be done and provided guidance on how parents can choose to limit infant exposures. . .
“ACC and our members are committed to the safety of our products, and we will continue to support laws and regulations that protect consumer safety. While ACC recognizes that HHS and FDA are attempting to address public confusion about BPA, we are disappointed that some of the recommendations are likely to worry consumers and are not well-founded. Plastics made with BPA contribute safety and convenience to our daily lives because of their durability, clarity and shatter-resistance. Can liners and food-storage containers made with BPA are essential components to helping protect the safety of packaged foods and preserving products from spoilage and contamination. ACC remains committed to consumer safety, and will continue to review new scientific studies concerning the safety of BPA.”
Access a release from EWG including the complete letter and an attachment with further details (click here). Access the posting from DHHS with links to additional information (click here). Access the FDA website on BPA research and today's update (click here). Access the statement from Rep. Waxman (click here). Access the article from Environmental Health News (click here). Access the statement and links to more information from ACC (click here).
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query BPA. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query BPA. Sort by date Show all posts
Friday, January 15, 2010
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
House Hearing On Safety of Phthalates and Bisphenol A
Jun 10: The House Energy & Commerce Committee, Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection, Chaired by Representative Bobby Rush (D-IL) held a hearing entitled, Safety of Phthalates and Bisphenol-A in Everyday Consumer Products. Witnesses testifying at the hearing included representatives of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, Food and Drug Administration, National Toxicology Program, U.S. EPA, American Chemistry Council, Science and Environmental Health Network, California Department of Toxic Substances Control, and the Center for Health, Environment and Justice.
Representative John Dingell (D-MI), Chairman of the Full Committee issued a statement saying, "Phthalates are a family of chemicals with more than a dozen individual formulas that are used to make plastics soft. They are used in everything from bathtub mats to toys. Bisphenol-A, or BPA for short, is a component of polycarbonate plastic used to make it hard and shatter proof. It is used in baby bottles and teething rings but also in bicycle helmets and car safety seats. These components have been around for about 50 years, but recent studies have raised significant concerns about the risks posed by use of these substances in certain consumer products and the impact of these and similar substances on human health, especially where fetuses, infants, and young children are concerned. Consumer groups are asking policymakers to take steps to ban these substances in consumer products. . . It is extremely important that Congress, with the help of Government and other scientists, adequately assess the hazards posed by phthalates and BPA, and also to determine the safety of alternative chemicals for essential consumer products. Today’s hearing is a crucial first step in that process.”
WIMS reported on June 9, that on May 29, Health Canada responded to recent concerns about one of the chemicals, bisphenol A (BPA) in canned food, and said, "Based on the scientific evidence available to date, Health Canada does not recommend that consumers make any changes to their dietary habits as a result of the occurrence of trace levels of BPA in canned foods. Consumers should feel confident that canned foods are safe and can continue to be part of a balanced diet. . ." On June 6, in response to the Health Canada announcement, the American Chemistry Council (ACC) issued a statement applauding the Canadian announcement and said, "BPA is one of the most extensively tested of all substances with a track record of safety that spans more than 50 years [See WIMS 6/9/08].
Dr. L. Earl Gray Jr., senior reproductive biologist and toxicologist in the Reproductive Toxicology Division of EPA’s National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory in the Office of Research and Development testified and said his testimony represent his personal views as a scientist and do not necessarily the position of EPA or the Administration. He said, "I have different levels of concern for these two classes of EDCs, with a higher level of concern for some phthalates than for BPA." Regarding phthalates he said he had "concern" for children and women of child-bearing age and "serious concern for children and pregnant exposed to phthalates by medical interventions." Regarding BPA he said he had "some concern" for neural and behavioral effects, and "minimal to negligible concern for other effects."
FDA testified that, "Although the Agency’s review of the newly available reports is continuing, a large body of available evidence indicates that currently-marketed food contact materials containing BPA are safe, and that exposure to BPA from food contact materials, including exposures for infants and children, are below the levels that may cause health effects. We are actively reviewing the data on BPA and will continue to consider the relevance of new data and studies as they appear."
The National Toxicology Program (NTP) submitted 180 pages of testimony and said in part, "There are a number of uncertainties in the scientific information on BPA. The literature from experimental animal studies is large, but with many conflicting findings. Moreover, there are insufficient data from studies in humans to determine directly whether BPA is affecting human reproductive health." On phthalates, NTP said, "The fact that specific phthalates can adversely affect reproduction has been known for more than 25 years, and it is now known is that fetal animals are more sensitive than newborn animals, which in turn are more sensitive than older animals. Since the late 1990s it has been known that certain phthalates specifically affect development of the male reproductive system. Not all phthalates produce adverse reproductive effects in animal studies. . ."
ACC in 31-pages of testimony said, "These materials have been in use for decades. They have been subjected to extensive study worldwide, including by independent researchers as well as government agencies, and scientific review is ongoing. U.S. regulatory agencies charged with regulating these compounds in various applications, after reviewing the large body of scientific data, have reached conclusions supporting their safe use in important applications. The scientific evidence supports the continued use of these important materials."
The Center for Health, Environment and Justice testified that, "Phthalates have been linked to reproductive problems including shorter pregnancy duration and premature breast development in girls and sperm damage and impaired reproductive development in males. . . Safer cost-effective alternatives exist such as PVC-free toys that are manufactured without phthalates as well as phthalate-free plasticizers. . . the European Union and many countries around the world have restricted the use of phthalates in children’s toys. Yet, these chemicals continue to be used in our children’s toys and baby products here in the United States. . .
In the absence of federal action, an increasing number of U.S. states are introducing legislation to ban phthalates and bisphenol A."
On March 6, 2008, the full U.S. Senate approved an amendment by U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) that would impose a nationwide ban on phthalates in children’s toys and products. The amendment (SA 4104) was approved by voice vote in the Consumer Product Safety Modernization Act (S. 2663/H.R. 4040) bill that passed the Senate on March 6, by a vote of 79-13 [See WIMS 3/7/08]. At that time, Senator Feinstein said, “This is a big victory for parents of small children. It will implement a nationwide ban on toys and products that contain these dangerous chemicals. Europe and California have already stepped forward and made sure that toys laden with phthalates are kept away from the hands and mouths of young children. America’s parents should be able to have the same peace of mind that the toys they buy for their children are safe.”
Access the hearing website for links to all testimony (click here). Access the complete statement from Chairman Dingell (click here). Access the Health Canada release and link to additional information (click here). Access the U.S. Senate hearing website for links to all testimony (click here). Access the House Committee's Bisphenol A inquiry website for additional information (click here). Access the FDA BPA information website with links to additional information (click here). Access a release from Senator Feinstein listing supporting organizations and other countries banning phthalates (click here). Access legislative details for S. 2663 (click here). Access several posting on the WIMS eNewsUSA Blog on BPA issues (click here). [*Toxics]
Update: October 29, 2008 - A special Subcommittee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Science Board that provides advice primarily to the Commissioner of the FDA and other appropriate officials on specific complex and technical issues has found considerable fault with the draft assessment prepared by the FDA of bisphenol A (BPA) for use in food contact applications [See WIMS 6/10/08, Update September 3]. The temporary Subcommittee was established by the Science Board and consists of two members of the Science Advisory Board and five scientists drawn from academia and government agencies. The focus of the Subcommittee was to provide scientific peer-review of the FDA draft assessment of BPA.
Update: September 3, 2008 - The National Toxicology Program (NTP) Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction (CERHR) released its final report on the potential human reproductive and developmental effects of BPA which provides the NTP's current opinion on BPA's potential to cause harm to human reproduction or development. The report says that current human exposure to bisphenol A (BPA), is of "some concern" for effects on development of the prostate gland and brain and for behavioral effects in fetuses, infants and children. Other recent research from the University of Cincinnati and Yale University suggest new concerns (see links below).
Access a release from NIEHS (click here). Access the complete BPA final report (click here). Access a summary of the NTP evaluation of BPA (click here). Access the FDA draft BPA assessment (click here). Access a release on the UC research (click here). Access a release on the Yale study (click here). Access the FDA statement on the Subcommittee report (click here). Access the Subcommittee's Report (click here). Access the Subcommittee's Briefing Information website for links to extensive BPA documentation (click here). Access the FDA website on BPA with links to additional information (click here).
Representative John Dingell (D-MI), Chairman of the Full Committee issued a statement saying, "Phthalates are a family of chemicals with more than a dozen individual formulas that are used to make plastics soft. They are used in everything from bathtub mats to toys. Bisphenol-A, or BPA for short, is a component of polycarbonate plastic used to make it hard and shatter proof. It is used in baby bottles and teething rings but also in bicycle helmets and car safety seats. These components have been around for about 50 years, but recent studies have raised significant concerns about the risks posed by use of these substances in certain consumer products and the impact of these and similar substances on human health, especially where fetuses, infants, and young children are concerned. Consumer groups are asking policymakers to take steps to ban these substances in consumer products. . . It is extremely important that Congress, with the help of Government and other scientists, adequately assess the hazards posed by phthalates and BPA, and also to determine the safety of alternative chemicals for essential consumer products. Today’s hearing is a crucial first step in that process.”
WIMS reported on June 9, that on May 29, Health Canada responded to recent concerns about one of the chemicals, bisphenol A (BPA) in canned food, and said, "Based on the scientific evidence available to date, Health Canada does not recommend that consumers make any changes to their dietary habits as a result of the occurrence of trace levels of BPA in canned foods. Consumers should feel confident that canned foods are safe and can continue to be part of a balanced diet. . ." On June 6, in response to the Health Canada announcement, the American Chemistry Council (ACC) issued a statement applauding the Canadian announcement and said, "BPA is one of the most extensively tested of all substances with a track record of safety that spans more than 50 years [See WIMS 6/9/08].
Dr. L. Earl Gray Jr., senior reproductive biologist and toxicologist in the Reproductive Toxicology Division of EPA’s National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory in the Office of Research and Development testified and said his testimony represent his personal views as a scientist and do not necessarily the position of EPA or the Administration. He said, "I have different levels of concern for these two classes of EDCs, with a higher level of concern for some phthalates than for BPA." Regarding phthalates he said he had "concern" for children and women of child-bearing age and "serious concern for children and pregnant exposed to phthalates by medical interventions." Regarding BPA he said he had "some concern" for neural and behavioral effects, and "minimal to negligible concern for other effects."
FDA testified that, "Although the Agency’s review of the newly available reports is continuing, a large body of available evidence indicates that currently-marketed food contact materials containing BPA are safe, and that exposure to BPA from food contact materials, including exposures for infants and children, are below the levels that may cause health effects. We are actively reviewing the data on BPA and will continue to consider the relevance of new data and studies as they appear."
The National Toxicology Program (NTP) submitted 180 pages of testimony and said in part, "There are a number of uncertainties in the scientific information on BPA. The literature from experimental animal studies is large, but with many conflicting findings. Moreover, there are insufficient data from studies in humans to determine directly whether BPA is affecting human reproductive health." On phthalates, NTP said, "The fact that specific phthalates can adversely affect reproduction has been known for more than 25 years, and it is now known is that fetal animals are more sensitive than newborn animals, which in turn are more sensitive than older animals. Since the late 1990s it has been known that certain phthalates specifically affect development of the male reproductive system. Not all phthalates produce adverse reproductive effects in animal studies. . ."
ACC in 31-pages of testimony said, "These materials have been in use for decades. They have been subjected to extensive study worldwide, including by independent researchers as well as government agencies, and scientific review is ongoing. U.S. regulatory agencies charged with regulating these compounds in various applications, after reviewing the large body of scientific data, have reached conclusions supporting their safe use in important applications. The scientific evidence supports the continued use of these important materials."
The Center for Health, Environment and Justice testified that, "Phthalates have been linked to reproductive problems including shorter pregnancy duration and premature breast development in girls and sperm damage and impaired reproductive development in males. . . Safer cost-effective alternatives exist such as PVC-free toys that are manufactured without phthalates as well as phthalate-free plasticizers. . . the European Union and many countries around the world have restricted the use of phthalates in children’s toys. Yet, these chemicals continue to be used in our children’s toys and baby products here in the United States. . .
In the absence of federal action, an increasing number of U.S. states are introducing legislation to ban phthalates and bisphenol A."
On March 6, 2008, the full U.S. Senate approved an amendment by U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) that would impose a nationwide ban on phthalates in children’s toys and products. The amendment (SA 4104) was approved by voice vote in the Consumer Product Safety Modernization Act (S. 2663/H.R. 4040) bill that passed the Senate on March 6, by a vote of 79-13 [See WIMS 3/7/08]. At that time, Senator Feinstein said, “This is a big victory for parents of small children. It will implement a nationwide ban on toys and products that contain these dangerous chemicals. Europe and California have already stepped forward and made sure that toys laden with phthalates are kept away from the hands and mouths of young children. America’s parents should be able to have the same peace of mind that the toys they buy for their children are safe.”
Access the hearing website for links to all testimony (click here). Access the complete statement from Chairman Dingell (click here). Access the Health Canada release and link to additional information (click here). Access the U.S. Senate hearing website for links to all testimony (click here). Access the House Committee's Bisphenol A inquiry website for additional information (click here). Access the FDA BPA information website with links to additional information (click here). Access a release from Senator Feinstein listing supporting organizations and other countries banning phthalates (click here). Access legislative details for S. 2663 (click here). Access several posting on the WIMS eNewsUSA Blog on BPA issues (click here). [*Toxics]
Update: October 29, 2008 - A special Subcommittee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Science Board that provides advice primarily to the Commissioner of the FDA and other appropriate officials on specific complex and technical issues has found considerable fault with the draft assessment prepared by the FDA of bisphenol A (BPA) for use in food contact applications [See WIMS 6/10/08, Update September 3]. The temporary Subcommittee was established by the Science Board and consists of two members of the Science Advisory Board and five scientists drawn from academia and government agencies. The focus of the Subcommittee was to provide scientific peer-review of the FDA draft assessment of BPA.
Update: September 3, 2008 - The National Toxicology Program (NTP) Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction (CERHR) released its final report on the potential human reproductive and developmental effects of BPA which provides the NTP's current opinion on BPA's potential to cause harm to human reproduction or development. The report says that current human exposure to bisphenol A (BPA), is of "some concern" for effects on development of the prostate gland and brain and for behavioral effects in fetuses, infants and children. Other recent research from the University of Cincinnati and Yale University suggest new concerns (see links below).
Access a release from NIEHS (click here). Access the complete BPA final report (click here). Access a summary of the NTP evaluation of BPA (click here). Access the FDA draft BPA assessment (click here). Access a release on the UC research (click here). Access a release on the Yale study (click here). Access the FDA statement on the Subcommittee report (click here). Access the Subcommittee's Report (click here). Access the Subcommittee's Briefing Information website for links to extensive BPA documentation (click here). Access the FDA website on BPA with links to additional information (click here).
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
EWG Says Common Industrial Chemical Linked To Birth Defects
Mar 5: The Environmental Working Group (EWG) released a report saying that an industrial chemical used to line cans of foods is linked to birth defects and was found in more than half of the samples of canned fruit, vegetables, soda, and baby formula from supermarket shelves. EWG said a comprehensive independent laboratory analysis conducted for EWG found bisphenol A (BPA), in 55 of 97 cans of food purchased from major supermarket chains in California, Connecticut and Georgia. The lab tested 27 national name brands and three store brands. Further, the tests found that pregnant women and infants who eat even a single serving of some canned foods are exposed to unsafe doses of BPA. Of the foods tested -- which included many of the canned foods eaten most often by women of childbearing age -- BPA levels were highest in canned pasta and soup. Canned infant formula also had high levels. Just one to three servings of food with these BPA levels could expose a pregnant woman or infant to harmful doses of the chemical.
EWG said the potential for BPA to cause birth defects and reproductive harm is being evaluated today (March 5) by a Federal advisory panel at the Center for Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction (CERHR), a division of the National Institutes of Health [See WIMS 2/26/07]. On February 28, EWG raised major concerns about the integrity of CERHR science and conflicts of interest on the part of a Center contractor, Sciences International (SI) [See WIMS 2/28/07]. SI plays a major management role in CERHR operations while at the same time doing business with a client base that includes manufacturers of chemicals under review by the Center, including BPA.
BPA is an ingredient in plastics and the epoxy resins that line food cans. It also has many other common uses in CDs, DVDs, electrical and electronic equipment, automobiles, and sports safety equipment. EWG said that low doses of BPA lead to a range of health problems, including birth defects of the male and female reproductive systems in laboratory animals. EWG said that despite the growing evidence of risk to human health, there are no limits on the amount of BPA allowed in canned food. Jane Houlihan, vice president for research at EWG said, "BPA reads like a case study of how badly our chemical safety system is broken. We've known it's toxic for 75 years, it's polluting the bodies of almost all Americans, but we allow it in our food at levels that leave no margin of safety for pregnant women and young children."
An independent panel of 15 scientists convened by CERHR, is reviewing recent scientific data and reaching conclusions regarding whether or not exposure to the commonly used chemical is hazardous to human development or reproduction. The expert panel is meeting March 5-7 to review and revise the draft expert panel report on BPA, and write its summary, conclusions and critical data needs. The 2.5 day scientific meeting is open to members of the public and the media.
Access a release, extensive background information including the conflict charges and the report from EWG (click here). Access a CERHR release on the review meeting (click here). Access details about the meeting, including panelists and agenda (click here). Access the CERHR BPA Draft 372-page report (click here). [*Toxics]
EWG said the potential for BPA to cause birth defects and reproductive harm is being evaluated today (March 5) by a Federal advisory panel at the Center for Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction (CERHR), a division of the National Institutes of Health [See WIMS 2/26/07]. On February 28, EWG raised major concerns about the integrity of CERHR science and conflicts of interest on the part of a Center contractor, Sciences International (SI) [See WIMS 2/28/07]. SI plays a major management role in CERHR operations while at the same time doing business with a client base that includes manufacturers of chemicals under review by the Center, including BPA.
BPA is an ingredient in plastics and the epoxy resins that line food cans. It also has many other common uses in CDs, DVDs, electrical and electronic equipment, automobiles, and sports safety equipment. EWG said that low doses of BPA lead to a range of health problems, including birth defects of the male and female reproductive systems in laboratory animals. EWG said that despite the growing evidence of risk to human health, there are no limits on the amount of BPA allowed in canned food. Jane Houlihan, vice president for research at EWG said, "BPA reads like a case study of how badly our chemical safety system is broken. We've known it's toxic for 75 years, it's polluting the bodies of almost all Americans, but we allow it in our food at levels that leave no margin of safety for pregnant women and young children."
An independent panel of 15 scientists convened by CERHR, is reviewing recent scientific data and reaching conclusions regarding whether or not exposure to the commonly used chemical is hazardous to human development or reproduction. The expert panel is meeting March 5-7 to review and revise the draft expert panel report on BPA, and write its summary, conclusions and critical data needs. The 2.5 day scientific meeting is open to members of the public and the media.
Access a release, extensive background information including the conflict charges and the report from EWG (click here). Access a CERHR release on the review meeting (click here). Access details about the meeting, including panelists and agenda (click here). Access the CERHR BPA Draft 372-page report (click here). [*Toxics]
Friday, January 25, 2008
House Begins Investigation Into Bisphenol-A (BPA)
Jan 17: Representatives John Dingell (D-MI), Chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and Bart Stupak (D-MI), Chair of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, have begun an inquiry with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the manufacturers of infant products regarding bisphenol-A (BPA). The two sent letters to seven manufacturers and the FDA asking questions and requesting information within two weeks. The inquiry focuses on the use of BPA in plastic baby bottles and to line cans that contain infant formula and possible leaching into the infant formula. As well, the letters request information on FDA's review of bisphenol A.
On December 5, 2007, a new investigation by Environmental Working Group (EWG) revealed that BPA is used to line nearly all infant formula cans. They said BPA levels found in liquid formula are likely to be far higher than those that leach from bottles under normal use.
On November 30, 2007, the National Toxicology Program (NTP); Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction (CERHR); issued a Federal Register announcement [72 FR 67730-67731] indicating the availability of the Final 396-page bisphenol A Expert Panel Report and also requested comments on the report by January 25, 2008 [See WIMS 11/26/07]. The expert panel report is an evaluation of the reproductive and developmental toxicity of bisphenol A conducted by an independent, 12-member expert panel composed of scientists from the public and private sectors convened by CERHR.
Access links to the letters from Representatives Dingell and Stupak (click here). Access several posting on the WIMS eNewsUSA Blog on BPA issues (click here). Access a release from EWG for links to its complete study, an executive summary and on-line guide for parents (click here). Access the EWG website on BPA for additional information (click here). Access the 396-page final bisphenol A report (click here). [*Toxics]
On December 5, 2007, a new investigation by Environmental Working Group (EWG) revealed that BPA is used to line nearly all infant formula cans. They said BPA levels found in liquid formula are likely to be far higher than those that leach from bottles under normal use.
On November 30, 2007, the National Toxicology Program (NTP); Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction (CERHR); issued a Federal Register announcement [72 FR 67730-67731] indicating the availability of the Final 396-page bisphenol A Expert Panel Report and also requested comments on the report by January 25, 2008 [See WIMS 11/26/07]. The expert panel report is an evaluation of the reproductive and developmental toxicity of bisphenol A conducted by an independent, 12-member expert panel composed of scientists from the public and private sectors convened by CERHR.
Access links to the letters from Representatives Dingell and Stupak (click here). Access several posting on the WIMS eNewsUSA Blog on BPA issues (click here). Access a release from EWG for links to its complete study, an executive summary and on-line guide for parents (click here). Access the EWG website on BPA for additional information (click here). Access the 396-page final bisphenol A report (click here). [*Toxics]
Wednesday, August 08, 2007
Controversy Over Bisphenol A Continues
Aug 8: The National Toxicology Program (NTP), Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction (CERHR), second Bisphenol A (BPA) Expert Panel Meeting being held on August 6–8, 2007, in Alexandria, VA continues to generate controversy. The highly complex, 417-page, interim draft expert panel report containing sections 1–4 is currently being reviewed [See WIMS 6/27/07].
Bisphenol A (CAS RN: 80–5–07) is a high production volume chemical used in the production of epoxy resins, polyester resins, polysulfone resins, polyacrylate resins, polycarbonate plastics, and flame retardants. Polycarbonate plastics are used in food and drink packaging; resins are used as lacquers to coat metal products such as food cans, bottle tops, and water supply pipes. Some polymers used in dental sealants and tooth coatings contain bisphenol A. Exposure to the general population can occur through direct contact to bisphenol A or by exposure to food or drink that has been in contact with a material containing bisphenol A.
The Environmental Working Group (EWG) issued a release on August 6, indicating "...the CERHR assessment -- prepared in part by a contractor since fired over concerns about conflicts of interest -- fails to meet the most basic scientific standards, even as independent scientists have declared BPA a clear risk to human health." EWG said the draft report "contains hundreds of potential errors of fact and interpretation, inconsistencies, and biases. The independent scientists who reviewed the latest CERHR draft documented pervasive and fundamental errors throughout, identifying almost 300 potential errors and 195 instances of incomplete reviews, as well as at least 48 basic inconsistencies."
Meanwhile, the Polycarbonate/BPA Global Group of the American Chemistry Council (ACC) said it supports the sound scientific evaluation process of the CERHR and said they were "dismayed by the report on bisphenol A published on-line this week in the journal Reproductive Toxicology." According to a consensus statement from a panel of researchers contributing to the journal report, the low doses of BPA during pregnancy can have profound effects on fetal prostate, breast, testicle, mammary glands and brain development in animals.
Steven Hentges, Ph.D., of the ACC Polycarbonate/BPA Global Group said, “When the safety of common consumer products is in question, public health interests are best served by a rigorous, open and transparent scientific evaluation in which conflicts of interest and bias are tightly controlled and reported. The evaluation process used by CERHR was designed to meet these criteria and has been successfully applied for many years."
ACC said, unlike CERHR, the competing evaluation was conducted in a closed process with no opportunity for public input or participation. They said, "Although conclusions are represented as a scientific consensus, conflicts of interest and the potential for bias are apparent in the list of authors, which includes several with well established positions who have actively advocated against bisphenol A."
In March, EWG) released a report saying that the industrial chemical used to line cans of foods is linked to birth defects and was found in more than half of the samples of canned fruit, vegetables, soda, and baby formula from supermarket shelves. EWG said a comprehensive independent laboratory analysis conducted for EWG found bisphenol A, in 55 of 97 cans of food purchased from major supermarket chains in California, Connecticut and Georgia [See WIMS 3/6/07].
Access extensive information on the August 6-8 expert panel meeting (click here). Access a release from EWG with links to further information (click here). Access a release from ACC with links to further information (click here). Access information on the journal article (click here). Access the NTP BPA website for links to meeting announcements and the complete draft report (click here). Access various recent media report on BPA (click here). [*Toxics]
Bisphenol A (CAS RN: 80–5–07) is a high production volume chemical used in the production of epoxy resins, polyester resins, polysulfone resins, polyacrylate resins, polycarbonate plastics, and flame retardants. Polycarbonate plastics are used in food and drink packaging; resins are used as lacquers to coat metal products such as food cans, bottle tops, and water supply pipes. Some polymers used in dental sealants and tooth coatings contain bisphenol A. Exposure to the general population can occur through direct contact to bisphenol A or by exposure to food or drink that has been in contact with a material containing bisphenol A.
The Environmental Working Group (EWG) issued a release on August 6, indicating "...the CERHR assessment -- prepared in part by a contractor since fired over concerns about conflicts of interest -- fails to meet the most basic scientific standards, even as independent scientists have declared BPA a clear risk to human health." EWG said the draft report "contains hundreds of potential errors of fact and interpretation, inconsistencies, and biases. The independent scientists who reviewed the latest CERHR draft documented pervasive and fundamental errors throughout, identifying almost 300 potential errors and 195 instances of incomplete reviews, as well as at least 48 basic inconsistencies."
Meanwhile, the Polycarbonate/BPA Global Group of the American Chemistry Council (ACC) said it supports the sound scientific evaluation process of the CERHR and said they were "dismayed by the report on bisphenol A published on-line this week in the journal Reproductive Toxicology." According to a consensus statement from a panel of researchers contributing to the journal report, the low doses of BPA during pregnancy can have profound effects on fetal prostate, breast, testicle, mammary glands and brain development in animals.
Steven Hentges, Ph.D., of the ACC Polycarbonate/BPA Global Group said, “When the safety of common consumer products is in question, public health interests are best served by a rigorous, open and transparent scientific evaluation in which conflicts of interest and bias are tightly controlled and reported. The evaluation process used by CERHR was designed to meet these criteria and has been successfully applied for many years."
ACC said, unlike CERHR, the competing evaluation was conducted in a closed process with no opportunity for public input or participation. They said, "Although conclusions are represented as a scientific consensus, conflicts of interest and the potential for bias are apparent in the list of authors, which includes several with well established positions who have actively advocated against bisphenol A."
In March, EWG) released a report saying that the industrial chemical used to line cans of foods is linked to birth defects and was found in more than half of the samples of canned fruit, vegetables, soda, and baby formula from supermarket shelves. EWG said a comprehensive independent laboratory analysis conducted for EWG found bisphenol A, in 55 of 97 cans of food purchased from major supermarket chains in California, Connecticut and Georgia [See WIMS 3/6/07].
Access extensive information on the August 6-8 expert panel meeting (click here). Access a release from EWG with links to further information (click here). Access a release from ACC with links to further information (click here). Access information on the journal article (click here). Access the NTP BPA website for links to meeting announcements and the complete draft report (click here). Access various recent media report on BPA (click here). [*Toxics]
Thursday, August 09, 2007
Bisphenol A Panel Makes Conclusions; Sides Divided
Aug 9: The National Toxicology Program (NTP) Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction (CERHR) expert panel that met on August 6-8, 2007, in Alexandria, Virginia to evaluate an extensive Bisphenol A report, has posted a summary of its meeting [See WIMS 8/8/07]. This was the second public meeting of the expert panel, a group of 12 independent scientists convened to review and assess scientific studies on the potential reproductive and developmental hazards of Bisphenol A. The review has been highly controversial as previous reported. The panel divided its conclusions into three categories: For pregnant women and fetuses; For infants and children; and For adults.
According to the conclusions for pregnant women and fetuses the Expert Panel expressed: some concern that exposure to Bisphenol A in utero causes neural and behavioral effects; expressed minimal concern that exposure to Bisphenol A in utero causes effects on the prostate; minimal concern that exposure to Bisphenol A in utero potentially causes accelerations in puberty; and negligible concern that exposure to Bisphenol A in utero produces birth defects and malformations.
For infants and children the Expert Panel expressed: some concern that exposure to Bisphenol A causes neural and behavioral effects; and minimal concern that exposure to Bisphenol A potentially causes accelerations in puberty.
For adults the Expert Panel expressed: negligible concern for adverse reproductive effects following exposures in the general population to Bisphenol A. For highly exposed subgroups, such as occupationally exposed populations, the level of concern is elevated to minimal.
The Environmental Working Group (EWG) Senior Scientist Dr. Anila Jacob, MD, MPH, issued a statement in response to the panel saying they "largely ignore wide ranging scientific research connecting human health risks with exposure to Bisphenol-A (BPA). The panel instead endorsed an error riddled, industry influenced 'report' minimizing the risks that BPA poses to humans."
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) issued a release saying the panel report "dramatically understates the human health risks from real-world exposure to the toxic chemical Bisphenol A (BPA)" and, NRDC’s senior scientist in Health and Environment Programs, Dr. Jennifer Sass, said, “If I were a committee member, I wouldn’t sign off on this broken report.”
To the contrary, Steven Hentges, Ph.D., of the American Chemistry Council’s Polycarbonate/BPA Global Group said, “The safety of our products is our top priority. The conclusions reported today provide strong reassurance to consumers that they are not at risk from use of products made from bisphenol A. Most importantly, these conclusions are from a very credible, highly qualified group of independent scientists with no conflicts of interest, operating in an open and transparent review process.”
NRDC also points out that a consensus statement, published in the journal Reproductive Toxicology, from 38 internationally recognized scientific experts saying, “The wide range of adverse effects of low doses of BPA in laboratory animals exposed both during development and in adulthood is a great cause for concern with regard to the potential for similar adverse effects in humans.” ACC was highly critical of the journal report, saying, "conflicts of interest and the potential for bias are apparent in the list of authors, which includes several with well established positions who have actively advocated against bisphenol A."
The next steps will be for the National Toxicology Program to compile all information, including the consensus data of the 38 experts and its own in-house experts to draft its final report.
Access extensive information on the August 6-8 expert panel meeting including the meeting summary (click here). Access a release from EWG (click here). Access a release from NRDC (click here). Access a release from ACC (click here). [*Toxics]
According to the conclusions for pregnant women and fetuses the Expert Panel expressed: some concern that exposure to Bisphenol A in utero causes neural and behavioral effects; expressed minimal concern that exposure to Bisphenol A in utero causes effects on the prostate; minimal concern that exposure to Bisphenol A in utero potentially causes accelerations in puberty; and negligible concern that exposure to Bisphenol A in utero produces birth defects and malformations.
For infants and children the Expert Panel expressed: some concern that exposure to Bisphenol A causes neural and behavioral effects; and minimal concern that exposure to Bisphenol A potentially causes accelerations in puberty.
For adults the Expert Panel expressed: negligible concern for adverse reproductive effects following exposures in the general population to Bisphenol A. For highly exposed subgroups, such as occupationally exposed populations, the level of concern is elevated to minimal.
The Environmental Working Group (EWG) Senior Scientist Dr. Anila Jacob, MD, MPH, issued a statement in response to the panel saying they "largely ignore wide ranging scientific research connecting human health risks with exposure to Bisphenol-A (BPA). The panel instead endorsed an error riddled, industry influenced 'report' minimizing the risks that BPA poses to humans."
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) issued a release saying the panel report "dramatically understates the human health risks from real-world exposure to the toxic chemical Bisphenol A (BPA)" and, NRDC’s senior scientist in Health and Environment Programs, Dr. Jennifer Sass, said, “If I were a committee member, I wouldn’t sign off on this broken report.”
To the contrary, Steven Hentges, Ph.D., of the American Chemistry Council’s Polycarbonate/BPA Global Group said, “The safety of our products is our top priority. The conclusions reported today provide strong reassurance to consumers that they are not at risk from use of products made from bisphenol A. Most importantly, these conclusions are from a very credible, highly qualified group of independent scientists with no conflicts of interest, operating in an open and transparent review process.”
NRDC also points out that a consensus statement, published in the journal Reproductive Toxicology, from 38 internationally recognized scientific experts saying, “The wide range of adverse effects of low doses of BPA in laboratory animals exposed both during development and in adulthood is a great cause for concern with regard to the potential for similar adverse effects in humans.” ACC was highly critical of the journal report, saying, "conflicts of interest and the potential for bias are apparent in the list of authors, which includes several with well established positions who have actively advocated against bisphenol A."
The next steps will be for the National Toxicology Program to compile all information, including the consensus data of the 38 experts and its own in-house experts to draft its final report.
Access extensive information on the August 6-8 expert panel meeting including the meeting summary (click here). Access a release from EWG (click here). Access a release from NRDC (click here). Access a release from ACC (click here). [*Toxics]
Monday, March 23, 2015
[WIMS] Environmental HotSheet 3/23/15
| National / International News |
| <> Interior Department Releases Final Rule to Support Safe, Responsible Hydraulic Fracturing Activities on Public and Tribal Lands – 3/20/15. Following a robust and transparent public process that included more than 1.5 million public comments, Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell released final standards which she said will support safe and responsible hydraulic fracturing on public and American Indian lands -- commonsense standards will improve safety and help protect groundwater by updating requirements for well-bore integrity, wastewater disposal and public disclosure of chemicals.
|
| <> Noted Harvard Experts debate the constitutionality of the president's climate change plan - Noted constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe '66 says EPA's Clean Power Plan is unconstitutional; while Jody Freeman '91, Archibald Cox Professor of Law and director of the Environmental Law Program, and Richard Lazarus '79, Howard and Katherine Aibel Professor of Law, take an opposing view saying -- "Like most proposed rules, the Administration's climate rule is far from perfect, but sweeping assertions of unconstitutionality are baseless." |
| <> Sens. Feinstein, Leahy Introduce Bill to Ensure Consumers are Informed about BPA - Sens. Feinstein, Leahy Introduce Bill to Ensure Consumers are Informed about BPA - Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Patrick Leahy (D-VT) introduced the BPA in Food Packaging Right to Know Act to ensure consumers know whether the chemical Bisphenol-A is used in food packaging. |
| <> Case Update: Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency - 03/18/15 – In the |
| <> Glyphosate Classified Carcinogenic by International Cancer Agency, Group Calls on U.S. to End Herbicide's Use and Advance Alternatives - A national public health and environmental group, Beyond Pesticides, is calling on the U.S. EPA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to stop the use of the country's most popular herbicide, glyphosate -- produced and sold as Roundup by Monsanto |
| <> Reps. Introduce "Frack Pack" Bills to address the hydraulic fracturing - U.S. Reps. Matt Cartwright (D-PA-17), Diana DeGette (D-CO-01), Jared Polis (D-CO-02), and Jan Schakowsky (D-IL-09) said by closing loopholes, the "Frack Pack" bills (H.Rs.1460, 1482 & 1515 would hold the energy industry to the same standards that apply to everyone. |
| <> Governor Brown, Legislative Leaders Announce $1 Billion Emergency Drought Package - Mobilizing state resources to face another year of extreme dry conditions, Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. today joined Senate President pro Tempore Kevin de León, Assembly Speaker Toni Atkins, and Republican Leaders Senator Bob Huff and Assembly member Kristin Olsen to announce legislation to help local communities cope with the ongoing, devastating drought. |
| <> Statement From the Trustee Council on the BP Five Year Report - In a news statement BP claims that the "…Gulf environment (is) returning to pre-spill conditions" although the Deepwater Horizon oil spill Natural Resource Damage Assessment Trustees (NRDA Trustees) are still assessing the injury resulting from the largest offshore oil spill in our nation's history -- It is inappropriate as well as premature for BP to reach conclusions about impacts from the spill before the completion of the assessment. |
| <> Climate change: China official warns of 'huge impact' - Climate change could have a "huge impact" on China, reducing crop yields and harming the environment, the country's top weather scientist has warned, in a rare official admission. |
| <> Inhofe Calls to Question White House Hire from the Environmental Defense Fund - Sen. Inhofe said, "It appears highly inappropriate to have Ms. Ceronsky serve in any capacity interacting with EPA or otherwise involved in the development of these rules, considering her prior legal representation and advocacy on behalf of EDF before EPA on these very same matters." |
| |
| <> Consolidation Coal Company v. Georgia Power Company - 3/20/15. In the |
| Federal Register Highlights The following is an alert of Environmental Federal Register announcements that may be of interest. (Click here to access today's complete Federal Register index with links to complete announcements). |
| <> AIR QUALITY - Proposed Rule. U.S. EPA - Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards: State Implementation Plan Requirements |
| |
| <> Agency to fund input on lakeside nuke waste facility - The Joint Review Panel, which held hearings on a proposed deep geologic repository in 2013 and 2014, will submit its environmental assessment by May 6 -- the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency is offering funding to aboriginal groups and participants who would like a say in the conditions placed on the nuclear waste repository should it be approved. |
| <> Has the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Made a Difference? - Through the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI), our region has seen an investment of over $1.6 billion in projects designed to restore and protect the |
| <> Mott Foundation: Lessons from 35 Years of Supporting Community Foundations - The Great Lakes Protection Fund, the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation and the Joyce Foundation have long histories of supporting community foundations. |
| <> Industrial Water Stewardship – Creating a Positive Impact in the Great Lakes Region - How does an industrial facility know it is being responsible in its use of water? |
| |
| <> Snyder hits the road to push for passage of Proposal 1 - With just seven weeks left before Election Day, Gov. Rick Snyder last week began making the rounds to stump for a contentious ballot proposal that would generate $1.2 billion for Michigan's crumbling roads by increasing the state sales tax. |
| <> EPA will fund Krispin Drain project on Harsens Island - A project to restore the habitat and provide recreational opportunities on |
| <> Mercury collection program continues in Michigan this year - U.S. Ecology and The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Mercury Collection Project have announced residents and businesses of Michigan recycled 665 pounds of mercury in 2014 |
| <> Wind Energy and a 'no regrets' Energy Policy Vital to Michigan's Energy Security, says Michigan Eco-Tourism Leader – An interview with Jim MacInnes, president and CEO of Crystal Mountain Resort and Spa who has served as an energy policy advisor for Governors Granholm and Snyder and is nationally involved in energy conservation and renewable energy. |
| <> Michigan Coalition Against Tar Sands (MI CATS) Issues Manifesto - Line 6B is in the ground, the community in southwest Michigan is still reeling from the effects of the spill in 2010, and an increased volume of tar sands is flowing through southern Michigan with the intention of exporting it from terminals on the east coast. |
| Newly introduced bills and bills that are moving, if any, are listed below. Click on the bill number for complete status, full text, & analyses. Uppercase is Senate action; lowercase is House action. Otherwise, for a complete list of environmental legislation this session (click here). |
Tuesday, September 24, 2013
Medical Groups Urge Action To Reduce Toxic Exposure
Sep 23: The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (The College) and the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) issued a joint Committee Opinion indicating that "toxic chemicals in the environment harm our ability to reproduce, negatively affect pregnancies, and are associated with numerous other long-term health problems." The College and ASRM urge ob-gyns to advocate for government policy changes to identify and reduce exposure to toxic environmental agents.
Jeanne Conry, MD, PhD, president of The College said, "Lawmakers should require the US Environmental Protection Agency and industry to define and estimate the dangers that aggregate exposure to harmful chemicals pose to pregnant women, infants, and children and act to protect these vulnerable populations. Every pregnant woman in America is exposed to many different chemicals in the environment. Prenatal exposure to certain chemicals is linked to miscarriages, stillbirths, and birth defects." According to a release, many chemicals that pregnant women absorb or ingest from the environment can cross the placenta to the fetus. Exposure to mercury during pregnancy, for instance, is known to harm cognitive development in children.
The scientific evidence over the last 15 years shows that exposure to toxic environmental agents before conception and during pregnancy can have significant and long-lasting effects on reproductive health. Linda Giudice, MD, PhD, president of ASRM said, "For example, pesticide exposure in men is associated with poor semen quality, sterility, and prostate cancer. We also know that exposure to pesticides may interfere with puberty, menstruation and ovulation, fertility, and menopause in women."
The groups indicated that, other reproductive and health problems associated with exposure to toxic environmental agents include: Miscarriage and stillbirth; Impaired fetal growth and low birth weight; Preterm birth; Childhood cancers; Birth defects; Cognitive/intellectual impairment; and Thyroid problems. Approximately 700 new chemicals are introduced into the U.S. market each year, and more than 84,000 chemical substances are being used in manufacturing and processing or are being imported. Dr. Conry said, "The scary fact is that we don't have safety data on most of these chemicals even though they are everywhere -- in the air, water, soil, our food supply, and everyday products. Bisphenol A (BPA), a hormone disruptor, is a common toxic chemical contained in our food, packaging, and many consumer products. To successfully study the impact of these chemical exposures, we must shift the burden of proof from the individual health care provider and the consumer to the manufacturers before any chemicals are even released into the environment."
Jeanne Conry, MD, PhD, president of The College said, "Lawmakers should require the US Environmental Protection Agency and industry to define and estimate the dangers that aggregate exposure to harmful chemicals pose to pregnant women, infants, and children and act to protect these vulnerable populations. Every pregnant woman in America is exposed to many different chemicals in the environment. Prenatal exposure to certain chemicals is linked to miscarriages, stillbirths, and birth defects." According to a release, many chemicals that pregnant women absorb or ingest from the environment can cross the placenta to the fetus. Exposure to mercury during pregnancy, for instance, is known to harm cognitive development in children.
The scientific evidence over the last 15 years shows that exposure to toxic environmental agents before conception and during pregnancy can have significant and long-lasting effects on reproductive health. Linda Giudice, MD, PhD, president of ASRM said, "For example, pesticide exposure in men is associated with poor semen quality, sterility, and prostate cancer. We also know that exposure to pesticides may interfere with puberty, menstruation and ovulation, fertility, and menopause in women."
The groups indicated that, other reproductive and health problems associated with exposure to toxic environmental agents include: Miscarriage and stillbirth; Impaired fetal growth and low birth weight; Preterm birth; Childhood cancers; Birth defects; Cognitive/intellectual impairment; and Thyroid problems. Approximately 700 new chemicals are introduced into the U.S. market each year, and more than 84,000 chemical substances are being used in manufacturing and processing or are being imported. Dr. Conry said, "The scary fact is that we don't have safety data on most of these chemicals even though they are everywhere -- in the air, water, soil, our food supply, and everyday products. Bisphenol A (BPA), a hormone disruptor, is a common toxic chemical contained in our food, packaging, and many consumer products. To successfully study the impact of these chemical exposures, we must shift the burden of proof from the individual health care provider and the consumer to the manufacturers before any chemicals are even released into the environment."
The groups said certain groups of people and communities have higher exposures to harmful environmental chemicals than others. Dr. Conry said, "For example, women exposed to toxic chemicals at work are at higher risk of reproductive health problems than other women. Low-wage immigrants who work on farms have higher exposures to chemicals used on the crops that they harvest." Dr. Giudice said, "As reproductive health care physicians, we are in a unique position to help prevent prenatal exposure to toxic environmental agents by educating our patients about how to avoid them at home, in their community, and at work."
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) commented on the medical group concerns saying, "We support efforts to promote the health and well-being of pregnant women, infants and young children. We agree with the underlying premise of the Opinion that pregnant women and women who are trying to conceive should eat a healthy diet and be sensitive about the kinds of things they ingest or are exposed to. "However, we have serious concerns with the Opinion: "We are disappointed that the Opinion takes scientific consensus about highly-regulated substances like mercury or lead, and applies the conclusions about safety to other substances that both science and federal regulators tell us are used safely in consumer products.
"We are concerned that the Opinion inappropriately draws conclusions based on biomonitoring data that ignores the fact that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has stated that just because a chemical is present in the body, doesn't mean that it will cause effects or disease. And, we are concerned that the Opinion includes references to specific chemicals, which are based on a limited number of flawed studies, and ignores thorough scientific assessments that demonstrate safe use of these substances. For example, bisphenol A (BPA) is one of the most tested substances in use today and regulatory agencies around the world have repeatedly found that the evidence does not show a connection between typical exposure levels and health effects or disease. BPA is used to make the linings in food cans—food that's an important source of nutrition for millions of Americans -- to prevent contamination and food-borne illnesses. The FDA has examined this use and scientists at FDA tell us that the trace amounts we are exposed to from materials that keep our food safe, are safe for us.
"Women rely on their physicians for sound medical advice and access to reliable information. Creating confusion and alarm among expectant mothers will distract from the well-established steps doctors recommend to support a healthy pregnancy and a healthy baby. Chemicals are regulated by nearly a dozen federal laws today, and any new chemical must be reviewed and approved by the Environmental Protection Agency prior to manufacture. We share the group's interest in achieving policy reforms that will modernize and enhance federal chemical regulation. We are actively working with bipartisan leaders in Congress to achieve the first chemical regulatory reforms in decades, even as ACC member companies continuously improve industry product stewardship and safety programs."
"We are concerned that the Opinion inappropriately draws conclusions based on biomonitoring data that ignores the fact that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has stated that just because a chemical is present in the body, doesn't mean that it will cause effects or disease. And, we are concerned that the Opinion includes references to specific chemicals, which are based on a limited number of flawed studies, and ignores thorough scientific assessments that demonstrate safe use of these substances. For example, bisphenol A (BPA) is one of the most tested substances in use today and regulatory agencies around the world have repeatedly found that the evidence does not show a connection between typical exposure levels and health effects or disease. BPA is used to make the linings in food cans—food that's an important source of nutrition for millions of Americans -- to prevent contamination and food-borne illnesses. The FDA has examined this use and scientists at FDA tell us that the trace amounts we are exposed to from materials that keep our food safe, are safe for us.
"Women rely on their physicians for sound medical advice and access to reliable information. Creating confusion and alarm among expectant mothers will distract from the well-established steps doctors recommend to support a healthy pregnancy and a healthy baby. Chemicals are regulated by nearly a dozen federal laws today, and any new chemical must be reviewed and approved by the Environmental Protection Agency prior to manufacture. We share the group's interest in achieving policy reforms that will modernize and enhance federal chemical regulation. We are actively working with bipartisan leaders in Congress to achieve the first chemical regulatory reforms in decades, even as ACC member companies continuously improve industry product stewardship and safety programs."
Access a joint release from the groups with further details and multiple links to related information (click here). Access the complete statement from ACC and a video (click here). [#Toxics]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
