Bisphenol A, BPA News

The study, published in the Environmental Health Perspectives online journal, also reveals that data on the effects of BPA in rodents and primates are relevant to what researchers call human heath predictions.

The study examined the effects of BPA -- given orally in the same controlled doses -- to adult female rhesus macaques and adult female mice.

Researchers at the University of Missouri and the Washington State University then compared those findings to previously published data regarding BPA exposure in women.

In the study titled: Similarity of Bisphenol A Pharmacokinetics in Rhesus Monkeys and Mice: Relevance for Human Exposure researchers found what they consider major similarities in the way BPA is metabolized in women, female monkeys, and female mice. Those findings are important because they indicate that studies regarding the effects of BPA in rodents and primates are useful to regulatory agencies interpreting animal data on the safety of BPA exposure in humans.

Researchers made another grave finding in their study of the BPA, a controversial and widely-used industrial chemical found in baby bottles, sport drink containers, medical equipment, some dental sealants, and the liners in metal food cans and water supply pipes.

They found humans daily exposure to the endocrine disrupting chemical linked to heart disease, developmental problems, diabetes, obesity, and reproductive issues is much higher -- and from more sources -- than the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and other governmental agencies previously suspected.

Our data raise grave concern that regulatory agencies have grossly underestimated current human exposure levels, the study states. On this basis of our findings, we propose that the higher than predicted serum levels of unconjugated BPA in men and women reflect significant non-oral BPA exposure in addition to oral exposure.

This is consistent with other evidence suggesting that the consumption of BPA contaminated food and beverages alone is insufficient to account for the BPA levels reported in human biomonitoring studies, the study added.

Some of the non-oral ways people are exposed to BPA is through their skin, researchers said. One example of a recently identified source of human exposure to BPA is thermal (carbonless) paper receipts that could potentially result in trans-dermal exposure, the study states.

Childrens books and cigarette filters are other newly recognized routes of BPA exposure in humans. There is significant leaching of BPA from childrens books and BPA is also present in cigarette filters, raising the concern that inhalation of cigarette smoke may be another previously unrecognized source of exposure for individuals who smoke, the study found.

Safety questioned

But why should people care about their exposures to BPA? One reason, scientists say, is because the safety of the chemical remains under fire.

Some organizations say the chemical poses little to no risk to humans. But a large body of evidence links BPA to various health issues in humans and animals, the study noted.

Earlier this year, the FDA stated the agency has some concerns about the potential effects of BPA on the brain, behavior, and prostate gland in fetuses, infants, and young children.

The authors of this latest study urged regulators to identify all products that contain BPA.

Although much remains to be determined about the mechanisms of action of BPA, which varies depending upon the dose, tissue and the life stage of exposure, understanding the current levels of human exposure and the various routes of exposure to BPA, how BPA is metabolized, and whether animal models are relevant for modeling human exposure is critical to better understand the risk posed to humans, the study states. The urgent need for this information is underscored by the CDCs conclusion that over 90% of people in the USA are chronically exposed to BPA and the suggestion that this likely also applies to people living in other countries around the world.

The study added: Surprisingly, there are no data that directly bear on the question regarding sources and amounts of human exposure to BPA, and estimates of current daily BPA exposure levels vary widely.

ConsumerAffairs.com contacted a trade group for chemical makers about todays study. A spokesman for the American Chemistry Council (ACC) reiterated the organizations position that BPA does not pose harm to humans.

Consistent with previously published studies, including comprehensive studies by FDA researchers, this new study confirms that BPA is efficiently metabolized and rapidly eliminated from the body after oral exposure, the organizations Steven G. Hentges, Ph.D., said in a written statement.

The study also confirms that BPA does not bioaccumulate in the body. Although this new study did not measure human exposure to BPA, it does validate the findings from recent large-scale biomonitoring studies conducted by the US CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) and Health Canada. Both of these studies indicate that typical human exposure to BPA, from all sources, is 1,000 times or more lower than the safe intake limits set by government bodies around the world.

He added: Overall, this new study continues to support the conclusions of government bodies around the world that BPA does not pose a risk at the very low levels to which people might be exposed.

What to do?

But what about consumers who remain worried about their exposure to this hotly-debated chemical? What steps can they take to reduce their exposure to BPA?

The National Institute of Environmental Health Studies recommends the following:

• Use BPA-free baby bottles;

• Dont microwave food containers made with polycarbonate plastic. Polycarbonate may break down from over-use at high temperatures;

• Reduce the use of canned foods;

• Use food containers made of glass, porcelain, or stainless steel whenever possible, especially for hot foods and liquids;

• Avoid buying plastic products made with BPA. Those products may have the recycling number 7 on the bottom.

Ever since a study showed bisphenol A (BPA), a major molecule used in the plastic industry, was an endocrine disruptor that could exert negative effects on human health, it has been the focus of even more health studies.

The latest, by researchers in France, has found that an unborn child exposed to BPA can be at increased risk of lowered thyroid function. The findings are based on a study of newborn sheep.

Hypothyroidism is characterized by poor mental and physical performance in human adults and in children can result in cognitive impairment and failure to grow normally.

A new direction

The French study is actually a departure from more recent investigations, that have focused on reproductive functions. It points to evidence that BPA might have negative effects on other endocrine systems including thyroid function.

The current study used sheep, which researchers said was a relevant model for human pregnancy and thyroid regulation and ontogeny. It analyzed the internal exposures of the fetuses and their mothers to BPA and determined to what extent those exposures may be associated with thyroid disruption.

“Our study is the first to show that BPA can alter thyroid function of pregnant animals and their offspring in a long-gestation species with similar regulation of thyroid function as humans,” said Catherine Viguié, PhD, of Toxalim, Research Centre in Food Toxicology in Toulouse, France and lead author of the study.

Further study

Because of the potential consequences of maternal/fetal thyroid disruption on neural and cognitive development, Viguié thinks her study warrants the need for further investigations on the effect of BPA on thyroid function.

Though BPA once was in nearly every kind of plastic container, it's being found in fewer these days. In the wake of studies raising health questions, many manufacturers have eliminated their use of the substance, even though the food industry continues to back it.

Most recently many beverage companies have begun using plastic bottles made without BPA, which is a hardening agent. Other manufacturers have also removed it from many brands of infant formula bottles.

Previous research

Most of the recent studies point to BPA’s ability to interfere with the body’s hormone system, potentially leading to a variety of health problems, including damage to the reproductive system and the brain, particularly in children. Eleven states have banned the chemical’s use in certain products, typically baby bottles and other children’s goods; Canada, China and the European Union have similar restrictions.

An industry group, the American Chemistry Council, says BPA has been used safely for decades and there is no evidence that it causes harm as it is currently used. A key component of many plastic products, BPA is found in everything from the lining of food cans to the paper used in store receipts.

Campbell's Soup Company has  announced that it will phase out the use of the chemical bisphenol A (BPA) in its can linings.

"Campbell's decision to move away from BPA is a victory for consumers, who have been demanding this change," said Gretchen Lee Salter, Policy Manager at the Breast Cancer Fund. "To truly be an industry leader, the company now needs to fully disclose the timeline for the phase-out and the alternatives that will be used."

Campbell's Chief Financial Officer Craig Owens revealed the company's plans last month in a conference call with financial analysts but it did not receive widespread public attention until the Environmental Working Group issued a press release earlier this week. 

"As you know, Bisphenol-a, or BPA, is widely used in metal food packaging to help preserve and protect food and to maintain its nutritional value and quality," Owens said in the conference call. "We believe that current can packaging is one of the safest options in the world; however, we recognize that there is some debate over the use of BPA.

"The trust that we have earned from our consumers for over 140 years is paramount to us and we have been monitoring and working on the issue for several years. Because of this, we have already started using alternatives to BPA in some of our soup packaging and we are working to phase out the use of BPA in the lining of all of our canned products," Owens said.

Exposure to BPA, used to make the epoxy-resin linings of metal food cans, has been linked in lab studies to breast and prostate cancer, infertility, early puberty in girls, type-2 diabetes, obesity and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Childhood exposure is of concern because this endocrine-disrupting chemical can affect children's hormonal systems during development and set the stage for later-life diseases, critics argue.

Found in soup

In November 2011, Harvard researchers found that a group of volunteers who consumed a serving of canned soup each day for five days had a more than 1,000 percent increase in urinary BPA concentrations compared with when the same individuals consumed fresh soup daily for five days.

Last September the Breast Cancer Fund released a report that found BPA in canned food marketed to children; Campbell's Disney Princess and Toy Story soups tested the highest.

A November Breast Cancer Fund report found BPA in Campbell's turkey gravy and cream of mushroom soup. Both reports, as well as the growing consumer pressure on Campbell's to get BPA out of its products, are part of the Breast Cancer Fund's Cans Not Cancer campaign. 

In the last six months, more than 70,000 letters were sent to Campbell's by supporters of the Cans Not Cancer campaign - including nearly 20,000 from the non-profit Healthy Child Healthy World, which for 20 years has been empowering parents to protect children from harmful chemicals.

"Parents want to be sure when they serve Campbell's Soup to their kids that it is free of toxic chemicals that contribute to disease," said Rachel Lincoln Sarnoff, Executive Director of Healthy Child Healthy World. "I commend Campbell's for taking this first step - as well as the concerned parents and consumers who made their voices heard in the boardroom and at the checkout counter."

No significant cost

In a February shareholder meeting, Campbell's Chief Financial Officer Craig Owens reported that the shift to BPA-free cans has begun, and would not impose a significant cost to the company. "We recognize that there is some debate over the use of BPA," he said. "The trust that we've earned from our consumers for over 140 years is paramount to us. And we've been monitoring and working on the issue for several years. Because of this we've already started using alternatives to BPA in some of our soup packaging. And we're working to phase out the use of BPA in the lining of all of our canned products. The cost of this effort is not expected to be material."

Campbell's has yet to release any details on which products currently contain BPA alternatives, which BPA alternatives are being and will be used, or the proposed timeline for completion of the phase-out.

"Consumers aren't just concerned about BPA. They are becoming increasingly savvy about the chemicals used in their food packaging and are demanding transparency from manufacturers," said Salter. "We want to make sure that any alternatives that are being used are actually safer for consumers, and the best way to ensure that safety is through full disclosure."

"We call on Campbell's Soup to set a clear timeline with benchmarks for success," said Sarnoff. "We understand that this transition cannot happen overnight, but a timeline is necessary so that consumers can hold Campbell's accountable for their progress."

Eleven states have restricted BPA in infant food containers over the past four years. The FDA is currently considering a BPA ban and there is legislation before Congress that would ban the use of BPA in all food and beverage containers.

---

Editor's note: Earlier versions of this story stated that Campbell's had made the change in response to "pressure from consumer and public health groups." The company disputes that assertion.

A debate continues over the use of Bisphenol A (BPA) in food containers and other plastic consumer products, but new research suggests it's not the BPA, but a metabolic by-product, that is the major cause for concern.

The food industry favors BPA because it is the chemical that makes plastic rigid and more suitable for food containers. It's often used as a liner in food cans.

But health officials point to numerous studies that show BPA is easily transferred to the human body and, once there, can cause health problems. Of primary concern is BPA's impact on the human reproductive system.

In a study published in 2002, researchers discovered that exposure to estrogenic compounds, such as BPA, during critical periods of fetal development could result in adverse effects on the development of reproductive organs which do not become apparent until later in life.

Damaging byproduct

In new research published in the October 4 online issue of the journal PLOS ONE, two scientists at University of California San Diego School of Medicine say three-dimensional modeling suggests a metabolite of BPA -- a molecule produced when BPA is metabolized or broken down by the body -- actually causes the problem. They say it binds to the estrogen receptor much more strongly than BPA itself.

The finding could point the way to development of a new class of drugs designed to specifically inhibit excessive estrogen activity linked to disease.

According to Michael E. Baker, PhD, UCSD professor of medicine, and Charlie Chandsawangbhuwana, a graduate student in the UCSD Department of Bioengineering, several research labs have reported that BPA binds weakly to the estrogen receptor, suggesting that something else is interacting with this receptor and causing the problem.

A 2004 study found that a compound called MBP is produced when BPA is metabolized. MBP has a 100 to 1000 times stronger bond to the estrogen receptor than BPA. However, the structural basis for MBP’s high affinity for the estrogen receptor was not investigated further.

Loose grip

In their study Baker and Chandsawangbhuwana found that BPA actually has a fairly weak hold on the estrogen receptor, but its byproduct is practically fused to it.

“In other words, MBP is basically grabbing onto the estrogen receptor with two hands compared to just one hand for BPA,” said Baker. “Two contact points makes a much stronger connection.”

Baker said the 3D modeling supports the idea that BPA is not the endocrine disruptor culprit. Instead, MBP is one of perhaps several BPA metabolites that causes disruption of estrogen signaling in humans and other animals.

He said that means research needs to measure MBP levels in urine and blood of patients suspected of BPA-mediated health effects. The findings, he says, may fuel development of a new therapeutic treatment for conditions linked to excessive estrogen levels and activity, such as some forms of breast and prostate cancers.

More than 90 percent of all Americans are believed to carry varying levels of BPA exposure.

Men concerned about their sperm count should steer clear of Bisphenol-A, or BPA, a chemical created in the production of polycarbonated plastics and epoxy resins found in baby bottles, plastic containers, the linings of cans used for food and beverages, and in dental sealants.

A five-year study conducted by Kaiser Permanente concluded that high exposure to BPA was significantly associated with decreased sperm concentration, decreased total sperm count, decreased sperm vitality and decreased sperm motility.

The study, which appears in the Journal of Fertility and Sterility, recruited 514 workers in factories in China and compared workers who had high urine BPA levels with those with low urine BPA.

Men with higher urine BPA levels had 2-4 times the risk of having poor semen quality, including low sperm concentration, low sperm vitality and motility.

Previous studies

Previous studies of BPA and sperm counts found a detrimental association between BPA and male reproductive systems in mice and rats, but this is the first study to report an adverse association between BPA and semen quality in humans.

This study is the third in a series, published by Dr. Li and his colleagues, that examines the effect of BPA in humans.

The first study, published in November 2009 in the Oxford Journals Human Reproduction, found that exposure to high levels of BPA in the workplace increases the risk of reduced sexual function in men.

 The second study, published in May 2010 in the Journal of Andrology, found that increasing BPA levels in urine are associated with worsening male sexual function.

Funded by the U.S. National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, this new study adds to emerging human evidence questioning the safety of BPA.

"Compared with men without detectable urine BPA, those with detectable urine BPA had more than three times the risk of lowered sperm concentration and lower sperm vitality, more than four times the risk of a lower sperm count, and more than twice the risk of lower sperm motility," said the study's lead author. De-Kun Li, MD, PhD, a reproductive and perinatal epidemiologist at Kaiser Permanente's Division of Research in Oakland, Calif.

He added that urine BPA was not associated with semen volume or abnormal sperm morphology.

"Similar dose-response associations were observed among participants with only environmental BPA exposure at levels comparable to men in the general United States population," said Li.

Despite a markedly reduced sample size in this group of men exposed only to low environmental BPA sources, the inverse correlation between increased urine BPA level and decreased sperm concentration and total sperm count remain statistically significant, the researchers explained.

"The consistency of the findings between the current and the previous two studies, despite different exposure measurements (urine BPA levels vs. BPA exposure in the workplace) and end points (semen quality vs. sexual function), strengthens the validity of these findings," said Dr. Li. "The finding of the adverse BPA effect on semen quality illustrates two points: first, exposure to BPA now has been linked to changes in semen quality, an objective physiological measure. Second, this association shows BPA potential potency: it could lead to pathological changes of the male reproductive system in addition to the changes of sexual function."

Highly suspect

The researchers explained that BPA is believed by some to be a highly suspect human endocrine disrupter, likely affecting both male and female reproductive systems. This new epidemiological study of BPA's effects on the male reproductive system provides evidence that has been lacking as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and various other U.S. government panels have explored this controversial topic.

These findings, Dr. Li also points out, may portend adverse BPA effects beyond the male reproductive system. Semen quality and malesexual dysfunction could be more sensitive early indicators for adverse BPA effects than other disease endpoints that are more difficult to study, such as cancer or metabolic diseases.

For this study, workers in participating factories with and without BPA exposure in the workplace were identified and deemed eligible for the study. Among 888 eligible workers, 514 (58 percent) agreed to participate in the study. Of them, 218 participants provided both urine and semen specimens and were included in the final analyses.

Through an in-person interview, participants provided information on demographic characteristics; potential risk factors that may influence semen quality including smoking, alcohol use, chronic diseases, history of sub-fertility, exposure to other chemicals and heavy metals; and recent exposure to heat sources such as a steam bath, as well as occupational history.

Appleton, the only producer of BPA-free thermal receipt paper in the United States, announced Monday it has added easy-to-see red fibers to its paper.

In July 2010, laboratory tests commissioned by the Environmental Working Group (EWG), a consumer group, found high levels of BPA on 40 percent of receipts sampled from major U.S. businesses and services, including outlets of McDonald's, CVS, KFC, Whole Foods, WalMart, Safeway and the U.S. Postal Service.

The chemical is used to coat the thermal paper used to print receipts used by major retailers, grocery stores, convenience stores, gas stations, fast-food restaurants, post offices and ATMs and are handled by millions of Americans every day.

Until now, consumers had no way to know exactly whether the receipts they received contained BPA or not since not every receipt contained it. The EWG study found receipts from Target, Starbucks, Bank of America ATMs and other important enterprises were BPA-free or contained only trace amounts.

Appleton says the red fibers will be in about 75% of the thermal receipt paper that they ship by the end of November. Appleton expects to have the red fibers in all of its thermal receipt paper before the end of first quarter 2011.
 
Appleton dropped BPA from its thermal paper formulation in 2006 out of growing concerns about the safety of the chemical.
 
"Four years ago, after reviewing toxicology reports and available studies, Appleton acted quickly to remove BPA from its thermal products," said Kent Willetts, Appleton's vice president of strategic development.

"We are committed to actively managing the safety of all our products and removing BPA was the responsible thing to do," said Willetts.
 
In the last few years, concerns over BPA have grown. In January 2010, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration expressed concern about the potential adverse health effects of BPA in infants and children, especially for applications with direct contact to food. 
 
Appleton found a solution to the BPA-problem in its security papers business.
 
"We took technology that is used for authenticating documents like bank checks, and we applied it to thermal receipt paper," Willetts explained.

The new receipts from Appleton are good for the environment, too.

The small red fibers are made of rayon, a recyclable cellulose fiber that is more biodegradable than cotton. The thermal receipt paper itself is also recyclable.

Earlier this year, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency invited Appleton representatives to participate in a partnership program called Design for the Environment, which involves multi-stakeholder alternative assessments to help reduce environmental releases of, and subsequent exposure to, BPA.

The first assessment focuses on finding safer alternatives to BPA for use as a developer for dyes in thermal paper.

The debate over the safety of Bisphenol A (BPA), a widely used chemical in plastic containers, will likely continue for some time but the evidence of its effects continues to pile up.

The latest study comes from researchers writing in the journal Endocrinology who say they have found exposure to low doses of BPA during pregnancy had trans-generational effects on mice.

In other words, a female mouse exposed to BPA during gestation had offspring that displayed different social behaviors, previously associated with BPA exposure. The research found the offspring and succeeding generations of offspring all showed the effects of BPA, including anxiety, aggression and cognitive impairments.

Effects passed on to other generations

"We have demonstrated for the first time to our knowledge that BPA has trans-generational actions on social behavior and neural expression," said Emilie Rissman, PhD, of the University of Virginia School of Medicine and lead author of the study. "Since exposure to BPA changes social interactions in mice at a dose within the reported human levels, it is possible that this compound has trans-generational actions on human behavior.”

That means that if BPA were suddenly banned and all products with BPA in them were withdrawn, and all landfills immediately cleaned up, it is possible, if the mice data generalize to humans, that the effects of BPA would appear in the human population for many generations. At least, that's what this study suggests.

BPA is a manmade chemical present in a variety of products including food containers, receipt paper and dental sealants and is now widely detected in human urine and blood. Public health concerns have been fueled by findings that BPA exposure can influence brain development.

Food industry appears split

Though some manufacturers and retailers have moved away from using BPA in recent years, the food industry as a whole insists it is safe and fights for it to remain legal. Campbell's Soup announced in March that it was phasing out the use of BPA in the plastic liners of its soup cans.

Recent studies point to BPA’s ability to interfere with the body’s hormone system, potentially leading to a variety of health problems, including damage to the reproductive system and the brain, particularly in children. Eleven states have banned the chemical’s use in certain products, typically baby bottles and other children’s goods; Canada, China and the European Union have similar restrictions.

An industry group, the American Chemistry Council, says BPA has been used safely for decades and there is no evidence that it causes harm as it is currently used. A key component of many plastic products, BPA is found in everything from the lining of food cans to the paper used in store receipts.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is studying the issue but as of now holds the view that BPA exposure, in small amounts, is not harmful to humans.

The new findings by Consumer Reports show that BPA can be found in a diverse assortment of canned foods including those labeled "organic," and even in some foods packaged in "BPA-free" cans. The magazine's tests of a few comparable products in alternative types of packaging showed lower levels of BPA in most, but not all cases.

"The findings are noteworthy because they indicate the extent of potential exposure," said Dr. Urvashi Rangan, Director of Technical Policy, at Consumers Union, nonprofit publisher of Consumer Reports. "Children eating multiple servings per day of canned foods with BPA levels comparable to the ones we found in some tested products could get a dose of BPA near levels that have caused adverse effects in several animal studies. The lack of any safety margin between the levels that cause harm in animals and those that people could potentially ingest from canned foods has been inadequately addressed by the FDA to date."

The Food and Drug Administration is soon expected to announce the findings of its most recent reassessment of the safety of BPA. The chemical has been linked to a wide array of health effects including reproductive abnormalities, heightened risk of breast and prostate cancers, diabetes, and heart disease.

Consumers Union has previously called on manufacturers and government agencies to act to eliminate the use of BPA in all materials that come in contact with food and beverages. In the wake of CR's new finding, Consumers Union sent a letter to FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg reiterating its request that the agency act this year to ban the use of BPA in food- and beverage-contact materials.

Consumer Reports' tests convey a snapshot of the marketplace and do not provide a general conclusion about the levels of BPA in any particular brand or type of product tested. Levels in the same product purchased at different types or places or in other brands of similar foods might differ from the test results. CR tested three different samples of each canned item for BPA and found:

Green beans

Highest levels of BPA in our tests were found in some samples of canned green beans and canned soups.

• Canned Del Monte Fresh Cut Green Beans Blue Lake had the highest amount of BPA for a single sample in Consumer Reports tests, with levels ranging from 35.9 parts per billon (ppb) to 191 ppb. Progresso Vegetable Soup BPA levels ranged from 67 to 134 ppb. Campbell's Condensed Chicken Noodle Soup had BPA levels ranging from 54.5 to 102 ppb.

• Average amounts in tested products varied widely. In most items tested, such as canned corn, chili, tomato sauce, and corned beef, BPA levels ranged from trace amounts to about 32 ppb.

Given the significance of BPA exposure for infants and young children, CR tested samples of Similac Advance Infant Formula and Nestl Juicy Juice All Natural 100 percent Apple Juice. The findings revealed:

• Similac liquid concentrate in a can averaged 9 ppb of BPA, but there was no measurable level in the powdered version.

• Nestl Juicy Juice in a can averaged 9.7 ppb of BPA, but there were no measurable levels in the samples of the same product packaged in juice boxes.

Juicy Juice

"The BPA levels in our samples of Nestl Juicy Juice, at about 9 ppb, were not among the highest in the foods we tested. However, considering how many servings of juice young children may consume daily, a child still could exceed a level that Consumers Union thinks would provide an adequate margin of safety," said Dr. Rangan. Bypassing metal cans in favor of other packaging such as plastic containers or bags might lower but not eliminate exposure to BPA, but this wasn't true for all products tested.

• Campbell's Chicken Noodle Soup in plastic packaging contained detectable amounts of BPA but at levels that were significantly lower than the same brand of soup in the can. StarKist Chunk Light canned tuna averaged 3 ppb of BPA, but BPA levels in the same brand in a plastic pouch weren't measurable.

• Bird's Eye Steam Fresh Cut Green Beans, frozen in a plastic bag, contained very low levels of BPA, about 1 ppb or less.

• However, in one item tested, the alternative packaging contained higher levels of BPA than the canned version. Chef Boyardee Beef Ravioli in Tomato and Meat Sauce packaged in a plastic container with a metal peel-off lid had BPA levels 1.5 times higher than the same brand of food in metal cans.

"BPA-free"

BPA was found in some products packaged in cans that claimed to be "BPA-free."

• Although tests of the inside of the cans found that the liners were not epoxy-based, suggesting BPA was not used, samples of Vital Choice's tuna in "BPA-free" cans were found to contain an average of 20 ppb of BPA and those of Eden Baked Beans in "BPA-free" cans averaged 1 ppb BPA.

BPA, which has been used for years in clear plastic bottles and food-can liners, has been restricted in Canada and some U.S. states and municipalities because of potential health effects. But, there are no federal restrictions on BPA in food packaging.

Federal guidelines currently put the daily upper limit of safe exposure at 50 micrograms of BPA per kilogram of body weight. But that level is based on experiments done in the 1980s rather than hundreds of more recent animal and laboratory studies indicating that serious health risks could result from much lower doses of BPA.

Several animal studies show adverse effects, such as abnormal reproductive development, at exposures of 2.4 micrograms of BPA per kilogram of body weight per day, a dose that could be reached from a person eating one or a few servings daily or an adult daily diet that includes multiple servings of canned foods containing BPA levels comparable to some of the foods the magazine tested.

In keeping with established practices that ensure an adequate margin of safety for human exposure, Consumer Reports' food-safety scientists recommend limiting daily exposure to BPA to one-thousandth of that level, or 0.0024 micrograms per kilogram of body weight, significantly lower than FDA's current safety limit.

FDA panel

An FDA special scientific advisory panel reported in late 2008 that the agency's basis for setting safety standards to protect consumers was inadequate and should be reevaluated. A congressional subcommittee determined in 2009 that the agency relied too heavily on studies sponsored by the American Plastics Council. The FDA, now under the leadership of Dr. Margaret Hamburg, is expected to announce soon its reassessment of BPA safety. Bills are currently pending in Congress that would ban the use of BPA in all food and beverage containers.

Consumers who are concerned might be able to reduce, though not necessarily eliminate, their dietary exposure to BPA by taking the following steps:

• Choose fresh food whenever possible.

• Consider alternatives to canned food, beverages, juices, and infant formula.

• Use glass containers when heating food in microwave ovens.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said it may add BPA to the agencys list of chemicals of concerns and require testing of its impact on the environment.

Earlier this year, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) said it had some concerns about the health impacts BPA had on the brain, behavior, and prostate gland in fetuses, infants, and young children.

BPA is used in many consumer products, including baby bottles, plastic water containers, metallic food and beverage cans, cash register receipts, medical equipment, and dental sealants.

Animal studies have shown the chemical can cause reproductive and developmental problems and may also affect the endocrine system, the EPA said. Other studies have linked BPA exposure in humans with cardiovascular disease, diabetes, heart disease, obesity, and reproductive issues.

Some scientists have also told ConsumerAffairs.com that children and developing fetuses are especially vulnerable to potential adverse health effects from BPA exposure.

In related news, more than 200 environmental and public health groups protested outside the GlobalChem Conference in Baltimore Tuesday and challenged chemical manufacturers to support federal changes that would protect the public from BPA and other potentially dangerous toxins.

The EPA said its decision to scrutinize BPA is a sign the agency is worried about the possible health and environmental risks posed by the chemical.

We share FDAs concern about the potential health impacts from BPA, said Steve Owens, assistant administrator of EPAs Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances. Both EPA and FDA, and many other agencies are moving forward to fully assess the environmental and health impacts to ensure that the full range of BPAs possible impacts are examined.

Action plan

The EPA, however, is not taking any regulatory action at this time to stop the use of BPA. Instead, the agency announced the following action plan regarding the chemical:

• Adding BPA to the chemical concern list because of its potential effects on the environment. This would identify BPA as a substance that may present an unreasonable risk of injury to the environment because of its potential for long-term adverse effects on growth, reproduction and development in aquatic species;

• Requiring information on concentrations of BPA in surface water, ground water, and drinking water to determine if the chemical may be present at levels of potential concern. The EPA said its especially concerned about levels that could harm environmental organisms, pregnant women, and children;

• Requiring manufacturers to provide test data to help the agency evaluate the chemicals possible long-term effects on growth, reproduction, and development in aquatic organisms and wildlife;

• Using EPAs Design for the Environment (DfE) program to encourage the reduction of BPA exposures. One of these activities, to be initiated in April 2010, will address thermal and carbonless paper coatings used in such applications as cash register receipts, a use where preferable alternatives to BPA may be readily available, the EPA said;

• Continuing to evaluate the potential disproportionate impact on children and other sub-populations through exposure to BPA from non-food packaging uses.

A trade group for chemical makers downplayed the EPAs action plan and its concerns about BPA.

It is important to recognize that EPA is not proposing any regulatory action regarding human health, said Cal Dooley, president and CEO of the American Chemistry Council (ACC). We look forward to a productive exchange with EPA on this action plan, and working to modernize the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) in a way that allows EPA to better prioritize chemicals for review.

Cooley said many studies have shown that BPA does not pose any environmental risks at its current levels.

BPA is one of the most thoroughly studied chemicals in commerce and comprehensive scientific assessments recently conducted in Europe and Japan have affirmed that BPA is not a risk to the environment at current low levels, he said. Numerous studies have found that BPA rapidly biodegrades, does not bioaccumulate and, if detected at all, is present in the environment only at trace levels that do not cause harmful effects.

Dooley also pointed out that other U.S. regulators, including the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), have determined that BPA is safe and have not banned the chemicals use.

HHS and FDA recently reaffirmed that BPA has not been proven to cause harm to infants or adults, and other regulatory bodies around the world have determined that the science supports the safety of BPA, he said.

But HHS officials in January said recent studies raised concerns and doubts about the safety of BPA.

In 2008, the Food and Drug Administration conducted a review of toxicology research and information on BPA, and, at that time, assessed that food-related materials made with BPA on the market were safe, HHS said. But recent studies have reported subtle effects of low doses of BPA in laboratory animals.

While BPA is not proven to harm children or adults, HHS added, these newer studies have led federal health officials to express some concern about the safety of BPA.

Canadian authorities have already announced plans to ban BPA in baby bottles as a precautionary measure, the EPA said. The country is taking these steps even though science indicates exposure levels are below potential health levels, the EPA said.

Outdated laws

Meanwhile, environmental and public health groups protesting in Baltimore today urged chemical makers to back legislative changes that would improve the countrys outdated Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

The groups argue the chemical industry is more interested in improving its image than revamping the antiquated law that governs our countrys chemical policies.

The chemical industry knows it needs to respond to the increasing scientific evidence linking toxic chemicals to disease, and consumer demand for safer products, said Andy Igrejas, national campaign Director for the Safer Chemicals, Health Families (SCHF) coalition. The group represents more than 11 million health care professionals, environmental health advocates and concerned parents around the country. But reforming TSCA is not just about improving PR for the chemical industry its about genuinely protecting public health.

In the next few weeks, Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Representative Bobby Rush (D-IL) are expected to introduce reforms to the TSCA.

Environmental and public health advocates have urged Congress to overhaul the law, saying it fails to protect consumers from potentially dangerous chemicals.

When Congress adopted the TSCA in 1976, for example, it "grandfathered" in the 62,000 chemicals on the market at the time. Since then, the EPA has regulated only five of those chemicals and required testing of slightly more than 200.

But three fundamental differences between how the chemical industry and public health groups want to revamp the TSCA have recently surfaced, according to the Safer Chemicals, Health Families coalition.

The coalition said public health advocates want the following reforms made to the TSCA:

• Public disclosure of safety information for all chemicals in use. This requirement will both identify and keep harmful chemicals out of commerce and identify safer chemicals that can replace the dangerous ones, the SCHF said;

• Prompt action to phase out or reduce the most dangerous chemicals;

• Deciding safety based on real world exposure to all sources of toxic chemicals. Currently chemicals are too often assessed without taking into account that, in the real world, people are exposed to multiple chemicals from multiple sources, including air, water, food, and consumer products, the SCHF said. Public health advocates believe that, when assessing safety, EPA must take into account the sum of all exposures to a chemical and to other chemicals that cause the same or similar health impacts.

The coalition said the chemical industry only wants these changes made to the TSCA:

• Limited testing of a handful of chemicals, which public health advocates say would leave consumers in the dark about safety hazards. Only these priority chemicals would be subjected to further information requirementsand then only on a case-by-case basis, the SCHF said. By not requiring at least basic information up front for all chemicals, the industry's proposal would fail to identify all problem chemicals on the market;

• More lengthy and costly studies of chemicals already proven to be dangerous;

• An assumption that the public is only exposed to one chemical at a time, and from one source at a time. This approach not only fails to consider the full extent of chemical exposures; it wont tell us how most chemicals are used or how we are exposed to them, the SFHC said.

Highest priority

The president and CEO of the American Chemistry Council said today that he welcomes talks with environmental and public health groups about improving the TSCA.

Our highest priority is public health and safety, said the organizations Cal Dooley. Americans deserve to have confidence that the products they buy are safe for the uses for which they were designed.

Paramount to the success of a comprehensive legislative proposal is the ability to discuss ideas and concepts in a transparent fashion and allow for meaningful discussion by all key stakeholder groups, he added. Todays conference is another step in the right direction.

Dooley also said his organization is not unilaterally opposed to legislative action to improve the TSCA and protect the publics safety.

While TSCA has been protective of public health and the environment, we recognize that more can be done to harness the advances made in science and technology over the past three decades, he said. We are committed to developing a new comprehensive chemical management law that puts the safety of the American consumer first, while ensuring the innovation that will lead to the development of essential new consumer products and high-paying American jobs.

A copy of the Safer Chemicals, Health Families coalitions statement on this issue is now posted on the groups Web site.

May 20, 2009
Despite accumulating evidence and moves by retailers to drop products containing bisphenol A — commonly called BPA — the Food and Drug Administrations official position remains that the chemical can be safely used to make infant formula bottles.

Now the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports that it has obtained emails that it says show the FDA relied on chemical industry lobbyists to help reach that conclusion.

The emails show the lobbyists examined BPAs risks, tracked legislation that would have limited or banned it, and even monitored news coverage.

In one case, the newspaper reports the FDAs deputy director requested information from the chief industry lobbyist to discredit a study that found the chemical caused miscarriages in workers exposed to it.

In the document published by the newspaper, Mitchell Cheeseman, deputy director of the FDAs center for food safety and applied nutrition, said: Id like to get information together that our chemists could look at to determine if there are problems with that data in advance of possibly reviewing the study.

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.

Baby bottles

Some retailers, including Wal-Mart, have taken those studies very seriously, pulling products containing BPA from their shelves, if the products are intended to be used by children.

BPA is widely used in plastic manufacturing, since it is added to plastic to make it more rigid. It's used in clear, plastic water bottles, for example. It's also found in infant formula bottles.

Studies have suggested that's not a safe use, since the animal studies involving the chemical have linked it to changes in body chemistry, and in some cases to increased cancer risk.

At present, the FDA's position is that the levels of BPA in products used by both adults and children are not high enough to cause a health risk in humans. In taking issue with that position, the panel said the FDA does not have an adequate number of infant formula samples and relies too heavily on averages, rather than accounting for variability in the samples.

It also noted that new research on BPA in adult humans and animals was published after the FDA draft report, but was not included in the final report. It took issue with the margins of safety for BPA exposure cited by the agency, as being inadequate.

The FDA, at the time, said the advisory panel "raised important questions" and said the whole issue needs more study.

BPA is a "hardening agent," widely used in baby bottles, canned food and other consumer products. It acts as both a seal to keep contaminants out of canned goods and makes plastics shatterproof.

Its defenders say it makes modern life safer, especially for infants. Its detractors say babies would be safer without it.

The FDA has previously found that the substance was not cause for concern. And now, after revisiting the question, it has come to the same conclusion. An outside committee of experts will study the FDA's latest findings in September and issue recommendations. But that's not likely to settle the question.

Dozens of state and national environmental health organizations in the U.S. and Canada are calling for an immediate moratorium on the use of bisphenol A in baby bottles and other food and beverage containers; they say studies show that the chemical leaches from popular plastic baby bottles when heated.

Canada plans to ban its use in baby bottles. California, New Jersey and other states are considering bills that would restrict its use. And many retailers are shying away from products containing BPA.

Wal-Mart says it plans to drop baby bottles that contain it and Toys R Us is considering a similar move.

Concern about BPA began to grow after a study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that trace amounts of the chemical could be found in 93 percent of Americans. But the FDA insists that the trace amounts are thousands of times below dangerous levels.

Dow Chemical, Bayer and other large chemical companies produce more than six million pounds of BPA in the United States each year. Critics charge the FDA has gotten too cozy with industry and relies too extensively on industry-financed studies.

In testimony before a Senate subcommittee earlier this year, FDA Associate Commissioner for Science Norris Alderson said the agency is relying on a "large body of scientific evidence" that shows the chemical can safely be used in plastics that hold food and beverages.

But critics say there are plenty of studies that have, at the very least, raised questions about potential health problems in laboratory animals exposed to BPA. A study by the federal National Toxicology Program found "some concern" about the chemical's use in baby products.

The results of one study show that, when new bottles are heated, those manufactured by Avent, Evenflo, Dr. Brown's and Disney/First Years leached between 4.7 to 8.3 parts per billion of BPA.

Moratorium demanded

"The only appropriate response to evidence that a known toxic chemical leaches from baby products is to phase it out and replace it with safer products in order to prevent harm wherever possible," said Mike Schade, a researcher with the Center for Health, Environment and Justice, when the study was first issued.

"Environmental health organizations from across the U.S. are calling for an immediate moratorium on the use of BPA in baby bottles and other food and beverage containers," he said.

Recent research on animals shows that BPA can be harmful by disrupting development at doses below these levels. The bottles used in the study were purchased at retailers across the country in nine states: Babies"R"Us, CVS, Target, Toys"R"Us, Walgreens, and Wal-Mart.

Earlier this year, Michigan Reps. John Dingell and Bart Stupak launched a Congressional investigation to ascertain the safety of BPA used to line the cans of infant formula products. The study was commissioned by Environmental Defense of Canada in cooperation with The Work Group for Safe Markets in the U.S., and researched by the laboratory of Frederick vom Saal, PhD., at the University of Missouri.

Read more about BPA.

A number of studies have suggested the chemical is a danger to normal childhood development, though the FDAs official position is that small amounts are not harmful.

BPA is added to the plastic manufacturing process to provide rigidity. Its what makes plastic water bottles, for example, stiff instead of pliable. However, a recent Harvard study found that small amounts of BPA will leach from the bottle into the water.

The California Senate bill was sponsored by Sen. Fran Payley, who managed to push it through in spite of heavy industry lobbying. Outlook for passage in the Assembly is unclear, as the industry mounts an all-out effort to prevent a ban.

Among those arguing that BPA risks are overblown is STATS, a statistical analysis organization based at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va. In a study released last month, STATS found toxicologists "overwhelmingly reject the notion that exposure to even the smallest amounts of harmful chemicals is dangerous or that the detection of any level of a chemical in your body by biomonitoring indicates a significant health risk."

Chemical industry lobbyists maintain that the studies raising questions about BPA have been vastly overblown by environmental and health groups who have already made up their minds without seeing all the evidence. But consumer groups say more than 200 independent studies have thus far linked BPA to development problems in young children, and more recently, to other health problems.

For example, last September a study in JAMA linked higher levels of BPA to cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes and liver-enzyme abnormalities. BPA is one of the world's highest productionvolume chemicals, with more than two million metric tons produced worldwide in 2003 and annual increase in demand of 6 percent to 10 percent annually.

Such was the concern abut the chemical that Wal-Mart announced back in April 2008 that it would stop selling baby bottles made with BPA in its U.S. stores.

"Widespread and continuous exposure to BPA, primarily through food but also through drinking water, dental sealants, dermal exposure, and inhalation of household dusts, is evident from the presence of detectable levels of BPA in more than 90 percent of the U.S. population," the authors said.

"Anecdotal" evidence

In individual accounts, consumers blame BPA and other chemicals for health problems they say decreased or went away when exposure to the suspect substances stopped.

One account comes from a former over-the-road trucker who told ConsumerAffairs.com that he became ill after habitually drinking water from plastic containers which had gotten hot while sitting in his truck.

"In spite of the fact that my lungs and respiratory system were on fire and congested, my face flaming red and I lost part the lining of my intestines in a rest area -- and some of my family thought my wife was poisoning me -- the doctors couldn't come up with an answer," the former trucker said.

"When I came off the truck and quit drinking water from plastic jugs which had gotten hot in the truck I started to gradually improve but still had some respiratory problems which seemed to be aggravated by some of my blood pressure medication. However I didn't experience any real improvement until after we moved into another home -- with city water -- and quit drinking water from plastic containers," he said.

BPA in urine

In the Harvard School of Public Health study, researchers found that BPA leaches from bottles and ends up in the urine of people who drink from them.

The researchers found that study participants who drank for a week from polycarbonate bottles, the popular, hard-plastic drinking bottles and baby bottles, showed a two-thirds increase in their urine of the chemical, also known as BPA.

The study was the first to show that drinking from polycarbonate bottles increased the level of urinary BPA, and thus suggests that drinking containers made with BPA release the chemical into the liquid that people drink in sufficient amounts to increase the level of BPA excreted in human urine.

The study appears on the Web site of the journal Environmental Health Perspectives.

We found that drinking cold liquids from polycarbonate bottles for just one week increased urinary BPA levels by more than two-thirds. If you heat those bottles, as is the case with baby bottles, we would expect the levels to be considerably higher. This would be of concern since infants may be particularly susceptible to BPAs endocrine-disrupting potential, said Karin B. Michels, associate professor of epidemiology at HSPH and Harvard Medical School and senior author of the study.

Recent published reports suggest the FDA relied heavily on the advice of chemical industry lobbyists in reaching that conclusion.

By Lisa Wade McCormick
ConsumerAffairs.com

January 13, 2010
Another study is raising concerns about human exposure to bisphenol A (BPA) this time finding a significant link between the chemical and cardiovascular disease.

The study released late Tuesday night by the Peninsula Medical School and University of Exeter found that higher exposure to BPA -- a chemical used in plastic water bottles, baby bottles, and food can linings -- was consistently linked to heart disease in American adults.

This new study, Association of Urinary Bisphenol A Concentration with Heart Disease, also confirms earlier findings by the United Kingdom researchers that showed a link between BPA exposure and heart disease. Those findings appeared in the 2008 Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). British researchers said this new study rules out the possibility that their previous findings were a statistical blip.

From two completely separate samples of the US adult population, we conclude that higher BPA exposure, reflected in higher urinary concentrations of BPA, is consistently associated with reported heart disease in the general adult population of the US, according to the studys authors. Their analysis is now published in the online journal PLoS ONE.

Despite these latest findings, researchers are quick to point out their study isnt conclusive.

We can't say conclusively from our data that having high BPA concentrations causes heart disease, Professor Tamara S. Galloway, one of the study's authors, told ConsumerAffairs.com. It could be the other way around -- that something about having heart disease changes the way that a person metabolizes the chemical. Or alternatively, there could be another factor, say a lifestyle factor, that is common to both groups.

She added: This is what's called a cross-sectional study. That means that it looks at what is happening at one particular time. In the samples we studied, there was a statistical association between having a higher concentration of bisphenol A metabolites in your urine and prevalence of heart disease.

Cause-and-effect

An industry group that represents top chemistry companies downplayed the study, saying it didnt establish a cause-and-effect relationship between BPA exposure and heart disease. The American Chemistry Council also said BPA is safe in food and beverage packaging.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) agrees that products containing BPA are safe. But the agency is conducting a risk assessment of the chemical.

These latest findings add to the growing number of studies that have linked BPA exposure to serious health problems, including Type 2 diabetes, liver-enzyme abnormalities, prostate and breast cancer, early onset of puberty, and obesity.

A 2009 study uncovered a link between BPA exposure in early pregnancy and aggression and hyperactivity in the women's two-year-old daughters.

Previous animal studies have also found that prenatal BPA exposure is linked to impaired learning, aggression, and alterations in addictive behavior in rodents.

Manufacturers have used BPA for years to make plastics and resins. More than six millions tons of the chemical are produced each year and used in everything from plastic baby bottles to compact disks. Scientists say most people are exposed to BPA through their diets, specifically from food and beverage containers made with the chemical.

Found in urine

Researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health recently found that BPA leaches from polycarbonate bottles -- those hard, plastic drinking and baby bottles -- and winds up in the urine of people who drink from them. Polycarbonate is a shatter-proof plastic made with BPA.

Young children can also be exposed to the chemical if they chew on products may with BPA.

A recent analysis by The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) illustrated the widespread exposure of BPA in humans. The study found BPA in the urine of more than 90 percent of the people tested. In this latest study, British researchers analyzed data collected in 2005-2006 from the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES).

The 720 men and 773 women in the study -- ages 18-74 -- provided urine samples that were tested for BPA. In the 2008 study, researchers examined NHANES data from 2003-2004. Scientists who analyzed that information -- the worlds first large-scale data on urinary BPA concentrations -- found a link between BPA and coronary heart disease, diabetes, and raised liver enzymes.

Researchers wanted to see if those associations were present in the new NHANES data.

With the kind of cross-sectional study that we performed, one of the important things is to be able to replicate the findings, for example, to show that the association between BPA exposure and health effects is present in another, separate population, Professor Galloway told us. This makes it much less likely that the findings are the result of chance. That's what this study set out to do.

Galloway and her colleagues confirmed the link between BPA exposure and heart disease in the new data studied, but found a weaker association with Type 2 diabetes.

But BPA is still associated with this condition when we combine all the available data, researchers said, adding associations with some liver enzymes were also found.

Researchers noted one difference with the new data analyzed the urinary BPA concentrations were one-third lower than those in the 2008 study. We dont have data on the reasons for this change. Professor Galloway said she and her colleagues arent calling for legislative leaders to change laws governing the use of BPA because of their latest findings.

I'm sure that policy makers will view this study alongside all of the existing knowledge on the safety of bisphenol A before making any decisions about its safety, she said.

What about current strategies used to prevent heart disease and diabetes, like losing weight and quitting smoking? What impact will the study have on those recommendations?

There is nothing in our study to change the normal health advice to people on reducing their risks of heart disease or diabetes, Professor Galloway said. But the study, she said, does indicate that more research is needed to determine the health effects on humans from BPA exposure.

More study needed

As researchers we now need to investigate what causes these health risk associations in more detail and to clarify whether they are caused by BPA itself or by some other factor linked to BPA exposure, Professor Galloway said. The risks associated with exposure to BPA may be small, but they are relevant to very large numbers of people. This information is important because it provides a great opportunity for intervention to reduce the risks.

The American Chemistry Council rebuffed these latest findings, saying researchers made an unscientific leap.

Studies of this type are very limited in what they tell us about potential impacts on human health, said Steven G. Hentges, Ph.D., of the American Chemistry Councils Polycarbonate/BPA Global Group. While they can provide helpful information on where to focus future research, by themselves they cannot and should not be used to demonstrate that a particular chemical can cause a particular effect.

The public should be confident that BPA is one of the most studied chemicals, he added. Regulatory bodies from around the world have recently completed scientific evaluations and found BPA safe in food-contact products, including canned foods and beverages.

The FDA -- for now also says BPA is safe. But the agency is reviewing previous studies on human exposure to the chemical.

Missed deadline

FDA officials, however, missed their promised 2009 deadline to let the public know if the thousands of products made with BPA posed any health risks to humans.

At this time, FDA is not recommending that anyone discontinue using products that contain BPA while we continue our risk assessment process, the agency states on its Web site. However, concerned consumers should know that several alternatives to polycarbonate baby bottles exist, including glass baby bottles.

The FDA adds: Based on our ongoing review, we believe there is a large body of evidence that indicates that FDA-regulated products containing BPA currently on the market are safe and that exposure levels to BPA from food contact materials, including for infants and children, are below those that may cause health effects.

But several companies that make plastic baby bottles have already stopped using BPA in their products because of scientific studies that found possible links between the chemical and adverse heath effects.

In 2009, six companies announced they will no longer use polycarbonate plastic bottles for baby products in the U.S.: Avent America, Inc; Disney First Years; Dr. Brown; Evenflo Co.; Gerber; and Playtex Products, Inc. The retail giant Wal-Mart also stopped stop selling baby bottles that contain BPA.

Several states have enacted legislation to ban or limit the use of BPA in consumer products, too. Canada also banned the import and use of BPA in baby feeding bottles, sippy cups, and pacifiers.

But there are currently no federal regulations regarding the use of BPA in U.S. products, researchers say.

What to do?

What steps can consumers take to reduce their exposure to BPA?

The National Institute of Environmental Health Studies recommends the following:

• Use BPA-free baby bottles;

• Dont microwave food containers made with polycarbonate plastic. Polycarbonate may break down from over-use at high temperatures;

• Reduce the use of canned foods;

• Use food containers made of glass, porcelain, or stainless steel whenever possible, especially for hot foods and liquids;

• Avoid buying plastic products made with BPA. Those products may have the recycling number 7 on the bottom.