WP article: US Cites Fears on Chemicals in Plastics

[Guest guest]

Never heard of this National Toxicolgy Program of the NIH (says that

they have no powers to regulate) ...

U.S. Cites Fears on Chemical In Plastics

By Lyndsey Layton

Washington Post Staff Writer

Wednesday, April 16, 2008; A01

A federal health agency acknowledged for the first time yesterday

concerns that a chemical found in thousands of everyday products

such as baby bottles and compact discs may cause cancer and other

serious disorders.

The draft report by the National Toxicology Program signaled a

turning point in the government's position on bisphenol A, or BPA, a

chemical so ubiquitous in the United States that it has been

detected in the urine of 93 percent of the population over 6 years

of age.

Last year, another expert panel using outside scientists minimized

the health risks of BPA, but its findings were widely assailed after

a congressional investigation found that a firm hired to perform

scientific analysis was also working for the chemical industry.

Used in the production of plastic since the 1950s, BPA may be linked

in laboratory animals to breast cancer, prostate cancer, early

puberty in females and behavioral changes, according to the study

released yesterday. It called for more research into the chemical's

health effects.

Although the National Toxicology Program, an office of the National

Institutes of Health, has no power to regulate BPA, its findings are

used by other federal agencies such as the Food and Drug

Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency, which set

safe exposure limits for chemicals.

" What we've got is a warning, a signal, of some concerns, " said Mike

Shelby, director of the Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human

Reproduction, who oversaw the report. " We could not dismiss the

possibility that similar or related effects might occur in humans. "

Public health advocates said the report should spur the government

to ban BPA, at least in baby products. Formula-fed infants are most

vulnerable to the chemical, since it is found in baby bottles as

well as in the linings of cans of powdered and liquid formula. " They

get a double exposure, " said Anila , a senior scientist at the

nonprofit Environmental Working Group.

But G. Hentges, executive director of the polycarbonate/BPA

global group at the American Chemistry Council, said the new report

does not mean BPA is unsafe.

" It found no serious or high-level concerns for human health, " he

said. " More research is always considered valuable. "

The toxicology panel used a five-level rating system, ranging from

serious concern to negligible concern. It labeled the possible

cancer risk of BPA as " some concern, " in the middle of the scale.

There was not enough scientific evidence to rank it as a " concern "

or a " serious concern, " Shelby said.

Asked in an interview whether exposure to BPA can be eliminated,

Shelby paused. " It's everywhere, " he said. " It's not clear that we

know what all the sources of BPA exposure are. The vast majority of

exposure is through food and drink -- cans and bottles. But there

could be trace amounts in water, dust. Your cellphone is probably

made out of it. "

Since BPA is most readily absorbed through food and drink

containers, health advocates have been particularly focused on how

the Food and Drug Administration is regulating the chemical. An FDA

spokesman declined to comment on the new report, saying the agency

has not had a chance to review it.

The FDA has been under fire from the House Energy and Commerce

Committee, which has been investigating the influence of the

chemical industry on the agency's regulation of BPA in plastic

liners in metal cans of baby formula.

Last month, in response to questions from lawmakers, the FDA said it

had disregarded hundreds of government and academic studies about

the cancer risks of BPA and used just two studies funded by the

chemical industry to determine that the chemical is safe.

Yesterday's report should spur the FDA to reconsider its decisions

regarding BPA, said Reps. D. Dingell (D-Mich.), the Energy and

Commerce chairman, and Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), chairman of the

panel's oversight and investigations subcommittee.

" These assessments fly in the face of the FDA's determination that

BPA is safe, " Dingell said through a spokesman. " I hope the FDA is

willing to reconsider their position on BPA for the safety of our

infants and children. "

Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Oversight and

Government Reform Committee, said, referring to the National

Toxicology Program: " It appears that NTP has really listened to the

concerns of scientists in this field. This is an important public

health issue, and we can't afford to get it wrong. "

Concern about BPA has been growing for years, and the chemistry

council's Web site has pages devoted to responding to " scare

stories " about the chemical. " The weight of scientific evidence

clearly supports the safety of BPA and provides strong reassurance

that there is no basis for human health concerns from exposure to

BPA, " one page says.

A number of states, including California and New Jersey, are

considering bans on BPA. Others, such as Maine, may require

manufacturers to place warning labels on products containing it.

The worries have been a boon for a two-year-old company, Born Free,

that manufactures BPA-free baby bottles and sippy cups. The company

can't turn out bottles fast enough, and demand intensifies with new

scientific studies.

" Every time there is a publication, after a few days, we're out of

stock, " said Gil Lemel, the company's chief executive. " Every time

we think we are better prepared, it never is enough. We make 80,000

bottles a day, and we have no inventory. "