Bisphenol A: Plastics report by industry-dominated panel reviewed - part 3 - National Toxicology Program

[Guest guest]

View the disputed report

<http://cerhr.niehs.nih.gov/chemicals/bisphenol/bisphenol.html>

- - - -

<http://cerhr.niehs.nih.gov/chemicals/bisphenol/bisphenol.html>

*A Journal Sentinel investigation in December found*:

The federal government's assurances that bisphenol A is a safe chemical

are based on outdated and incomplete government studies and science

mostly funded by the chemical industry.

About 80% of academically and government-funded research found that

bisphenol A is harmful in laboratory animals.

A federal panel that advises the government issued a report in November

downplaying the effects of bisphenol A.

- - - -

*Plastics report reviewed*

*Agency to scrutinize oft-criticized findings that chemical poses little

risk*

By MEG KISSINGER, CARY SPIVAK and SUSANNE RUST

mkissinger@...

Posted: Jan. 9, 2008

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=705538

A controversial report on chemicals found in baby bottles and hundreds

of other household products is under intense review by the National

Toxicology Program after the agency was swamped with complaints that the

authors were unduly influenced by the chemical industry.

Bucher, head of the toxicology program, said Wednesday that the

agency is giving unprecedented scrutiny to the work of a panel studying

the effects of bisphenol A, a chemical used as a hardening agent for

plastic. The panel had downplayed the risks of bisphenol A, finding some

concern for fetuses and small children but that adults had almost

nothing to worry about.

The chemical, commonly used as dental sealants, eyeglasses, CDs, DVDs

and as lining in aluminum cans, was found in the urine of 93% of

Americans tested. More than 6 billion pounds are produced each year in

the United States.

The Journal Sentinel reported in December that the study, by a panel of

12 scientists appointed by the National Institute of Environment

Sciences, gave more weight to industry-funded studies and more leeway to

industry-funded researchers. The newspaper found that the panel missed

dozens of studies publicly available that the newspaper found online

using a medical research Internet search engine.

Scientists, many of whom have spent years studying bisphenol A and have

found it to be harmful, also criticized the panel's report. These

scientists have found that bisphenol A can cause breast cancer,

testicular cancer, diabetes, hyperactivity, obesity, low sperm counts,

miscarriage and a host of other reproductive failures in laboratory animals.

" In this case, there's been so much criticism raised, " Bucher said.

The Journal Sentinel found that studies paid for by the chemical

industry were much less likely to find damaging effects or disease. The

newspaper's stories were widely circulated in the scientific community.

Bucher said the newspaper's findings will be considered in the review,

including criticism that the panel allowed a study to be translated by

the American Plastics Council.

Bucher said the review would consider why the panel had rejected

academic studies that found harm when looking at the effects of low

doses of bisphenol A. The panel did not accept any studies that found an

effect at low doses in its review of 742 studies.

Once the panel weeded out studies it believed had been done poorly, no

studies remained that showed effects from low doses, panel chairman

Chapin said in an earlier interview.

" There's a lot of bad science out there, " he said at the time.

Chapin could not be reached for comment Wednesday.

A growing number of scientists have found that bisphenol A causes harm

to animals in low doses. And the National Academy of Science and the

toxicology program itself have called for a radical reform in the way

that government screens chemicals such as bisphenol A. But, so far, the

government hasn't budged from its original formula.

Shelby, director of the government agency that selected the

panel to evaluate bisphenol A, said he welcomed the review.

" We want to get it right, " he said. " That's the way science works is

through scrutiny and through peer review. " Shelby said he was not

surprised at the extraordinary amount of criticism aimed at the report.

" It's a hot topic, and there's a considerable amount of literature, " he

said.

The federal government is soliciting public comment on the panel report

until Jan. 25. After that, agency staff will review comments, criticism

and any new research on bisphenol A. Then, the toxicology program will

issue a report that will be subject to another round of public comment,

and, ultimately, a scientific review in June.

>From the Jan. 10, 2008 editions of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

*PART 1, Nov. 25 <http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=689731>

*Congress ordered the federal government in 1996 to begin testing and

regulating certain chemicals suspected of causing cancer and a host of

developmental problems. Eleven years later, not a single compound has

been put to that test.

*PART 2, Dec. 2 <http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=692145>

*The federal government's assurances that a common chemical is safe are

based on outdated U.S. government studies and research heavily funded by

the chemical industry.

- - - - See also:

*

A Father's Day Report - Men, Boys and Environmental Health Threats.

<http://www.healthyenvironmentforkids.ca/english/news/index.shtml?x=3257>*

*

For a number of health outcomes, including cancer, asthma, birth

defects, and learning and behavioral disorders, boys are often faring

worse than girls.* Male vulnerability to environmental hazards is an

emerging area of scientific research. Concerns are rising over parents'

exposures before conception and during pregnancy.

Published by Canadian Partnership for Children's Health and the Environment

16 June 2007.

*

The material in this post is distributed without

profit to those who have expressed a prior interest

in receiving the included information for research

and educational purposes.For more information go to:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html

http://oregon.uoregon.edu/~csundt/documents.htm

If you wish to use copyrighted material from this

email for purposes that go beyond 'fair use', you

must obtain permission from the copyright owner*.*