April 15, 2008 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Report cites chemical's risk: Bisphenol A may be harmful, federal agency says

[Guest guest]

Just one of the toxic ingredients in breast implants!===========================

JS Online: Report cites

chemical's risk Apr 16,

2008 ... Report cites chemical's risk. Bisphenol A may be harmful, federal agency

says

.... (Read the November-December

2007 Journal Sentinel report) ...

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=739923

- 55k - similar pages [ More results from www.jsonline.com

] Report cites chemical's risk Bisphenol A may be harmful, federal agency says By SUSANNE RUST and MEG KISSINGER

srust@... Posted: April 15, 2008 For the first time, the federal government said Tuesday that a

chemical found in commonly used products such as dental sealants, baby bottles

and aluminum cans is potentially dangerous to human development and

reproduction. The new report by the National Toxicology Program heightens

concern about bisphenol A, a chemical found in the bodies of 93% of Americans

recently tested. It overrides conclusions reached by a panel in November that

found minimal concern that bisphenol A could cause prostate and breast problems

or early puberty for young children or those who were exposed to the chemical

in the womb. "The possibility that bisphenol A may alter human development

cannot be dismissed," the report says. The report is a compilation of the work of two panels convened

last year by the National Institutes of Health. One was made up of scientists

with expertise in bisphenol A. The other was a panel of scientists with no

direct expertise in the chemical. The new report prompted members of Congress to urge the federal

government to reconsider the safety of the chemical's use, particularly for

infants and children. "It appears that NTP has really listened to the concerns of

scientists in this field," said Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), chairman of the

House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. "This is an important

public health issue, and we can't afford to get it wrong." Reps. D. Dingell (D-Mich.), chairman of the Committee on

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

Commerce Committee's Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, have been

investigating the use of bisphenol A in the lining of infant-formula cans. They

called on the Food and Drug Administration to reconsider its earlier

determination that bisphenol A is safe. In its determination, the FDA

considered only two studies, both funded by chemical manufacturers, the

congressional inquiry found. Dingell sees Tuesday's report as a chance to correct the FDA's

conclusions. "These findings of (bisphenol A's) dangers are based on the

totality of research around this chemical," Dingell said. "These

assessments fly in the face of the FDA's determination that (the chemical) is

safe." Advocates applaud report Environmental advocates applauded the Toxicology Program report,

calling it significant and a breakthrough. "This is the first federal agency to raise significant

concerns about bisphenol A, and it affirms our view that it is potentially

harmful to fetuses and children," said Janssen, science fellow with

the Natural Resources Defense Council. "This goes beyond what the

committee originally identified as problems." But an association of plastic manufacturers downplayed any

significance of the panel's findings. "The findings in NTP's draft report provide reassurance that

consumers can continue to use products made from bisphenol A," said

G. Hentges of the American Chemistry Council's Polycarbonate/BPA Global Group.

"Importantly, this conclusion has been affirmed by scientific and

government bodies worldwide." Scientific experts on bisphenol A said the findings should force

the FDA to reconsider an earlier ruling that the chemical is safe for all to

use. "This leaves the FDA with little wiggle room," said

Frederick vom Saal, a researcher at the

University of Missouri and one of the nation's leading experts on bisphenol A. "Their position of

no concern looks ridiculous in light of these new assessments." Bisphenol A was developed in 1891 as a synthetic estrogen. It came

into wide use in the 1950s when scientists realized it could be used to make

polycarbonate plastic and some epoxy resins to line food and beverage cans. With the advent of plastic products such as dental sealants and

baby bottles, the use of bisphenol A has skyrocketed. The chemical is used to

make reusable water bottles, CDs, DVDs and eyeglasses. More than 6 billion

pounds are produced each year in the

United States . In recent years, scientists became concerned about the chemical

when some researchers began noting changes in lab animals stored in cages made

with high concentrations of bisphenol A. Rodents exposed to bisphenol A were

more likely to have miscarriages, prostate problems and cancers. Studies later

linked the chemical to obesity, infertility and behavioral changes in animals. Those findings prompted concern about effects on humans. For

ethical reasons, scientists do not experiment with bisphenol A in humans. Their

findings on the safety to humans is gauged by how the chemicals affect lab

animals. Panels' separate conclusions But the government's examination of bisphenol A's safety has been

fraught with controversy and charges of conflicts of interest. Last year, two groups of scientists were appointed by the federal government

to gauge bisphenol A's risks. One panel was purely academic, made up of 38 international experts

on bisphenol A who work for universities or governments. In an August report,

they found a strong cause for concern. The other group included 12 scientists. The members were chosen

because of their lack of detailed knowledge about bisphenol A. The idea was

that the group would serve as an impartial jury. That group found minimal

concern for prostate effects and accelerated puberty, but some concern for

children in neural and behavioral development. That panel hired Sciences International, a Virginia-based

consulting firm, to choose and summarize research for panel members. It was

later learned that Sciences International had clients that included bisphenol A

producers. The company ultimately was fired. A Journal Sentinel investigation last fall found that the

non-expert panel had given greater weight to industry-funded studies that found

little or no effect from the chemical. The newspaper analyzed more than 250 scientific studies on

bisphenol A. An overwhelming majority of the studies found the chemical was

linked to cancer, obesity, diabetes and reproductive failures in laboratory

animals. But a government panel considering the safety of bisphenol A relied on

studies, which found no harm, that were paid for by the chemical industry. The

panel had missed dozens of studies publicly available that the Journal Sentinel

found using a medical research Internet search engine. The new report considered dozens of studies that the earlier panel

had rejected, including those that examined the effect of the chemical on

fetuses and newborns that were given the drug by injection, as opposed to

getting it through the mouth or stomach. It also reviewed more than 400 studies

published between April 2007 and February of this year. Bucher, associate director of the National Toxicology

Program, said Tuesday that the new report is based on much of the same

literature considered by the non-expert panel. But Bucher said there is "sufficient scientific justification

from studies in rodents to include effects on prostate and mammary development,

and a more rapid attainment of puberty in females to the evidence

supporting" their heightened concern. The National Toxicology Program will take comments on its initial

report through May. A final version will be issued this summer.

No virus found in this outgoing message.

Checked by AVG.

Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.24.1/1464 - Release Date: 5/24/2008 8:56 AM

No virus found in this outgoing message.

Checked by AVG.

Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.24.4/1478 - Release Date: 6/2/2008 7:12 AM