Urban Ecoist

Something that would make me laugh if I were not one of the millions of guinea pigs in the experimentation is how so many items that we use in our day-to-day lives are presented as safe until years later new research proves quite the contrary.

One thing I do not understand is how the government agencies that are in charge of protecting the public seem to overlook proper and long-term testing of certain chemical compounds. Everyday it seems that there is a new chemical that is starting to show it’s true dangerous nature, and this week, Bisphenol-A, has made the news. Unfortunately, despite new and growing evidence that plastic #7 can be detrimental to your health, the Food and Drug Administration has decided to wait until more proof of possible danger before the agency will ban the chemical or even limit it’s use.

Here’s the thing. The FDA says that the bisphenol-A present in many of the plastics marked #7 and in the plastic lining of cans is in such low amounts that it cannot harm us. Huh. You would think that any amount of potential harm would throw up a red flag as if the research cannot determine the health risk, how can the same research prove what a safe level is?

Last year, I did a little research on Proctor and Gamble’s environmental and health record. It seems that P&G had been under fire for nail polish that contains dibutyl phthalate. P&G claimed that it only used the phthalates in low enough levels that posed no human harm. Besides, phthalates don’t bioaccumulate so you simply pass them in your urine. I know that should ease my mind, but it just doesn’t.

And the same thing is going on with bisphenol-A.

Here’s a breakdown of the bisphenol-A (BPA) debate going on right now. New research shows a connection between BPA and such maladies as heart disease and diabetes. Granted, our society has high occurrences of both diseases in our general population, but another study showed that BPA can affect a hormone that protects humans from diabetes.

My opinion usually runs along the lines of better safe than sorry. BPA is widely used in those re-usable water bottles as well as bottles used to feed babies. Also, BPA is used in the lining of aluminum cans for soda, and even other canned goods. Many manufacturers of baby products are starting to phase out BPA. Start phasing out the use of BPA in your own life, just to be sure. In case years from now, the FDA does finally find conclusive proof that BPA is dangerous at any level.

Graph: BPA is at unsafe levels in one of every 10 servings of canned foods (11%) and one of every 3 cans of infant formula (33%)
(Courtesy of Environmental Working Group)

Ways to avoid BPA (condensed from a US News article):

A word from the Environmental Working Group.

Nestlé, makers of Good Start and Mam brands, repeatedly told EWG researchers that its powdered formula cans contain no BPA. Nestlé’s emails to parents repeat this claim, but the company has failed to document this in writing or provide information on their alternative to EWG, despite our numerous requests to the company. In any case, EWG cannot recommend Nestlé baby formula due to the company’s long history of ethically suspect infant formula marketing practices in the developing world. Nestlé’s claim that it uses BPA-free packaging, if true, would be welcome news, because it suggests that other manufacturers could switch to safer packaging materials and reduce babies’ BPA exposures.

Powdered formula sold by Enfamil and Similac are reduced-risk choices, because only the metal tops and bottoms of their packages – not the cardboard sides – are metal and lined with BPA-based plastic. Earth’s Best Organic and PBM (which make dozens of store brands) are more of a concern: they are sold in an entirely metal can, which means the formula has more contact with a BPA-coated surface.

bisphenol-A, BPA, plastic, #7, baby bottles, baby formula, canned goods, health, heart disease, diabetes, FDA, hormone, Environmental Working Group, Nestle, Enfamil, Similac, Earth’s best Organic