BPA Found Safe...By a Researcher Who Doesn't Want to Admit It

BPA Found Safe . . . By Researcher Who Doesn’t Want to Admit It

By Julie Gunlock

November 6, 2012 4:54 P.M.

I’ve written on this site several times before about bisphenol-A (BPA), a chemical used in everyday products like baby bottles, storage containers, and in the lining of canned food and the bad science surrounding efforts to ban it. Now science writer Jon Entine has a must-read article in Forbes that confirms long-held suspicions about the motivations of activists opposed to the use of BPA.

 

 

Entine explains that University of California-San Diego researcher Michael Baker hyped the results of his BPA research in a press release – a press release that Baker himself now renounces (how convenient for him to backtrack after his specious press release generated dozens of terrifying headlines).

Baker actually admitted his error to Entine, saying “I have no evidence, none at all, that BPA causes any problems in humans. This was a theoretical exercise, and it would be trumped by what actually happens in the real world. Based on what I know now, neither BPA nor its metabolites are harmful. I am upset that my structural study is misused by some.”

Oopsie.

Just a tiny little mistake that causes moms like me to gnaw off their fingernails at the thought that we might be poisoning our children with chemicals. But that’s okay; regular moms and dads (already struggling with high food and fuel costs) can just run out and support the cottage industry that has sprouted up in the wake of these terrifying headlines — the BPA-free industry.

 Parents won’t mind that these products are much more expensive. After all, isn’t your baby’s health worth it? Surely parents aren’t already cash-strapped with the truck-load of diapers they purchase on a monthly basis along with the toys, books, and other baby items one simply must supply a child with these days.

Of course, what parents won’t hear about is Baker’s mea culpa because if there’s one thing parents can count on from today’s science writers it is an absolute dearth of Entine-esque journalism when it comes to BPA. Baker’s study might not have generated such dramatic headlines if these journalists had revealed, as Entine does, that Baker has zero prior expertise in studying BPA or that his study didn’t include humans or even animals but rather was a computer simulation. Even more stunning, Entine discovered that Baker was unaware of the quite impressive body of research that shows BPA is safe.

In fact, thousands of studies conducted have shown BPA to be perfectly safe, yet those with an evangelical interest in continuing the hand-wringing about BPA cling desperately to any shred of information, no matter how far-fetched, supporting their position. And now, the very researchers who study BPA can’t be counted on to stick by their own findings that BPA is safe.

Don’t expect anti-BPA activists to be bowed by this latest blow to their religious crusade. Their ideology might still be intact but the science is proving them wrong. That’s a good thing for parents who have grown weary of these alarmist claims and who just want to keep their kids safe without spending a fortune.

http://www.nationalreview.com/home-front/332574/bpa-found-safe-researcher-who-doesn-t-want-admit-it/julie-gunlock#
 

The BPA Wars: Junk Science and Junk Journalism

By Alan Caruba

On Tuesday, September 18, FoxNews.com posted an article by Alex Crees, a health news reporter, “Chemical BPA linked to obesity in children, teens.” If Ms. Crees had done any research to verify the facts she recounted in “a new study”, she would have known it was yet another bogus effort to correlate eating food with BPA.

Bisphenol-A, more commonly called BPA, is a chemical that has been in wide, safe use for over 50 years. It is used to coat the insides of aluminum cans and plastic bottles and protects them against food pathogens such as botulism and has the added value of protecting plastic bottles against breakage.

As I noted in my six-part series, The BPA File, In 2011 “the German Society of Toxicology released a review of more than five thousand previous studies of BPA exposure that concluded that BPA ‘exposure represents no noteworthy risk to the health of the human population, including newborns and babies.’” Researchers concluded that BPA is neither mutagenic nor likely to be a carcinogen.’”

Let me repeat that, “more than five thousand previous studies.” At what point can one expect a Fox News journalist to actually check her facts?

A graduate of New York University, Ms. Crees studied journalism, psychology, and Spanish. There is no indication she studied chemistry. If “journalism” is defined as mindlessly repeating some news release that says BPA “may increase the risk of obesity in children and teens”, permit me to suggest that eating lots of snacks, ice cream and candy “may” also increase that probability!

Anyone who wants to learn the truth about BPA is advised to visit Junkscience.com, the website of Steve Milloy who has gained a solid reputation for debunking so-called “science based” fear campaigns. His data on BPA reveals that there is no scientific evidence that BPA:

• Has ever harmed anyone despite 50 years of use;

• Acts as an endocrine disruptor; and

• Has any health effects at low doses;

Furthermore, the data debunks some of the most oft-cited and false claims about BPA.

• BPA is not carcinogenic or mutagenic;

• BPA does not adversely affect reproduction or development at any realistic dose;

• BPA is efficiently “metabolized” and rapidly excreted after oral exposure

My series on BPA confirms Milloy’s findings, but Ms. Crees has written an article intended to add to the multitude of similar distortions while questioning the facts offered by authoritative sources.

The effect of this avalanche of articles has triggered a number of governments to ban some uses of BPA despite more than a half century of its use without any evidence of alleged harm, but governments are famous for acting on the bogus “precautionary principle” that essentially says that anything that might cause harm should be banned.

Going back centuries, it has been known that it is the amount of any given chemical that represents harm. Let’s understand a fundamental determination of what is toxic or not. As Paracelsus (1492-1541) said long ago, “All substances are poisons; there is none which is not a poison. The right dose differentiates a poison.”

Ms. Crees’ article noted that “the study’s lead investigator Dr. Leonardo Trasanda, associate professor of pediatrics and environmental medicine at the New York University School of Medicine, told FoxNews.com, ‘This study raises concerns about the need to reconsider that stance (the presence of BPA).”

Excuse me, but what the heck is “environmental medicine” other than an excuse to scare people with studies about every chemical known to man and God? As for Dr. Trasanda’s study, it set out to correlate extremely low amounts of BPA in the urine of children and adolescents ages 6 to 19 years old.

In the event no one has pointed it out to Dr. Trasanda and Ms. Crees, urine is excreted by the body, but Dr. Trasanda said, “We are especially concerned that children who ate too many calories might also ingest BPA.”

The operative word here is “might” and the likelihood that eating “too many calories” might play a far larger role in obesity than any other factor!

To her credit, at the very end of the article, Ms. Crees quoted Steven Hentges of the Polycarbonate/BPA Global Group of the American Chemistry Council, who she identifies as a representative of “chemical manufacturers”, as saying that “Attempts to link our national obesity problem to minute exposures to chemicals found in common, everyday products are a distraction from the real efforts underway to address this important health issue.”

“Due to inherent fundamental limitations in this study, it is incapable of establishing any meaningful connection between BPA and obesity.”

Ms. Crees is guilty of both junk science and junk journalism. The Steven Hentges quote should have been the lead paragraph, not the last.

© Alan Caruba, 2012

Green Calls for BPA Bans are Dangerous

By Angela Logomasini

This past July the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) banned the use of the chemical Bisphenol A (BPA) to make baby bottles and sippy cups. Environmental activists would like you to believe the move was designed to protect public health and that more bans are necessary. But the greens are wrong on both counts -- and their advice could imperil public health.

For more than 50 years, manufacturers have safely used BPA to make hard, clear plastics for food containers, medical devices, safety goggles, and more. They also make resins that line aluminum and steel cans to reduce contamination of food and extend shelf-life.

Much of BPA's alleged risk to humans is based on studies of rodents that were administered massive doses, often by injection. The relevance of these studies to humans who are exposed to trace amounts in food is highly questionable. In addition, activists have attempted to use a number of studies conducted on humans to make their case even though reputable scientific bodies around the world have dismissed these studies as seriously flawed or inconclusive.

Activists also condemn BPA simply because it shows up in human urine. All this fact proves is that the human body, unlike rodents, quickly metabolizes BPA without ill effects. An EPA-funded study conducted on human volunteers who were exposed to high levels of BPA underscored this point. The chemical passed through the humans quickly, never reaching levels that pose problems to rodents.

Scientific panels around the world have investigated BPA many times -- examining the full body of research and focusing on the best science available. In Japan

, the European Union, Canada, Norway, France and elsewhere, researchers have found no public health risk related to consumer exposure to BPA. Even the Environmental Protection Agency -- which is well known for exaggerating chemical risks -- states that consumer exposure to BPA is likely 100 to 1,000 times lower than EPA's estimated safe-exposure levels for both infants and adults.
Because of activist group petitions, lobbying, and media campaigns, the FDA has continued to spend taxpayer dollars to study and re-study BPA during the past several years, but it has not been able to find a serious risk. Even as the agency issued its ban on BPA bottles and sippy cups, a representative explained to The New York Times: "based on all the evidence, we continue to support its [BPA's] safe use."
The ban came at the request of industry rather than to address health problems.

The American Chemistry Council (ACC), explained in a press statement: "Although governments around the world continue to support the safety of BPA in food contact materials, confusion about whether BPA is used in baby bottles and sippy cups had become an unnecessary distraction to consumers, legislators and state regulators." Accordingly, the ACC supported a ban because it "provides certainty that BPA is not used to make the baby bottles and sippy cups on store shelves, either today or in the future."

But green groups use this industry driven-ban to advance a larger anti-BPA crusade. "This is only a baby step in the fight to eradicate BPA," says Sarah Janssen of the Natural Resources Defense Council in a press release. "To truly protect the public, FDA needs to ban BPA from all food packaging," she explains.
Janssen offers seriously bad advice because BPA resins control dangerous food-borne pathogens such as E. coli and botulism. And there are no good alternative products to replace BPA resins.

In fact, packaging manufactures have responded to the politically charged debate on BPA during the past several years by attempting to find alternatives -- without much success. One industry representative told The Washington Post, "We don't have a safe, effective alternative, and that's an unhappy place to be ... No one wants to talk about that." As a result, BPA resin bans may eventually translate into an increase in serious food-borne illnesses.

Still, some people argue that we should at least seek substitutes to "be on the safe side." They forget that every product of the market prevailed because it was the best to perform the job at an acceptable price at the time. Politically driven substitutes will always be second to the products that won in the marketplace. Thus, unless there is a verified and significant risk, banning products isn't a good idea.

Banning safe, useful products simply wastes investment that went into designing them, discourages innovators who fear similar repercussions, and diverts resources from useful enterprises into production of second, best substitutes. And for consumers, the result can be dangerous.

Angela Logomasini is a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

August 31, 2012

Sour Grapes Over BPA

By Henry I. Miller on 6.19.12

The American Spectator

When activists don't get their way at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Certain political activists and the peddlers of pseudo-science who support them have been in high dudgeon ever since the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued its March 30 denial of a petition to ban bisphenol A (BPA) from food contact applications. BPA, a ubiquitous chemical, has been used safely for more than 50 years in polycarbonate plastics and in the lining of canned food to prevent bacterial contamination.

Research findings by federal government laboratory scientists, the results of which were announced last year, should have put the scare-mongering over BPA to rest. A human exposure study found that because of the way BPA is processed in the body, it would be virtually impossible for it to cause health effects in adults, children, or even fetuses. But the response from those who did not prevail in the FDA decision was sadly predictable: They smeared the agency and its scientific reviewers.

After more than two months of trashing the FDA, activists have taken a new tack to try to discredit the agency and its March decision. The argument, advanced by long-time BPA critic Frederick vom Saal and collaborator Patricia Hunt, claims there is a "Catch-22" imposed by the FDA on university researchers.
This disconnect is supposedly that the FDA rejected the conclusions of many experiments because researchers did not use enough laboratory animals due to federal restrictions on how many such animals may be used in experiments.

Vom Saal and his acolytes believe this to be the Silver Bullet that discredits the FDA's decision. But vom Saal, notorious for his ridiculous claim that feeding an infant with a shatterproof baby bottle was akin to giving the child a birth control pill, contradicts his own argument.

While
denouncing the FDA decision because of its protocols involving lab animals (in the same commentary appearing in two different publications on June 8 and June 10) , he states in both articles that "The FDA should know that the strength of conclusions that can be drawn from data is not directly dependent on the number of animals used."

On this count, vom Saal is correct. The FDA rejected arguments to ban BPA because none of the studies purporting to show harm conducted by vom Saal or anyone else demonstrated relevance to human health and the regulatory process. This central point is conspicuously absent from vom Saal's commentary because it does not mesh with his ideology. That's not how science works.

Vom Saal also hauled out the old cliché about the unreliability of research funded by industry, but that's another dog that won't hunt.

Vom Saal should know that FDA's various regulatory units routinely perform scientific reviews of industry-performed or funded research.

By implying an "industry-funding" conflict of interest, vom Saal neglects his own. Many university researchers, including vom Saal, are dependent to some degree on taxpayer-funded research grants. The formula among this cadre is simple: Find a way to show that something may cause harm and the tax dollars continue to flow for further research and for the care and feeding of the investigator. Research that shows no harm, on the other hand, runs the risk of turning off the spigot of grant money, and is seldom of interest to journal editors.

The FDA rejected the petition to ban BPA for a simple reason. There was no data that demonstrated harm or undue risk associated with normal consumer exposure to BPA. Recall the fundamental tenets of toxicology: Harm is a function of toxicity and exposure, and the dose makes the poison.

Scientists can and do disagree, but the incendiary approach of vom Saal and his collaborators coarsens the discussion and fails to advance either science or regulation. If there is anything toxic about BPA, it is the manner in which its ideological critics assault those with whom they disagree. Whether their unhappiness is driven by ignorance or self-interest, they have had their say and it is time to move on.

About the Author

Henry I. Miller, a physician and former FDA official, is the Robert Wesson Fellow of Scientific Philosophy and Public Policy at Stanford University's Hoover institution.

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/06/19/sour-grapes-over-bpa

FDA Rejects Call to Ban BPA from Food Packaging

FDA  rejects call to ban BPA from food packaging

 

By MATTHEW PERRONE, AP Health Writer

March 30, 2012

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Food and Drug Administration has rejected a petition from environmentalists that would have banned the plastic-hardening chemical bisphenol-A from all food and drink packaging, including plastic bottles and canned food.

The agency said Friday that petitioners did not present compelling scientific evidence to justify new restrictions on the much-debated chemical, commonly known as BPA, though federal scientists continue to study the issue.

The Natural Resources Defense Council's petition was the latest move by public safety advocates to prod regulators into taking action against the chemical, which is found in everything from CDs to canned food to dental sealants.

About 90 percent of Americans have traces of BPA in their bodies, mainly because it leaches out of bottles, canned food and other food containers.

Some scientists believe exposure to BPA can harm the reproductive and nervous systems, particularly in babies and small children, potentially leading to cancer and other diseases. They point to results from dozens of BPA studies in rodents and other animals.

But FDA reiterated in its response that that those findings cannot be applied to humans. The agency said the studies cited by NRDC were often too small to be conclusive. In other cases they involved researchers injecting BPA into animals, whereas humans ingest the chemical through their diet over longer periods of time. The agency also said that humans digest and eliminate BPA much more quickly than rats and other lab animals.

"While evidence from some studies have raised questions as to whether BPA may be associated with a variety of health effects, there remain serious questions about these studies, particularly as they relate to humans," the agency said in its response.

The National Resources Defense Council petitioned the FDA in 2008 to ban BPA as a food additive, including all uses in food or beverage packaging. Petitions on various safety issues are routinely filed by advocacy groups, companies and even individuals. When the FDA failed to respond within the required timeframe, the environmental group sued the agency. In December a federal judge ruled that the agency had to respond by the end of March.

The agency's official position is that there is "some concern" about BPA's effects on young children. The government is spending $30 million to conduct additional studies on the chemical's impact on humans. Several federal studies published in the last two years suggest that even human embryos retain far less BPA than other animals.

Many companies have already responded to consumer demand by removing BPA from their products. In 2008, Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and Toys "R'' Us said they began phasing out bottles, sippy cups and other children's items containing BPA. By the end of 2009, the six leading makers of baby bottles in the U.S. went BPA-free. Earlier this month Campbell's Soup said it would begin removing BPA from its most popular soups, though it did not set a time frame.

But the vast majority of canned goods in the U.S. are still sealed with resin that contains BPA to prevent contamination and spoiling. Canned food manufacturers have used the chemicals since the 1950s, and the practice is approved by the FDA. The chemical industry says BPA is the safest, most effective sealant.
Some manufacturers have begun switching to alternatives. Heinz reportedly uses BPA-free coatings for its Nurture baby formula cans, and ConAgra and General Mills say they have switched to alternative sealants for some canned tomatoes.

The federal government has been grappling with the safety of BPA for more than four years. The FDA revised its opinion on BPA in 2010 saying there is "some concern" about the chemical's impact on the brain and reproductive system of infants, babies and young children. Previously the agency said the trace amounts of BPA that leach out of food containers are not dangerous.

While older children and adults quickly eliminate the chemical through their kidneys, newborns and infants can retain it for longer. Scientists pushing for a ban on the chemical argue that BPA mimics the effects of the hormone estrogen, interfering with growth.

Copyright © 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Media Hypes BPA Ban, Endangers Everyone's Health

By Alan Caruba

A direct threat to the health of millions worldwide is being hyped by the media, continuing the anti-science, anti-fact, and pro-illness agenda of environmental organizations to ban BPA, a chemical that protects against food-borne disease and increases the safe use of all plastic containers.

From January through June 2011, I wrote and posted a six-part series called “The BPA File” that anyone can read on the blog I created for the series. Thoroughly research and documented, it was written because of my concern that this particular effort to ban the chemical would, like the ban on DDT, cause millions to die.

On February 16, Matthew Glans, the Midwest Director of The Heartland Institute’s Center on Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate, posted a commentary on its “Somewhat Reasonable” blog, “Media Biggest Proponent for BPA Ban.” My research files are filled with hundreds of examples of this and one need only Google “BPA” to find thousands of references to the chemical with the single theme of banning it.

As Glans points out and my series confirms, “Chemical BPA is a chemical used in plastics for many consumer products. Amongst other uses, BPA (is) most commonly used in hardened plastics and as part of the safety liner for food and beverage cans.”  (Emphasis added)

BPA is an acronym for Bisphenol-A and it has been in use for more than six decades, tested hundreds of times, and never found to post a threat to health, but rather as an essential packaging element to protect it.

Glans quotes an article by Business and Media Institute’s Julia Seymour who wrote that the “Fear of chemicals and ‘toxins’ is rampant among the so-called ‘environmental’ left. Unfortunately, that phobia infects national media coverage as well. For more than a decade, the Left has been on the attack against BPA, a product that is commonly found in plastics and other products.”

Ms. Seymour noted that “The Food and Drug Administration has a deadline of March 31 to respond to a petition by the National Resources Defense Council—an environmental group—that seeks to ban BPA. NRDC argues that the FDA should ban BPA on the basis that it causes harm to humans.”

If you read my BPA series, you will learn that BPA has been tested here and in other nations and has been found to pose no health threat whatever.

“Meanwhile,” said Ms. Seymour, “the media have exaggerated the threat of BPA for years. On the Feb. 25, 2010, CBS ‘Early Show’ broadcast, Katie Lee crossed the line from hype into outright falsehood when she said of BPA: ‘And that’s been shown to cause liver disease, heart failure, all sorts of things.”

“The Business & Media Institute analyzed ABC, CBS, and NBC reports as well as The New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, Los Angeles Times and Wall Street Journal that discussed BPA from Jan. 1, 2010 through Dec. 31, 2011.”

Incredibly, Canada, Japan, Denmark and France have banned the use of BPA for several products, including baby bottles. To date, “the FDA has been unwilling to declare BPA unsafe.” There’s a reason for that. Its history and the many tests of BPA have found it to be entirely safe.

Let’s understand a fundamental determination of what is toxic or not. As Paracelsus (1492-1541) said long ago, “All substances are poisons; there is none which is not a poison. The right dose differentiates a poison.”

If you take too much aspirin, too many sleeping pills, too many pain-killers, too many of any medication, it will likely kill you. This is why directions for their use are printed on every bottle. Substances like arsenic can be found in potatoes, but the amount of arsenic is so low that its ingestion poses no threat whatever. Moreover, our bodies possess organs that clean such substances from our bodies and evacuate them every single day.

The real toxins are the lies the media prints and broadcasts without researching the claims of environmental organizations that thrive on the income such scare campaigns generate and whose fundamental agenda is the reduction of the world’s population “to save the Earth.”

© Alan Caruba, 2012

Wall Street Journal editorial: August 8, 2011

AUGUST 8, 2011

Postscript to a Panic

New science debunks a chemical scare.

Even by the standards of the environmental movement, the panic over bisphenol-A (BPA) was remarkable. A new study funded by that shill for business known as the Environmental Protection Agency has now debunked this chemical scare.

BPA has been used for five decades around the world and been found to be safe after extensive testing. In 2008, however, green campaigners abetted by trial lawyers began warning that BPA could "disrupt" hormones in the human body. BPA was said to be implicated in everything from cancer to obesity to impotence. Canada and several U.S. states banned its use in baby bottles. California Senator Dianne Feinstein tried to get it banned in the U.S. as well.

Too bad they didn't wait for the science. The most recent study—financed by the EPA, led by Justin Teeguarden at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, and published in the journal Toxicological Studies—involved feeding subjects a BPA-rich diet for 24 hours. Researchers then monitored their blood and urine for traces of the chemical.

The result was BPA levels too low to detect—despite eating the stuff, a veritable worst-case scenario. Critics will no doubt point out that these results don't preclude potential long-term damage from the use of BPA in packaging. But the evidence suggests that not enough of it is present in the body to cause that kind of harm.

The results, which were duplicated in two government labs, come too late to help the likes of Sigg Switzerland USA, the U.S. distributor of those now-ubiquitous metal drinking bottles. Sigg initially benefitted from the scare as consumers ditched their plastic drinking bottles. But once it transpired that the lining of Sigg's aluminum bottles manufactured before August 2008 also contained trace amounts of BPA, its U.S. distributor was hit with lawsuits and public vilification that sent it into bankruptcy. Where does the economy get those jobs back?

Copyright 2011 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved