New York Senator Urges EPA to Take Action on Bisphenol A; Controversy Brews over BPA Research
Senator Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), who introduced legislation that would prohibit the use of bisphenol A (BPA) in children’s products, has written to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) administrator seeking an explanation for the agency’s decision to omit BPA from its December 2009 chemical action plan. In the March 2, 2010, letter, Schumer refers to scientific research purportedly identifying BPA risks “particularly to infants and children,” and the Food and Drug Administration’s recent decision to reverse its conclusion that the chemical is safe for all uses.
Schumer also refers to a Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel article reporting that “the agency does not plan to formulate any new plan for regulating BPA for two years. If this is true, it is alarming. At a time when we should be speeding up steps to limit Americans’ exposure to this potentially hazardous chemical, such a decision would apply the brakes.” That article apparently took note of EPA’s decision to leave BPA off its chemical action list occurring one week after administration officials met with chemical industry lobbyists.
According to a press release from Schumer’s office, “While the newspaper provided no evidence that the EPA’s [decision] happened as a direct result of the meeting, it did raise questions about why the agency would back off its previously tough approach on BPA.” Schumer also observes that “BPA is the basic building block for polycarbonate plastic, which, in turn, is used to make various products including refillable food and beverage containers.” He notes that the chemical “is found in 90 percent of infants when they are born, and studies have detected it in the urine of 93 percent of Americans. It has been linked to a range of immune and reproductive deficiencies and disorders.” See Press Release of Senator Charles Schumer, March 2, 2010.
Meanwhile, InsideEPA has reported that EPA is “poised to unveil several new steps to address the risks posed by the ubiquitous plastic ingredient bisphenol-A (BPA) but industry and environmentalists are continuing their long-running debate over the chemical’s potential developmental effects on fetuses, infants and children.” During a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee meeting, an EPA assistant administrator reportedly suggested that the chemical could be added to the drinking water contaminant monitoring list. The White House Office of Management & Budget was said to have released an EPA action plan on BPA on March 2, but it has not been made publicly available.
The American Chemistry Council is now apparently claiming that its position on BPA’s safety has been strengthened by a new study appearing in Toxicological Sciences. A council spokesperson was quoted as saying, “This new study, which exposed pregnant rodents to a range of BPA dietary doses from low to high concluded that BPA had no effects on brain development or behavior in their offspring that had been exposed to BPA in utero and throughout development.” The chemical’s critics, including BPA researcher Frederick vom Saal, wrote to the journal along with 23 other researchers, to point out flaws in the study. According to vom Saal, the study used lab animals that were not responsive to the chemical tested. Apparently, the rats had to be exposed to extremely high doses of another hormone to trigger the reproductive endpoints of interest, thus, they were essentially insensitive to estrogen and would have required exposure to even higher BPA doses for the research to be valid. See InsideEPA.com and The Pump Handle, March 2, 2010.
In a related development, a paper delivered at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology has purportedly linked BPA exposure in female mice to the enhanced susceptibility of their pups to allergic asthma. Y. Nkajima, et al., “Dose Response of Maternal Exposure to Bisphenol A on the Development of Experimental Asthma in Mouse Pups.” According to the researchers, the findings are significant because the dosage mimicked the burden of chronic human BPA exposure. See Foodproductiondaily.com, March 2, 2010.
