“Today many plastic products, from sippy cups and blenders to Tupperware containers, are marketed as BPA-free. But [George Bittner’s] findings—some of which have been confirmed by other scientists—suggest that many of these alternatives share the qualities that make BPA [bisphenol A] so potentially harmful,” writes Mariah Blake in a new investigative report examining the purported effects of BPA-free plastic on human health. Published in the March/ April 2014 issue of Mother Jones, the report relies on research conducted by CertiChem, a laboratory founded by University of Texas-Austin Neurobiology Professor George Bittner, whose previous work in Environmental Health Perspectives claimed that “almost all” store-bought food containers “tested positive for estrogenic activity,” including those marketed as BPA-free. In particular, the report points to these findings as evidence that the independent studies used by industry and regulatory authorities are unreliable. “Many of the same scientists who were involved in doing tobacco industry research are…
Tag Archives BPA
After review by member states and unanimous agreement by the Member State Committee, the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) has published a group of evaluation decisions on 14 substances considered to pose potential risks, creating obligations for companies in the European Union to conduct tests and provide further data about their use. The decisions are the culmination of the European Parliament Council’s substance evaluation process under Regulation No. 1907/2006 on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH). In addition to bisphenol A, ECHA has made final decisions on the following substances: isoheptane; imidazole; a mixture of cistetrahydro-2-isobutyl- 4-methylpyran-4-ol; transtetrahydro-2-isobutyl-4-methylpyran-4-ol; oligomerisation and alkylation reaction products of 2 phenylpropene and phenol; N,N’-bis(1,4-dimethylpentyl)-p-phenylenediamine; carbon tetrachloride; 1,3-diphenylguanidine; hexyl salicylate; 2,2’-iminodiethanol; 2-ethylhexanoic acid; decahydronaphthalene; alkanes, C14-17, chloro (MCCP, Medium chained chlorinated paraffins); and 2-(4-tertbutylbenzyl) propionaldehyde. Issue 519
The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has asked member states “to monitor the presence of brominated flame retardants (BFRs) in food over the next two years.” In light of six scientific opinions published by the Scientific Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain between September 2010 and September 2012, EFSA has requested additional information on the following BFR classes and their presence in human food: (i) polybrominated diphenyl ethers; (ii) hexabromocyclododecanes; (iii) tetrabromobisphenol A and its derivatives; (iv) brominated phenols and their derivatives; and (v) emerging and novel brominated flame retardants. In addition, the agency noted that “levels of [BFRs] in food of animal origin could be related to the presence of these substances in animal feed, therefore, based on the first results of the monitoring of food in 2014, a recommendation as regards the monitoring of animal feed could follow in 2015.” Issue 517
California EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has extended the comment period on its notice of intent to list beta-myrcene as known to the state to cause cancer under the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Prop. 65). OEHHA took the action at the request of several trade organizations, including the Flavor and Extract Manufacturers Association, North America Juice Products Association, and Renewable Citrus Products Association. The new comment deadline is March 24, 2014. OEHHA has proposed adding beta-myrcene—a natural food-plant constituent used as a flavoring agent in food and beverages—to the Prop. 65 list under the authoritative bodies listing mechanism. According to the agency, the National Toxicology Program and several other institutions have concluded that the chemical causes kidney cancer in male rats and liver cancer in male mice. See OEHHA News Release, March 4, 2014. In other OEHHA action, the Developmental and Reproductive…
A recent study funded by the National Toxicology Program and conducted by researchers with the Food and Drug Administration’s National Center for Toxicological Research has reportedly found no evidence linking low doses of bisphenol A (BPA) to adverse estrogenic effects in an animal model. K. Barry Delclos, et al., “Toxicity Evaluation of Bisphenol A Administered by Gavage to Sprague Dawley Rats From Gestation Day 6 Through Postnatal Day 90,” Toxicological Sciences, February 2014. To examine the effects of BPA on Sprague Dawley rats shown to be sensitive to estrogenic compounds, scientists administered the substance to rat dams from the sixth day of gestation through labor and to their pups from the first day after birth through postnatal day 90. These rats received either a low dose of BPA (2.5-2700 µg/kg bw/day) or a high dose (100,000 and 300,000 µg/kg bw/day), with the lower dose reportedly corresponding to approximately 70,000 times the…
The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has announced an April 23, 2014, scientific meeting to discuss its draft opinion on the human health risks of bisphenol A (BPA) for consumers. Developed by the EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids (CEF), the draft opinion also includes a re-evaluation of the tolerable daily intake for BPA, which the agency temporarily recommended lowering from 50 μg/kg bw/day to 5 μg/kg bw/day over concerns that exposure to the substance is likely to pose health risks. Additional details about EFSA’s draft assessment of consumer exposure to BPA appear in Issue 511 of this Update. The meeting seeks to discuss comments received during the draft opinion’s consultation period, which ends March 13. Before adopting its final opinion the CEF Panel will take into account these comments and meeting discussions, as well as issue a separate report that outlines these proceedings. EFSA…
The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has launched a public consultation on its draft assessment of the human health risks posed by bisphenol A (BPA). According to a January 17, 2014, press release, the agency has recommended temporarily lowering the current tolerable daily intake (TDI) for BPA from its current level of 50 µg/kg bw/day to 5 µg/kg bw/day over concerns that exposure to the substance is likely to adversely affect the liver and kidney, in addition to affecting the mammary gland. EFSA’s Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavorings and Processing Aids (CEF Panel) apparently arrived at the new TDI after reviewing more than 450 studies related to the potential health hazards associated with BPA. The draft scientific opinion also considers “the possible effects of BPA on the reproductive, nervous, immune, metabolic and cardiovascular systems, as well as the development of cancer,” concluding that these effects—while not likely at…
Tufts University researchers who recently published a study in Environmental Health Perspectives linking bisphenol A (BPA) to mammary gland cancer in rats have walked back their claims after Forbes reported that the statistical data cited in the results “clearly showed BPA had no effects and did not cause cancer.” Nicole Acevedo, et al., “Perinatally Administered Bisphenol A as a Potential Mammary Gland Carcinogen in Rats,” Environmental Health Perspectives, September 2013. When first published ahead of print, the study in question apparently concluded that “developmental exposure to environmentally relevant levels of BPA during gestation and lactation induces mammary gland neoplasms in the absence of any additional carcinogenic treatment.” The researchers also noted that human-relevant doses of BPA “led to the induction of malignant mammary gland tumors and other lesions in adult female rats.” But Forbes, after consulting with experts at the Bioinformatics at the National Institute of Statistical Science, argued that the…
According to news sources, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently withdrew two draft rules, including one that would have designated bisphenol A (BPA) and certain phthalates as “chemicals of concern,” submitted for approval in 2010 and 2011 to the Office of Management and Budget’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) where they remained beyond their prescribed 90-day period of review. The other rule would have clarified that health and safety studies on pre-market chemicals submitted to EPA would not have been deemed confidential business information and would have been made publicly available. The proposed rules were opposed by the chemical industry, which has praised EPA’s decision to abandon the rulemaking. According to an Environmental Defense Fund scientist, OIRA’s failure to act “has effectively denied the public its voice in the rulemaking process.” Richard Denison also said, “By blocking EPA from even proposing the rules and taking public comment—which…
The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) has announced a public consultation seeking feedback on a proposal submitted by the French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health and Safety (ANSES) to reclassify bisphenol A (BPA) based on its alleged reproductive toxicity. According to ECHA, the proposal would upgrade the harmonized classification and labeling (CLH) of BPA from reproductive toxicity category 2 (hazard statement code H361f, “suspected of damaging fertility”) to reproductive toxicity category 1B (hazard statement code H360F, “may damage fertility”). “France welcomes any new classification proposal for other endpoints such as carcinogenicity, development or lactation but believes that the emergency for regulating BPA is high enough justifying targeted CLH report and ATP inclusion at [sic] the first place,” states ANSES in its dossier, which includes an evaluation of BPA studies published since the last CLH evaluation was undertaken in 2002. In addition, ECHA has emphasized that the current public consultation…
