Federal concerns about the potential health and environmental effects of the widely-used chemical bisphenol A (BPA) continue to grow.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said it may add BPA to the agencys list of chemicals of concerns and require testing of its impact on the environment.
Earlier this year, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) said it had some concerns about the health impacts BPA had on the brain, behavior, and prostate gland in fetuses, infants, and young children.
BPA is used in many consumer products, including baby bottles, plastic water containers, metallic food and beverage cans, cash register receipts, medical equipment, and dental sealants.
Animal studies have shown the chemical can cause reproductive and developmental problems and may also affect the endocrine system, the EPA said. Other studies have linked BPA exposure in humans with cardiovascular disease, diabetes, heart disease, obesity, and reproductive issues.
Some scientists have also told ConsumerAffairs.com that children and developing fetuses are especially vulnerable to potential adverse health effects from BPA exposure.
In related news, more than 200 environmental and public health groups protested outside the GlobalChem Conference in Baltimore Tuesday and challenged chemical manufacturers to support federal changes that would protect the public from BPA and other potentially dangerous toxins.
The EPA said its decision to scrutinize BPA is a sign the agency is worried about the possible health and environmental risks posed by the chemical.
We share FDAs concern about the potential health impacts from BPA, said Steve Owens, assistant administrator of EPAs Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances. Both EPA and FDA, and many other agencies are moving forward to fully assess the environmental and health impacts to ensure that the full range of BPAs possible impacts are examined.
The EPA, however, is not taking any regulatory action at this time to stop the use of BPA. Instead, the agency announced the following action plan regarding the chemical:
• Adding BPA to the chemical concern list because of its potential effects on the environment. This would identify BPA as a substance that may present an unreasonable risk of injury to the environment because of its potential for long-term adverse effects on growth, reproduction and development in aquatic species;
• Requiring information on concentrations of BPA in surface water, ground water, and drinking water to determine if the chemical may be present at levels of potential concern. The EPA said its especially concerned about levels that could harm environmental organisms, pregnant women, and children;
• Requiring manufacturers to provide test data to help the agency evaluate the chemicals possible long-term effects on growth, reproduction, and development in aquatic organisms and wildlife;
• Using EPAs Design for the Environment (DfE) program to encourage the reduction of BPA exposures. One of these activities, to be initiated in April 2010, will address thermal and carbonless paper coatings used in such applications as cash register receipts, a use where preferable alternatives to BPA may be readily available, the EPA said;
• Continuing to evaluate the potential disproportionate impact on children and other sub-populations through exposure to BPA from non-food packaging uses.
A trade group for chemical makers downplayed the EPAs action plan and its concerns about BPA.
It is important to recognize that EPA is not proposing any regulatory action regarding human health, said Cal Dooley, president and CEO of the American Chemistry Council (ACC). We look forward to a productive exchange with EPA on this action plan, and working to modernize the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) in a way that allows EPA to better prioritize chemicals for review.
Cooley said many studies have shown that BPA does not pose any environmental risks at its current levels.
BPA is one of the most thoroughly studied chemicals in commerce and comprehensive scientific assessments recently conducted in Europe and Japan have affirmed that BPA is not a risk to the environment at current low levels, he said. Numerous studies have found that BPA rapidly biodegrades, does not bioaccumulate and, if detected at all, is present in the environment only at trace levels that do not cause harmful effects.
Dooley also pointed out that other U.S. regulators, including the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), have determined that BPA is safe and have not banned the chemicals use.
HHS and FDA recently reaffirmed that BPA has not been proven to cause harm to infants or adults, and other regulatory bodies around the world have determined that the science supports the safety of BPA, he said.
But HHS officials in January said recent studies raised concerns and doubts about the safety of BPA.
In 2008, the Food and Drug Administration conducted a review of toxicology research and information on BPA, and, at that time, assessed that food-related materials made with BPA on the market were safe, HHS said. But recent studies have reported subtle effects of low doses of BPA in laboratory animals.
While BPA is not proven to harm children or adults, HHS added, these newer studies have led federal health officials to express some concern about the safety of BPA.
Canadian authorities have already announced plans to ban BPA in baby bottles as a precautionary measure, the EPA said. The country is taking these steps even though science indicates exposure levels are below potential health levels, the EPA said.
Meanwhile, environmental and public health groups protesting in Baltimore today urged chemical makers to back legislative changes that would improve the countrys outdated Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
The groups argue the chemical industry is more interested in improving its image than revamping the antiquated law that governs our countrys chemical policies.
The chemical industry knows it needs to respond to the increasing scientific evidence linking toxic chemicals to disease, and consumer demand for safer products, said Andy Igrejas, national campaign Director for the Safer Chemicals, Health Families (SCHF) coalition. The group represents more than 11 million health care professionals, environmental health advocates and concerned parents around the country. But reforming TSCA is not just about improving PR for the chemical industry its about genuinely protecting public health.
In the next few weeks, Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Representative Bobby Rush (D-IL) are expected to introduce reforms to the TSCA.
Environmental and public health advocates have urged Congress to overhaul the law, saying it fails to protect consumers from potentially dangerous chemicals.
When Congress adopted the TSCA in 1976, for example, it "grandfathered" in the 62,000 chemicals on the market at the time. Since then, the EPA has regulated only five of those chemicals and required testing of slightly more than 200.
But three fundamental differences between how the chemical industry and public health groups want to revamp the TSCA have recently surfaced, according to the Safer Chemicals, Health Families coalition.
The coalition said public health advocates want the following reforms made to the TSCA:
• Public disclosure of safety information for all chemicals in use. This requirement will both identify and keep harmful chemicals out of commerce and identify safer chemicals that can replace the dangerous ones, the SCHF said;
• Prompt action to phase out or reduce the most dangerous chemicals;
• Deciding safety based on real world exposure to all sources of toxic chemicals. Currently chemicals are too often assessed without taking into account that, in the real world, people are exposed to multiple chemicals from multiple sources, including air, water, food, and consumer products, the SCHF said. Public health advocates believe that, when assessing safety, EPA must take into account the sum of all exposures to a chemical and to other chemicals that cause the same or similar health impacts.
The coalition said the chemical industry only wants these changes made to the TSCA:
• Limited testing of a handful of chemicals, which public health advocates say would leave consumers in the dark about safety hazards. Only these priority chemicals would be subjected to further information requirementsand then only on a case-by-case basis, the SCHF said. By not requiring at least basic information up front for all chemicals, the industry's proposal would fail to identify all problem chemicals on the market;
• More lengthy and costly studies of chemicals already proven to be dangerous;
• An assumption that the public is only exposed to one chemical at a time, and from one source at a time. This approach not only fails to consider the full extent of chemical exposures; it wont tell us how most chemicals are used or how we are exposed to them, the SFHC said.
The president and CEO of the American Chemistry Council said today that he welcomes talks with environmental and public health groups about improving the TSCA.
Our highest priority is public health and safety, said the organizations Cal Dooley. Americans deserve to have confidence that the products they buy are safe for the uses for which they were designed.
Paramount to the success of a comprehensive legislative proposal is the ability to discuss ideas and concepts in a transparent fashion and allow for meaningful discussion by all key stakeholder groups, he added. Todays conference is another step in the right direction.
Dooley also said his organization is not unilaterally opposed to legislative action to improve the TSCA and protect the publics safety.
While TSCA has been protective of public health and the environment, we recognize that more can be done to harness the advances made in science and technology over the past three decades, he said. We are committed to developing a new comprehensive chemical management law that puts the safety of the American consumer first, while ensuring the innovation that will lead to the development of essential new consumer products and high-paying American jobs.
A copy of the Safer Chemicals, Health Families coalitions statement on this issue is now posted on the groups Web site.