Science, states add eyes on BPA

High-profile state legislation plus the Food and Drug Administration’s promised examination of bisphenol A  (BPA) health effects could equal big strides toward banning BPA. 

The California State Senate on June 2 passed a ban on BPA in food and drink containers for children under 3. The state's legislation has blazed trails on the national level before - its 2007 phthalates ban was the nation’s first, and it’s credited with creating critical mass for the 2008 national ban.  

"The case [against BPA] has grown more compelling, [and] when California does something, it tends to spread across the nation," Mary Lynne Vellinga, spokeswoman for bill co-sponsor Sen. Fran Pavley (D) told the Christian Science Monitor in June.

In mid-July, an EPA hearing will be held in Oakland to examine whether BPA should join chemicals linked with cancer or reproductive toxicity on California’s Proposition 65 list. All products containing chemicals that appear on the annual list are required to carry warning labels. As Shannon Coughlin of the Breast Cancer Fund told the Los Angeles Times: 

“All eyes are kind of on California in terms of Proposition 65."

Eyes are also on the FDA, which has promised to reconsider its long-held position that BPA poses no health threats. With much at stake, many – including a coalition of investors representing $26.2 billion in assets – are urging the FDA to rely on unbiased science in its examination of BPA.     

In this week’s Newsweek, Sharon Begley points out three big problems with studies called “definitive” by an American Chemistry Council spokesman:

First, research in 2002 used a strain of rat that is extremely insensitive to estrogen; it doesn't even show hormonal effects if it's given 100 times the dose of estrogen in human birth-control pills. Since BPA acts like an estrogen, finding no effect in this insensitive rat is about as illuminating as not finding an effect of rain on a waterproof watch. That doesn't tell you that water can't harm machinery.

Second, a 2008 study found that prostates in mice not exposed to BPA—these were the control animals—were 70 percent larger than normal. That's a problem: other studies have shown that BPA enlarges the prostate by about 35 percent. If you're looking for a prostate effect by comparing BPA-exposed mice to mice with mysteriously abnormal prostates, it's no wonder BPA gets exonerated.

Finally, another 2008 study compared BPA to estradiol, a form of estrogen. But estradiol had never been used to provide such a baseline, so concluding that BPA is less potent than estradiol—as industry does—is like saying one temperature is higher than another when you don't even know if the thermometer works.

With the science behind the chemical industry’s studies challenged and state efforts on the rise, BPA may be at a tipping point. As investigative journalist Nena Baker writes, “Based on what we know today...the industry's insistence that we continue to accept BPA in our food and beverage containers is just plain insulting.”