Bisphenol A - what are the sources of exposure?
http://www.enviroblog.org/2009/02/bpa-exposure-sources.html

By Olga Naidenko
February 13, 2009

question_mark.jpg

On January 28, 2009, Susanne Rust of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel 
<http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/38515489.html>reported 
on a new finding that endocrine disruptor and suspected 
cancer-causing chemical Bisphenol A may stay in the human body much 
longer than previously thought, according to a 
<http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/docs/2009/0800376/abstract.html>study 
published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives from 
Richard Stahlhut and Shanna Swan of the University of Rochester and 
Wade Welshons of the University of Missouri-Columbia, entitled 
"Bisphenol A Data in NHANES Suggest Longer Than Expected Half-Life, 
Substantial Non-Food Exposure, or Both".

BPA, a commonly used plastics chemical, leaches into food and 
beverage from polycarbonate plastic containers, epoxy can linings, 
and baby bottles. A year ago, scientists at the Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention (CDC) analyzed the data from the National 
Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) and discovered that 
BPA contaminates the bodies of 93% of Americans tested; women had 
higher BPA levels than men, and children and adolescents carried more 
BPA in their bodies compared to adults. Two key uncertainties were 
highlighted in the CDC study: what are all the sources for BPA 
exposure and how long this chemical would persist in the bodies of 
people of different ages.

BPA persists in the body
The chemical industry and FDA have based their claims for BPA's 
safety to children on the assumption that this chemical has a short 
half-life in the body and is eliminated within 24 hours. However, 
when Rochester team re-analyzed the NHANES data in greater depth, 
they detected a new, startling finding that was previously missed: 
when a person abstains from food for 8-24 hours and thus avoids any 
food-based BPA exposure, BPA levels in their body drop off but never 
disappear. This persistence of BPA in the body may drive a lot of 
health risks, including breast cancer, diabetes and heart disease.

It's hard to reduce your exposure
In 2008, Canada banned BPA use in baby bottles and took steps to 
minimize contamination of baby formula. Many states in the U.S. have 
been moving along the same path. In contrast, FDA has long stood in 
this issue on the side of the chemical industry, failing to protect 
the public from the health risks of BPA. Aggravated by the FDA's 
inaction, consumers have taken matters into their own hands, seeking 
out BPA-free products. Many manufacturers eagerly responded to the 
consumer demand and started offering BPA-free options. But is buying 
a BPA-free water bottle and avoiding canned food a sufficient measure 
for getting away from BPA exposure? Scientists were puzzled why 
bodies of so many Americans are polluted with BPA. Although plastics 
are ubiquitous in our society, not everybody is eating canned food 
and drinking water out of polycarbonate plastic bottles every day.

BPA exposures from new, unexpected sources
As reported by the Journal Sentinel, "The research indicates for the 
first time that people are either constantly being bombarded with 
bisphenol A from non-food sources, such as receipts and plastic water 
piping, or they are storing the chemical in fat cells, unable to get 
rid of it as quickly as scientists have believed." The reference to 
receipts is fascinating - it is a little known fact that ordinary 
shopping receipts contain high levels of BPA, which smears on fingers 
and may end up being ingested or transferred into the body through the skin.

BPA contaminates much more than your body
An estimated 6 billion pounds of BPA are produced globally annually, 
generating about $6 billion in sales. In addition to food containers, 
BPA is an additive in many other consumer products, some like plastic 
water pipes and municipal water storage tanks may also leach BPA 
directly into the drinking water. Let us also consider the other side 
of BPA lifecycle: What happens to those 6 billion pounds every year 
once they are released into the environment? They do not just 
disappear; on the contrary, BPA accumulates in the freshwater and 
marine environment, where it could damage wildlife reproduction. In 
2007, an interdisciplinary team of scientists from seven different 
research institutions, found aquatic animals and aquatic ecosystems 
to be at great risk for BPA-caused endocrine disruption.

Water pollution with BPA is not just a risk to wildlife, as 
demonstrated by another research finding, this time from the U.S. 
Geological Survey (USGS). Tucked away among long data tables of a 
recent <http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2008/1293/>USGS report is a startling 
observation that BPA is 1 of the 5 most frequently detected chemical 
contaminants in groundwater sites analyzed by USGS. 30% of the 
samples tested by USGS scientists contained BPA. In many communities 
nationwide, groundwater is the main source of drinking water, and 
people in some communities might be continuously exposed to BPA 
simply from the water they drink. Water utilities have not been 
testing tap water for potential BPA contamination so we don't know 
how many people may be ingesting BPA with tap water. But just think 
about it: with 6 billion pounds of BPA produced every year, the 
purity of our water supplies may very well be at risk.

BPA is just one reason we need a new federal chemical policy
The BPA debacle highlights the importance of looking before we leap, 
especially with respect to toxic chemicals. We need a watchful 
federal policy so that manufacturers would have to demonstrate the 
safety of their products before they are put on the market. This is 
why EWG supports the <http://www.ewg.org/kidsafe>Kid-Safe Chemicals 
Act that would require that industrial chemicals be safe for infants, 
kids and other vulnerable groups. The old system of allowing 
chemicals on the market with minimal review is clearly broken and 
must be replaced with a new approach that would put human and 
environmental health ahead of manufacturers' profits.

Photo by <http://www.flickr.com/photos/jhhwild/>jhhwild

  <*}}}>< <http://www.halfthekingdom.org/on+allposters+today.html>on 
AllPosters today <*}}}><<*}}}>< 
<http://astore.amazon.com/halthekin-20>Catholic on Amazon <*}}}><
+
<*}}}>< <http://www.holypostage.com/>Holy Postage <*}}}><
<*}}}><<http://www.halfthekingdom.org/>Half the 
<http://www.halfthekingdom.org/>Kingdom!<*}}}><

+ "The fruit of abortion is nuclear war" - Bl. Mother Teresa +


  <*}}}>< <http://www.halfthekingdom.org/on+allposters+today.html>on 
AllPosters today <*}}}><<*}}}>< 
<http://astore.amazon.com/halthekin-20>Catholic on Amazon <*}}}><
+
<*}}}>< <http://www.holypostage.com/>Holy Postage <*}}}><
<*}}}><<http://www.halfthekingdom.org/>Half the 
<http://www.halfthekingdom.org/>Kingdom!<*}}}><

+ "The fruit of abortion is nuclear war" - Bl. Mother Teresa +

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Please note that I do not send or open attachments sent to this list. 

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Catholics on Fire" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/Catholics-on-Fire

May the blessing of Jesus and our Blessed Mother be with you
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to