Bisphenol A, or BPA, is a hormonally active chemical found in everything from cash register receipts to soup and beverage cans. After coming under fire in recent years for their use of BPA, every major drink container and baby bottle manufacturer has phased out the use of the compound and now label products as BPA-free. Earlier this year, after high levels of BPA were reported in soup can lining, Campbell’s pledged to phase out the use of the toxic chemical.

The alarm over the widespread use of BPA is entirely warranted. BPA has been linked with increased risk for cardiovascular disease, breast and prostate cancer, early puberty, obesity, diabetes, infertility, erectile dysfunction, and learning and attention-related disorders. Most importantly, a new review of more than 800 studies published last month in the journal Endocrine Reviews shows that even extremely small doses of BPA can be toxic. The study authors conclude that due to the effects of low doses of hormone-disrupting chemicals, “fundamental changes in chemical testing and safety determination are needed to protect human health.”

For the past several years, the Breast Cancer Fund, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), and other leading environmental health groups have been urging the FDA to ban the use of BPA in food packaging. In 2008, the NRDC filed a citizen’s petition arguing that the FDA should ban all uses of BPA that result in it being found in food. Despite the legal requirement to respond to the petition, the FDA did nothing. In 2010, the NRDC sued the federal agency to force a response. The consent judgment that settled this case in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in December required the FDA to respond to the NRDC’s petition by March 31.

Some opponents of the petition, such as the American Chemistry Council and the North American Metal Packaging Alliance, claimed that banning BPA is unnecessary. Citing companies like Philips Avent that have chosen to self-regulate, they maintained that enough has already been done to curb the most dangerous uses of BPA. But not all companies self-regulate, nor can they be expected to. As consumer products are increasingly manufactured overseas, it is critical to set high standards for safety in domestic manufacturing. It is also important to be able to hold imports to the same regulatory standards.

In the past, other toxic materials have been routinely used in consumer products even after the devastating health impacts were discovered. Lead-based paint, found to cause kidney damage and developmental delays in children under 6, was once used on furniture and walls until the Consumer Product Safety Commission banned its use in 1977, and was used in toys until 2008. In 1989, after decades of widespread use, the Environmental Protection Agency banned the use of asbestos, a cancer-causing insulation, in products such as corrugated cardboard and certain types of pipe insulation (though it is worth noting that even today, many consumer products can still legally contain trace amounts of asbestos).

Thousands of people could have been spared the harmful side effects of exposure to these toxic materials if manufacturers had self-regulated and regulatory agencies had acted quicker. Similarly, if regulators had heeded the groundbreaking BPA research studies conducted by independent scientists since the 1990s, use of the chemical could have long ago been phased out. Because BPA so easily leaches out of plastic and aluminum consumer products and into human and animal bodies, and because it is toxic in even small doses, it should be banned from all food packaging. Consider this: Why bother buying certified organic when healthy food is packaged with toxic chemicals, no label or warning required? Perhaps we can avoid lead in our paint or asbestos in our insulation, but how can we be expected to avoid the ubiquitous use of BPA in the lining of canned food?

Despite the FDA’s refusal to act, a nationwide ban is critically needed. Eleven states have already banned the use of BPA in some infant feeding products. Supported by sound scientific research and bolstered by successful efforts to ban the use of BPA in other countries, a concerned alliance of national and international organizations, including the Breast Cancer Fund and the Plastic Pollution Coalition, rallied behind the NRDC’s petition and lawsuit. A growing list of celebrities, including Martha Stewart and Jeff Bridges, also pledged their support to the cause. The fact that the FDA ignored the growing chorus of concerned citizens, scientists, and public health and environmental advocates is alarming.

The FDA is tasked with monitoring and upholding a high standard of public health and food safety. By seemingly bowing to pressure from manufacturers and ignoring disturbing scientific evidence of harm, the FDA has effectively allowed for the continued use of toxic chemicals in food and drink packaging will only cause further preventable harm. How can we trust a regulatory agency entrusted with the safety of our food supply when, on the issue of BPA, they fail to regulate at all?

Jeanne Rizzo is a registered nurse and the President and CEO of the Breast Cancer Fund. Daniella Dimitrova Russo is a co-founder and Executive Director of the Plastic Pollution Coalition. Brittany Shoot is a journalist and the Managing Editor at the Plastic Pollution Coalition.

BPA is an endocrine disruptor and can be found in water bottles, some baby bottles, in epoxy resins used to coat the inside food and drinks cans, dental fillings and sealants, and receipts. BPA has been linked to a variety of diseases including autism, attention disorder ADHD, erectile dysfunction, heart disease in women, depression, learning disorders, asthma, obesity, type 2 diabetes, and infertility. People exposed to BPA are reported to have a higher risk of developing prostate and breast cancers, and BPA has been found to decrease the effectiveness of chemotherapy. Babies and young children are especially sensitive to the harmful effects of BPA. A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) study found BPA in 95% of adult human urine samples and 93% of samples in children.

Over three years ago, the Natural Resources Defense Council filed a petition with the FDA asking them to ban the use of bisphenol A (BPA) as an additive. After many months of waiting, a decision date has been declared. March 31, 2012 is the last possible day that the FDA has to make a permanent decision about the usage of BPA in consumer products. The FDA has expressed concerned, scientists have expressed concern, organizations have expressed concerned, and relentless public mandate has created a serious shift in its usage within products. Not surprisingly, plastic industry lobbyists, and those benefit financially from the continued use of BPA, doubt its harm. In 2011,  Maine Governer Paul LePage went so far as to claim that there “hasn’t been any science” that identified BPA as a problem, but then made the claim that there was, in fact, some talk of BPA acting as an estrogen mimic that he’d heard about, but in a worst case scenario “women may have little beards” as a result of exposure. People like this are aggressively lobbying to keep this additive alive and they will be pushing hard on the FDA.

Luckily, smart and caring people are prevailing. Later that same year, Jeanne Rizzo, registered nurse, CEO and President of Breast Cancer Fund was quoted in Forbes saying, “If BPA were being studied as a pharmaceutical drug, it’s highly doubtful, given its interaction with animals, that it would make it into a clinical trial with humans. It wouldn’t make it into a clinical trial, and yet we’re already in a clinical trial and we’re all the subjects…”

A growing group of notable supports (see list below) have co-sponsored/co-signed a petition urging the FDA to ban BPA in the US.  Together we must urge the FDA to ban BPA from food and drink containers and packages as it has been shown to be harmful in numerous studies. We are asking that the FDA seriously consider their own concern they have over the dangerous effects of BPA and do what is right for the health and safety of the people of the United States.

FDA must ban BPA.

Sign our petition here:  http://ow.ly/9KVah

And join these wonderful supporters:

Addison Fischer,  Founder, Planet Heritage Foundation; Founder, Verisign

Amber Sakai, fashion designer

Amy Smart, actress

Ann K. Luskey, Ocean conservationist

Barbara Benish, UN Safe Planet

Beth Nielsen Chapman, musician

Bill McKibben, author and founder 350.org

Bobbi Chase Wilding, Clean & Healthy New York

Bonnie Raitt, musician

Chandra Jessee, philanthropist

Congressman Stephen Cohen (D-Tenn.)

Daniella Russo, Executive Director, Plastic Pollution Coalition

Dennis Grimaldi, Broadway playwright

Dianna Cohen, Artist & Creative Advocacy Director, Plastic Pollution Coalition

Dick Button, Olympic gold medalist & ABC sports commentator

Dr. Marty Goldstein, DVM

Ed Begley Jr., actor and environmentalist

Fran Drescher, actress/producer

Hilary Swank, actress

Jackson Browne, musician

Jeanne Rizzo, RN; President and CEO, Breast Cancer Fund

Jeff Bridges, actor

Jeff Franklin, writer, producer, director

Joan Fabry, architect

Joanna Moore, owner, AXE restaurant

Jodie Evans, co-founder CODEPINK

Keb’Mo, musician

Mario Batali, chef

Mark Christy, President, Hobie

Martha Stewart, founder of Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia

Michelle Martin Coyne, artist and photographer

P. Dee Boersma, Ph.D, Department of Biology, University of Washington

Physicians for Social Responsibility – Los Angeles (PSR-LA)

Rosanna Arquette, actor

Roz Savage, ocean rower and environmental campaigner

Sergio Arau, film director, musician, visual artist

Shari Sant Plummer, President, Code Blue Foundation

Sue Rockefeller, filmmaker

Sylvia Earle, Ph.D., oceanographer and explorer

The Ditty Bops, musicians

Wallace J Nichols Ph.D., marine biologist

Wavy Gravy, clown poet, SEVA

Werner Boote, filmmaker/director of “Plastic Planet”

Yareli Arizmendi, actor, writer

(list current as of 8:20 pm PST, March 20, 2012)

Please sign the petition   http://ow.ly/9KVah

Thanks to the millions spent by lobbyists for the American Chemistry Council, Dow, and Exxon to defeat these bills, now every Californian knows just what the acronym BPA means; why BPA should never be allowed in baby products;  and exactly how much cash-strapped California spends on collection and removal of plastic bags (at least $25 million, and possibly much more), lavishly handed away at the checkout lines.

With our state in such dire financial straits that teachers are being furloughed and libraries are being closed, we are grateful to the chemical company lobbyists for helping us bring this needless waste of money to the forefront of public discourse.

Thanks to the expensive and contentious debate around these two bills, every Californian is wondering why plenty of other developed nations, like France and Canada have managed to ban BPA from baby products in their countries. Why can’t it be done here? Do we care less about our babies? Every Californian is chagrined to see that “developing nations” like India, Mexico, China and so many others have already banned plastic bags. Why can’t Americans do the same?

True, the bans on plastic bags and BPA in baby products in California were not enacted, in spite of overwhelming public, green business, labor and grocery store support. But something more powerful has been put into motion—the unstoppable energy of a mass movement.

Nothing can stop communities from raising their voices against plastic pollution. Banning plastic bags is something every community can do, just like many local jurisdictions have already started banning polystyrene containers.

And BPA? We simply have to continue to push on this. Our children deserve our protection. Mothers and fathers, let’s all speak up and demand safe BPA-free children’s products.

We, the founders of Plastic Pollution Coalition will continue to support all efforts to reduce plastic pollution and its toxic impacts on our environment. We are more motivated than ever; the time is now.

Daniella Dimitrova Russo, Dianna Cohen, Lisa Kaas Boyle, Manuel Maqueda

and Plastic Pollution Coalition Notable Supporters:
Rosanna Arquette
Rachelle Carson
Luis Conte, and family
Maria G. Conte, Carina Conte, Luis C. Conte
Chris Jordan
Kate Connor
Jackson Browne
Kelly Slater
Joanna Moore
Captain Charles Moore
Amy Smart
The Ditty Bops
Wavy Gravy

BPA has been banned from baby bottles and children’s sippy cups in Connecticut, Maryland, Minnesota, Washington, Wisconsin, and Vermont, four counties in New York and the City of Chicago. Connecticut and Vermont restrict the use of BPA in baby food and infant formula. Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Denmark have banned BPA in food containers for young children, and calls for bans are moving through Europe.

In California, Senator Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., has introduced legislation that would ban BPA in infant food packaging, in addition to other food and beverage containers.

The San Francisco Chronicle reports that the plastics industry spent over 5 million dollars attempting to kill this bill in California and describes just how difficult the fight was. More details also in the press release of PPC member, Breast Cancer Fund.

The bill will now go to the California Senate for a concurrence vote (the Senate already passed the bill last year), and then to California Governor Schwarzenegger’s desk.

More information, telephone numbers and suggested actions are located here.

And here is some news coverage on the vote:

• BPA baby bottle ban fails in Assembly – ABC local coverage
• Lobbyist ‘fear tactics’ to fight BPA ban seem to be working – Consumer Watch

Alberto Alemanno, an associate professor of law at HEC Paris, and Editor-in-Chief of the European Journal of Risk Regulation reports that the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) is currently considering an update to its current Tolerable Daily Intake (TDI) of  0.05 mg BPA/kg body weight.

Read Alberto’s full article here. Plastic Pollution Coalition has asked Alberto to keep us appraised of developments on this evolving story.

Sign the petition to safeguard our children

These chemicals are increasingly linked to serious long-term health effects, such as, cancer, autism, Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), learning disorders, infertility, diabetes, obesity, and heart disease.

Our children must get the healthy start they deserve. We all can help by joining the thousands of other Americans demanding a real federal toxics law that will make consumer products safe for kids.

Environmental Working Group has created an online petition to support the Kid-Safe Chemicals Act, which would require that all chemicals be proven safe for children before they can be sold.

Lawmakers in Washington need to know that you want them to reform our broken toxics law.  Click here to add your voice to the petition.

The mission of the Breast Cancer Fund is closely related to the our mission. First, we share a concern about the carcinogenic properties of plastics. Carcinogenic chemicals are released throughout the entire life cycle of plastics from production, through use and disposal. In addition, we share the Breast Cancer Fund’s strategy to get to the root of the problem by eliminating carcinogens from our products through legislative action like the proposed federal ban on BPA in food and drink containers.

No more than 10 percent of breast cancers are genetic, and science points to toxic chemicals and radiation as factors in the sharp rise of breast cancer incidence. Through public education, policy initiatives, advocacy and innovative campaigns, the Breast Cancer Fund mobilizes the public to secure the changes needed to stop this disease before it starts.

The Breast Cancer Fund focuses on the potential impacts of toxic chemicals on breast cancer; however, the group is cognizant that reducing human exposure will also keep these chemicals out of our air, waterways, soils and ice caps to reduce exposure for all animals, including humans.

The Breast Cancer Fund has taken a lead in federal advocacy for elimination of carcinogens in plastics, and  includes excellent information on its website about the carcinogenic dangers of plastics.

Welcome on board!

pink washing: the deceptive marketing practice of promoting association with a cancer charity (often using pink ribbon symbol) in order to suggest a company’s commitment to battling cancer, when according to independent scientific testing, a marketed product has potential to cause cancer.

Pink Washing Sparkletts’ BPA Plastic Bottles

Sparkletts’ water delivery trucks, previously known for their flashy sequins, have been pink washed. They are decorated with a big pink bow for breast cancer research and a large advertisement heralding a partnership with the Susan G. Komen for the Cure breast cancer charity.

Perhaps Sparkletts is promoting an alliance with a cancer charity as a public relations strategy to distract consumers from Sparkletts’ more significant association with polycarbonate plastic bottles used to deliver the Sparkletts water. Sparkletts’ bottles are made with a known hormone disrupter, Bishenol-A (BPA), that is suspected to cause breast cancer and prostate cancer, among other diseases. A recent study — partially funded by Susan G. Komen for the Cure — even finds that BPA interferes with chemotherapy used to treat breast cancer.

Perhaps in the spirit of partnership with a bottled water company, the Susan G. Komen for the Cure website includes a section entitled “Plastics,” which reports:

Links between plastics and cancer are often reported by the media and in e-mail hoaxes (one e-mail hoax falsely claims to be a study from Johns Hopkins University). However, there is no scientific research to support a link between using plastic items, such as drinking water from a plastic bottle, and the risk of breast cancer.

The Sparkletts website specifically defends BPA and refers to the American Chemistry Council, chief lobbyist for BPA, for more information.

Link Between Cancer and BPA, a Synthetic Estrogen

BPA was originally synthesized in 1936 as an estrogen replacement therapy, but since the 1940s it has been used primarily as a hardening agent in the manufacture of polycarbonate plastic. BPA can be found in plastic baby bottles, children’s “sippy” cups, in the epoxy resin coating in the interior of modern metal food and aluminum soda cans, and in many other products, including the large polycarbonate water bottles Sparkletts and other water services deliver to homes and offices.

The link between excess estrogen and cancer has been long established in medical research. Hormone replacement therapy for menopausal women has become disfavored for this reason.

“We know a women’s lifetime risk of breast cancer is directly linked to her lifetime exposure to estrogen — both natural and synthetic estrogen. It’s outrageous that manufacturers of some baby bottles are exposing little girls to BPA, a synthetic plasticizer that mimics estrogen, and possibly increasing that little girl’s risk of breast cancer later in life, especially when safe alternatives are available,” observes Janet Nudelman, Director, Program and Policy for the Breast Cancer Fund.

Because their reproductive organs are still developing, fetuses, infants, and children are especially vulnerable to the synthetic estrogen BPA. This means pregnant women and children should reduce exposure to BPA. Reproductive-aged women should also be wary of BPA. “From animal models, it appears that the period right after fertilization and before a woman even knows she’s pregnant, is the most sensitive time in development,” says Professor Randy Jirtle, Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University Medical Center, “so if women are even thinking of becoming pregnant, they should consider limiting their exposure to BPA.”

Dr. Frederick vom Saal reports “There are now clear molecular mechanisms that explain how bisphenol A alters human and animal cells at concentrations at and below one part per trillion. And that’s over 1000 times below the levels that you virtually are certain to have in your body, according to the Centers for Disease Control. So if that doesn’t get you a little nervous, nothing should.”

BPA Exposure from Plastic Bottles

Despite the assurances to the contrary made by Sparkletts and Susan G. Komen for the Cure, there is indeed compelling scientific research linking plastic bottles to BPA exposure, and BPA exposure to breast cancer and many other diseases. Polycarbonate is made from BPA, and that small amounts of BPA can leach out of polycarbonate containers and plastic linings of cans into our food and drink. “Close to 100 percent of our exposure occurs this way,” says Michael Selby of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, a division of the National Institutes of Health.

BPA has been under surveillance for years, but the charges against it grew in May 2009 when a U.S. study made a link between drinking water from polycarbonate bottles and BPA exposure. The report revealed that the average BPA level of those drinking from polycarbonate bottles was 69% higher than those drinking from stainless steel bottles.

U.S. Congress, FDA and EPA Target BPA

U.S. Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Edward Markey (D-Mass) recently proposed legislation to establish a federal ban on BPA in all food and beverage containers. “Americans should not be used as guinea pigs by chemical companies while we wait, potentially for several years, for more scientific evidence to show this chemical is harmful to our health. The time has come to take action,” says Senator Feinstein.

Reversing its earlier position, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) just admitted having “some concern” that BPA may cause developmental problems in the brains and hormonal systems of fetuses and children and is spending $30 million on BPA research to formulate its formal conclusions.

BPA has also attracted the attention of Lisa P. Jackson, President Obama’s appointed head of the Environmental Protection Agency, who recently announced historic plans to overhaul federal toxic chemicals controls, with more rigorous testing and safety standards and greater EPA authority to protect the public.

Pink Washing Smartwater’s PET Plastic Bottles

DS Waters and Sparkletts are not alone is the pink-washing business. Susan G. Komen for the Cure is also accepting donations from Smartwater despite evidence that the polyethylene terephthalate (PET) plastic bottles used by Smartwater may be just as harmful as its harder cousin polycarbonate. Recently, scientists at Goethe University in Frankfurt, Germany discovered that chemicals in PET plastics have the potential to interfere with estrogen and other reproductive hormones, just as BPA and phthalates–already banned in the U.S. from infant products–do. Lead researcher Professor Martin Wagner says: “If you drink water from plastic bottles, you have a high probability of drinking estrogenic compounds.” Overall, Professor Wagner says, levels of these compounds in the water were surprisingly high and “having done all of these experiments, I started drinking tap water.”

10 Ways to Prevent Carcinogenic Chemicals from Contaminating Your Food and Water

1. Write to your U.S. Senator now.

Through this easy link, email your U.S. Senator to voice support for the proposed federal ban on BPA in food and drink containers.

2. Donate to the Breast Cancer Fund.

3. Skip bottled water and use your own unlined stainless steel water bottles.

Carefully choose a stainless steel water bottle, and make sure it’s unlined — some metal water bottles contain a plastic liner that may contain BPA.

4. Limit canned foods and beverages.

The epoxy liners of metal food and beverage cans most likely contain BPA. Especially avoid canned foods that are acidic (e.g., tomatoes, citrus products, and acidic beverages, like colas) and canned alcoholic beverages, since acids and alcohols can exacerbate the leaching of BPA.

5. Skip the water cooler.

Those hard plastic jugs that many companies use to provide their employees and customers with “pure” water are usually made with BPA. Drink filtered tap water instead.

6. Store foods in glass.

Just be sure to wash the lids, if made of plastic, by hand and not in the dishwasher.

7. Use your own unlined stainless steel travel mug.

Heat helps toxins from leach into your beverage. Instead of accepting a polystyrene “to-go” cup for your hot beverage purchases, use a unlined stainless steel travel mug.

8. Avoid Cooking in Non-Stick Pans and Eating Foods Packaged with Non-Stick Plastics.

Perfluorinated compounds (PFCs) are carcinogenic chemicals that make materials stain and stick resistant and persist in our bodies long after the packaging from such products like microwave popcorn or pizza is disposed or the non-stick pan is put away.

9. Minimize hard plastics in your kitchen.

Hard plastic stirring spoons, pancake flippers, blenders, plastic cutting boards, measuring cups, and colanders regularly come into contact with both food and heat. Replace these items with wooden, metal, or glass alternatives.

10. Join an advocacy group.

Food & Water Watch and Environmental Working Group will keep you up-to-date with current research and legislation regarding plastics and food and water safety.

Image Credits: Tin can: flickr of stevendepolo; pink watering cans: flickr of srqpix; pink counter: flickr of m.gifford;

As we reported in October, a separate study (download full report PDF) published by the University of North Carolina- Chapel Hill showed that if a woman is exposed to plastics that leach BPA during her pregnancy,  the baby’s nervous system might be adversely affected.  Consequences include aggressive behavior and hyperactivity.

These studies come in the wake of the failure of the State of California to ban BPA from baby bottles, sippy cups and infant formula, which increase the exposure to BPA of infants who are born already burdened by this powerful endocrine-disrupting chemical.

We at the Plastic Pollution Coalition demand that  Governments intervene immediately and protect the public in general and children in particular  from exposure to BPA and other toxic chemicals leached by plastics, especially when scientific research has already established a more than plausible risk to human health. In some legal systems, as in the law of the European Union, the precautionary principle is a general and compulsory principle of the law.  Unfortunately, this is not the case in the US.

In the face of governmental apathy, and collusion with the plastic industry lobbyists, time has come for us citizens to raise awareness and start a social movement to demand legislation to ban BPA.

Here are some quotes from the news release by Environmental Working Group.  The full text can be read here.

The findings provide hard evidence that U.S. infants are contaminated with BPA beginning in the womb.

The tests identified the plastics chemical in 9 of 10 cord blood samples from babies of African American, Asian and Hispanic descent.

“This study proves newborns are exposed to BPA in the womb,” Jacob said. “After they are born, they’ll encounter more BPA by drinking from a bottle, drinking canned infant formula and, eventually, eating canned food like ravioli and chicken noodle soup.”

“America’s system for regulating toxic chemicals is broken. The legislation I am currently drafting will strengthen chemical safety laws and give Americans confidence that products they use are safe.”

Embedded below is a video by Dr. Frederick vom Saal, Professor of Biological Sciences at the University of Missouri and an expert in the study of the effects of BPA.