Concern grows over chemical commonly found in plastic bottles and canned goods

by Nicholas Jain, posted March 16, 2010

The Food and Drug Administration has released an update regarding its stance on the use of chemical compound bisphenol A, or BPA, in plastic bottles and epoxy-lined metal food and beverage cans. The FDA says that new studies have raised “some concern” about the negative health effects of BPA especially in infants. Previously the FDA had determined that food contact products containing BPA were safe.

The use of BPA is extensive. A study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found BPA in 93 percent of urine samples of people older than six in a test group. The FDA approved BPA in the 1960s for food contact. Polycarbonate plastic bottles like reusable water bottles and baby bottles are made with BPA. Metal can manufacturers protect the inside of cans with epoxy resin liners containing BPA

The National Toxicology Program has found that it has “ ‘some concern’ for the effects on the brain, behavior, and prostate gland in fetuses, infants, and children” of BPA in the amount that people currently receive. “Some concern” is the middle level on a scale that ranges between “serious concern” and “negligible concern.” 

The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences is using $30 million for BPA studies including $15 million from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, also called the stimulus package. The FDA expects the results from studies over the next 18 to 24 months, and some of the research will be conducted at the FDA’s National Center for Toxicological Research in central Arkansas.

Until the additional research is completed, the FDA is trying to lessen exposure to BPA through the food system. During a conference call, Josh Sharfstein of the FDA said that the Administration supported a, “shift to a more robust regulatory framework for its oversight of BPA so that the agency will be able to move quickly if necessary if new information becomes known.”

Currently the FDA can’t do much to change the regulation surrounding products it has already approved.

“We don’t know at the FDA when people are using products with BPA, we don’t know what products it’s used in, how it’s used, [and the] manufacturer is not required to disclose the existence or nature of the formulations that they’re using for BPA,” Sharfstein said.

The FDA is looking into recommending voluntary notifications of BPA in product packaging. It could also go through a complex rule making process to regulate BPA.

Frederick vom Saal, a professor in the Division of Biological Sciences at MU said that the FDA’s switch has a lot to do with new high-level officials that came in with the Obama administration. He said it’s a, “game changer” and that, “until now the only finding used by the FDA to make its decisions was two chemical industry studies. ”

He claims they ignored hundreds of previous studies conducted independently and by the government. Right now people are waiting for the FDA to digest the information out there and respond to the studies, which will come out soon. Vom Saal compared BPA to the science of lead in the 1960s but he thinks change will come sooner this time because of access to information through the Internet.

vom Saal recommends avoiding any hard clear product that doesn’t say BPA-free. He also discourages the use of all canned goods and the practice of putting anything hot into plastic containers including containers with microwave-safe labeling, insisting that it is not safe. Plastic bottles with the type 7 and sometimes type 3 recycling labels might contain BPA.

Ball Corporation produces packaging products including metal cans. Scott McCarty is its director of corporate relations. He said that Ball buys the BPA containing epoxy can coatings that they use and doesn’t make them. Ball is actively researching and testing other BPA-free coatings. Ball said it will react to meet the needs of its customers and stay in line with FDA recommendations.

“Right now there is no single coating to replace epoxy coatings” without drawbacks in regards to shelf life and food quality, said McCarty.

“The American can industry is lying to the government saying there are no alternatives,” said Vom Saal. He continued that the can industry could eliminate BPA but that they won’t.

According to vom Saal, BPA acts like estrogen in the body. Based on animal data, exposure led to breast and prostate cancer, damage to reproductive organs, chromosomal and sperm damage, infertility and miscarriage, in babies. He said that people are exposed to BPA while the body is developing. The exposure disrupts every organ system in the body and is related to every major disease. In adults BPA can lead to cardiovascular issues and Type 2 diabetes, he said.

With BPA, cells cannot respond to glucose and it causes results similar to pregnancy-induced diabetes. This burden falls disproportionately on the poor who consume more food from cans. College students also often live on limited budgets and rely on canned foods.

“I don’t think I could cut out metal cans because they’re more convenient,” said Michelle Meyer an MU biochemistry student. She said that she researched BPA and plastic bottles for a speech and realizes it is often impossible to know if a can or bottle contains BPA.

Bisphenol A is under much governmental scrutiny as many states and municipalities are considering bans for the product especially from its use in baby bottles. Minnesota, Connecticut and Chicago have already passed such bans. U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer sent a letter to the EPA on March 2, 2010 criticizing their inaction in regulating BPA.

{back to homepage}