EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Eve of Destruction (or How to Destroy a Planet Without Really Trying)
- The World Economy Is a Ticking Time Bomb (and The Fuse is Burning)
- 'Beyond Orwellian': Outrage Follows Revelations of Vast Domestic Spying Program
- 'We Are Movement, Not a Moment': North Carolina Peaceful Uprising Continues
- President Obama Uses a Sledgehammer Against Dissent
- Eve of Destruction (or How to Destroy a Planet Without Really Trying)
- The World Economy Is a Ticking Time Bomb (and The Fuse is Burning)
- Is Enbridge Building a Secret Keystone Pipeline?
- President Obama Uses a Sledgehammer Against Dissent
- Victory: Connecticut Becomes First State to Require GMO Labeling
Popular content
Today's Top News
Chemical In Plastic May Harm Human Hrowth
A controversial, estrogen-like chemical in plastic could be harming the development of children's brains and reproductive organs, a federal health agency concluded in a report released Tuesday.
The National Toxicology Program, part of the National Institutes of Health, concluded that there was "some concern" that fetuses, babies and children were in danger because bisphenol A, or BPA, harmed animals at low levels found in nearly all human bodies.
An ingredient of polycarbonate plastic, BPA is one of the most widely used synthetic chemicals in industry today. It can seep from hard plastic beverage containers such as baby bottles, as well as from liners in cans containing food and infant formula.
The federal institute is the first government agency in the U.S. to conclude that low levels of BPA could be harming humans. Its findings will be used to help regulators at federal and state environmental agencies to develop policies governing its use.
The draft report followed an 18-month review that was fraught with allegations of bias, heated disputes among scientists and the firing of a consulting company with financial ties to the chemical industry.
Some scientists suspect that exposure early in life disrupts hormones and alters genes, programming a fetus or child for breast or prostate cancer, premature female puberty, attention deficit disorders and other reproductive or neurological disorders.
In its new report, the National Toxicology Program, which reviewed about 500 laboratory animal experiments, concluded that there was "some concern" that fetuses, babies and children were at risk from BPA. It rated as "negligible" the concern for adults.
When animal fetuses or newborns are exposed, BPA "can cause changes in behavior and the brain, prostate gland, mammary gland and the age at which females attain puberty," the agency's draft report says.
"These studies only provide limited evidence for adverse effects on development and more research is needed to better understand their implications for human health," it said. "However, because these effects in animals occur at bisphenol A exposure levels similar to those experienced by humans, the possibility that bisphenol A may alter human development cannot be dismissed."
Plastics industry representatives stressed that the agency found "no serious or high-level concerns." They call the lab animal experiments inconclusive and flawed.
Steven G. Hentges of the American Chemistry Council's polycarbonate/BPA group said the findings "provide reassurance that consumers can continue to use products made from bisphenol A."
"The limited evidence for effects in laboratory animals at low doses primarily highlights opportunities for additional research to better understand whether these findings are of any significance to human health," he said.
In the key area of reproductive health, the agency reported more concern about the potential dangers to children than its advisory panel did.
The advisory panel in August found "minimal" concern about effects on the prostate and puberty after siding with the plastics industry and disqualifying many animal studies that showed effects. That drew criticism from scientists who conducted the research.
But in the new report, the National Toxicology Program overruled its panel, elevating its finding about human prostates and puberty to "some concern." It also for the first time expressed concern about effects on human mammary glands, which the panel had not addressed.
The findings "break new scientific ground" by validating the low-dose animal tests, said Anila Jacob, senior scientist at Environmental Working Group, an activist group. It "reflects a significant body of science showing that BPA may play a larger role than previously thought in a host of common health problems, including prostate cancer, breast cancer and early puberty," she said.
Frederick vom Saal, a reproductive scientist at University of Missouri-Columbia who studies BPA, said the new report was "very, very much in line" with a consensus statement signed by 38 scientists last year that said the chemical could be harming babies' brains and reproductive tracts.
"This is going to ripple around the world," vom Saal said. "The bottom line is there really is a convergence of opinion that is occurring."
Canada is expected soon to declare BPA a toxic substance, which would be followed by proposals to control its use. California and other states have considered but not adopted bans on BPA in products.
A year ago, the Los Angeles Times reported that the government was basing its BPA decision on a summary of the science drafted by a private company, Sciences International, which had financial ties to more than 50 chemical companies and groups. The company was then fired. National Toxicology Program officials audited the report and found it unbiased, so it was used to reach its conclusions.
The National Toxicology Program will accept public comments on its draft report until May 23, and it will be reviewed by a new scientific panel in June.
© 2008 The Los Angeles Times
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

9 Comments so far
Show AllIn other news, the Pope is Catholic, and after the break, bears shit in the woods...
How does a mother of a daughter that has had hormonal problems/prococious puberty/etc. get help??? The many doctors, endocrinologists, pediatric gynocologists, etc. don't know anything about these things... my Granddaughter is 16 and has been suffering from these symptons since she was a little baby... just frustrating...
I knew there was something wrong with the youth of today!
some plastics, herbicides and insecticides mimic hormones and are absorbed into the human body where hormones should go,,this can lead to feminization of males, infertility in females and premature puberty...I was told all this at Duke infertility clinic 17 years ago...And now a whole generation of kids has grown up all the more affected...Who has control..corporations? or government?...Sure, lets privatize everything...
Since this thread is very similar to the other one on CD about a ban in Canada I'll post the same comment. The included link was most revealing.
I'm not familiar with what the Canadian Cancer Society is all about, but in America the ACS (American Cancer Society) looks like just another scam for the wealthy corporate America types, intent on selling more pharmaceuticals & expensive treatments, but not with prevention. It's a cash cow for the 3000 heads of regional offices who make six figure incomes, and over half (52%) of the money raised goes toward administrative overhead. A good portion of the 'real' work is done by unpaid volunteers, and a major portion of funds raised is accumulated, invested in real estate holdings, or vehicles for high level executives ($1 billion), yet they are always tearfully claiming they have no money & need more. Why do they want to 'cure' cancer when it slays their golden egg laying goose?
Don't take my word for it, see for yourself:
American Cancer Society: The World's Wealthiest "Nonprofit" Institution
Samuel S. Epstein M. D.
http://www.preventcancer.com/losing/acs/wealthiest_links.htm
Yes, this thread is similar, so I'll post the same thing I posted under the BPA ban (sorry, warning) in Canada thread:
I just would like to point out here that BPA acts like an estrogen. So let's say you took your one year old, and started feeding them birth control pills. What, exactly, would you expect to happen?
The environmental health literature is replete with terms like "feminization" and "demasculinization" regarding BPA and other xenoestrogens. Let that concept sink-in for a little bit. Again, what, exactly would be the outcome you would expect from feminization?
I know this is a hard thing to deal with for most people. We are taught to think that men are men and women are women, but things are not that simple. With our technology, we have altered the natural scheme of things, and there is a price to pay for that. I would only hope that there might be a little compassion towards those beings who have been "feminized" so that instead of calling these people mentally defective or pathological, this might be replaced with some understanding instead.
PaulMagillSmith,
The American Cancer society(ACS) is - from what I can tell, primarily about financially supporting people who have cancer, and the National Cancer Institute (NCI) is primarily about defending the pharma and chemical companies that cause the vast majority of cancers.
If that seems like a controversial statement, go to the website of Environmental Health Perspectives, the official Journal of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, http://www.ehponline.org/ and read for a while.
culicomorpha, if you looked at the link I posted you will understand why I have to disagree with your statement, "The American Cancer society(ACS) is - from what I can tell, primarily about financially supporting people who have cancer..."
If you ammend it to say,"...primarily about financially supporting people who treat, make money off of & sell drugs to people who have cancer...", we can find agreement. It's a scam, sham, and shame.
The real 'bite in the butt' for me is I've scheduled musical talent for ACS benefits & events before. From now on, unless they change (which I doubt) I think I'll spend my time organizing protests & protesters, rather than music & musical acts.
So what else is new, another charity funded animal torture scam.
First they do research and say the chemical is safe.
Then they do research and say the chemical isnt safe.
One study says coffee is good for you.
Another says it isnt.
In the end, scientists make money and members of other species get tortured to death on the altar of secular humanism and scientific materialism.