To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
In this world, where everything and everyone is for sale, we must sustain independent media we can trust. If you believe independent journalism is critical to protecting democracy and the common good, please support Common Dreams this Giving Tuesday! We wouldn't exist without you.
We live in a chemical stew. So pervasive are the chemicals in the
food we eat, in the products we use to keep our bodies, clothes, and
houses clean, and in keeping our lawns manicured that it has become
impossible to avoid them. We are surrounded by chemicals. Over 80,000
are in use and an additional 1,000-2,000 are introduced each year;
however, only about 2 percent are tested by regulatory agencies for
safety.
Tne
chemical that has received a lot of attention lately is Bisphenol A, or
BPA, an ingredient in plastics used to make reusable food and beverage
containers (including baby bottles). It also coats the insides of food
and beverage cans. Humans come in contact with it mainly through
eating, but inhalation and absorption through the skin have not been
ruled out. Regular exposure to BPA, including among infants and
children, is shown by its presence in blood, amniotic fluid, umbilical
cords, and breast milk. Additionally, the US Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention detected BPA in the urine of 92.6 percent of the
more than 2,500 Americans examined; levels were higher in children and
adolescents than adults.
While BPA has its benefits, like
preventing interactions between food items and metal cans, it has the
biological actions of the female hormone estrogen. Why should we worry
about that? Exposure to estrogenic chemicals during the time when our
organs are developing, specifically during the fetal and neonatal
periods and puberty, is a risk factor for breast and prostate cancers,
malformations of reproductive organs, infertility, and alterations in
brain development.
BPA was originally synthesized in 1891; in the
1930s it was considered for pharmaceutical use because of its
estrogenic properties but was abandoned when diethylstilbestrol (DES)
was found to be a more potent synthetic estrogen. DES was prescribed to
at least 2 million women to prevent miscarriage under the assumption
that during pregnancy "some estrogen is good, so more must be better."
By 1971, girls exposed to DES in the womb had developed an extremely
rare vaginal cancer typically found in elderly women. This caused the
Food and Drug Administration to ban its use by pregnant women.
We
often hear: "But we're all exposed to BPA and we've turned out fine."
Unfortunately this isn't true. Since the chemical revolution when BPA
and hundreds of other common chemicals containing hormonal agents were
added to our lives, the incidence of many diseases and disorders has
been on the rise, including early puberty, obesity, reduced sperm
count, hyperactivity, genital malformations, breast cancer and prostate
cancer. BPA has caused all of these in laboratory animals. Last year, a
study of 1,455 adults, published in The Journal of the American Medical
Association, showed a positive correlation between urinary BPA levels
and diabetes and heart disease.
BPA is regulated by the US
Environmental Protection Agency, which considers 50 parts per million
of BPA per day to be a safe dose. However, over 100 animal studies have
found effects well below this dose. In fact, scientists have yet to
find a harmless dose of BPA.
Why hasn't BPA been banned? Mostly
because BPA exposure cannot be associated with a single disease; the
effects can be subtle and complications may appear years later. Animal
studies revealed that BPA exposure during gestation contributed to
behavioral disorders, obesity, diabetes, early puberty, breast cancer,
prostate cancer, and infertility. In 2007, 38 international specialists
on BPA signed the Chapel Hill Consensus Statement at a meeting
organized by the National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences:
Such a wide range of harmful effects, though found in laboratory
animals, provided "great cause for concern" for "the potential for
similar adverse effects in humans." Experts at the National Toxicology
Program agreed.
It is now up to federal and state regulatory
agencies, including the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, to
stop ignoring the government-funded studies showing that BPA exposure
can contribute to a variety of chronic diseases. A new set of policies
should eliminate BPA from products that expose our most vulnerable
populations: fetuses, infants, and children.
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. |
We live in a chemical stew. So pervasive are the chemicals in the
food we eat, in the products we use to keep our bodies, clothes, and
houses clean, and in keeping our lawns manicured that it has become
impossible to avoid them. We are surrounded by chemicals. Over 80,000
are in use and an additional 1,000-2,000 are introduced each year;
however, only about 2 percent are tested by regulatory agencies for
safety.
Tne
chemical that has received a lot of attention lately is Bisphenol A, or
BPA, an ingredient in plastics used to make reusable food and beverage
containers (including baby bottles). It also coats the insides of food
and beverage cans. Humans come in contact with it mainly through
eating, but inhalation and absorption through the skin have not been
ruled out. Regular exposure to BPA, including among infants and
children, is shown by its presence in blood, amniotic fluid, umbilical
cords, and breast milk. Additionally, the US Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention detected BPA in the urine of 92.6 percent of the
more than 2,500 Americans examined; levels were higher in children and
adolescents than adults.
While BPA has its benefits, like
preventing interactions between food items and metal cans, it has the
biological actions of the female hormone estrogen. Why should we worry
about that? Exposure to estrogenic chemicals during the time when our
organs are developing, specifically during the fetal and neonatal
periods and puberty, is a risk factor for breast and prostate cancers,
malformations of reproductive organs, infertility, and alterations in
brain development.
BPA was originally synthesized in 1891; in the
1930s it was considered for pharmaceutical use because of its
estrogenic properties but was abandoned when diethylstilbestrol (DES)
was found to be a more potent synthetic estrogen. DES was prescribed to
at least 2 million women to prevent miscarriage under the assumption
that during pregnancy "some estrogen is good, so more must be better."
By 1971, girls exposed to DES in the womb had developed an extremely
rare vaginal cancer typically found in elderly women. This caused the
Food and Drug Administration to ban its use by pregnant women.
We
often hear: "But we're all exposed to BPA and we've turned out fine."
Unfortunately this isn't true. Since the chemical revolution when BPA
and hundreds of other common chemicals containing hormonal agents were
added to our lives, the incidence of many diseases and disorders has
been on the rise, including early puberty, obesity, reduced sperm
count, hyperactivity, genital malformations, breast cancer and prostate
cancer. BPA has caused all of these in laboratory animals. Last year, a
study of 1,455 adults, published in The Journal of the American Medical
Association, showed a positive correlation between urinary BPA levels
and diabetes and heart disease.
BPA is regulated by the US
Environmental Protection Agency, which considers 50 parts per million
of BPA per day to be a safe dose. However, over 100 animal studies have
found effects well below this dose. In fact, scientists have yet to
find a harmless dose of BPA.
Why hasn't BPA been banned? Mostly
because BPA exposure cannot be associated with a single disease; the
effects can be subtle and complications may appear years later. Animal
studies revealed that BPA exposure during gestation contributed to
behavioral disorders, obesity, diabetes, early puberty, breast cancer,
prostate cancer, and infertility. In 2007, 38 international specialists
on BPA signed the Chapel Hill Consensus Statement at a meeting
organized by the National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences:
Such a wide range of harmful effects, though found in laboratory
animals, provided "great cause for concern" for "the potential for
similar adverse effects in humans." Experts at the National Toxicology
Program agreed.
It is now up to federal and state regulatory
agencies, including the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, to
stop ignoring the government-funded studies showing that BPA exposure
can contribute to a variety of chronic diseases. A new set of policies
should eliminate BPA from products that expose our most vulnerable
populations: fetuses, infants, and children.
We live in a chemical stew. So pervasive are the chemicals in the
food we eat, in the products we use to keep our bodies, clothes, and
houses clean, and in keeping our lawns manicured that it has become
impossible to avoid them. We are surrounded by chemicals. Over 80,000
are in use and an additional 1,000-2,000 are introduced each year;
however, only about 2 percent are tested by regulatory agencies for
safety.
Tne
chemical that has received a lot of attention lately is Bisphenol A, or
BPA, an ingredient in plastics used to make reusable food and beverage
containers (including baby bottles). It also coats the insides of food
and beverage cans. Humans come in contact with it mainly through
eating, but inhalation and absorption through the skin have not been
ruled out. Regular exposure to BPA, including among infants and
children, is shown by its presence in blood, amniotic fluid, umbilical
cords, and breast milk. Additionally, the US Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention detected BPA in the urine of 92.6 percent of the
more than 2,500 Americans examined; levels were higher in children and
adolescents than adults.
While BPA has its benefits, like
preventing interactions between food items and metal cans, it has the
biological actions of the female hormone estrogen. Why should we worry
about that? Exposure to estrogenic chemicals during the time when our
organs are developing, specifically during the fetal and neonatal
periods and puberty, is a risk factor for breast and prostate cancers,
malformations of reproductive organs, infertility, and alterations in
brain development.
BPA was originally synthesized in 1891; in the
1930s it was considered for pharmaceutical use because of its
estrogenic properties but was abandoned when diethylstilbestrol (DES)
was found to be a more potent synthetic estrogen. DES was prescribed to
at least 2 million women to prevent miscarriage under the assumption
that during pregnancy "some estrogen is good, so more must be better."
By 1971, girls exposed to DES in the womb had developed an extremely
rare vaginal cancer typically found in elderly women. This caused the
Food and Drug Administration to ban its use by pregnant women.
We
often hear: "But we're all exposed to BPA and we've turned out fine."
Unfortunately this isn't true. Since the chemical revolution when BPA
and hundreds of other common chemicals containing hormonal agents were
added to our lives, the incidence of many diseases and disorders has
been on the rise, including early puberty, obesity, reduced sperm
count, hyperactivity, genital malformations, breast cancer and prostate
cancer. BPA has caused all of these in laboratory animals. Last year, a
study of 1,455 adults, published in The Journal of the American Medical
Association, showed a positive correlation between urinary BPA levels
and diabetes and heart disease.
BPA is regulated by the US
Environmental Protection Agency, which considers 50 parts per million
of BPA per day to be a safe dose. However, over 100 animal studies have
found effects well below this dose. In fact, scientists have yet to
find a harmless dose of BPA.
Why hasn't BPA been banned? Mostly
because BPA exposure cannot be associated with a single disease; the
effects can be subtle and complications may appear years later. Animal
studies revealed that BPA exposure during gestation contributed to
behavioral disorders, obesity, diabetes, early puberty, breast cancer,
prostate cancer, and infertility. In 2007, 38 international specialists
on BPA signed the Chapel Hill Consensus Statement at a meeting
organized by the National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences:
Such a wide range of harmful effects, though found in laboratory
animals, provided "great cause for concern" for "the potential for
similar adverse effects in humans." Experts at the National Toxicology
Program agreed.
It is now up to federal and state regulatory
agencies, including the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, to
stop ignoring the government-funded studies showing that BPA exposure
can contribute to a variety of chronic diseases. A new set of policies
should eliminate BPA from products that expose our most vulnerable
populations: fetuses, infants, and children.