Plastic Bottles- Protecting Your Baby, by the ACC

UPDATE (October 23, 2007): The site http://www.babybottle.org, which used to be sponsored by the The American Chemical Council, as described below, is now sponsored by the Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association, a collection of manufactures who lobby extensively along the same lines as the ACC.

The site is no longer "garish pink and blue", as I wrote a couple of years ago, it's light green, pink and blue. In lieu of "Ask the Pediatrician", they have "Ask the Expert", and give the name and photo of an Ob/Gyn (not a pediatrician -- nevertheless you'd hope a doctor who's taken the Hippocratic Oath wouldn't be lobbying on behalf of manufacturers of plastic products, given 150 studies about the dangers of bisphenol A.). She does not warn that your baby may "drop or throw" a glass bottle and endanger itself as the previous "pediatrician" did. Instead she says that "as a mother...[she] believe[s] mothers have more important things to worry about." She posts the same message ('parents have other things to worry about') on numerous blogs. So from JPMA, the same message --buy plastic, it's safe, and the same affiliates; bisphenol A (BPA)and phthalate manufacturers, the American Chemical Council, stats.org-- but wrapped in a more subtle, tasteful marketing package.

Endocrine Disruptors, Potent in Tiny Doses

The Wall Street Journal published an article Monday about low dose toxins and their potential health effects. The article, "Common Industrial Chemicals In Tiny Doses Raise Health Issue", by Peter Waldman, highlights important and often overlooked research by scientists investigating health risks associated with the use of certain chemicals at levels that are currently approved by the federal government.

Generally, scientists determining the human toxicity of chemicals by assaying levels of a certain chemical and pinpointing the level that causes significant, observable health effects. A level of chemical exposure that causes death, acute reaction, birth defects or directly associated health problems is identified. The no observable effect level (NOEL) is then divided by what is known as statistically known as an "uncertainty factor" to derive an estimate of the level of exposure that is reported to be safe.

From blood tests, we know that most of us have been exposed to at least 500 chemicals, but we assume that the chemicals are harmless and that the government regulates them closely and would ban them if they were harmful. However research increasingly shows that some chemicals known as endocrine disruptors have health effects at very very low levels, much lower then what the EPA approves. When these chemicals are tested at the highest levels to determine the effect of possible exposure there may be visible health effects. At slightly lower levels the receptors to which the chemical binds may not respond because they are overwhelmed. But at extremely low levels the chemicals may also trigger a cascade reactions in the endocrine receptors and cause derogatory health problems.

Estrogen is a potent hormone that can cause effects throughout the body, so if people are being inadvertently exposed to levels of estrogen-like BPA everyday then that's a health problem that we should try to mitigate. The concern now is that these low, low exposure levels haven't been tested for safety in humans. The Wall Street Journal piece talks about many toxins, including phthalates (toys, cosmetics, perfumes), perchlorate (munitions and drinking water, fruits, vegetables), and atrazine (weed killer) that all cause endocrine level damage at low levels.

Bisphenol A in Tiny Babies

This post will focus on one of the chemicals mentioned, bisphenol A - known by its acronym BPA. The WSJ author Peter Waldman reports:

"Tiny doses of bisphenol A, which is used in polycarbonate plastic baby bottles and in resins that line food cans, have been found to alter brain structure neurochemistry, behavior, reproduction and immune response in animals."

Along with baby bottles and cans, bisphenol A, BPA is found in plastic utensils, plastic water bottles (Nalgenes), some dental resins, and dishes. Naturally, not everyone is concerned about this, for instance the American Dental Association ADA isn't. Neither is the American Chemistry Council (ACC).

The ACC runs the cheerfully garish pink and blue www.babybottle.org site. [10/23/07: This information is historical, see "Update", above.] The organization is cagey about this - the ACC name doesn't appear on the site, though at the time this was written, on the first page there is some small print hinting at a marketing purpose. The site advises parents on the safety of plastic bottles vs. glass bottles in a helpful information page titled- "Ask The Pediatrician". The American Chemistry Council poses the rhetorical question: Which bottles are better for my baby, glass or plastic? And then the ACC answers their own question:

"once your baby gets older, he or she may tip, drop or throw the bottle - so plastic may be a better choice. Additionally, you may hear stories that glass bottles get too hot or plastic bottles leak dangerous amounts of harmful chemicals into the formula.Rest assured, there are no facts to support these claims."[emphasis added]

"Rest assured", the American Chemistry Council advises parents. Other sites also tout the safety of bisphenol A. The top search item in a typical Google search for bisphenol A is always www.bisphenol-a.org, a site that offers a wealth of biased information. Again, nowhere on the site does the owner of the site, The American Chemistry Council, mention it's ownership. The site downplays cautionary research on BPA, and instead heartily dismisses both research showing the harmful effects of the chemical. The site vilifies policy actions which attempt to limit human exposure to the hormone disruptor.

The Industrial Strength Denial Machine

One of the reasons the BPA in plastic is accepted as safe by the population has to do with the intense and sustained marketing of industry lobby groups. Not only do they provide misleading information on websites, they also commission scientific studies to give evidence that supports their positions. But industry sponsored research can be biased, or planned to give a certain result, as these studies are.

The Plastics Division of the American Chemistry Council commissioned a study via Harvard to review 19 studies on bisphenol-A a few years ago. The study, presented after 2.5 years, concluded that research showed no bisphenol A hazards. However when the report was issued last fall, the WSJ writes that three of the original ten panelists refused to sign it. A fourth one signed it, but criticized the study, then authored his own study that reviewed 115 research reports and concluded the opposite result of the Harvard study: that bisphenol A (BPA) does cause health effects in low doses.

The American Council on Science and Health (ACSH), a pro-industry group that claims to be on the side of "sound science", called the Wall Street Journal article alarmist. It charges that the article preys on the fears of readers who the ACSH claims are:

"ill-equipped to understand the underlying scientific controversy, all the more so because there are no specific citations to support the author's frightening claims; a consumer who is interested in pursuing further information is left without the tools to do so"

Are their readers really too "ill-equipped"? Perhaps the WSJ readership differs from the ACSH audience. "No citations", is a defense often used by politicians to avoid accountability. The ACSH portrays the Wall Street Journal readers in less than believable way, since the business paper is not known for its "alarmist" stances about the environment, nor are its readers intellectually at sea.

Contrary to the claim that the Wall Street Journal gives no evidence, the article specifically cites lots of evidence, including a CDC research report that "found traces of bisphenol A in 95% of human urine samples tested", and recent research done in Japan, where "researchers have detected BPA in the fetal amniotic fluid and the umbilical cords of newborns".

Consumers -- Not Able to Sort out the Facts?

ACSH states that the reader will be stranded - "left without the tools" - to sort out the facts after reading the WSJ article. However, to the contrary, there's a slew of peer reviewed journal articles at Google-Scholar. Typing "bisphenol A" in a regular Google search also yields many resources. At the time this article was written, we found plenty of references to research on the effects of the chemical on neurochemistry (pdf) (such as dopamine neurogenic affects), behavior, reproduction (miscarriages), and immune response.

Not only is the research easy to find, it's consistently worrisome. Research published last month on on bisphenol-A(BPA), shows that perinatal exposure to bisphenol A changes mammary gland development in subsequent puberty and increases the risk of breast cancer. Notably, the researchers used BPA levels of 25 parts per trillion, which is two million times lower than the "lowest observed adverse effect level", of 50mg/kg which the EPA established as the reference level back in the 1980's.

ACSH claims that Peter Waldman doesn't provide facts- he does. ACSH claims the research isn't there- it is. ACSH says:

"Waldman repeatedly implies that many of those who object to increased regulation at the drop of a rat [sic] do so because they are funded or employed by industry. Such charges are what happens when ideology becomes more important than sound science, when suddenly academia and industry-funded science are portrayed as competing forces with opposite goals."

In reality the real data is generated by hundreds of scientists in labs in Canada, Japan, Europe and the US. Both the American Plastics Council, as well as the American Chemistry Council vociferously deny the growing evidence in hundreds of studies showing the health hazards of this chemical. The ACC goes so far as to anonymously build internet sites that pose as benevolent places for new parents to get their questions answered. But the ACC cynically poses their own questions, then answers their questions with pure marketing.

The ACSH chooses to deny all of this and its own industry affiliations. Furthermore, no one is attacking "industry" research. Waldman focuses on particular studies on BPA funded by industry that come to the opposite conclusions of virtually hundreds of academic studies. If your trying to make the point that industry research isn't biased, bisphenol A research has to be one of the worst examples you could give.

The sheer volume of current data supporting concerns about toxins is attracting attention, but the research is not new. Theo Colburn has been doing research on endocrine disruptors since the 1980's . Although alarms were periodically raised in popular science articles such as this one in Science News in 1999, the persistent denial by chemical corporations has helped keep the research out of the public eye. Theo Colburn talks about the strategy:

"They are spending more money on telling you about the wonders of their product. And they are basically building up within the American public or the television viewing public, and those who read the press, basically that "We are good companies. We would do nothing to harm you. We will take care of you." So it is basically a matter of establishing complacency, I think, within the population."

Colburn is has been joined in her research by many scientists whose collective work is increasingly difficult to discount. There is a clearly expanding body of research that should signal to consumers and to the EPA that there is a need for an attitude change towards regulating biphenol A and many other chemicals.

Legislation?

The state of California has moved to adopt legislation initiated by Assemblywoman Wilma Chan, D-Oakland, that will ban the use of bisphenol A, which is currently so prevalent in our bottles, pacifiers, toys, dental coatings, and bodies. It will be interesting to watch the progress of this legislative attempt to control use of this chemical.

------------------------------------

Acronym Required previously discussed environmental toxins in the media and in an article about environmental skeptics- not phased despite evidence such as germline mutations from perinatal exposure to fertilizers.