Regulation of Bisphenol A

Back when PCBs and benzopyrenes would "neutralize" BPA

Evidence about the health risks of the endocrine disruptor bisphenol A (BPA) woke people up to the fact that chemicals like BPA could be manufactured and used for decades in myriad everyday products like baby bottles, food can linings, dental resins, CDs -- without being safe. But what does it take for knowledge of potential risks of a certain chemical to enter the public awareness?

If you talk to people today, many think that the public quickly learned about and understood the risks of bisphenol A. In fact a small number of researchers worked for years to bring attention to the risks of BPA. Chemistry trade magazines were vigilant in following this growing body of research, as were manufacturers and chemical companies. But the mainstream news media only sporadically reported on the research, and when they did they weren't above exaggerating the dangers. Neither were scholarly science journals above down-playing the risks.

In 1994 Sharon Begley wrote about environmental estrogens in Newsweek. Her article ""Estrogen Complex", reported on research linking environmental estrogens to cancer, feminized fish, lower sperm counts, and species declines in some ecosystems. The tagline? -- "Sperm Counts Down? Penises Shriveled? Hey, Rush, Don't Blame It On Feminists. It May Be From Chemical Pollutants In Water And Food".

Despite the hyperbole, the bottom line of the Newsweek article was the quite true but still ambiguous conclusion: scientist disagree about the risks involved with exposure to estrogenic chemicals in small doses. The ambiguity was real. In addition to leaching from the products we buy, estrogens are found in plants, food, and body fat. Since we're more or less bathed in the hormone, some scientists in 1994 questioned why, if low-dose estrogens were so dangerous, more people didn't show deleterious affects like cancer?

Dueling Hyperbole Fails to Ignite Public Interest

"Talk about an attention-grabber, the journal Science said about the Newsweek's tagline on decreasing sperm counts, shrunken penises, Rush Limbaugh, and feminists. Science then showed its own mastery of hyperbole by referring to the debate over hormone-modulating pollutants as "a towering thundercloud sucking energy from the humid air around it".¹

Science quoted those who disputed any cause for concern, like Dr. Stephen Safe, who "fumed" to their reporter: "This has been blown way out of proportion". To be fair, Science also highlighted the growing number of animal studies that drew warnings about environmental estrogens from scientists. But many experts the journal interviewed thought the risks from environmental estrogens were negligible.

The Science author offered creative theories to comfort worriers, for instance that "anti-estrogens" in the environment such as "PCBs-compounds being phased out from use as industrial coolants--and benzo[a]pyrene, a combustion byproduct of foods and cigarettes", might balance estrogens, by "blocking activity of the estrogen receptor or reducing the number of receptors".

Despite the alarming headlines in Newsweek, and Science's description of a thunderous debate, the production of endocrine disruptors increased unabated from 1994 to 2009. There was no outcry. It took 15 more years for bisphenol A to attract meaningful attention from politicians and voters. By then BPA had been on the market for 50 years.

The Meteorology of Chemical Safety Debates: "Towering Thunderclouds Sucking Energy"

In 1994 there was no clear consensus on BPA. Now that the public is significantly alert to the risks of bisphenol A, there is still no clear route to regulatory policy. Although some states and cities have ordered restrictions on the use of bisphenol A, the widely watched California regulatory board recently decided that there wasn't enough evidence against BPA to list it as a toxin. Board member Dr Carl Keen offered the odd consolation that the same organization had at first not judged second-hand smoke to be a toxin either.

Bisphenol A has many uses and is a significant industry in the US. As consumers take it upon themselves to replace polycarbonate with metal or other plastic, will the push for regulation recede? Will politicians be able to get off the hook? Will self-determined citizens allow chemical lobbies to pressure politicians to ease back on regulation?

For now, there seems to be continued momentum in some quarters to control the use of BPA. The California State Senate, for instance, has voted to ban BPA. The bill requires bisphenol A above certain concentrations to be replaced, starting in 2011, with the "least toxic option".

Not to be negative, but this begs the question: What is the "least toxic" option? Beyond bisphenol A, the bigger, looming, far more pertinent issue, is that for ease of life and great convenience, we use thousands of chemicals. But many have unknown health profiles. It took five decades of science and lobbying for a chemical with fairly disturbing effects in cells and animals to accumulate enough evidence that people chose not to use it. Do we have to continue on this path, waiting until the disputes around the "science" -- ie politics -- truly do become "towering thunderclouds sucking energy"?, as Science so eloquently put it, before choosing not to use just one chemical?

Stone, Richard: Science, July 15, 1994: Environmental estrogens stir debate. Vol. V265 No. N5170 ISSN: 0036-8075

Acronym Required has been following Bisphenol A since 2005. We last wrote about the Bisphenol A "public relations" rift between the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and Trevor Butterworth of Stats.org, in BPA Rhetoric and Reaction.