Calling for Ban of BPA in Baby/Toddler Products

February 17, 2010

USA Today

States are moving to ban the chemical BPA from food and drink containers, primarily those meant for infants and toddlers, because of health concerns.
Many baby bottles, such as this one by Born Free that actor Matthew McConaughey is using, are now made without the estrogen-like chemical BPA or bisphenol A.  A dozen states are considering restrictions this year on bisphenol A, an estrogen-like chemical used to harden plastics in products such as bottles and cups. It is also in the linings of metal cans, including infant formula, to help them withstand high sterilization temperatures.

The Food and Drug Administration, which previously called BPA safe, announced last month that, in light of new studies, it has “some concerns” about the chemical’s potential effects on brain development of fetuses, infants and children. It did not say BPA is unsafe.
Many large manufacturers of baby bottles now sell products that are free of the chemical BPA, or bisphenol A. “This announcement has added momentum to the efforts to restrict the uses of this dangerous chemical once and for all,” says Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., author of a pending bill to ban BPA from food and drink containers. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.., has a similar proposal in the Senate.

Activists, including the Environmental Working Group and the Natural Resources Defense Council, cite studies that link BPA to breast cancer, heart disease, diabetes and other health problems.

Bans are “not necessary,” says Steve Hentges, a BPA specialist at the American Chemistry Council, which opposes the bans.  He says research shows BPA is safe.

“It’s a ripe state issue,” says Adam Schafer, executive director of the non-profit National Caucus of Environmental Legislators, because BPA is not federally regulated. He says more parents are concerned and major retailers have stopped selling baby bottles with BPA.

Last year, Connecticut and Minnesota passed the first state bans on BPA in food and drink containers intended for children 3 and younger. Chicago and Suffolk County, N.Y., took similar action.

Canada became the first country to ban BPA use in baby bottles.

“There’s growing public pressure but also lobbying to weaken or delay state efforts,” says California’s Democratic Sen. Fran Pavley, who is pushing such a bill.

This year:

•In Washington state, both legislative chambers have passed bans on BPA use in bottles and cups for babies and toddlers. The Assembly added sports bottles, too.
•Wisconsin’s Senate approved banning BPA use in bottles and cups for children 3 and younger.
•In Oregon, a similar bill is headed to the Senate floor as early as today.
Bills are also pending in Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Pennsylvania, Vermont and Washington, D.C., Schafer says.

Here are a few things to know about BPA, as summarized from an advisory by the Department of Health and Human Services:
•Plastic containers have triangular recycling codes on the bottom. Some numbered 3 and 7 may contain BPA. Those numbered 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 very likely do not.
•Do not put warm or hot liquids into BPA containers.
•Do not use them if scratched.
•Most baby bottles are BPA-free because of voluntary changes by major manufacturers. Pacifiers and toys use materials without BPA.

Click here for the full report.

Infertility Can be Caused by Common Flame Retardant

February 2, 2010

Natural News

By S. L. Baker

So many US women have difficulty becoming pregnant that the fertility industry has become a huge business, raking in between three and five billion dollars a year. Now a new study published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives raises the possibility that a lot of women who can’t have babies could have flame retardant chemicals to blame — specifically, polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), which are commonly found in an alarming number of household consumer products.

In a study involving over 200 women, researchers at the University of California at Berkeley (UC Berkeley) discovered that women with higher blood concentrations of PBDEs took far longer to become pregnant than those with low amounts of the chemicals in their blood. In fact, for every ten-fold increase in blood levels of four PBDE chemicals tested, there was a 30 percent decrease in the odds a woman would conceive a child during a month.

“There have been numerous animal studies that have found a range of health effects from exposure to PBDEs, but very little research has been done in humans. This latest paper is the first to address the impact on human fertility, and the results are surprisingly strong. These findings need to be replicated, but they have important implications for regulators,” the study’s lead author, Kim Harley, said in a statement to the media. Harley is an adjunct assistant professor of maternal and child health and associate director of the Center for Children’s Environmental Health Research at UC Berkeley’s School of Public Health.

PBDEs are a class of organobromine compounds found in foam furniture, electronics, fabrics, carpets, plastics and other common household items. They were commonly added to these and other products as flame retardants after the 1970s when new fire safety standards were implemented in the US.

So how big is the problem of homes contaminated by PBDEs? Unfortunately, it appears to be huge. The chemicals are known to leach out into the environment and accumulate in human fat cells. Previous studies have suggested that 97 percent of U.S. residents have detectable levels of PBDEs in their blood and that the levels in Americans are 20 times higher than in their counterparts in Europe.

The most prevalent form of PBDEs found in the blood of women participating in the UC Berkeley study were from a specific formulation known as a pentaBDE mixture. Both this kind of PBDE and another type, octaBDE, have been banned for use in several states — but they are still widely found in products manufactured before 2004.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finally got around to addressing the danger of PBDEs at the end of 2009. Did the agency issue an urgent alarm about products containing the chemicals — even ban them outright to protect consumers? No. Instead, the EPA quietly announced an agreement with three major manufacturers of some forms of PBDEs to phase out production by 2013. Unfortunately, this is clearly too little too late to protect countless Americans from the potential danger of these contaminants.

“Although several types of PBDEs are being phased out in the United States, our exposure to the flame retardants is likely to continue for many years,” said the study’s principal investigator, Brenda Eskenazi, UC Berkeley professor of epidemiology and of maternal and child health at the School of Public Health. “PBDEs are present in many consumer products, and we know they leach out into our homes. In our research, we have found that low-income children in California are exposed to very high levels of PBDEs, and this has us concerned about the next generation of Californians.”

What’s more, the scientists pointed out in the press statement that there’s reason to be concerned about additional chemical contaminants in the immediate future. True, PBDEs are being phased out from consumer products — but they are being replaced with other potentially toxic compounds. “We know even less about the newer flame retardant chemicals that are coming out,” said Dr. Harley. “We just don’t have the human studies yet to show that they are safe.”

Click here for the full report.

Household Chemicals Linked to Reduced Fertility

January 27, 2010

LA Times

By Shari Roan

Click here for the full report.

That New-Car Smell May Be Toxic

January 25, 2010

AOL

By Kirk Seaman

For many, the new-car smell is a bonus that comes with buying a new vehicle — an olfactory reward to enjoy each time the owner slides behind the wheel.

That smell, however, also could make them — and their passengers — sick.

That’s because the plastics and textiles used in vehicle interiors contain a number of harmful chemicals, including antimony, bromine, chlorine, and lead. Repeated and concentrated exposure to any of these chemicals may contribute to a variety of acute and long-term health issues such as birth defects, impaired learning, liver toxicity, and cancer.

Not only are vehicle occupants exposed to these chemicals by breathing, but frequent exposure to the sun’s heat and ultraviolet light can increase interior levels of these chemicals and possibly exacerbate their toxicity.

When these conditions combine with the fact that the average American spends almost two hours in a car every day, the potential exists for vehicle interiors to become a major source of indoor air pollution. Children, with their systems still developing, are most vulnerable to such exposure.

The visible evidence of chemicals being released into interiors is the film that sometimes appears on the inside of windshields. Known as “fogging,” this phenomenon occurs when chemicals in the materials of the interior evaporate and then condense on the windshield or windows. This process happens over time, but accelerates in high temperatures.To educate consumers, the Ecology Center, a nonprofit environmental advocacy group located in Ann Arbor, Mich., has been publishing a guide to toxic chemicals in cars since 2007.

“Our first guide reported results from more than 200 models from the 2006 and 2007 model years, representing 12 different manufacturers,” said Jeff Gearhart, research director for the Ecology Center. “We found concentrations of some toxic chemicals were, on average, five to ten times higher than those found in homes and offices.”

Experts at the Ecology Center test vehicles with a portable X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) device which can identify the elemental composition of any material. “We test a number of components, including the seats, the dashboard, and headliner,” said Mr. Gearhart. “These large components represent major sources of the chemicals we are concerned about.”

Since its first report, the Ecology Center has worked with auto manufacturers to use less-toxic materials in vehicle interiors. Based on the findings in its most recent guide, available online at HealthyStuff.org, the efforts seem to be working. “The scores have improved each year, and for 2009, the Chevrolet Cobalt was our best overall vehicle,” said Gearhart. “This marks the first time a car built in the United States by a U.S.-owned company has earned this distinction.”The Cobalt tested with the least amount of toxic chemicals in its interior plastics and textiles, earning it a rating of 0.7 on the center’s scale. The scale awards a rating of 0.0 to a vehicle with no detectable levels of objectionable chemicals; the worst offender gets a rating of 5.0. (The Cobalt’s corporate cousin, the 2009 Pontiac G5, earned a rating of 0.6, but it is no longer available.) The vehicle with the worst rating on the 2009 list was the South Korean–built Chevrolet Aveo, which earned a rating of 4.9.

“We’re pleased with the Cobalt’s performance in this guide,” said Doug Pickett, engineering group manager for materials engineering at General Motors. “The fact that six of the best vehicles by type are from G.M. shows that this issue has been important to us for a while.”

While the Cobalt received top honors, Mr. Pickett explained that the Aveo’s poor showing was the result of that car’s reliance on older materials technology. “As a vehicle moves through its product cycle, we are able to incorporate less toxic materials into its updated design,” he said. “This shows we are listening to our customers and that what is important to them, like less toxic interiors, is important to us.”

Working with automotive suppliers and the plastics industry has proved essential to G.M. and other manufacturers in developing and manufacturing plastics that contain less-harmful chemicals. “Rather than dictate how to formulate plastics, we provide a list of more than a hundred chemicals banned in our vehicles, including formaldehyde and Class 1 carcinogens such as benzene,” said Mr. Pickett. “This approach helps ensure the plastic is safe and remains safe throughout its life cycle.”

Click here for the full report

The Kevin Trudeau Show: 12-15-09

Today, Kevin explains why the government is taking away the spirit of Christmas and how your freedoms are taken away. Also, find out why our standard of living is declining at rapid speeds and the top 3 things you can do to survive it.

Get the headlines you aren’t hearing from the mainstream media:
The Lazy Man’s Way to A Fortune
Text Messaging Causing Blindness
BPA Linked To Serious Health Problems
Big Brother Isn’t a Protect Our Borders
D.C. Hands Out $15M in Bonuses
Fructose Fueling Childhood Obesity
Tamiflu Proven Useless
Swine Flu Less Lethal Than Feared
CT Scans Leads To Cancer in Thousands
Antidepressants Raise Stroke Risk
Herb To Treat Chemotherapy Liver Damage

Plus, the Administrative Director of HempUSA.org, Thomas James, gives you the REAL story behind the power of hemp and why the government wants to keep it from you!

Take Trudeau on the Go! Click here to download this show to your iPod, mp3 player, or PC through iTunes!

Click below to hear The Kevin Trudeau Show RIGHT NOW!!!

BPA Tied to Impotence in Men

November 11, 2009

ABCNews

By Joseph Brownstein

While environmental groups have sounded the alarm about the presence of bisphenol-A, or BPA, in products such as infant formula, baby bottles and other plastics, a new study provides some of the first evidence that the chemical can be harmful to humans, linking it to sexual dysfunction in men in high doses.

Researchers looked at 550 factory workers in China, some of whom were exposed to BPA as part of their job, and found that men who worked with BPA were four times more likely than their counterparts who did not work with the chemical to report some level of sexual dysfunction.

“The study certainly provides the human evidence to confirm animal studies, but one study is not going to answer any questions,” said Dr. De-kun Li, the study’s lead author and a reproductive and perinatal epidemiologist at Kaiser Permanente’s Division of Research in Oakland, Calif.

Li noted that while BPA’s presence has been confirmed in a number of consumer products, all studies before now had only shown harm in nonhuman populations.

“Up to this point, it’s largely, basically animal studies,” said Li, explaining that little has been done about BPA because of a lack of studies in people.

“There has been no human studies, at least in the context of the male reproductive system, so this has been dismissed by some critics,” he said of the potential harms BPA may pose.

But Li acknowledged that the current study will likely do little to change policy, since the levels of BPA were much higher than those encountered by the average person in his or her daily life. The average worker exposed to BPA had levels roughly 50 times higher than the average person.

“At this point … we don’t know the safety of the lower level,” he said, but noted that people do not need to worry too much. “We don’t have to be alarmed and go crazy.”

In the study, 15.5 percent of men exposed to BPA complained of erectile dysfunction more than half of the time, while only 4.4 percent of men not exposed to BPA had the same complaint. Meanwhile, 13.9 percent of men with BPA exposure on the job complained of difficulty ejaculating, while only 2.5 percent of men without the on-the-job BPA exposure had the same complaint.

While previous reports on BPA have relied heavily on animal studies, none have promoted a ban on the substance.

The National Toxicology Program, part of the National Institutes of Health, considers BPA to be a substance of “some concern” — the third level of a five-part scale ranging from “serious concern” to “negligible concern.”

“There are insufficient data from studies in humans to reach a conclusion on reproductive or developmental hazards presented by current exposures to BPA, but there is limited evidence of developmental changes occurring in some animal studies at doses that are experienced by humans. It is uncertain if similar changes would occur in humans, but the possibility of adverse health effects cannot be dismissed,” the agency writes about BPA in its factsheet.

It is unclear exactly how BPA would cause sexual dysfunction, according to Dr. Michele Marcus, a professor and interim chair in the department of epidemiology and environmental health at Emory University’s Rollins School of Public Health. One possible explanation, she said, is that BPA, a known endocrine disruptor, can mimic estrogen and block some effects of testosterone.

Avoiding BPA ‘Would Be My Advice,’ Doctor Says

Because his study does not provide answers for the average person looking to know if BPA will do him or her harm, Li said any steps would be strictly precautionary.

“It’s certainly based on everybody’s risk tolerance level,” he said, adding that avoiding BPA “would be my advice. It’s unlikely the regulatory agencies will do anything yet, because they would like to see the evidence from human studies.”

“If there’s credible evidence of the potential of harm, why not look for a safer alternative?” said Kathy Gerwig, vice president for workplace safety and environmental stewardship officer at Kaiser Permanente.

Gerwig said that while BPA has not been proven harmful, there were steps consumers could take if they wanted to reduce their BPA exposure.

“If you’re going to buy a rigid plastic bottle, look for one that is BPA-free,” she said.

Second, Gerwig recommended avoiding canned foods, which contain BPA in the linings, something she said would be advantageous because it promoted eating fresh foods.

Third, she said, “It’s a smart decision to stay away from heating foods in the microwave in plastics.”

Industrial Scale

Given the high levels of BPA industrial workers were exposed to in the study, many may be tempted to dismiss the much lower levels of exposure the average person experiences.

But paradoxically, lower levels may be more harmful, explained Dr. David Ozonoff, a professor of environmental health at the Boston University School of Public Health.

“These are hormone-like chemicals, and your body is used to responding to hormones at really low levels,” he said.

He compared it to two friends in a crowded bar trying to speak, who cannot do so because of the noise. In those circumstances, the noise may be cancelled out, while in a quieter room, that message may be heard and listened to.

For a signal that has the potential to be disruptive, said Ozonoff, a signal that can be “heard” can be more dangerous than a large number of signals that can be dismissed as static.

“That’s one of those things that we worry about,” he said.

Ozonoff said the study is still open to interpretation, and further studies will need to be done for any conclusions to be drawn about the potential harmfulness of BPA.

However, he concluded, “There’s nothing about this that should give any comfort to someone that thinks BPA is OK.”

Click here for the full report.