Chemical In Plastic Bottles May Be Toxic

Bisphenol A, Used In Many Shatter-Proof Containers, Liked To Hormone Issues, Tumors

(CBS/AP)  A chemical used to make baby bottles and other shatterproof plastic containers could be linked to a range of hormonal problems, a preliminary government report has found.

The report was greeted by some environmental groups as confirmation of their warnings, while chemical makers latched on to the report's preliminary nature and its authors' warning against drawing overly worrisome conclusions.

The federal National Toxicology Program said Tuesday that experiments on rats found precancerous tumors, urinary tract problems and early puberty when the animals were fed or injected with low doses of the plastics chemical bisphenol A.

While such animal studies provide only "limited evidence" of bisphenol's developmental risks, the group's draft report stresses the possible effects on humans "cannot be dismissed." The group comprises scientists from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Institutes of Health.

More than 90 percent of Americans are exposed to trace amounts of bisphenol, according to the CDC. The chemical leaches out of water bottles, the lining of cans and other items made with it.

The American Chemistry Council, which represents manufacturers, said the report "affirms that there are no serious or high level concerns for adverse effects of bisphenol on human reproduction and development." Among the manufacturers of bisphenol are Dow Chemical Co. and Germany-based BASF Group.

The group said it supports additional research to determine whether adverse effects seen in animals "are of any significance to human health."

Environmentalists, meanwhile, hailed the report as the first step toward reassessing a chemical they believe could contribute to cancer and other health problems.

"We're hoping this decision will force FDA to recognize the toxicity of this chemical and make manufacturers set a safety standard that's protective of the most vulnerable populations," said Dr. Anila Jacob of the Environmental Working Group.

The toxicology group's findings echo those of researchers assembled by the National Institutes of Health, who in August recommended more research on bisphenol in humans.

The FDA said in November there is "no reason at this time to ban or otherwise restrict its use." The agency on Tuesday did not immediately have any comment about the new report.

Growing misgivings about the chemical have pushed many consumers toward glass alternatives, and triggered investigations by state and federal lawmakers.

Democratic Rep. John Dingell urged FDA on Tuesday to reconsider the safety of bisphenol, saying the toxicology report's findings "fly in the face of the FDA's determination."

Dingell, who chairs the Energy and Commerce Committee in the House of Representatives, issued letters this year to seven companies that make baby formulations questioning whether they use bisphenol in the lining of their cans and bottles.

The companies included Hain Celestial Group, Nestle USA and Abbott Laboratories.

A spokeswoman for the International Formula Council, which represents baby food makers, said Tuesday, "The overwhelming scientific evidence supports the safety" of bisphenol, adding that no foreign governments have restricted or banned its use.

The National Toxicology Program will take public comments on its initial report through May. A final version will be issued this summer.

State lawmakers in New Jersey passed a bill this month that would ban the sale of all products containing bisphenol in that state.

Canada's health agency also is examining health risks of bisphenol and is expected to issue its findings in coming days.

However, three of Canada's major retailers said Tuesday they were pulling bottles that contain the controversial chemical, in anticipation of Health Canada labeling it a dangerous substance.

The Forzani Group, Canada's largest sporting goods retailer, and Hudson's Bay Company, which includes Bay and Zellers stores, announced they're removing products containing bisephenol, including water and baby bottles, from their shelves.

Several other Canadian retails had already moved to take the products out of stock or to offer refunds on items already sold.

[ralan40]

...note to self...stop freebasing plastic...

[usbrit-2009]

erasmus6 - the nipple is just natural latex - probably no added chemicals. Now, of course, being "natural" the latex contains certain proteins that can cause an anaphylactic shock response in sensitive people. A not insignificant number of people have died because of latex allergies.

[erasmus6]

The glass bottle solves one problem but what about the nipple? I hate to think what is in it.

[jstbngmyslf0]

I am a 1st time grandmother to a 4-1/2 month old and just spent the last hour looking for glass bottles. Yes, better safe than sorry as my cpr class I had today told me. If you can not find glass baby bottles, your baby juice bottles will allow you to use the nipples on them, the only place I found them out of Fred Meyers, Bi-Mart, Big lots, Goodwill, and Toys R Us was at the later, Toys R Us, Yes I bought the last 2 8oz pkgs, there were more 4oz pkgs there, I somewhat remember seeing some at Wal-Mart but don''t know if I am remembering correctly. Cancer, all types run through my family and the less risk my granddaughter has the better!!!

[erasmus6]

Also most countries so called "socialized or universal" medical system isn''t necessarily the same as another country.

[erasmus6]

"...and leads directly to the greatest dread of all - Socialized Medicine." Posted by USBrit

I just don''t get it. I think that for some reason people have a completely distorted view of our medical system. I hear people calling it "socialized medicine" and "universal Medicine". Is there a difference? I mean it is like people freak right out at the thought. Someone told me once that they didn''t want someone telling them when they could go to the doctor or what doctor they could go to and I said it isn''t like that at all. They have a totally distorted view. If anything that is the way the U.S. system is, not ours.

[usbrit-2009]

Posted by erasmus6

You''ve got to remember erasmus that the people in the US don''t think they should pay the government for anything, let alone "National Insurance." They''re happier paying a private insurance company three times as much as they would for NI because NI''s another tax, and leads directly to the greatest dread of all - Socialized Medicine.

[erasmus6]

"An advantage of having your government pay your medical." Posted by lochlan

Where do you people get this stuff? It would be nice if they did but they don''t. WE pay for our medical in payments every month. We just aren''t being overcharged and sucked dry by big corporations and a corrupt government.

[usbrit-2009]

That''''s my point... trace amounts add up to what? How much is harful? Isn''''t that the only important thing? Vitamin A can kill you, so do you stop taking it? Drinking too much water can kill you. Do you stop drinking water? It''''s all about the amounts...

Posted by s1ckd09

I did a quick check of MSDS''s on bisphenol A and found solubility in water to be an unilluminating 0.1% - that 1000 ppm. Bisphenol A has been the main ingredient in polycarbonates for years. Wikipedia does a pretty good job of describing polycarbs, though, obviously there are text books written on the subject. Not sure how much unreacted BA is allowed in the polycarb used for bottles. (The only leechate would be from unreacted BA - the BA chemically bonded into the polymer can not be leeched out). My initial thoughts are, given how much water is drunk from polycarb bottles there''d be plenty of direct evidence there was something wrong if it were that dangerous.

As a Ph.D. chemist, I have used some pretty icky things in my time. Most of these trace chemical stories turn out to be crying wolf. My problem is that too much crying wolf leads to complacency. At that time warnings about truly dangerous chemicals - pesticides, for example are ignored and people get hurt. Hope this helps.

[lochlan-2009]

"We will have eliminated at least one source of contamination. That means less people and animals dying or getting sick."

An advantage of having your government pay your medical. Our government hopes we get sick, more money for the heavily lobbied medical field.