New science on BPA meets outdated analysis at FDA

Earlier this week, as scientists released results of new research linking diabetes and heart disease in humans to urine levels of a chemical found in plastic, the Food and Drug Administration continued to say that the chemical, bisphenol A (BPA), is safe. Such conflicting information gives little guidance to consumers.

On Tuesday, the FDA held a public meeting at which experts criticized the federal agency's assessment as outdated and inappropriate. At the same time, the results of the first major epidemiologic study to examine the health effects of BPA—a chemical widely used in  food and beverage can linings, as well as in hard clear plastic bottles and food-storage containers—were being released, suggesting harmful health effects from even common, low-dose exposures.

The new study, published in the Sept. 17, 2008 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association, was based on analysis conducted at the universities of Essex and Plymouth in the U.K. and at the University of Iowa. Scientists analyzed U.S. government data (collected from 2002-2004) on urine samples of 1,455 Americans 18 to 74. They found that higher urinary concentrations of BPA were associated with increased prevalence of not only diabetes and heart disease, but of related liver enzyme abnormalities as well. The JAMA researchers note that their results do not prove causation, and independent follow-up studies are needed, but they come in the wake of evidence from animal studies suggesting adverse health effects from even low-dose exposures.

Since Consumer Reports first warned about BPA in baby bottles in 1999, evidence of BPA's toxic potential has continued to build. In Consumers Union's statement for the FDA meeting, Urvashi Rangan, Ph.D., Senior Scientist and Policy Analyst, repeated calls for a more scientifically sound assessment and urged the FDA to eliminate BPA in food and beverage containers.

"The safety of BPA, at current exposure levels in the U.S. population, has not been demonstrated and the government is giving consumers contradictory messages about the level of concern," said Dr. Rangan. "BPA is metabolized quickly and yet constant, elevated levels are circulating in most Americans. This indicates that consumers are constantly exposed to BPA."

"A margin of safety exists that is adequate to protect consumers, including infants and children, at the current levels of exposure," Laura Tarantino, a senior Food and Drug Administration scientist, told the expert panel on Tuesday, in remarks reported by the Associated Press.

But in tests conducted for Consumer Reports magazine, BPA has been found leaching from baby bottles and certain types of large containers of bottled water. Studies by other groups have reported elevated levels in canned foods and infant formula.

And the authors of the just-released JAMA study point out that exposure to BPA among the general U.S. population is likely to exceed limits set by the Environmental Protection Agency for the "reference dose," or the daily exposure that is not likely to cause harmful effects.

What You Can Do
While studies are under way, if you're concerned about BPA, here's what you can do:

• Identify which containers might have the chemical. Polycarbonate is usually clear rather than cloudy, although it may be colored. If the container carries a recycling code, it will be marked with the number 7 or the letters "PC," or both. No. 7 bottles made with BPA-free polyethersulfone (PES) won't have the PC marking. Other BPA-free plastic alternatives include polyethylene, which may be marked with recycling codes 1 (PET) or 2 (HDPE), and polypropylene, 5 (PP).
• For baby bottles, glass or BPA-free plastics such as polyethylene are the safest choices, as Consumer Reports has advised in the past.
• For those who reuse water bottles frequently and want to avoid BPA, consider polyethylene, stainless steel, or aluminum with BPA-free liners.
• More information on this topic can be found at Greener Choices.