Despite the fact that I write about Vancouver, hockey, cooking, my son, Team Diabetes and politics, the most viewed pages on this blog are those pertaining to Bisphenol-A (BPA) and how it has been used in the production of children’s bottles. Avent, for example denies the impact of BPA and even sits on the board of the pro-BPA lobby.

If you have children, please re-read the my posts about BPA, what it is, where it is, and what you can do to find products made without it.

That final step could become a lot easier as soon as this weekend, as the federal government is set to place BPA on Canada’s list of toxic substances as soon as tomorrow. [globe]

This will make Canada the first in the world to declare Bisphenol-A as dangerous and toxic to humans.

Most Canadians “need not be concerned” about the health effects of bisphenol A, (Health Minister Tony) Clement said at the time. “This is not the case for newborns and infants.”

The government’s final decision will appear in the Canada Gazette, which publishes the official regulations of the government.

Rick Smith, executive director of Environmental Defence and co-author of the forthcoming book Slow Death by Rubber Duck: How the Toxic Chemistry of Everyday Life Affects Our Health, said the expected declaration is a “good start.”

But he said new evidence continues to pile up, pointing to the detrimental health effects of bisphenol A on adults.

“There’s new science coming out on a weekly basis pointing to this chemical being a health concern for adults. Baby bottles are a good start, but the government now needs to take a look at getting this chemical out of the lining in cans.”

The latest research, the first large BPA study in humans published last month by the prestigious Journal of the American Medical Association, found a “significant relationship” between exposure to the ubiquitous estrogenic chemical and heart disease, diabetes and liver problems.
[canada.com]

Quickly after the original announcements in the spring regarding BPA, many stores in Canada removed them from their shelves, with London Drugs going so far as to have an amnesty on BPA bottles offering full store credits for their return.

The bottles are more difficult to find on shelves, however places like Starbucks still carry BPA products.

The same goes for stores in the US.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is under fire after determining last month in a draft report that BPA was safe for food storage. On Thursday, the Washington Post published an editorial arguing the FDA’s final recommendation, expected this month, could be “seen as less than fully independent.”

The influential newspaper cited the recent donation of $5 million to the University of Michigan’s Risk Science Center from Charles Gelman, the retired head of a medical device manufacturing company and outspoken proponent of bisphenol A.

The acting director of the university centre is Martin Philbert, a toxicologist who is also head of the FDA advisory panel poised to deliver its risk assessment of BPA.

Philbert did not disclose the gift to the agency as part of the disclosure process when he was appointed to the panel; he told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel he did not need to, since he does not stand to gain from it. The FDA is looking into a possible conflict of interest.
[canada.com]

Some states are trying to rally against the FDA decision, by petitioning the manufacturers directly.

Attorneys general from Connecticut, New Jersey and Delaware sent letters Friday to 11 companies that make baby bottles and baby formula containers, asking they no longer use the chemical bisphenol A in their manufacturing because they said it was potentially harmful to infants.

The Food & Drug Administration has tentatively concluded that BPA is safe based on a review of research, and some manufacturers have already said they would make BPA-free baby bottles.

But Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal criticized the FDA for declining to take action after a preliminary study last month drew a possible connection to BPA and risks of heart disease and diabetes.

“Unfortunately the federal agency, the Federal Food and Drug Administration, has been asleep at the switch, in fact resistant to respecting the scientific evidence that grave harm can result in use of this product,” Blumenthal said.
[boston.com]

BPA does bad things to the body when in high enough concentrations. It’s true. Whether you believe the concentrations are high enough to do damage is up to you, but why take the chance?

There are many companies that make BPA free products. Born Free and Green to Grow are just two baby bottle manufacturers, while Nalgene now has a great looking line of BPA-free bottles back on shelves at Mountain Equipment Coop.

The Blog According to Buzz. Spread the word, ya heard?

This entry was posted on Friday, October 17th, 2008 at 9:38 am and is filed under health, news. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.