Report cites chemical's risk - Bisphenol A may be harmful, federal agency says

[Guest guest]

Bisphenol A - used to make breast implants was known to be a hormone disruptor as early as 1891 . . . If you want to know why breast implants are so dangerous, pay attention to this! - Rogene--------------------------------------------------http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=739923Report cites chemical's risk - Bisphenol A may be harmful, federal agency saysBy SUSANNE RUST and MEG KISSINGERsrust@...Posted: April 15, 2008For

the first time, the federal government said Tuesday that a chemical

found in commonly used products such as dental sealants, baby bottles

and aluminum cans is potentially dangerous to human development and

reproduction.

The new report by the National Toxicology Program heightens concern

about bisphenol A, a chemical found in the bodies of 93% of Americans

recently tested. It overrides conclusions reached by a panel in

November that found minimal concern that bisphenol A could cause

prostate and breast problems or early puberty for young children or

those who were exposed to the chemical in the womb.

"The possibility that bisphenol A may alter human development cannot be dismissed," the report says.

The report is a compilation of the work of two panels convened last

year by the National Institutes of Health. One was made up of

scientists with expertise in bisphenol A. The other was a panel of

scientists with no direct expertise in the chemical.

The new report prompted members of Congress to urge the federal

government to reconsider the safety of the chemical's use, particularly

for infants and children.

"It appears that NTP has really listened to the concerns of

scientists in this field," said Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), chairman of

the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. "This is an

important public health issue, and we can't afford to get it wrong."

Reps. D. Dingell (D-Mich.), chairman of the Committee on Energy

and Commerce, and Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), chairman of the Energy and

Commerce Committee's Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, have

been investigating the use of bisphenol A in the lining of

infant-formula cans. They called on the Food and Drug Administration to

reconsider its earlier determination that bisphenol A is safe. In its

determination, the FDA considered only two studies, both funded by

chemical manufacturers, the congressional inquiry found.

Dingell sees Tuesday's report as a chance to correct the FDA's conclusions.

"These findings of (bisphenol A's) dangers are based on the totality

of research around this chemical," Dingell said. "These assessments fly

in the face of the FDA's determination that (the chemical) is safe."

Advocates applaud reportEnvironmental advocates applauded the Toxicology Program report, calling it significant and a breakthrough.

"This is the first federal agency to raise significant concerns

about bisphenol A, and it affirms our view that it is potentially

harmful to fetuses and children," said Janssen, science fellow

with the Natural Resources Defense Council. "This goes beyond what the

committee originally identified as problems."

But an association of plastic manufacturers downplayed any significance of the panel's findings.

"The findings in NTP's draft report provide reassurance that

consumers can continue to use products made from bisphenol A," said

G. Hentges of the American Chemistry Council's Polycarbonate/BPA

Global Group. "Importantly, this conclusion has been affirmed by

scientific and government bodies worldwide."

Scientific experts on bisphenol A said the findings should force the

FDA to reconsider an earlier ruling that the chemical is safe for all

to use.

"This leaves the FDA with little wiggle room," said Frederick vom

Saal, a researcher at the University of Missouri and one of the

nation's leading experts on bisphenol A. "Their position of no concern

looks ridiculous in light of these new assessments."

Bisphenol A was developed in 1891 as a synthetic estrogen. It came

into wide use in the 1950s when scientists realized it could be used to

make polycarbonate plastic and some epoxy resins to line food and

beverage cans.

With the advent of plastic products such as dental sealants and baby

bottles, the use of bisphenol A has skyrocketed. The chemical is used

to make reusable water bottles, CDs, DVDs and eyeglasses. More than 6

billion pounds are produced each year in the United States.

In recent years, scientists became concerned about the chemical when

some researchers began noting changes in lab animals stored in cages

made with high concentrations of bisphenol A. Rodents exposed to

bisphenol A were more likely to have miscarriages, prostate problems

and cancers. Studies later linked the chemical to obesity, infertility

and behavioral changes in animals.

Those findings prompted concern about effects on humans. For ethical

reasons, scientists do not experiment with bisphenol A in humans. Their

findings on the safety to humans is gauged by how the chemicals affect

lab animals.

Panels' separate conclusionsBut the government's

examination of bisphenol A's safety has been fraught with controversy

and charges of conflicts of interest.

Last year, two groups of scientists were appointed by the federal government to gauge bisphenol A's risks.

One panel was purely academic, made up of 38 international experts

on bisphenol A who work for universities or governments. In an August

report, they found a strong cause for concern.

The other group included 12 scientists. The members were chosen

because of their lack of detailed knowledge about bisphenol A. The idea

was that the group would serve as an impartial jury. That group found

minimal concern for prostate effects and accelerated puberty, but some

concern for children in neural and behavioral development.

That panel hired Sciences International, a Virginia-based consulting

firm, to choose and summarize research for panel members. It was later

learned that Sciences International had clients that included bisphenol

A producers. The company ultimately was fired.

A Journal Sentinel investigation last fall found that the non-expert

panel had given greater weight to industry-funded studies that found

little or no effect from the chemical.

The newspaper analyzed more than 250 scientific studies on bisphenol

A. An overwhelming majority of the studies found the chemical was

linked to cancer, obesity, diabetes and reproductive failures in

laboratory animals. But a government panel considering the safety of

bisphenol A relied on studies, which found no harm, that were paid for

by the chemical industry. The panel had missed dozens of studies

publicly available that the Journal Sentinel found using a medical

research Internet search engine.

The new report considered dozens of studies that the earlier panel

had rejected, including those that examined the effect of the chemical

on fetuses and newborns that were given the drug by injection, as

opposed to getting it through the mouth or stomach. It also reviewed

more than 400 studies published between April 2007 and February of this

year.

Bucher, associate director of the National Toxicology Program,

said Tuesday that the new report is based on much of the same

literature considered by the non-expert panel.

But Bucher said there is "sufficient scientific justification from

studies in rodents to include effects on prostate and mammary

development, and a more rapid attainment of puberty in females to the

evidence supporting" their heightened concern.

The National Toxicology Program will take comments on its initial

report through May. A final version will be issued this summer.