When a bill to ban a common plastic additive in feeding products for young children passed the Assembly on July 1, it marked a milestone in state legislative efforts to regulate bisphenol A.

The ban's supporters point to studies linking the chemical, found in hard plastic containers such as baby bottles and in the lining of food and beverage cans, with numerous adverse health effects, especially in infants and young children.

The bill, SB 797, was defeated last year in the Assembly. In 2008, a similar bill written by another state senator also failed.

But Sen. Fran Pavley, D-Agoura Hills, the bill's author, asked for another vote this year, and this time it passed 43-31. Mostly Republicans opposed it, along with a few Democrats, including Alberto Torrico, D-Fremont.

"I'm thrilled. This was a real David and Goliath fight," said Pavley, referring to what she called a battle over the bill with industry lobbyists.

It calls for a ban on the chemical by January 2012 in feeding products designed for children aged 3 and under, such as sippy cups, bottles and baby food jars. It also bans BPA in all infant formula starting July 2012.

The bill heads back the state Senate, where it already passed, for a reconciliation vote in August. If approved again there, it goes to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

In the weeks ahead, Pavley's staff expects intense lobbying by industry groups opposed to the bill.

The secret is out: the toxic chemicals industry is designing a PR campaign for survival! Bisphenol A in baby bottles, water bottles, and food cans. Formaldehyde in furniture. Phthalates in air fresheners, soft plastics, and fragrances. The manufacturers of these chemicals are not taking the push for regulation lying down (despite their public claims of support for safety). Don’t be duped!

View the video the Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families coalition created to galvanize public support for Congressional action, and have fun with a pretty serious issue. The characters you will meet in the video are cartoons, but the plot is ripped straight from the headlines. (Just go to the industry funded “Coalition for Chemical Safety” or read one of Richard Dennison's exposes and you’ll see what we mean.)

Chemicals aren’t sitting still – and neither should we!

Low-level exposure in the womb to the plastic chemical bisphenol A (BPA) can harm testicular function into adulthood, according to a new study from Auburn University that adds to the growing list of concerns about the ubiquitous chemical. The results were presented yesterday at The Endocrine Society's 92nd Annual Meeting.

"We are seeing changes in the testis function of rats after exposure to BPA levels that are lower than what the FDA and EPA consider safe exposure levels for humans," said Benson Akingbemi, the study's lead author. "This is concerning because large segments of the population, including pregnant and nursing mothers, are exposed to this chemical."

BPA, found in many plastic products such as drink bottles, acts in a similar manner as the female sex hormone estrogen and has been linked to female infertility. It is present in placental tissue and is able to pass from a mother into her breast milk.

In the new study, Akingbemi and colleagues saw the effects of BPA at the cellular level; specifically in Leydig cells (Leydig cells are responsible for testosterone secretion). Akingbemi explained that the process of testosterone secretion was decreased in the male offspring of female rats that received BPA during pregnancy and while nursing.

For the study, the mothers were fed BPA in olive oil at a dose of either 2.5 or 25 micrograms of BPA per kilogram of body weight. The daily upper limit of safe exposure for humans, according to federal guidelines, is 50 micrograms per kilogram of body weight. A control group of pregnant rats received olive oil without BPA.

The investigators then studied the development of Leydig cells in the male offspring. The capacity for testosterone secretion was assessed at 21, 35 and 90 days of age. The amount of testosterone secreted per Leydig cell was found to be much lower in male offspring after early-life exposure to BPA than in offspring from control unexposed animals.

CONFIDENTIAL emails reveal Australia's food regulator discussed hiding from the Federal Government international warnings about a potentially dangerous chemical used in plastic bottles.

The chemical, Bisphenol A (BPA), is found in plastic packaging. Latest research in the US says it may harm brain development and the prostate gland.

Australian stores last week began a voluntary phase-out of plastic baby bottles containing the substance, but Food Standards Australia New Zealand has long declared it safe.

A draft report to Parliamentary Secretary for Health Mark Butler includes comments indicating that the agency considered covering up international concerns.

"Maybe too sensitive for the Minister to see," one comment says. Another comment, on industry moves to phase out products containing BPA, warns: "Would delete this - we do not want to be encouraging withdrawal of something we deem safe."

The emails were written in January, at the same time as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) launched new research into the safety of products containing BPA.

Bill Could Be on Governor's Desk by End of Summer

The health of California’s children was represented today in Sacramento when a majority of the State Assembly voted to remove the toxic chemical bisphenol A (BPA) from food and beverage containers designed for children 3 and younger.

Forty-three lawmakers voted to pass the “Toxics-Free Babies and Toddlers Act” (SB 797) originally authored by State Senator Fran Pavley (D-Santa Monica). Pavley’s bill, which was already approved by the Senate, now goes back to the upper chamber for a final procedural vote where it is expected to pass before heading to the Governor for his consideration.

Senator Pavley authored the legislation in response to mounting scientific evidence that exposure to even very low levels of BPA can impact health. More than 200 scientific studies show that BPA exposure, particularly during early infancy, is associated with a wide range of adverse health effects later in life, including breast and prostate cancer, birth defects, infertility in men, early puberty in girls, diabetes and obesity.

The main route of exposure in humans is from food and beverage containers where BPA leaches from the hard plastic.

“The chemical industry may have had the money, but science and the public’s concern for children’s health came out on top today,” said the director of EWG’s California office, Renee Sharp. “California parents are closer than ever to that day when they won’t have to worry if their babies and toddlers are ingesting BPA.”

The controversial chemical bisphenol-A (BPA), already linked to a wide array of health problems, may also increase the risk of asthma in children, according to a study conducted by researchers from the University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston and published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives.

BPA is an industrial chemical widely used in the manufacture of hard, clear plastics like those used in water and baby bottles, as well as in resins used to line cans of food, beverages and infant formula. Exposure has been linked to an increased risk of cancer, heart disease, birth defects, and hormonal and reproductive problems. Its use in products for young children has been banned in a number of countries and in three U.S. states.

After years of insisting that the chemical was safe, the FDA recently changed its position and called for more research.

Researchers fed pregnant mice BPA for a week before they were due to give birth, until the mice had a body burden of BPA equivalent to that regularly found in pregnant U.S. women. They then exposed the pups of these mice to a common allergy inducer, and compared their response to that of mice who had not been exposed to BPA in utero. They found a significantly greater asthma reaction in the BPA-exposed mice.

The National Resources Defense Counsel filed suit on Tuesday in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, alleging that the FDA has failed to regulate bisphenol A, a chemical linked to reproductive harm, cancer and obesity. Bisphenol A, or BPA, was first developed as a synthetic form of estrogen in the 1930s but was later transformed into a plastic, which is used today in food containers. BPA is found in numerous products that can be used on a daily basis, from soda and beer cans to baby bottles, sippy cups, and water bottles. Researchers believe that when heated, BPA can leak into the containers contents.

Studies have found that BPA can cause early puberty and reproductive harms, suppress immune function, and cause cancer, neurological delays and diabetes. Detected in urine, amniotic fluid, breast milk and umbilical cord blood, the chemical is so common that the NRDC says more than 93 percent of the general population has some BPA in their bodies.

France and Denmark are banning industrial chemical bisphenol-A (BPA) from babies' bottles as of this week, but the British Plastics Federation has suggested a similar move was unlikely in the UK.

The Denmark ban is being described as temporary, but the French ban is permanent and the country’s government will next year decide on whether to ban the controversial plastic component from all products.

The British Plastic Federation said the ban was unjustifiable and that the UK was unlikely to see a similar move.

Phillip Law, public affairs director, told Packaging News: "It’s unjustifiable because consumer products contain very, very tiny trace amounts of BPA."

Law said that the Food Standards Agency in the UK had last year confirmed that there was no basis to press for higher controls of the chemical or for a ban on it based on current evidence.

Canada has already banned BPA, as have several US states and other European countries are considering a ban. Some UK manufacturers, such as NUK, which produces babies’ bottles, have also banned Bisphenol A.

Questions are growing over a chemical component in baby bottles. State lawmakers were asked to vote in favor of a ban Monday.

A ban on the chemical bisphenol-A (BPA) did not survive Monday's vote in the state assembly. The crusade by a group of expectant mothers goes on.

Those expectant moms have the support of some Democratic lawmakers who have tried for years to ban BPA from children's products. There are studies that support both sides, leaving some to wonder which way to vote.

These expectant moms are running out of time in their fight against the powerful chemical industry.

Click the image above to read the PDF.

Germany’s Federal Environment Agency (UBA) has advised manufacturers, importers and users of bisphenol A (BPA) to use alternative substances that pose less risk to human health and the environment in all areas of use that significantly contribute to exposure.

UBA has translated into English its recent study Bisphenol A – an industrial chemical with adverse effects, which advises manufacturers, importers and users of bisphenol A (BPA) to use alternative substances that pose less risk to human health and the environment in all areas of use that significantly contribute to exposure.

Lawmakers and environmental advocates are urging New York’s Governor David Paterson to sign a bill banning bisphenol-A—commonly known as BPA—in sippy cups, pacifiers, and other products geared to children, said WGRZ. The legislation passed with a unanimous vote in the Senate and Assembly this week.

A polycarbonate plastic, BPA is found in nearly every consumer product and most canned foods and is also found in beverage cans, a wide array of plastic products, dental sealants, thermal paper, and resins used in nautical paint, an issue in our aquatic environment.

Despite that industry has long maintained BPA is safe at current levels, science continues to point to the many adverse effects linked to the ubiquitous, polycarbonate compound.

BPA is known to imitate the hormone estrogen, acts as an anti-androgen, and is also known to affect sexual development and processes, especially in developing fetuses, infants, and children. Many, many hundreds of studies have linked BPA to cardiovascular disease, intestinal problems, brain cell connection interference, increased risks of reproductive and immune system diseases and disorders, problems with liver function testing, interruptions in chemotherapy treatment, premature puberty, polycystic ovarian syndrome, and erectile dysfunction and male sexual problems. In urine tests, BPA is found in the overwhelming majority of Americans, more than 93 percent and, significantly, the chemical is found in 90 percent of all newborns.

Four years ago, just after giving birth to her second child, the stay-at-home mom heard about BPA, a chemical inside some plastics that can leach into water or food slowly over time, potentially causing serious health problems like cancer. Unwilling to take any risks, she ran to Babies "R" Us, which had a program to exchange baby bottles containing BPA, and walked out with $100 in rebates.

If only life were so easy.

What Sprague didn't realize is that BPA, or bisphenol A, is ubiquitous. Simply put, just about anything you eat that comes out of a can — from Campbell's Chicken Soup and SpaghettiOs to Diet Coke and BumbleBee Tuna — contains the same exact chemical.

The exposure to BPA from canned food "is far more extensive" than from plastic bottles, said Shanna Swan, a professor and researcher at the University of Rochester in New York. "It's particularly concerning when it's lining infant formula cans."

BPA is the key compound in epoxy resin linings that keep food fresher longer and prevents it from interacting with metal and altering the taste. It has been linked in some studies of rats and mice to not only cancer but also obesity, diabetes and heart disease.

Trade groups for chemical and can manufacturers say they stand behind the chemical, and point to some studies from governmental health agencies that deem BPA safe and effective for food contact. They also note that its use has substantially reduced deaths from food poisoning.

But in January, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the first time expressed "some concern" about BPA. Propelled in part by recent independent scientific studies and also bowing to mounting concern from the public and consumer groups, the agency announced that it would tap $30 million in federal stimulus funds to study the chemical's potential effects on the human body.

Two new studies - one human and one rat - show that active BPA and its inactive metabolite freely cross the placenta from a pregnant mother to the fetus. Even more important are the chemical transformations that occur in the fetus: the active form of BPA remains active while the inactive form can be converted to the active form. Together, these studies provide evidence that prebirth exposures occur in people and may pose a bigger risk to the developing fetus than previously thought.

What did they do?

Nishikawa and colleagues injected either 2 or 10 micromolar concentrations of BPA-glucuronide into pregnant rats. These concentrations are relatively high and are probably not relevant to human exposure levels. However, high concentrations are necessary because they allow researchers to measure the low levels of BPA moving through the pregnant rats, the fetuses and the amniotic fluid.

The scientists collected samples of the fetal tissues and the amniotic fluid that surrounds the developing rats and analyzed the tissues and fluid for both BPA-glucuronide – the inactive form – and "free" BPA – the estrogenic and active form. From these data, they determined whether BPA-glucuronide could cross the placenta and whether it is converted to free BPA by the fetus.

They also determined whether the rat fetuses had turned on genes for enzymes that 1) break down BPA-glucuronide into the estrogenic BPA and 2) convert BPA to BPA-glucuronide, the inactive form.

How worried should we be about everyday chemicals?

There is an inherent uncertainty in determining which substances are safe and which are not, and when their risks outweigh their benefits. Toxicity studies are difficult, because BPA and other, similar chemicals can have multiple effects on the body. Moreover, we are exposed to scores of them in a lifetime, and their effects in combination or in sequence might be very different from what they would be in isolation. In traditional toxicology, a single chemical is tested in one cell or animal to assess its harmful effects. In studying environmental hazards, one needs to test mixtures of many chemicals, across ranges of doses, at different points in time, and at different ages, from conception to childhood to old age. Given so many variables, it is difficult to determine how harmful these chemicals might be, or if they are harmful at all, or what anyone can do to avoid their effects. In the case of BPA and other chemicals of its sort, though, their increasing prevalence and a number of human studies that associate them with developmental issues have become too worrisome to ignore. The challenge now is to decide a course of action before there is any certainty about what is truly dangerous and what is not.

Babies are born pre-polluted with 100’s of toxic chemicals.

Our broken toxics law is failing them.
We need your help to change that.

EWG tested the umbilical cord blood of 10 newborn babies and found nearly 300 chemicals, including BPA, fire retardants, lead, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and pesticides that were banned more than 30 years ago.

Speak up for change. Our kids deserve it.

The Kid-Safe Chemicals Act would require that all chemicals be proven safe for children before they can be sold. But lawmakers in Washington need to know that you want them to reform our broken toxics law.

Please Click HERE to sign this petition to demand that Congress take action to make chemicals in consumer products kid-safe.

California takes a step towards officially listing BPA as a reproductive toxicant.

New studies linking health problems like cancer and impotence to bisphenol A (BPA) — a chemical used in everything from baby bottles to soup cans — seems to come out every week. Government action on regulating BPA, however, has been coming only at a crawl. Only last month did the U.S. Food and Drug Administration express “some concern” about BPA’s effects on babies — while declining to regulate the chemical.
 
But last week, some good news about BPA regulation finally came from California, when the state’s Environmental Protection Agency took a step towards listing BPA as a reproductive toxicant!

California has a law — a.k.a. Proposition 65 — that puts chemicals found to be a carcinogen or reproductive toxicant by an authoritative scientific body on a list. If BPA is put on that list, products containing BPA could be forced to carry labels or language disclosing that their products are made with a potentially harmful chemical. “In many cases, manufacturers have chosen to remove Prop. 65 chemicals from their products rather than label them,” notes a press release from Breast Cancer Fund, an environmental health nonprofit that’s been fighting for BPA bans in the U.S.
 
So far, Cal-EPA has said BPA, “appears to meet the criteria for listing as known to the state to cause reproductive toxicity” — though BPA hasn’t officially been labeled a reproductive toxicant yet. Want California to lead the way toward BPA bans? The Cal-EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment is currently taking public comments about whether or not BPA should be listed as a reproductive toxicant. Send your comment by 5 p.m. on Tues., April 13, 2010, to This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .

EPA's tough talk goes silent after lobbyist meeting

Eight days after chemical industry lobbyists met with Obama administration officials, federal regulators delayed action on including bisphenol A in a new effort to better regulate dangerous chemicals.

The move is drawing suspicion, considering how the head of the Environmental Protection Agency had been talking tough in one speech after another last fall about the need to protect the public from such chemicals, particularly BPA.

But when the agency's list came out Dec. 30, identifying four chemicals that would face stricter labeling and reporting requirements, BPA was not among them.

While other agencies and governmental bodies are moving to restrict BPA's use because of concerns about its links to health problems, including cancer, the EPA now says it won't develop a tougher regulatory plan for the chemical for at least two years.

Critics say the Dec. 22 meeting might have been why BPA was dropped from the top of the agency's list.

White House notes about the meeting show how the American Chemistry Council aggressively pleaded its case that BPA should not be flagged for greater regulation.

Lobbyists for the trade group presented a group of studies - most of which the industry paid for - that downplayed the risks of the chemical. They complained that the EPA's plan to designate certain chemicals as a "chemical of concern," prompting tougher scrutiny, will hurt their profits.

And they asked the government for preferential treatment - to give them notice of any action before letting the public know.

Drive-thru burgers and fries, movie theater popcorn with three days worth of fat and calories, video games, smart phones and TV, there are plenty of villains in the war against obesity. But all of the usual suspects don't explain the latest segment of the population with rising obesity rates - infants.

Research from Harvard University shows infant obesity has risen more than 70 percent since 1980. The numbers are staggering and confusing because babies eat only formula or breast milk and they've never been much into exercise.

Why Are Babies Getting Fat?

Local researchers believe it a common household chemical may be to blame. "Research has shown since 2001 that being exposed to BPA during development changes your body weight," explained Tufts University Scientists, Dr. Laura Vandenberg.

BPA, or Bisphenol-A, is found in hundreds of consumer products. "Humans are most likely exposed to BPA through oral exposures," Vandeberg said. "BPA is used to line the inside of cans and that's thought to be a major exposure in adults."

Dr. Vandenberg and her colleagues have evidence that mice exposed to tiny amounts BPA while in the womb gained more weight than mice that were not exposed. The animals didn't eat more and they got the same amount of exercise. "What actually happens is the fat cells have more fat in them so each cell is actually getting larger," Vandenberg said.

Toxicologist Urvashi Rangan talks about the possible hidden dangers in plastics and the simple steps you can take to prevent potential contamination.

Get Flash to see this player.