From National Council of Churches News:

The National Council of Churches expressed disappointment in the Food and Drug Administration’s conclusion that there is insufficient evidence to ban bisphenol-a (BPA), a chemical found in many aluminum cans and some infant formula containers.

The chemical is linked to health concerns in numerous studies that identify such problems as early puberty in girls, prostate and breast cancer, obesity and type II diabetes, heart disease, infertility and neurological issues.

“The faith community is clear on the need to care for the health of our neighbors and to prevent suffering,” said Chloe Schwabe,Environmental Health Program Manager for the NCC’s EcoJustice programs.

“With a scientific body of evidence that continues to produce studies showing harm, we believe the F.D.A. made the wrong decision to allow BPA, a chemical linked to prevalent health conditions, to remain in aluminum cans and infant formula.” Schwabe said.

The full statement is below:

The Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) decision to allow bisphenol-a (BPA) to continue to be used in baby bottles, sippy cups, infant formula cans, and food cans in the face of numerous studies that link BPA exposures at low-doses to prevalent health concerns such as cancer, early puberty in girls, and type II diabetes is a violation of our call as Christians to protect the health of God’s children, low-income communities, and all life on Earth.

In the hard economic times, more families prepare meals with canned food and a recent study from Boston University School of Public Health used data from the National Institute of Health and found that low-income communities who receive emergency food assistance have higher levels of BPA in their bodies. People living in poverty should not be unduly exposed to BPA or any chemical with mounting evidence of harm to people and God’s Creation.

As 11 states, Canada, France, Denmark, China, Taiwan, Malaysia, the United Arab Emirates, and the EU Commission pass stringent restrictions on this chemical, and the chemical industry and product manufacturers move forward to replace BPA in baby bottles, sippy cups, and aluminum cans, the FDA falls short of guaranteeing a healthy future for all God’s children in the United States.”

We will keep you updated regarding ongoing changes to BPA regulations.

From care2.com:

In recent years, many research and news organizations have published reports about the toxicity of Bisphenol A (commonly called BPA). If you’ve kept up on this topic, you know BPA is in many food and beverage containers (including in the lining of metal cans that hold vegetables, soups and beans) and that it’s a potent endocrine disruptor that acts as a hormone in the human body.

In a recent interview published by Yale Environment 360, BPA researcher Frederick vom Saal of the University of Missouri’s Endocrine Disruptor Group provides some no-nonsense information about BPA and harshly criticizes government oversight of this powerful chemical. Here are some quick facts from the interview.

BPA is derived from petroleum. It was approved by the Environmental Protection Agency for use as a food contact material in 1963. There are more than 100,000 chemicals in commerce, but the U.S. government only has regulatory authority over a percentage of those. In the 1970s, it “grandfathered” in 62,000 chemicals—including BPA—through the Toxic Substances Control Act. That means there is basically no regulatory oversight of this chemical. The Food and Drug Administration came out in 2010 and said it agreed with many researchers that BPA is a concern, but that it doesn’t have the authority to ban or regulate it.

BPA has been linked to early puberty, many types of cancer, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, impaired memory, asthma, allergies and low sperm counts. It damages every part of the human reproductive system.

The common rationalization you hear about BPA being in contact with our foods and beverages is that it’s at such a low level, we don’t need to worry. However, vom Saal explained that his team used human breast cancer cells to study estrogen chemicals for their potency, and BPA lit up like a Christmas tree. He says even at extremely low levels, BPA is anything but weak. The chemical industry threatened vom Saal and his research team, asking them not to publish their findings on BPA.

Of studies funded by the chemical industry, 100 percent say that BPA is safe. However, when you look at the entire body of research studies on BPA, 90 percent of non-industry-funded studies find that BPA is harmful to humans.

The clear message I took away from this interview is that we have to protect and educate ourselves and each other. No government agency is going to make sure the products on grocery store shelves are safe. Please pass this information on.

To learn more about BPA, check out the following resources (the first link is the complete interview with vom Saal):

• Is There Poison in Our Food? Concerns About BPA
• Eating Fresh Food Drastically Reduces BPA Levels, Study Finds
• Plastics: What’s Dangerous, What’s Not
• China Leaps Ahead of U.S. With BPA Ban

We will keep you informed of any developments.

From iWatch news:

About 21 months ago, a proposed list of widely used chemicals that may pose health risks landed at the White House’s Office of Management and Budget for review.

It’s still there.

An attempt by the Environmental Protection Agency to create a “chemicals of concern” list — part of the agency’s larger plans to improve what administrator Lisa Jackson has called an outdated and dysfunctional system for regulating toxic substances — remains stuck in the OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA).

The proposal has sparked heavy resistance among industry groups, some of which have met with White House officials and argued that releasing the list could harm the economy. By executive order, OIRA should finish such reviews within 90 days — or, in some cases, 120. Instead, it’s had the EPA list for 638 days — and counting.

“The reason is political pandering,” said Rena Steinzor, a law professor at the University of Maryland and president of the Center for Progressive Reform. “OIRA is a politicized place where rules go to die.”

OMB spokeswoman Meg Reilly said in an emailed statement that the office doesn’t comment on regulations under review, but “it’s not uncommon for review periods to be extended for regulatory actions that require additional time for consideration of public comment and analysis by OMB and all the affected agencies.”

Since OIRA received the proposal on May 12, 2010, it has hosted eight meetings about the list — six of them with companies and industry groups. By comparison, OIRA officials have met once with public health and environmental groups and once with staffers for Democratic Sens. Frank Lautenberg and Sheldon Whitehouse, sponsors of legislation to reform regulation of toxic chemicals.

Big chemical companies seem most worried. ExxonMobil, for instance, argued that two of its chemicals used to make plastics flexible and durable shouldn’t be on the list. Other chemical industry powerhouses — from Dow Chemical Company to BASF Corp. and SABIC — have weighed in.

In a statement, the American Chemistry Council, the chemical industry’s main trade group, said: “We are concerned that EPA is creating a list of ‘chemicals of concern’ for potential regulatory action, without establishing consistent, transparent criteria by which these chemicals are selected. … It is OMB’s job to closely review the proposed action and consider any negative economic impact; we appreciate that officials are taking the time they need to fully study the matter. Failure to fully review such agency proposals undermines public and private sector confidence in the regulatory process and can seriously harm American innovation and jobs.”

Though OIRA hasn’t released the EPA list, the office has indicated that it includes Bisphenol A, found in many plastic products and believed to interfere with the hormone system; a group of eightphthalates, found in many plastics and cosmetics and believed to alter development of the male reproductive system; and certain polybrominated diphenyl ethers, used as flame retardants in many products and believed to cause thyroid problems and hamper brain development.

An EPA spokesman did not respond to requests for comment.

The rule itself would do little more than alert the public that the EPA believes certain chemicals may pose health risks and is trying to gather more information. But the U.S. Chamber of Commerce complained in a letter to OIRA that the regulation would amount to “blacklisting” of these substances, which could lead to “market disruptions and litigation.”

The Chamber also argued that even creating a list was “a tectonic shift in EPA policy” and should be suspended until EPA lays out specific grounds for evaluating whether a chemical “may present an unreasonable risk” — the standard for inclusion on the list.

Steinzor noted, however, that the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act specifically grants the EPA the authority to create a list of troubling compounds. Companies are “screaming bloody murder,” she said, because they fear a backlash from concerned consumers and worry further regulation of named chemicals could follow.

In the more than 35 years since Congress passed the law, known as TSCA, the EPA hasn’t used its power to flag chemicals of concern. The current proposal is part of the agency’s attempt to make the most of its authority under TSCA, which has faced fierce criticism from environmental groups and some in Congress as out of date and ill equipped to address risks from the vast array of industrial chemicals now in use. Perennial attempts in Congress to overhaul the law have failed.

Soon after taking over as EPA administrator, Jackson signaled that the agency would focus on improving regulation of toxic substances. “Assuring chemical safety in a rapidly changing world, and restoring public confidence that EPA is protecting the American people is a top priority for me, my leadership team, and this Administration,” she said in a 2009 speech.

But many of the agency’s efforts, such as the “chemicals of concern” list, have encountered resistance — including from within the administration. “A very disturbing pattern has developed with OIRA’s review of EPA proposals to better ensure chemical safety:  Long delays — far in excess of the mandated 90 days — have become routine,” Richard Denison, a senior scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund, said in a statement.

When OIRA does release the list, it still won’t be official. The public will get to weigh in, and the EPA can fine-tune the rule. Then it goes back to OIRA for another review.

We will keep you informed of any updates from the EPA.

From: France 24

France’s ecology minister on Tuesday said she would seek labelling requirements for food containers made with bisphenol A (BPA) after a watchdog agency sharpened its concern about this chemical.

“What I propose first of all is systematic labelling of products containing BPA when the product comes into contact with the public,” the minister told AFP….Labelling would be obligatory and the measure would be introduced swiftly, she said.

Kosciusko-Morizet said she would also propose a ban on BPA for specific products whenever the compound could be substituted by another chemical proven to be safe.

Several countries have introduced voluntary measures or laws to stop the manufacture of baby bottles with BPA and published guidelines on safer use of these containers. In June 2010, the French parliament banned BPA-containing baby bottles.

We will keep you updated on any regulatory changes that result.

From: OEHHA

OEHHA announces the beginning of a 60-day public comment period on 39 chemicals, including Bisphenol A,  Coumarin and Dicloran. These chemicals will be discussed at the October 2011 meeting of the Proposition 65 Carcinogen Identification Committee (CIC).  The CIC is the state’s qualified experts on carcinogenicity for purposes of the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Proposition 65).  The CIC’s October meeting is scheduled for Wednesday and Thursday, October 12 and 13, 2011.  The CIC will provide the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) with advice on the prioritization of these 39 chemicals for possible preparation of hazard identification materials.  At a later date, OEHHA will select chemicals for preparation of hazard identification materials and announce those decisions in a separate notice.  No listing decisions will be made for these chemicals at the October 12 and 13 meetings.

To download the “Prioritization: Chemicals Identified for Consultation with the Carcinogen Identification Committee” document, or to see the list of the 39 chemicals under review, please click the above link.

Click on the links for more information.

From the Malay Mail:

SHOPS have begun to remove remaining stocks of polycarbonate infant milk bottles containing the banned chemical Bisphenol A (BPA) before such bottles are outlawed in eight months time.

This comes after Health Minister Datuk Seri Liow Tiong Lai announcement yesterday that such milk bottles would no longer be allowed for sale from next March as it could endanger infants.

Countries which have already banned this chemical in milk bottles include Australia, Denmark, France, Germany and New Zealand. Earlier this month, the European Union (EU) announced an immediate ban in all EU member countries.

“We only heard of the BPA issue last month via the Internet,” said Norazlinati Abu Bakar, 38, who works at a baby shop.

“Baby milk bottles numbered 06 have BPA while 04 and 05 bottles don’t.”

She said bottles with BPA were retailed at RM17.90 and those without are priced higher at RM35.90. The brands available include Advent, Breastflow, Bibi and Dr Brown.

“After about six months of usage, BPA bottles eventually turn yellow as the chemicals start to seep. It turns yellow within two to three months if the bottles are heated in boiled water,” Norazlinati said, adding her employer has stopped ordering BPA bottles.

Enforcement of the ban here will be in stages and the baby milk bottle-making industry in this country have to comply by making changes to their production as well as the purchase of new raw materials.

The move is in line with the recent recommendations by the World Health Organisation.

We will keep you informed of any further regulatory changes related to BPA products.

From Sustainable Business.com

US legislators in 30 states across the country and the District of Columbia announced legislation aimed at protecting people from harmful chemicals.

Increasing rates of chronic diseases linked to toxic chemical exposure, including cancer, asthma, and infertility, has created urgency in state capitols to enact policies to get harmful chemicals off the market, the Coalition said.

Despite overwhelming public support for stronger laws on toxic chemicals, Congress has heeded the aggressive opposition of chemical industry lobbyists rather than the support of the American electorate and failed to pass Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reform legislation three times in the last six years.

For more information, follow the links.

From: SF Appeal

In a study released Thursday in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, UCSF researchers revealed that almost all pregnant women carry multiple chemicals in their systems, including some which have been banned since the 1970′s, said Margie Kelly, a spokeswoman with the nonprofit Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families.

Among the chemicals found in the women were compounds that are used as flame retardants that are now banned in many states, and a pesticide that was banned in the U.S. in 1972, Kelly said.

“There are personal choices pregnant women can make to reduce their exposures to environmental chemicals, but the significant, long-lasting change only will result from a systemic approach that includes proactive government policies,” Woodruff said….The current federal law governing chemicals in the U.S. is the outdated 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act.

Follow the links for more information.

From: BBC News

The European Commission has announced a ban on the use of bisphenol A (BPA) in plastic baby bottles from next year…The commission cited fears that the compound could affect development and immune response in young children.

“There were areas of uncertainty, deriving from new studies, which showed that BPA might have an effect on development, immune response and tumour promotion,” Mr Dalli said in a statement.

EU states will outlaw the manufacture of polycarbonate feeding bottles containing the compound from March 2011, and ban their import and sale from June 2011, the Commission said.

Canada was the first country to declare bisphenol A toxic in October, after it was concluded that the chemical might have harmful effects on humans, as well as the environment and “its biological diversity”.

Click on the links for more information.

From: Change.org

The Senate Subcommittee on Superfund, Toxics and Environmental Health is hosting a hearing entitled, “Toxic Chemicals and Children’s Enviornmental Health.” In addition to statements by EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson and CNN Chief Medical Correspondant Dr. Sanjay Gupta, they will also hear from Steven Marcus, a Professor of Preventative Medicine and Community Health at the New Jersey Medical School and Frederica Perara, Director of Columbia Center for Children’s Environmental Health.

Perara has conducted two studies that follow mothers and their children from pregnancy into childhood. Monitoring air quality and chemical exposure of women in New York, the research team found that in the Northern Manahattan cohort, phthalates, used to make plastics more flexible, were detected in 85-100 percent of air and urine samples from pregnant women. BPA, an endocrine disruptor, was found in the urine of 94 percent of pregnant women, 97 percent of 3 year olds and 100 percent of 5 year olds.

The four chemicals at the focus of her work are widely used. Phthalates are used to soften plastics and used in hairspray and perfume; BPA is used in everything from baby bottles and water bottles to receipts and canned food linings; PBDEs are a group of flame retardant chemicals applied to home furnishings, textiles and many other products. Chlorpyrifos is an organophoshate insecticide that has was phased out in home use in 2001, but is still used in agriculture.

Click on the links for more information.