PLASTICS AND HEALTH
New BPA studies negate low exposure health risk / Chinese test “not relevant”
As the plastics industry and a concerned public await the latest review of the polycarbonate feedstock bisphenol A (BPA) by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA, www.fda.gov), due to be completed at the end of November, many other US federal agencies and research bodies are busy conducting studies of their own – see Plasteurope.com of 21.10.2009. Some believe the flurry of activity has been prompted by recent claims that the government has been dragging its feet on the issue.
The latest of many BPA reviews is being conducted by the National Institutes of Health (NIH, www.nih.gov), which is spending USD 30m on human and animal tests over a two-year period. Nearly half the funding stems from a government economic stimulus package. The research carried out by NIH sub-group National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) will focus on lower BPA exposure levels and how these influence behaviour, obesity, diabetes, reproductive disorders, asthma, cardiovascular diseases and various cancers. NIEHS notes that BPA traces have been found in the urine of 93% of Americans. “Over 900 peer-reviewed studies have found links between BPA and health effects,” the agency said.
The new research work will complement the findings of an ongoing long-term project of the US National Toxicology Program (NTP). Based on information gleaned on current human exposure up to now, NTP said it has “some concern” about the effects of BPA on children, “minimal concern” about its effects on the endocrine system and “negligible concern” about effects of exposure on the reproductive system and exposure in occupational settings.
A peer reviewed BPA study conducted with rats and recently completed by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA, www.epa.gov) examined low-exposure effects of the chemical on reproductive functions and found that there were none. The researchers fed BPA to female rats during pregnancy and lactation at dosage levels “40 to 4,000 times above estimated median human consumption.”
The newest EPA data “provides further support for recent assessments from regulatory bodies around the world that determined BPA is safe for its intended use in materials for food contact applications,” said the European plastics producers association PlasticsEurope (Brussels / Belgium; www.plasticseurope.org). “Sound scientific research must continue to be the foundation of regulatory assessments and political decisions,” Jasmin Bird, spokeswoman for PlasticsEurope’s PC/BPA group, commented.
Another recent BPA assessment backed by US federal funds and carried out at four factories in China by Kaiser Foundation Research Institute (Oakland, California; www.dor.kaiser.org) says exposure to high levels of BPA “appeared to cause” sexual problems in the 634 male workers examined. Sexual dysfunction began after “just months” on the job, De-Kun Li, a scientist at Kaiser told US media. However, Steven G. Hentges, head of the Polycarbonate/BPA Global Group of the American Chemistry Council (ACC, www.americanchemistry.com) said that while providing “interesting new information,” this study’s relevance to average consumers who use products containing minute amounts of BPA is “limited, at best.”
The latest of many BPA reviews is being conducted by the National Institutes of Health (NIH, www.nih.gov), which is spending USD 30m on human and animal tests over a two-year period. Nearly half the funding stems from a government economic stimulus package. The research carried out by NIH sub-group National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) will focus on lower BPA exposure levels and how these influence behaviour, obesity, diabetes, reproductive disorders, asthma, cardiovascular diseases and various cancers. NIEHS notes that BPA traces have been found in the urine of 93% of Americans. “Over 900 peer-reviewed studies have found links between BPA and health effects,” the agency said.
The new research work will complement the findings of an ongoing long-term project of the US National Toxicology Program (NTP). Based on information gleaned on current human exposure up to now, NTP said it has “some concern” about the effects of BPA on children, “minimal concern” about its effects on the endocrine system and “negligible concern” about effects of exposure on the reproductive system and exposure in occupational settings.
A peer reviewed BPA study conducted with rats and recently completed by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA, www.epa.gov) examined low-exposure effects of the chemical on reproductive functions and found that there were none. The researchers fed BPA to female rats during pregnancy and lactation at dosage levels “40 to 4,000 times above estimated median human consumption.”
The newest EPA data “provides further support for recent assessments from regulatory bodies around the world that determined BPA is safe for its intended use in materials for food contact applications,” said the European plastics producers association PlasticsEurope (Brussels / Belgium; www.plasticseurope.org). “Sound scientific research must continue to be the foundation of regulatory assessments and political decisions,” Jasmin Bird, spokeswoman for PlasticsEurope’s PC/BPA group, commented.
Another recent BPA assessment backed by US federal funds and carried out at four factories in China by Kaiser Foundation Research Institute (Oakland, California; www.dor.kaiser.org) says exposure to high levels of BPA “appeared to cause” sexual problems in the 634 male workers examined. Sexual dysfunction began after “just months” on the job, De-Kun Li, a scientist at Kaiser told US media. However, Steven G. Hentges, head of the Polycarbonate/BPA Global Group of the American Chemistry Council (ACC, www.americanchemistry.com) said that while providing “interesting new information,” this study’s relevance to average consumers who use products containing minute amounts of BPA is “limited, at best.”
13.11.2009 Plasteurope.com [214824]
Published on 13.11.2009