Suffolk County BPA Ban Signed

Newsinferno.com: "Yesterday, Suffolk County Executive Steve Levy announced that he signed Suffolk County’s ban on bisphenol A—BPA—in baby bottles and sippy cups. “We owe it to our youngsters to minimize their exposure to potentially harmful products, especially when there are safe, toxin-free alternatives readily available,” Levy said in a statement.

The ban is in effect for BPA in baby bottles and sippy cups meant for children three years of age and younger and carries a $500 fine, said Newsday, noting that the ban will become law “90 days after it is officially filed with the secretary of state’s office.” In March, Humayun Chaudhry, the Suffolk County health commissioner said bill enforcement would be “a challenge” since county inspectors do not regularly monitor stores where baby bottles are sold, said Newsday. Chaudhry noted that Suffolk County would enforce the ban by relying on consumer complaints."

Most recently, Massachusetts became the latest state to consider action against the toxic, estrogenic chemical.

Are some chemicals more dangerous at low doses?

Scientific American Blog: "The basic premise of safety testing for chemicals is that anything can kill you in high enough doses (even too much water too fast can be lethal). The goal is to find safe levels that cause no harm. But new research suggests that some chemicals may be more dangerous than previously believed at low levels when acting in concert with other chemicals.

'Some chemicals may act in an additive fashion,' Linda Birnbaum said this week at a conference held at the Columbia Center for Children's Environmental Health at Columbia University. 'When we look one compound at a time, we may miss the boat.'"

For example, bisphenol-A (BPA), a primary component of some plastics, reacts with cells in the same way as the female hormone estrogen and could be acting synergistically with other pseudoestrogens in the bloodstream to produce heart disease, diabetes or liver failure. Such effects have been observed in animal studies in the lab as well as in frogs in the field for chemicals ranging from the phthalates (used to help perfumes scent linger and make plastics soft) to ubiquitous herbicides like atrazine, linked to malformation in frogs.

Environment Illinois Lashes Against Lobbyists

Gapers Block: "Environment Illinois wants Bisphenol-A (BPA), a pesky synthetic hormone that's everywhere, and also, oh proven toxic, banned from baby bottles and sippy cups. Looks like they're halfway there. A House committee passed HB2485, which keeps BPA out of some children's products, two weeks ago. 

The Illinois House will vote this week to keep BPA out of children's products, but Max Muller of Environment Illinois warns in an e-mail today that 'lobbyists representing BPA's out-of-state manufacturers are trying to kill the bill before the full House vote. The fight over a ban on BPA is a stark case of high-powered industry lobbyists versus children's health.'

The group is asking for people to take action by clicking here. You can also read background information on the topic here."

NY senator seeks ban on baby bottle chemical

The Associated Press:: "Sen. Charles Schumer has proposed a nationwide ban on a chemical used to make baby bottles and other products for toddlers.

New York's senior senator said Monday that he supports a local initiative on Long Island that calls for fining retailers that sell products containing a chemical known as BPA."

Why Isn't Canada Banning Canned Soft Drinks?

Weighty Matters:: "Of course there's not been so much as a governmental peep about banning them. Shouldn't they? Nursing mothers drink canned pop. So do pregnant women and unfortunately so too do far too many children. If indeed they felt taking action on the baby bottles was in order, why isn't it in order here?

The answer of course is simple.

Banning canned drinks (or trans fat) would be decidedly bad for Canadian industry, whereas banning BPA containing baby bottles only affects a small market share and certainly gives warm fuzzies to the electorate."

Statement Of The North American Metal Packaging Alliance, NAMPA Response To Feinstein Legislation/S. 593

NAMPA: "The March 13, 2009, introduction of legislation by Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Charles Schumer (D- NY) and Representative Edward Markey (D-MA) to ban Bisphenol A (BPA) in all applications, including food and beverage containers, represents a misguided reaction to unfounded fears and demonstrates a complete disregard for the broad consensus among international regulatory authorities regarding the safety of BPA in food contact applications. 

If enacted into law, this legislation will have the unfortunate result of creating serious consequences in food safety and food protection for the American public."

Pdf file

FSANZ gives all clear to Bisphenol A

Australian Food News: "The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) recently completed a review of the scientific literature for BPA and determined a maximum daily ‘safe limit’ for BPA. They concluded that the estimated total daily intake of BPA by a bottle-fed baby would be less than 10% of the ’safe level’ for babies, when the bottles were cleaned using normal domestic conditions, and about 20% of the ’safe limit’, when the bottles were cleaned under exaggerated conditions including the use of boiling water or strong solvents. In adults, the estimated daily intake from canned foods and beverages would be about 5% of the ’safe limit’. A draft review by the US Food and Drug Administration also allayed no major concerns regarding the use of the chemical."

FSANZ has since assessed the risk to infants from exposure to BPA and concurred with the conclusions reached by the US FDA and the EFSA that the levels of exposure are very low and do not pose a significant health risk.

The move by overseas manufacturers to stop using BPA in baby bottles is a voluntary action and not the result of a specific action by regulators. However, FSANZ reported they would support the use of alternatives to BPA in baby bottles, provided they are safe.

The food standards body will continue to examine reviews from regulatory agencies and papers in the peer-reviewed literature, as they become available and determine whether any further action is required.

Despite the findings of food standards bodies around the world there is a move to ban the chemical in the United States. The introduction of a new bill to the US Senate this week could ensure the chemical would no longer be able to be used in food and drink containers as critics continue to argue that it poses a danger.