New research shows that a controversial chemical in plastic baby and water bottles, cups and food containers may be linked to heart disease and diabetes, prompting new fears about the ingredient. 

Bisphenol A (BPA), the subject of much scientific debate this year over its potential health effects, was associated with type 2 diabetes, angina, coronary heart disease and heart attack in adults with elevated levels of the chemical. The results, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, are based on urine samples from 1,455 participants in a government health survey.

"The findings … challenge the safety of BPA," says an editorial that accompanies the study. The authors, biologists Frederick vom Saal and John Peterson Myers, blast the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for deeming the chemical as "safe" and write that federal regulators should follow the lead of Canada, which has banned baby bottles made with BPA.

The FDA said in a draft report last month that BPA is safe at current levels of exposure — a call that contrasted with an April report by the National Toxicology Program citing "some concern" about the chemical. An FDA panel reviewed the agency's draft report today, and Iowa Sen. Charles Grassley asked Commissioner Andrew von Eschenbach to explain the criteria FDA is using to determine which studies it's taking into account in its safety ruling.

"A margin of safety exists that is adequate to protect consumers, including infants and children, at the current levels of exposure," FDA scientist Laura Tarantino told the panel, according to the Associated Press.

An FDA spokeswoman had no immediate response to how the agency would address Grassley's request.

An industry group dismissed the new findings, insisting that the study "is not capable of establishing a cause and effect relationship between bisphenol A and these health effects" because the onset of the diseases would have occurred before the urine samples were taken.

“This new study cannot support a conclusion that bisphenol A causes any disease,” Steven Hentges of the American Chemistry Council said in a statement. “The weight of scientific evidence continues to support the conclusion of governments worldwide that bisphenol A is not a significant health concern at the trace levels present in some consumer products.”

Most Americans are likely exposed to more than the 50 micrograms-per-kilogram daily dose of BPA that federal environmental regulators consider safe, according to the JAMA study. Previous animal studies have associated BPA with obesity, liver problems and thyroid dysfunction, and human and animal research has shown that the chemical mimics estrogens. Some parents started feeding their babies with glass bottles this year after word spread about BPA's possible health effects.

States including California, Maryland, Minnesota and Michigan may bar the chemical in children's products.

9 Comments

1. 1. darrelldk 08:10 PM 9/16/08

   Activists in California are not only trying to ban BPA, but they are also trying to ban dental amalgam fillings because they release mercury.
   
   Is it possible that composite fillings, dentures and orthodontic adhesives, which all release BPA 24hours a day, are even more toxic than amalgam fillings?
   
   If both amalgams and composites are banned, dentists in California will have nothing to fill teeth with. Do we watch teeth rot until they are ready to extract? DK Pruitt
   

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. 2. leg 10:50 AM 9/17/08

   I am not sure that there is a single correct fact in the following sentences from you article "Most Americans are likely exposed to more than the 50 micrograms-per-kilogram daily dose of BPA that federal environmental regulators consider safe, according to the JAMA study. Previous animal studies have associated BPA with obesity, liver problems and thyroid dysfunction, and human and animal research has shown that the chemical mimics estrogens" The exposure information is not correct. Animal studies with BPA do not show robust reproducible effects like obesity, liver problems or thyroid dysfunction at any dosage level from very low to very high. This journal should try to be more factual than the general lay press is being on this issue.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

3. 3. garwoodpr 08:08 PM 9/17/08

   Parents can replace plastic toys like children's writing toys with wood ones from family companies like TagToys.com that make all their toys in the USA.
   

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

4. 4. Shayo 08:54 AM 9/18/08

   Given the current allegations on the possible health risks associated with BPA, parents and general public should learn and avoid use of BPA containing plastic items until scientific evidence is provided to support or burn their use-Alex D. Shayo- Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

5. 5. rasotis 12:22 AM 9/19/08

   The findings of the human study published in JAMA are in agreement with animal studies that show disruptive actions of BPA. on insulin secretion. The only reason the FDA has not banned BPA is because it is protecting the interests of corporations, not people. There is enough evidence right now to justify a complete ban of BPA use in food and drink containers.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

6. 6. darrelldk 11:19 AM 9/19/08

   Consider children’s plastic toothbrushes. Toothpastes have abrasives as well as oils.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

7. 7. AnneM 09:40 AM 9/23/08

   This article is a joke. Not only is this uncritial reporting but I really have to wonder if the author is even aware of the basic issues being debated. The JAMA study is hugely flawed. It does not control for family history of diabetes and heart disease, for instance nor does it explore things like diet (high fat, high sugar convenience foods being associated with packaging containing BPA).
   
   The case against BPA is weak and fueled by politicla hyperbol. There are not primate studies using an oral route of exposure to BPA - the only way human beings are exposed to the chemical - that show any ill effects at all. These studies need to be done because they are the only way we can settle this matter once and for all. Data based on studies of rodents - often exposed to the chemical subcutaniously (studies that haven't been reproducable) simply are not enough to warrant demonizing this chemical in the way it has been.
   
   And it is simply scientific cowardice to respond to criticism by attacking anyone who challenges the hysteria or any study that fails to confirm the hypothesis that BPA is harmful with the charge that they are 'industry funded'. Stop playing politics. Stop fear mongering. Prove the hypothesis. This is how science works.
   
   I expected better from SciAm.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

8. 8. svalin in reply to AnneM 05:54 AM 3/15/09

   AnneM states:
   "Prove the hypothesis. This is how science works."
   
   Wrong. You cannot prove the hypothesis. The best you can do is refute the hypothesis. Having proved the hypothesis wrong, you can formulate a new one. That's how science works.
   
   

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

9. 9. Jman 05:40 PM 4/26/10

   By the way the H2O delivery guy reacted to the question of whether or not their 5 gallon containers are bpa free ( theyre not) I think I will stick to city water and take my chances

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this