Discard scratched baby bottles and sippy cups. Do not put hot liquids into plastic containers for infants. Most importantly, breast-feed infants if at all possible.

These are among the recommendations released Friday by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in response to growing concerns over bisphenol A (BPA), an ingredient found in many common plastics used in consumer packaging and containers, including infant formula can liners.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration "is not saying that it's unsafe to use a baby bottle with BPA," Josh Sharfstein, FDA principal deputy commissioner explained in a conference call with reporters. But "we are recommending certain ways of feeding babies to minimize exposure to BPA."

That's because studies in animals and humans have shown that BPA could potentially be linked to behavioral changes, obesity, diabetes, reproductive disorders, some cancers, asthma, cardiovascular disease and health effects that may pass from one generation to the next, according to Linda Birnbaum, director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. "There is a growing body of evidence that suggests BPA may be a concern," she adds.

The National Toxicology Program, which Birnbaum also heads, found BPA of some concern for "development of toxicity in fetuses, infants and children—with effects on the brain, behavior and the prostate gland," warning in a 2008 report that "the possibility that bisphenol A may alter human development cannot be dismissed." That is a concern the FDA now shares, overturning an August 2008 draft assessment that declared BPA completely safe. "Our safety assessment of BPA is ongoing," says Margaret Hamburg, FDA commissioner. "We will conduct studies on the safety of BPA over the next 18 to 24 months, which are intended to answer key questions and clarify uncertainties."

Reproductive biologist Fred vom Saal at the University of Missouri–Columbia, who has studied BPA for more than a decade, hailed the decision as a "monumental change. This means in the future we can expect more than just one or two flawed industry studies to be the foundation of risk assessments at the FDA."

The FDA is also evaluating whether it might assert speedier regulatory control of the plastic ingredient "so the agency can move quickly if and as appropriate in light of new findings," Hamburg adds.

Already, countries such as Canada and states including Minnesota, Pennsylvania and Washington have banned or are considering banning BPA in baby bottles. Many major manufacturers claim to have removed BPA from their products, as well. But, as the FDA admitted today, there is no regulatory requirement to report on the chemical as it is considered safe under existing law. "There's about eight [billion] to nine billion pounds of this being put into products every year and FDA doesn't know where they are," vom Saal notes.

The FDA is partnering with companies to develop alternatives to BPA for these specific uses. "Particularly a priority is infant formula in cans, but there are also efforts for other types of products," Sharfstein says. "I'm not able to go into a lot of detail on what those products are." The Japanese have not allowed BPA in any surface can lining since 1999.

It remains unclear exactly what health effects BPA might have on adults, including pregnant women, although studies have shown risks for breast and prostate cancer, obesity and cardiovascular disease, among others. "We have now substantial direct evidence from human studies of risk to adult humans," vom Saal says. "We've always known how strong the risk was for fetuses."

And it is also known that BPA passes from containers to food. "We know that trace amounts of BPA can be found in these containers," says William Coll, deputy secretary for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. But "BPA has not been proven to harm either children or adults."

9 Comments

1. 1. dbtinc 05:51 PM 1/15/10

   and now FDA is concerned? Where the hell were they a year ago?

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. 2. Bops 08:31 PM 1/16/10

   I NEVER use plastic by choice!
   
   Why does the FDA have to ban something to know it's bad?
   We all read, and can buy products that we know are safer.
   Why buy a product that's a possible risk by choice?

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

3. 3. hankroberts 06:41 PM 1/17/10

   http://scienceblogs.com/effectmeasure/2010/01/bpa_cardiovascular_findings_re.php

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

4. 4. jtxl 11:42 PM 1/17/10

   I miss the days of the returnable glass bottle. everything tasted better and it was so much better for the enviornment and now it looks like better for our health. I have seen Coke commercials with the old glass bottle but it isn't available. I also remember the glass baby bottles and was sad to see them go. Even if there was not the problem with the toxic plastic, you could be sure it was clean when you washed it.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

5. 5. jtxl in reply to Bops 11:47 PM 1/17/10

   for BOPS.. I hear you but the problem is that glass is no longer an option for most things and there is not enough resourses to test products before they hit the market. Honestly, I think that the producers of anything being brought to market should be responsible for the cost of the FDA testing and then there would be less fraud and safer products.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

6. 6. ENVME in reply to dbtinc 04:11 PM 1/19/10

   You can point the finger squarely at the Bush Administration and the Republican party for blocking FDA oversite of BPA and many other potential contaminants in the past decade. However, I want to point out that plastics have vastly contributed to the quality of food handling and storage and the preservation of many foods. It's an imperfect world and it is terribly simplistic to says that plastics are bad.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

7. 7. NighthawkICH in reply to jtxl 04:35 AM 1/21/10

   sorry, dont mean to break your heart, but the plastic coke bottles and the glass coke bottles have the same amount of BPA. BPA is in the sealer around the cap in both bottles.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

8. 8. NighthawkICH in reply to jtxl 04:37 AM 1/21/10

   Not to break anyone's heart, but the same amount of BPA is often found in the glass counterparts to many of these plastic bottles (coke being a prime example) due to the fact that the plastic sealer in the cap generally has the highest concentration of BPA in the container.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

9. 9. MD from MN 02:10 AM 8/7/10

   Re: BPA having not been proven harmful to humans, I say nonsense. The growing body of evidence suggests otherwise. I was four decades ago we in the electric power industry said the same thing about polychlorinated Biphenals (PCBs). which has been linked to cancer and other maladies.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this