Studies have surfaced in recent months that certain plastic products we use every day could be interfering with our hormone systems. Approximately 100,000 synthetic chemicals are approved for consumer products and industrial processes—and certain classes of them, it seems, are dangerous to our health. One compound in the news, known as BPA, is of particular concern.

Only a handful of once approved substances have ever become banned or severely restricted, such as DDT, PCBs and benzene. What about the rest? Under existing laws, drugs must be shown to be safe and effective, pesticides must be tested to demonstrate that they are safe enough in a balance between risks and benefits, and synthetic food additives must meet a standard set in 1958 by the Delaney Amendment to the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. But many, many other substances remain untouched by safety regulations.

According to the Delaney Amendment, if a synthetic food additive causes cancer in test animals at any dose it must be prohibited. This is a precautionary test: people are not typically exposed to the high doses given to lab rats, and if the animals get cancer that does not guarantee that humans exposed to lower doses will suffer the same fate. But society has determined that such a risk is not worth taking given that artificial food additives are not a necessity.

The amendment does not apply to other synthetic chemicals that find their way into our foods. Yet plastic monomers and polymers—notably bisphenol-A, phthalates and polyvinyl chloride—can leach into our food from baby bottles, plastic wraps, water bottles, soda can liners and certain plastic containers that are heated in a microwave. The few health and safety laws that are marginally pertinent to such chemicals are not nearly as precautionary. Typically the burden of proof is on the regulators to show that synthetic molecules are dangerous to human health or the environment. Manufacturers do not have to demonstrate that a compound is safe.

In the 1950s bisphenol-A, or BPA, became a key component in polycarbonate plastics—used in those durable plastic baby bottles, the ubiquitous Nalgene water bottles, the epoxy lining in canned food, as well as dental implants and eyeglass lenses. More than two billion pounds of BPA are produced in the U.S. every year. Hundreds of scientific articles published in peer-reviewed journals for decades have demonstrated that BPA can produce adverse health effects in test animals at very low doses and provided circumstantial evidence that it can harm humans. A 2007 consensus statement from a 38-member scientific panel in the journal Reproductive Toxicology concluded that there was “great cause for concern” about the potential for adverse effects in humans. Health Canada announced this past April that BPA is “toxic to human health.” Yet U.S. regulators have not been persuaded to ban it from consumer goods. The reason is that they maintain an unrealistically high burden of proof.

Bisphenol-A is a demonstrated endocrine disruptor: it interferes with the hormone systems of animals, including humans. Evidence dates back to the 1930s. In recent tests, when pregnant mice were exposed to very small quantities (two parts per billion), the male offspring had dramatically enlarged and hypersensitized prostates when they reached adulthood. Prenatal exposure of lab rats to extremely low doses of BPA makes them more susceptible to cancer, too. BPA can also inhibit the treatment of human prostate cancer, and babies born to women with elevated phthalate levels are demasculinized. These links have prompted scientists to hypothesize that these and other endocrine-disrupting compounds may be key factors in certain reproductive and developmental disorders, such as early onset of puberty in girls, decline in semen quality, genital abnormalities, and even neurobehavioral problems such as attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder.

5 Comments

1. 1. changetheworld444 09:07 AM 10/3/08

   Not to be a pessimist or anything, but the government cannot even make a reasonable, logical, and non-bias decision about which substances to deem illicit and illegal drugs, let alone smacking their industry buddies in the face with bans, research, and regulation on some of their most profitable commodities.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. 2. gopiballava 08:20 PM 10/3/08

   I think this sounds like, on the whole, a good set of ideas.
   
   On a related note...
   
   Reading articles covering genuine scientific concerns about substances always reinforces my dislike of the people who run around saying the sky is falling, desperately searching for a new substance to declare hazardous.
   
   When I hear of potential problems, there are so many people jumping on the bandwagon with no knowledge that it becomes challenging to find actual meaningful material.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

3. 3. skyedancin 01:18 AM 10/21/08

   How is it possible to know which plastics are safe? How do we know which containers, such as cans, food wraps, etc. are safe? There doesn't seem to be any answers or solutions except to throw it all away, and eat only whole foods, nothing packaged in any way because of the possibility of being affected by chemicals.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

4. 4. Spencer 12:32 PM 4/14/09

   Wouldn't plastics in our diet be potentially harmful too our health?

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

5. 5. ZenGeekDad 10:33 AM 1/18/10

   There's a faint glimmer of light on this horizon. Very recently, the FDA outlined plans for further study before any regulatory action is taken, but says it is prepared to regulate BPA if warranted. It will cooperate with the National Toxicology Program and FDAs National Center for Toxicological Research before it makes changes to its regulatory framework. There's more at ...
   http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/PublicHealthFocus/ucm064437.htm
   
   I'd love to see faster action on this too, but political realities are what they are. The role of government here must be to create level playing fields. The few corporations' voluntary controls are proof only that some understand that their own interests are best served by taking the long view -- e.g., avoiding potential public backlash against very visible brands associated especially with infant care. We cannot rely on this mechanism to safeguard our collective health.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this