As a result, Playtex Infant Care announced in April it would eliminate BPA from its line of baby bottles, and Nalge Nunc International said it would pull its Nalgene Outdoor water bottles from stores. Chains such as Wal-Mart and Toys “R” Us said they would stop carrying certain products. Senator Charles Schumer of New York introduced a bill to ban BPA in children’s products.
People opposed to removing BPA from consumer goods argue that mice are not humans, and until we have definitive evidence (whatever that might be) that it harms humans, there is no reason to prohibit its use. Ethically, we cannot test humans by exposing them to BPA, and because the chemical is ubiquitous, we cannot perform a credible case-controlled study by separating people who are exposed to it from those who are not.
What we do know is that the BPA molecule attaches to a hormone receptor on cells in our body. We also know that BPA is biologically active; our bodies do not simply break it down and expel it. We are not certain what it does to our hormone receptors: Does it block them from receiving natural hormones? Does it activate a harmful DNA reaction? Does it do this only to certain people at certain ages?
Do any of these questions really matter? Is it not enough to know that the chemical disrupts our hormone system? Science cannot tell us when to begin taking action. Regulators must make a decision.
Let’s look at the problem from a different angle. Suppose we find that a commercial synthetic chemical accumulates in human fat cells. Our bodies do not get rid of it. We do not know exactly what this alien molecule is doing to us, but we do know that the more we are exposed to it the more we carry around. A reasonable person would ask, “Should my body be a waste receptacle for this substance?” When, added to that, we discover that the substance causes illness in lab animals and interferes with human systems, that chemical should be banned.
Fifty years ago a sensible Congress passed a precautionary law that was easy to understand. We need a similar standard for the tens of thousands of synthetic chemicals like BPA that have entered our world without proper testing. First, the federal government should have the National Academy of Sciences, a presidential panel or a similarly august group convene scientists and charge them with reaching a consensus about how much evidence is enough to declare, “Yes, the X group of chemicals is dangerous.” Once that is done, a screening process must be devised and the many chemicals out there in that class should undergo the test. The EPA could perform the screening.
Indeed, an EPA Endocrine Disruptor Screening and Testing Advisory Committee began this kind of work in the late 1990s, but the Bush administration showed much less interest in this area and funding dried up. The new president and the EPA administrator who take office this coming January could get a head start by reviewing the progress the old committee made.
We do not have to give up plastics. Not all synthetic chemicals are endocrine disruptors. But when we find substances that are, we have to ensure that they are kept out of our food and water.
Note: This story was originally published with the title, "Plastics in Our Diet".
See what we're tweeting about
5 Comments
Add CommentNot 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 thisI think this sounds like, on the whole, a good set of ideas.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn 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.
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 thisWouldn't plastics in our diet be potentially harmful too our health?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere'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 ...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://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.