If you've been concerned about your kids' exposure to the controversial chemical bisphenol-A, yesterday unveiled some good news -- and bad news -- from the Food & Drug Administration. The FDA has finally banned BPA from baby bottles and sippy cups, thanks to the American Chemistry Council's request for the FDA to phase out rules allowing BPA in these products.
The bad news, or at least less thrilling news, is that manufacturers had already stopped using the chemical in bottles and cups -- so we can't really thank the FDA for stepping in and making sure these products are safer for our children. Not only that, but BPA is still allowed in hundreds of other plastic items, from water bottles to canned food to dental sealants.
It's also used in containers of baby formula.
More from The Stir: Baby Highchair Recalled After Children Suffer Injuries
Environmentalists and health advocates have longed been calling for the controversial plastic additive to be eliminated altogether. In 2008 the FDA said there was no scientific data showing BPA is dangerous, but two years later they changed their tune, citing "some concern about the potential effects of BPA on the brain, behavior and prostate gland of fetuses, infants and children.”
Yeah. Some concern. I find THAT concerning, don't you?
The party line from the FDA is that their ban on bisphenol-A is just codifying what the industry was already doing with baby bottles and sippy cups ("based on the preference of consumers") and doesn't actually reflect any concern (there's that word again!) about the safety of BPA. According to the agency,
(The FDA) has been looking hard at BPA for a long time, and based on all the evidence, we continue to support its safe use.
Interesting that in comparison, the FDA's own website says,
FDA is taking reasonable steps to reduce human exposure to BPA in the food supply. (...) FDA is also supporting recommendations from the Department of Health and Human Services for infant feeding and food preparation to reduce exposure to BPA.
As for what the other experts are saying, non-profit watchdog the Environmental Working Group claims that BPA exposure has been shown to disrupt the endocrine system and trigger a wide variety of disorders, including chromosomal and reproductive system abnormalities, impaired brain and neurological functions, cancer, cardiovascular system damage, adult-onset diabetes, early puberty, obesity, and resistance to chemotherapy.
Other scientists pushing for a ban on the chemical argue that BPA mimics the effects of the hormone estrogen, interfering with growth and development. About 90 percent of Americans have traces of BPA in their urine, mainly as a result of food and beverage packaging.
As if all that isn't eyebrow-raising enough, a study that was released just this month links the BPA that is used in certain types of children's tooth fillings to an increased risk for behavioral problems.
It's hard to look at the massive public outcry against BPA -- and the FDA's own "concern"-- and believe that the administration did enough with this step. They banned a chemical from two types of products, but only because the ban was already voluntarily in place? Meanwhile, the agency says they're awaiting the results of further studies on BPA safety, and have apparently been doing so since 2010?
If there's a lesson to be learned here, it's that consumer demand creates change. You can thank the thousands of worried parents for convincing the bottle and cup manufacturers to alter the way they made their products, because it sure wasn't the government's doing.
As for cans of formula, the FDA says the use of BPA in those is "under review." Of course, BPA is routinely found in breastmilk, too, so it's a good thing it's so safe ... right?
What do you think of the FDA's current stance on BPA? Do you try and avoid it, or do you feel it's a safe chemical for humans?
Image via thesoftlanding/Flickr
This Hot Dad Wants to Do Your Ironing
KStew Refuses to Shower
This Hot Dad Wants to Cook You Dinner
This Hot Dad Cooks AND Does the Dishes
Comments 6
BPA is detected in breastmilk only if the mom is in contact with BPA products, and for sure is much less quantity than plastic bottles, formula cans and pacifiers or all kind of plastic matirials...so please stop comparing breastfeeding to formula feeding, if you feel guilty for not breastfeeding your kids is your problem but stop making believe other women that's OK to formula feed vs breastfeed
So we know that BPA bad for us but we'll leave it in everything else?
Does anyone think that it's fine to feed BPA-laden food to a child who has outgrown sippy cups and bottles? Some of the highest levels are found in some of the kid friendliest foods--a single bowl of Progresso soup can contain 116 times the safe daily limit, and that's the adult guideline.
http://gigabiting.com/mmm-mmm-maybe-not-so-good/
Yes, Janice......banning the use of the chemical in certain children's products is essentially an admission that it's dangerous, at the very least, to the youngest of the population. But it's moronic to assume that removing it from bottles and sippy cups would do a hell of a lot ot prevent exposure when it's found in EVERYTHING else.
Hence the mention of it being found in breastmilk too, Amazzonia. It wasn't an implication that formula-feeding is a favorable alternative. It was a direct shot at the FDA's piss-poor attempt to pacify the public into thinking the give a crap about public safety. So what if the bottle is BPA-free if the formula isn't because it came in a chemical-laden can? And even if you breastfeed, you have to go out of your way to keep it out of your breastmilk because half the crap on the shelves intended for adult consumption is contaminated too.
Glass bottles, BPA-free bottles......it doesn't matter. Nice try, FDA. The public is getting a LITTLE bit smarter. It's a slow process, but they're learning. They'll call you out eventually.