Note: The dangers and concerns about bisphenol A are described in my book, Raise a Smarter Child by Kindergarten.

David Perlmutter, MD, FACN

FromFoodNavigator.com

Pressure is growing on the US Food and Drug Administration to set new restrictions on the use of the chemical bisphenol A (BPA) in food packaging following a new safety study. A report from the US National Toxicology Program (NTP) concluded that there was “some concern for neural and behavioural effects in foetuses, infants, and children at current human exposures” to BPA, which is used extensively in the plastic lining in food cans.

A report from the US National Toxicology Program (NTP) concluded that there was
to BPA, which is used extensively in the plastic lining in food cans.According to the NTP, there was evidence that BPA could induce cancer in humans at current exposure levels, although it stressed that “more research is needed”.

The report, published earlier this week, has already prompted calls from senior US politicians for rapid action from the FDA, which has previously cleared BPA for use in food packaging.

Existing concerns

This is not the first study to suggest a link between cancer and BPA. A report published last year by Environmental Working Group (EWG), a non-profit environmental research organisation, showed that the chemical could leach into canned food at levels reaching 200 times the ‘acceptable’ amount.

As yet, the FDA has set no maximum exposure levels for BPA - EWG’s ‘acceptable’ level was based on government studies on rodents, with human exposure typically set to between 1000 to 3000 times the levels that harm lab animals.

But it is the NTP’s suggestion that BPA could be harmful even at ‘normal’ exposure levels that has prompted calls for the FDA to finally set some form of maximum intake level, in line with regulators elsewhere.

The European Food Safety Agency last year set a tolerable daily intake (TDI) level for BPA of five milligrams/kg body weight/day - but stressed that current exposure levels were just 30 per cent of the TDI.

Industry

Can makers insist that there is insufficient evidence to show that the chemical is a health risk given the current exposure levels.

Robert R. Budway, president of the US Can Manufacturers Institute, whose members account for around 80 per cent of all the cans produced there, told FoodProductionDaily.com last year that the levels of BPA in food found during the EWG study were well below the TDI level set in Europe.

“In fact, the single highest value they reported is approximately 10 times lower than the EU allows,” he said at the time.

But in many ways the harm has already been done: “Reduce your use of canned foods,” the NTP recommends to consumers wanting to avoid BPA, adding “when possible, opt for glass, porcelain or stainless steel containers, particularly for hot food or liquids” - a recommendation that could prove highly damaging for the US can manufacturing sector if producers also start to seek alternative packaging sources.

Budway said that despite the lack of concrete evidence surrounding a BPA health risk, it was likely that can makers were looking for alternative solutions, although he was “not aware of any specific cases” at the time.

Meanwhile, health officials in Canada are reported to be considering banning all use of BPA in food packaging - a decision could be made as early as this week, according to press reports - making it the first country to declare the chemical unsafe.

From WSBT.com

In a move that has alarmed the toy industry, lawmakers in the state of Washington have overwhelmingly passed a bill that would set the toughest restrictions in the nation on the lead content of children’s products.

Related Content

Recall affects egg toys sold at Hobby Lobby

Product recall: fish batter mixes, toasters, light fixtures, journals, toy eggs

Ohio chemistry professor warns that plastic Easter eggs might have toxic lead levels

China rising: Its private firms set sights on rest of world

Baby lotions, shampoos, powders may expose infants to worrisome chemicals, new study finds

Recalls

The bill would reduce the allowable level of lead in toys and other goods to 90 parts per million

and possibly as low as 40 parts per million, the recommended limit of the American Academy of Pediatrics, and far below the current federal standard of 600 parts per million. It would also set tough limits on cadmium, a metal used in paints and plastics, and on plastic-softening chemicals called phthalates that have been linked to childhood developmental problems, in some studies.

Some small toy makers say they are planning to stop selling in the state if, as they expect, Democratic Gov. Chris Gregoire signs the bill in coming days. The cost of certifying their products as safe under the law, they say, would be prohibitive. The state accounts for about 2 percent of total U.S. toy sales, which last year equaled $23.5 billion in annual revenues.

In a last-ditch effort to stop the measure, representatives of Mattel Inc. and Hasbro Inc., the country’s two biggest toy makers, met with Gov. Gregoire March 17, according to people familiar with the matter. At that meeting, and elsewhere, these people say, Mattel has told Washington officials that half of the products made by its Fisher-Price unit, which specializes in products for preschoolers, would be barred from the state if the law is adopted. The new restrictions would take effect in July 2009.

Mattel didn’t return several calls and emails seeking comment. Hasbro confirmed a meeting with the governor and declined further comment.

The Toy Industry Association, or TIA, which represents more than 75 companies, has said it wouldn’t make economical sense for toy makers, large and small, to ship products to the state if the bill becomes law.

Washington is just one front in a toy-safety battle that has erupted at the statehouse level since Mattel and others withdrew millions of toys to protect children from lead paint and choking hazards this past summer.

The dangers, which can occur when children put toys in their mouths, were generally attributed to Chinese manufacturers hired by the U.S. companies. Last week, the Reebok unit of Adidas AG paid a $1 million penalty as part of a settlement with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission for distributing a lead-tainted charm bracelet that was swallowed by a four-year-old boy, who died of lead poisoning.

Congress is considering new federal lead limits and other toy-safety standards but isn’t moving fast enough for sponsors of bills in 29 state legislatures. Illinois and Michigan have already enacted new lead laws, which aren’t as tough as the Washington bill. A ban on phthalates is due to take effect in California next year. The TIA says it has hired lobbyists to battle legislative proposals in 10 states, including Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Vermont and Wisconsin.

Many state lawmakers are upset that Congress and federal regulators haven’t done more since the recalls. “If the federal government would do something I would gladly defer to them, but they aren’t, so we have to,” says Illinois Rep. Elaine Nekritz, author of one of two bills that would go beyond the one the state already enacted.

Of the laws under consideration at the state level, 24 regulate lead, 18 cover phthalates, 10 set limits on mercury, and 17 address a variety of other potential toxins. With more state laws possible, makers of toys and other children’s products are afraid that regulatory compliance will turn into a manufacturing nightmare.

“Having different standards for different states is just going to create complete chaos,” says Carter Keithley, the TIA’s president.

Toy makers have generally been reluctant to say how many of their products would fail to meet the Washington bill’s standards. According to lab tests last fall sponsored by more than two dozen consumer groups, 24.8 percent of the 1,200 randomly selected toys sold in the U.S. contained lead in quantities that would exceed the limit in the Washington bill, and 2.9 percent had cadmium above the limits.

Last month, the Washington Toxics Coalition, an environmental advocacy group in Seattle, said it commissioned a test of 20 toys for phthalates and found that nine contained levels exceeding the 1,000 parts per million limit proposed by Washington

the same limit that has been in effect in the European Union since 2005.

A spokeswoman for Target Corp., which had two store-branded toys on the list, says the company intends to abide by the law if it is enacted. She noted that there aren’t any current restrictions against phthalates in the U.S. and added that the retailer plans to phase them out by the fall of this year in its store-branded toys.

Toys “R” Us Inc., the No. 2 toy retailer by revenue, said it is too early to say how the Washington measure would affect its business in the state, Wal-Mart Stores Inc., the biggest retailer of toys, didn’t respond to questions.

The state would, among other things, compile a list of “high-priority” chemicals and require companies to file statements annually disclosing the levels of these chemicals in any of their products. That would mean paying for testing that some toy vendors estimate would cost $500 per product, toy makers say.

Mark Chernick, chief executive of Seattle-based Play Visions Inc., a closely held company that makes bathtub toys, puppets and balls, says that would add 5 percent to 10 percent to his overhead

enough to keep him from selling in the state. “That’s basically my profit,” he says. “It’s not worth it.”

Rex Tompkins, a U.S. representative for German toy maker Kaethe Kruse Puppen GmbH says the maker of infant toys, rattles, teeters and dolls, won’t ship products to Washington, either, if the bill becomes law. Neither will Toysmith, an Auburn, Wash., wholesaler and maker of dice, tops, play microscopes and other toys, according to Bill Smith, the company’s chief executive. The company also sells to retailers elsewhere in the U.S., Europe and Japan.

Toy makers also complain about what they see as favored treatment for videogame makers, who received an exemption from the bill. Nintendo Ltd., maker of the Wii videogame, and Microsoft Corp., which makes the Xbox, are both based in Redmond, Wash. Lead is commonly present in electronic-circuit soldering.

“There is an illogic in the legislature’s reasoning,” argues Rick Locker, a lawyer for the TIA, “toys with electronics are dangerous but videogames with the same type of electronics aren’t.”

Babies exposed to lotion, shampoo and powder had more than four times the level of phthalates in their urine as those whose parents had not used the products. Previous research found that the substances altered the childrens hormones.

From Los Angeles Times

Infants and toddlers exposed to baby lotions, shampoos and powders carry high concentrations of hormone-altering chemicals in their bodies that might have reproductive effects, according to a new scientific study of babies born in Los Angeles and two other U.S. cities.

The research, to be published today in the medical journal Pediatrics, found that as the use of baby care products rose, so did the concentration of phthalates, which are used in many fragrances.

The lead scientist in the study, Dr. Sheela Sathyanarayana of the University of Washington’s Department of Pediatrics, said the findings suggested that many baby care products contain a variety of phthalates that enter children’s bodies through their skin.

Manufacturers do not list phthalates as ingredients on labels, so it is unknown which products contain them.

The researchers at the University of Washington and the University of Rochester stressed that the potential effects on babies were uncertain.

But previous animal and human research suggests that early exposure to some phthalates could reduce testosterone and alter reproductive organs, particularly in males.

The three phthalate compounds found in the highest concentrations in babies in the study were linked to reduced testosterone in a 2006 study of newborns in Denmark.

Some scientists theorize such changes in hormones could lead to fertility problems and male reproductive disorders.

Representatives of the fragrance and cosmetics industries said they were surprised by the findings and questioned their validity. They said only one phthalate compound is used in baby products, and it is found in such low levels that they doubt it could explain high concentrations found in the babies.

In the study, doctors tested the urine of 163 children between the ages of 2 months and 28 months born in Los Angeles, Minneapolis and Columbia, Mo., between 2000 and 2005. All had detectable amounts of at least one type of phthalate, and more than 80% had seven or more types.

“Phthalate exposure is widespread and variable in infants. We found that mothers’ reported use of infant lotion, infant powder and shampoo was significantly associated with . . . urinary concentrations,” the scientists wrote in the new study.

In the study, babies exposed to baby lotion, shampoo and powder had more than four times the level of phthalates in their urine than babies whose parents had not used the products. The highest levels were reported in babies under 8 months old, and those exposed to lotions.

Previous studies have focused on a different route of exposure for children: sucking on soft, vinyl toys. Phthalates, in addition to helping cosmetics retain fragrance and color, are used as plasticizers in some vinyl. A recently passed California law will ban six types in children’s toys and feeding products, beginning next year. But no federal or state law in the United States prohibits their use in personal care products or cosmetics.

The study is the first to report that skin transfer may be a main route of exposure for babies.

In their report, the scientists advised parents who want to reduce their baby’s exposure to stop using lotions and powders unless their doctors recommend them for medical reasons. They also suggested limiting use of shampoos and other products. Many adult lotions and other personal care products also contain phthalates.

John Bailey, chief scientist for the Personal Care Products Council, an industry trade group, said diethyl phthalate, or DEP, is used in the fragrances of some baby lotions and other baby products.

But DEP is used at “very low levels, in the part-per-million range, below what could possibly account for the levels they are finding” in the babies’ urine, Bailey said. “All of the other phthalates, if they’re present, have to be coming from someplace else,” such as plastics or other products, he said.

Bailey said he couldn’t explain why the researchers found such high concentrations in the babies that used lotions and the other products.

But he said the scientists shouldn’t have advised parents to stop using them because they did not test any products and cannot prove they were the source.

“The results that are being presented and the conclusions being made don’t make a great deal of scientific sense,” Bailey said. “There’s a lot that makes you question whether their findings are valid.”

Europe has banned some phthalates in baby toys and cosmetics, but not the DEP found in fragrances.

More than half the mothers in the new study reported using baby shampoos on their infants within 24 hours of the urine tests, and about one-third had used lotion, and 14% used powder within the same time period.

No link was found to baby wipes or to diaper creams.

The highest concentrations in the babies were for a phthalate known as MEP, which comes from DEP, the compound used in fragrances. One baby had an extremely high level of MEP — 4.4 parts per million

From sciencedaily.com

Parkinson’s disease, the most common neurodegenerative movement disorder caused by aging, can also be caused by pesticides and other neurotoxins. A new study found strong evidence that trichloroethylene (TCE) is a risk factor for parkinsonism, a group of nervous disorders with symptoms similar to Parkinson’s disease.

TCE is a chemical widely used in industry that is also found in drinking water, surface water and soil due to runoff from manufacturing sites where it is used.

Led by Don M. Gash and John T Slevin, of the University of Kentucky in Lexington, KY, researchers conducting a clinical trial of 10 Parkinson’s disease patients came across a patient who described long-term exposure to TCE, which he suspected to be a risk factor in his disease. TCE has been identified as an environmental contaminant in almost 60 percent of the Superfund priority sites listed by the Environmental Protection Agency and there has been increasing concern about its long term effects.

The patient noted that some of his co-workers had also developed Parkinson’s disease, which led to the current study of this patient and two of his co-workers diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease who underwent neurological evaluations to assess motor function. All of these individuals had at least a 25 year history of occupational exposure to TCE, which included both inhalation and exposure to it from submerging their unprotected arms and forearms in a TCE vat or touching parts that had been cleaned in it.

In addition, questionnaires about experiencing signs of Parkinson’s disease, such as slowness of voluntary movement, stooped posture and trouble with balance, were mailed to 134 former workers. The researchers also conducted studies in rats to determine how TCE affects the brain.

The results showed that 14 former employees who reported three or more parkinsonian signs worked close to the TCE source, were found to exhibit signs of parkinsonism when they were examined and were significantly (up to 250 percent) slower in fine motor hand movements than age-matched controls. Clinical exams of 13 patients who reported no signs of parkinsonism revealed that they worked in the same areas as the symptomatic workers or further from the TCE vat, they exhibited some mild features of the condition and their fine motor movements were also significantly slower than controls, although they were faster than the group with symptoms.

The rat studies showed that TCE exposure inhibited mitochondrial function (which in humans is associated with a wide range of degenerative diseases) in the substantia nigra, an area in the brain that produces dopamine and whose destruction is associated with Parkinson’s disease. Specifically, Complex 1, an enzyme important in energy production, was significantly reduced in the substantia nigra. Dopamine neurons in this area also showed degenerative changes following TCE administration.

The authors acknowledge that while the study was not a large scale epidemiological investigation, the results demonstrate a strong potential link between chronic TCE exposure and parkinsonism. “It will be important to follow the progression of movement disorders in this cohort over the next decade to fully assess the long-term health risks from trichloroethylene exposure,” they state. Although previous studies identified pesticides as a risk factor for Parkinson’s disease, the drug MPTP was previously the only mitochrondrial neurotoxin linked to the disease.

The authors conclude: “Trichloroethylene is implicated as a principal risk factor for parkinsonism based on its dopaminergic neurotoxicity in animal models, the high levels of chronic dermal and inhalation exposure to trichloroethylene by the three workers with Parkinson’s disease, the motor slowing and clinical manifestations of parkinsonism in co-workers clustered around the trichloroethylene source, and the mounting evidence of neurotoxic effects in other reports of chronic trichloroethylene exposure.”

Journal article: “Trichloroethylene: Parkinsonism and Complex 1 Mitochondrial Neurotoxicity,” Don M. Gash, Kathryn Rutland, Naomi L. Hudson, Patrick G. Sullivan, Guoying Bing, Wayne A. Cass, Jignesh D. Pandya, Mei Liu, Dong-Yong Choi, Randy L. Hunter, Greg A. Gerhardt, Charlie D. Smith, John T. Slevin, T. Scott Prince, Annals of Neurology, December 2007.

But researchers admit study doesn’t prove cause and effect

From HealthDay

Farm women who come in contact with some widely used pesticides may have an increased risk of developing allergic asthma, a new study suggests.

However, the risk of developing non-allergic asthma does not increase for women exposed to pesticides, according to the study authors.

“Women who apply pesticides on farms were 50 percent more likely to have allergic asthma, although this was not true for non-allergic asthma,” said study author Jane Hoppin, a staff scientist with the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences in Research Triangle Park, N.C. “Also, women who grew up on farms were protected against allergic asthma and that protection was evident whether or not you applied pesticides.”

The findings are published in the January issue of the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine.

According to the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, non-allergic asthma is caused by factors not related to allergies. But allergic asthma — the most common form of asthma, affecting more than 50 percent of the 20 million asthma sufferers in the United States — is characterized by symptoms that are triggered by an allergic reaction. Some typical triggers for allergic asthma include dust mites, pet dander, pollen and mold.

Experts already knew that growing up on a farm minimizes the risk of allergic disease, that pesticides have been associated with respiratory symptoms in farmers, and that farmers are at increased risk for respiratory diseases — including asthma — due to exposure to grains, animals, dust and other factors.

Little research, however, has delved into respiratory risk factors for farm women.

Hoppin and her colleagues examined data on 25,814 such women in North Carolina and in Iowa who are participating in the Agricultural Health Study, a large government-funded look at the effects of environmental, occupational and other factors on the health of the agricultural population.

“This is the largest study of farmers and their families in the world, so it gives us an opportunity to look at diseases that haven’t been well characterized,” Hoppin said.

The women reported whether or not they had been diagnosed with asthma and were then divided into two groups: those with atopic (allergic) asthma and those with nonatopic (non-allergic) asthma.

More than half the women in the study had used or been exposed to pesticides. Sixty-one percent of the women were raised on a farm, which protected against allergic asthma and, to a lesser extent, non-allergic asthma. Using pesticides was associated almost solely with allergic asthma, increasing the risk almost 50 percent, the study found.

The association between pesticide use and allergic asthma was strongest among women who had grown up on a farm. But because of the protective effect of having grown up in an agricultural setting, these women still had a lower overall risk of allergic asthma than women who did not grow up on a farm.

Women who were raised on farms but did not use pesticides had the lowest overall risk of allergic asthma, compared with women who neither grew up on farms nor applied pesticides.

Some less commonly used pesticides such as parathion were associated with triple the risk of allergic asthma. Some more commonly used pesticides such as malathion were also associated with a higher risk, the researchers said.

Other experts said the study findings were far from clear-cut.

“It’s a little bit confusing,” said Dr. Len Horovitz, a pulmonary specialist at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City. “I would expect that there would be more allergic asthma in anybody who grew up on a farm, but that’s not exactly what they’re saying. Also, it’s difficult to separate farm work from pesticide use. I would need to see more data before coming to the same conclusions as the authors of the article did.”

Because Hoppin’s analysis was “cross-sectional,” it can’t show a cause and effect. “But given what we see in animals, it suggests that we should do a prospective analysis where we can then say pesticide use preceded asthma or asthmatic symptoms. That’s really the next step,” she said.

Hoppin said she and her colleagues are in the process of planning that next study.