Blog

California bans BPA

Fri, 12 Apr 2013 12:10:53 +0000

California makes it official - BPA is a reproductive hazard.

Posted April 12, 2013

Tags:: bisphenol-a, bpa, food, Prop65, takeouttoxics, toxics

More Sharing ServicesShare | Share on twitter | |

California has officially placed BPA or Bisphenol A on the ‘Prop 65 list’ of chemicals recognized by the State to be reproductive hazards. The listing does not ban the chemical but could result in warning labels in consumer products which contain it.

It makes official what parents and other consumers have known for years, BPA is toxic and should be avoided!

This is a public health victory that has been a long time coming and after years of delay, California has moved quickly in just a few months to finalize this listing. The chemical industry, represented by the American Chemistry Council (ACC), has done everything they could to stop it from happening using their usual delay tactics.

They requested extra time to file comments extending the comment period, and even recently sued to prevent the listing from happening. The lawsuit is still active but California EPA has moved forward despite it. We should all thank them for doing the right thing to protect public health and not bowing to industry pressure. Thank you, Cal EPA!

BPA has been linked to a wide range of health effects including reproductive harm, altered brain development, behavioral changes, cancer and cardiovascular disease. New science continues to emerge a rapid pace and the vast majority of it continues to find evidence of harm. California EPA has published a fact sheet to go along with the listing which explains more about BPA uses and how to avoid it.

There has been a lot of debate over what a so-called “safe” level of exposure is and that debate rages on. However, the listing on Prop 65 can occur despite this controversy because the listing is not based on the dose or exposure level that causes harm but that the chemical HAS BEEN SHOWN to cause harm. In this case, based on a 2008 government report from the National Toxicology Program, there was clear evidence of reproductive harm.

The dose or “safe” level of exposure comes into question when the state sets a “safe harbor level”. That is the next step in the listing process and California has already proposed a Maximum Allowable Dose Level (MADL) of 290 micrograms/day. That is a relatively high level of exposure – and is based on high dose studies from the 2008 NTP report. It is not likely to result in any warning labels on any products in California but it can be changed, and we believe it should be, based on newer science which continues to find evidence of harm at much lower levels of exposure.

In the meantime, even without required warning labels, retailers are already on alert. They are already scrambling to have BPA-free products on their store shelves. Having BPA on the Prop 65 list is one more reason for going BPA-free and it is going to further drive the market away from using this toxic chemical.

Hip, Hip, Hooray!

Don't celebrate too much though - in my next blog post - I'll remind you why just because something is labeled "BPA-free" doesn't mean it is safe.

Breast Cancer UK Campaign

Thu, 07 Feb 2013 13:42:04 +0000

What is BPA?

Bisphenol A (BPA) is a man-made chemical and was originally used to enhance the growth of cattle and poultry! It was discovered to mimic oestrogen in the 1930’s and was briefly used as an oestrogen replacement for women before being replaced by Diethylstilbestrol (DES) which was eventually withdrawn due to concerns about its impact on women’s health. During the 1950’s the chemical industry discovered BPA was useful to harden plastics and it is now used in a whole range of products from computer and mobile phone

How does it get into my food and drink?

BPA is found in a wide range of food and drink packaging from microwave ovenware and storage containers to water and milk bottles. It is used to make plastic tableware and cutlery – popular with for toddlers and young children. BPA is also used to make the “epoxy resins” which line tin cans such as those used for baked beans, soup and tomatoes, fizzy and alcoholic drinks. Scientific studies have shown that BPA can leach out of products, especially when heated or damaged during dishwashing. Therefore BPA is getting into the food and drink we consume.

How does it affect my body?

Studies indicate that most of us have detectable levels of BPA levels in our urine and many scientists agree that diet is an important route of exposure to BPA. The problem is that BPA mimics oestrogen, which is known to affect the development of mammary glands and has been linked with an increased risk of breast cancer. BPA has also been linked with prostate cancer, endometriosis, heart disease, obesity, diabetes and effects on brain development and behaviour. Unborn children, babies and young children are particularly susceptible to early exposure to BPA and some studies have linked pre-natal exposure to BPA

How can I reduce my risk?

Find alternatives to tinned foods and look for BPA free tins. Some whole food or organic food stores may stock BPA free tinned food.
Never store leftover food in tins. Empty the contents into a non plastic container and keep in the fridge.
Throw out old plastic plates, beakers, cups and cutlery, especially those that are scratched or have been through the dishwasher or microwave a number of times.
Replace lunch boxes, food storage containers and drinks bottles with BPA free versions.
Never put PVC or polycarbonate plastics in the microwave. The heat will increase the likelihood of BPA or other nasty chemicals leaching out into the food. Decant the food into non plastic microwave safe container.
Ask your retailer what BPA free products they have in store.

BPA and Obesity Sept 2012

Mon, 24 Sep 2012 09:49:49 +0000

A new study has found a connection between bisphenol A, a chemical commonly found in food and drink containers, and childhood obesity.

Researchers at New York University found that obesity is more common in adolescents with higher concentrations of urinary bisphenol A (BPA), a low-grade estrogen found in plastic bottles, food containers and most aluminum cans.

Studies have linked BPA to obesity, infertility, cardiovascular disease, breast cancer, prostate cancer, neurological disorders, diabetes and infertility -- though most have been limited to testing on rodents.

Still, the potential danger was enough that in 2010, Canada banned the use of BPA in baby bottles and children's sippy cups. A similar ban is in effect in the U.S.

But BPA still exists in many food and drink containers, as well as common household items like electronics and auto parts.

"This is the first association of an environmental chemical in childhood obesity in a large, nationally representative sample," lead investigator Dr. Leonardo Trasande said in a press release.

"Our findings further demonstrate the need for a broader paradigm in the way we think about the obesity epidemic. Unhealthy diet and lack of physical activity certainly contribute to increased fat mass, but the story clearly doesn't end there."

The study looked at 3,000 kids between the ages of six and 19, and controlled for factors like race, ethnicity, age, caregiver education, income, calorie intake and television watching. They found kids with high levels of BPA were more than 2.6 times as likely to be obese.

Curiously, this association was only found in white children.

"We know of no dietary differences that would explain why white (children) would have a higher level of obesity," Trasande told QMI Agency. "Another explanation is there is a genetic predisposition that explains the finding."

Tresande said the ban for baby bottles and sippy cups isn't enough. Older children and teenagers continue to drink and eat from BPA-laden containers.

"Most people agree that the majority of BPA exposure comes from aluminum cans," he said. "Our results raise the question of exposure to BPA in consumer products used by older children."

The study will be published Wednesday in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

-- with files from Charles-Antoine Rouyer

FDA Bans BPA July 2012

Mon, 23 Jul 2012 13:26:33 +0000

No longer will parents wonder if the bottles and sippy cups their precious little ones suck and slurp all day are wreaking havoc on their children’s developing reproductive systems.

The FDA settled the matter in last week’s announcement that U.S. manufacturers of such products may no longer use polycarbonate resins containing bisphenol-A (BPA), which some research indicates may disrupt development of reproductive and nervous systems in babies and children. The FDA issued the ban in response to the American Chemistry Council’s petition that sought the ban because manufacturers had “intentionally and permanently abandoned” BPA’s use.

For baby bottles and sippy cups, parents technically haven’t had to worry safety for years, beginning when manufacturers agreed to stop using BPA at the behest of the attorneys general of Connecticut, Delaware and New Jersey in October 2008.

What’s in it for consumers? The FDA’s decision is viewed by many as symbolic and expected to have little impact on the marketplace and consumers.

What’s in it for the BPA industry? The bigger, more subtle impact may be seen by chemical manufacturers who hope the ban will limit the collateral damage that has come to BPA with the negative publicity associated with baby bottles and sippy cups.

BPA by the billions. Every year, 2 billion pounds of BPA are manufactured/imported in U.S., and 1 million pounds are released into the environment.BPA is used in manufacturing polycarbonate plastics and epoxy resins, and nearly every industry in the United States uses it.

People are believed to be exposed primarily through food packaging, which only accounts for less than 5% of total BPA production. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, BPA is a reproductive, developmental and systemic toxicant, and as such there are questions and concerns about potential effects even at low doses or concentrations.

Little change for consumers. The new rule will not necessarily improve safety or impact consumer buying habits for these products. BPA will remain in other food contact materials because the agency supports the safety of BPA for products that hold food. While some see this as a positive step, the basis for the ban was abandoned use, not safety.

The FDA issued the rule because its own regulations allow it to ban a food additive that is no longer in use. Mark Gardner, an attorney at DuVal & Associates whose practice focuses on FDA law, says “The FDA’s job is to protect consumers. If a chemical is no longer used in a certain application, and is even banned in China, then the FDA wants to follow suit. This is a layup for the agency. The PR fallout of not banning it in this case could have been an issue for the agency.”

Industry cuts its losses. Why would the ACC seek to ban a chemical it promotes? The ACC is the chemical industry’s largest trade association, and it’s Polcycarbonate/BPA Global Group “promotes the business interests and general welfare of the polycarbonate and bisphenol A (BPA) industry.” The shots that BPA has taken over baby bottles and sippy cups may have caused enough pain for broader BPA industry that the ACC determined it was time to remove the gangrenous limb.

The ACC issued this excerpted news release and statement following the FDA's ban:

Although governments around the world continue to support the safety of BPA in food contact materials, confusion about whether BPA is used in baby bottles and sippy cups had become an unnecessary distraction to consumers, legislators and state regulators . . . . FDA action on this request now provides certainty that BPA is not used to make the baby bottles and sippy cups on store shelves, either today or in the future.”
. . . .

State legislative and regulatory actions across the country had contributed to confusion about whether baby bottles and sippy cups sold in the United States contain BPA.

Two potential upsides for industry. The BPA industry may benefit in at least two ways from the new ban:

1. States will stop beating the dead horse. First, state legislative bodies will no longer need to pass laws banning BPA now that the FDA has acted. This means no more legislative hearings, no more testimony and scientific evidence about the potential toxicity of BPA and no more media reports involving BPA, babies and baby bottles. A very good thing for the chemical industry.

2. No more need to be “BPA-free.” Second, the ban could ultimately mean an end to the ubiquitous “BPA-free” on every baby bottle and sippy cup sold in the U.S. This, along with an end to the extensive information about BPA by manufacturers at websites may help industry by reducing marketplace saturation suggesting BPA is something to be “free” of.

BPA still has baggage. The baby bottle ban, however, does not end the industry’s challenges. Environmental and health advocacy groups, government regulators and industry will continue to hash out whether BPA should be removed from other food contact materials, including baby formula containers.

What’s more, BPA continues to undergo review and study from governmental agencies, including the EPA, who is studying the effect of BPA on aquatic species, how BPA enters the environment and how to reduce BPA release and exposures.

ACC has devoted considerable resources to inform and educate the public about the safety and necessity of BPA, as can be seen from a quick preview of the ACC-sponsored websites devoted to BPA safety and benefits: http://factsaboutbpa.org, http://www.bisphenol-a.org/index.html, http://www.plasticsinfo.org/.

By removing this singular occurrence of BPA from the consumer consciousness, the ACC might be able to limit the pervasive message that BPA is potentially harming children and more effectively support and promote BPA production and use.

BPA linked to obesity for over 40s May 2012

Fri, 04 May 2012 08:24:05 +0000

For those over 40 years of age (including this author), a recent study published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism found higher levels of bisphenol A (BPA) in urine are associated with obesity, abdominal fat and insulin resistance. The study looked at 3,390 Chinese adults over the age of 40, and concluded that BPA was positively associated with generalized obesity, abdominal obesity, and insulin resistance in middle-aged and elderly Chinese adults.

If you need some background on what is BPA, I’ve got a FAQ on it.

The study is consistent with other epidemiological studies which have shown links between BPA and metabolic disorders. Because virtually all American adults have BPA in their bodies, this study suggests that BPA may pose a significant health risk.

BPA is used in the manufacture of polycarbonate plastic, so food and drink stored in polycarbonate plastic can result in exposure (think of those 5 gallon water bottles). BPA is also used in the manufacture of epoxy resin linings for virtually all canned food and drink in the US – so to avoid BPA, skip canned foods. Think fresh, frozen, dried or jarred in glass over canned. At least one study confirmed that you can reduce BPA dramatically by eliminating canned foods. BPA is also used in the manufacture of certain thermal receipts, and can be absorbed through the skin.

Just one more reason to avoid BPA.

Sweden bans BPA April 2012

Mon, 23 Apr 2012 08:09:32 +0000

As 'a matter of caution', the Swedish government says it will ban the use of the endocrine disruptor bisphenol A (BPA) in protective coatings in food packaging for children up to the age of three. In practice, the ban will mainly affect the lids of baby food bottles. Children's food marketed in Sweden comes in BPA-free packaging already, but the ban will ensure that this voluntary phase-out of BPA becomes permanent.

Despite voluntary action by the chemical industry to move to BPA substitutes, the Swedish government has decided to ban the chemical in packaging for food for the under-threes

Minister for the Environment Lena Ek wants the EU to take a tougher stance, too. 'The EU should take more far-reaching initiatives than today to limit children's exposure to bisphenol A and other known endocrine disruptors,' she said. The European commission banned the use of BPA in plastic infant feeding bottles from in March 2011. BPA is used as a raw material in manufacturing polycarbonates and epoxy compounds.

The Swedish decision follows a report last spring by the Swedish Chemicals Agency (KEMI) and the National Food Agency, which noted uncertainty in determining safe levels for low-dose exposure.

The Swedish actions are based on the precautionary principle, explains KEMI's Bert-Ove Lund. 'Thus, there is no "strict evidence" that bans are needed, but the ban is justified by strong concerns raises by numerous animal studies indicating that foetal BPA-exposure may give effects as the animals get older.'

The focus on small children arises from animal studies that 'clearly highlight that it is the foetal and prenatal period that is the most sensitive one'. Lund continues. 'It is possible that an important exposure source to pregnant women is (heat-sensitive) receipts containing BPA, and the possibilities to ban BPA-containing receipts will therefore be investigated.'

KEMI has three months to look into a ban on the use of BPA in certain types of thermal paper, such as tickets and receipts. The concern is that the chemical, used here in its pure form, not as a part of a polymer, could transfer to the skin where it could be absorbed. Other areas under investigation are toys and children's goods; and thermo-setting plastics used to re-line water pipes.

As the major Swedish players have already substituted, or are in the process of substituting, BPA, there will be no effect on industry from this latest move, says Magnus Huss, chief executive of the Swedish Plastics and Chemicals Federation. However, there are more implications for the young, growing business of water pipe re-lining, depending on KEMI's findings, he adds.

It is more worrying, says Huss, that politicians are prepared to ban substances at the suggestion of risk, and do not require proof. He would like to see more money invested in advancing risk methodology techniques. 'This decision is purely political,' he adds. 'Sweden and Denmark want to be seen to be at the forefront of pushing the chemical agenda in Europe.'

In Denmark, it has been illegal from July 2010 to sell infant feeding bottles and cups, and packaging for baby food, containing BPA. France, meanwhile, has drafted legislation, to come into effect in 2014, that would ban all food packaging containing BPA. However, both the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Food Safety Authority have concluded that BPA poses no threat in food packaging.

BPA damage

Wed, 14 Mar 2012 15:14:03 +0000

Emerging science indicates that infant brain development is negatively affected by exposure to bisphenol A, or BPA, a chemical widely used in plastic food containers, in the plastic lining of metal food cans, and even in the paper used for cash register receipts. Europe and Canada have already banned BPA for use in making baby bottles. In the U.S., the FDA is expected to rule by March 31, 2012, on a petition by the Natural Resources Defense Council to ban BPA from all food containers.

BPA has been proven to leach into food that comes in contact with plastic containers and plastic-lined cans. A Consumer Reports analysis of canned food found that one single serving of canned green beans had 80 times the recommended daily limit of BPA.

Researchers call BPA an “endocrine disruptor.” BPA mimics estrogen and in doing so interferes with proper brain growth. The conclusions of two studies in particular persuaded my wife and I to purge the plastics from our house. As parents of a baby girl, we no longer heat or store food in plastic containers.

One study published in Pediatrics in 2011 looked at 244 mothers and their three-year-old children. More than 97% of the children had BPA coursing through their veins. Behavioral assessments found that children with the most BPA in their blood also demonstrated more anxious and depressed behavior and had more difficulty with emotional control. The study supported earlier animal studies, including one published in 2010 in Frontiers of Neuroendocrinology, that showed how exposure to BPA severely disrupted early brain development by retarding growth in key areas that regulate memory and mood.

How dangerous is BPA? Some may want to see more evidence, by my take is that there is no point in taking the risk. I try to always wash my hands after touching store receipts, especially before handling food. At home we use only leftover containers made of glass. One certain way to drastically reduce your exposure to BPA is to replace the processed, packaged food in your diet with farm-fresh whole foods.

Building your best brain depends not only on packing your meals with brain essential nutrients. You also need to avoid the toxins that have made their way into the food supply. This is especially important for developing brains as some new toxins act like hormones in the body, which are key players in directing traffic during the explosion in brain cell connectivity during childhood

BPA and pregnancy

Mon, 27 Feb 2012 12:26:20 +0000

Bisphenol A (BPA) exposure during pregnancy should be avoided. In a new study, BPA has been linked to increasing the risk of developing asthma in newborns.

Using mice, researchers discovered BPA exposure during pregnancy increased the risk of allergic asthma in offspring.

Because BPA is such a common contaminant, it is important to understand the risk of exposure, especially during pregnancy.

Use water bottles that are marked as BPA free.

The study was led by Dr.Yoichi Nakajima from the Fujita Health University along with researchers from the Departments of Pediatrics and Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at The University of Texas Medical Branch. Researchers exposed mice to BPA one week before pregnancy until the end of the study.

BPA may affect asthma risk because, during pregancy, infants have not developed BPA-metabolizing enzymes.

BPA is an organic compound that is used to make plastics. Because it is not very soluble in water, it can be found for a long time in the environment. Since BPA can be commonly found, researchers believe the increase of asthma cases in children is due to this environmental exposure to BPA.

Mice were given 10 micrograms of BPA one week before pregnancy until the end of the study. Some of the offspring were given to mice who were not exposed to BPA. Some offspring of non-exposed mice were given to BPA-exposed mice.

The offspring were then exposed to ovalbumin, which is a protein found in egg whites and is used to test allergy sensitivity.

The offspring of mice who were exposed to BPA in utero were found to develop asthma symptoms in response to the allergen exposure. Possible exposure to BPA via breast milk did not increase the risk of developing asthma.

Researchers believed this increased sensitivity to BPA in utero is because fetuses do not develop the enzyme that metabolizes BPA until after they are born. In the study, the mice offspring did not develop the enzyme until day five and reached adult levels at day 25.

While this study was conducted with mice, previous studies have shown a link between BPA exposure during pregnancy and childhood wheeze. Future studies can involve humans to better understand how much of an impact BPA exposure has on the development of asthma. For now, pregnant women should be careful and monitor their BPA exposure.

Funding was provided by grants from the National Institute of Environmental Health Science (NIEHS), NIEHS Center and the National Center for Research Resources. No author conflicts were reported.

This study was published in the February edition of Environmental Health

Welcome to the New Website

Wed, 07 Dec 2011 12:47:38 +0000

Welcome to the new One Green Bottle website. We have made it easier for you to select your perfect cap, made the checkout process faster and more simple and have a dedicated Trade site for our wholesale and retail customers. We hope you like the improved functionality and find it user friendly

There is something in the Water

Mon, 06 Sep 2010 08:28:34 +0000

One Green Bottle is a brand based on a solid ethos and with extremely functional, eye catching products.
In just 3 years it has become the foremost supplier of stainless steel bottles into the United Kingdom and offers
a product that is durable, practical and good to the core.
It has taken 2 years of testing and development to find the perfect combination of bottles and caps to suit all users.
Product trials with user groups have helped to develop sports caps that customers love, a feature often overlooked
by the competition

Great bottle design and the high gloss, acid bright colour range make the bottles highly desirable as gifts or simply
as an investment in better health, reduced plastic waste or savings on shop bought bottled water.

One Green Bottle was started by a parent looking for a drinking vessel for her son to take to school each day.
With a background as a research chemist and knowledge of the chemical composition of plastics, she identified
304 grade stainless steel as the most inert, safe and toxin free material around.

The company now supplies a number of wholesale and retail clients around the World as well as web based sales.
Bespoke bottles have been produced for many schools and colleges, the leisure and fitness industry, retailers and
big names such as Sweaty Betty, The Carbon Trust and The National Trust.