It wasn’t so long ago that Nalgene-style water bottles broke out of their hiker niche following to become the mainstream rage.  Then three little letters came to the public’s attention in the last 18 months (despite having been suspected since the 1930s) and caused an ensuing shake up of the plastic bottle manufacturing industry. We’re talking about BPA (bisphenol A) a suspected toxicant frequently used in the production of plastic bottles that potentially leached into the bloodstreams of individuals who drank from these bottles. Concerns escalated when scientific evidence pointed to more acute potential issues when BPA was ingested by babies and infants. As 2008 draws to a close, we’re taking a retrospective look on this much debated topic to help clear up potential confusion.  In this 3-part series on BPA, we present the evidence, the aftermath and our advice on the issue.

Although their had been concerns over bisphenol A since the 1930s, it wasn’t until in 2007 and earlier on this year that scientists began to highlight more alarming evidence than had been presented in the past. Used in a myriad of everyday items, it is BPA’s endocrine-disrupting elements that worry researchers most. What are endocrine-disrupting elements, you ask? These are exogenous compounds that mimic hormones and disrupt the function of naturally occuring hormones. The  risk of ingestion is high when found in objects like baby bottles, water bottles and dental composite fillings (white fillings). Infants in early development have been shown to be particularly sensitive to the effects of BPA.

Now a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association has incited new concern by showing a strong link between higher levels of BPA in humans and increased likelihood of heart disease, diabetes and liver abnormalities,  with the risk of cardiac disease being as much as three times as high among those with the highest levels of BPA. To date more than a 100 studies that show a link between BPA exposure and health problems like obesity and carcinogenic effects have been conducted. Some scientists worry that the FDA’s lack of public concern over BPA is based largely on the results of only two studies that many skeptics believe are conflicted as they were funded by the chemical industry.

On the opposite side of the debate, researchers–including those who’ve conducted chemical-industry sponsored studies–argue that the direct injection of BPA into animals being studied is incomparable in amount and effect to the ingestion of leached-BPA that humans will encounter. However, a 2008 study found the blood levels of BPA in neonatal mice to be the same through injection or ingestion. Because of such disagreement among the scientific community and the involvement of companies with a potential conflict of interest, the facts surrounding BPA remain somewhat murky. However, the evidence of harmful effects has become convincing enough that an FDA sub-committee has recently questioned the FDA’s prior assertion that BPA was safe and on October 31, 2008 ordered a new study that would devote more attention to low-dose effects and infant exposure.

Read on tomorrow for information on the recent governmental and corporate reactions to BPA and a timeline of key BPA related events.

Powered by Bookmarkify™