BPA food-storage containers

I bought AVENT bottles because the classes I took at the hospital strongly suggested that breastfeeding mom’s should use the AVENT nipples when bottle feeding because those nipples force the baby to suck in the same manner as if they were breastfeeding. This way there wouldn’t be very much confusion going between the two.

I’m generally leery of plastics to begin with. I’ve been systematically fazing out our plastic storage containers for glass. So a few weeks ago when I started seeing news reports about bisphenol-a (BPA) in baby bottles I blew it off as a rehash of the old story years ago about a girl that discovered di(ethylhexyl)adepate (DEHA) was found in plastic wrap and wanted to know the affect of microwaving it. I don’t own a microwave, but I know that acidic foods like tomato sauce will eat away at plastics as it’s microwaved, that alone is enough to make me not want to do it. Plastic ain’t natural ergo plastic deposits, no-matter the quantity, in my food makes me unhappy.

I did a preliminary search on BPA (yeah I know I just said I blew it off, that just means as I searched I wasn’t worried) and came across a blog dedicated to it. It seemed fanatical and all of the bad brands seemed to be the most common big time brand name ones while the good brands were ones I had never heard of and couldn’t find in stores. Surely, a hospital wouldn’t recommend a brand that was unsafe. Granted they only specified using ADVENT nipples not bottles, and classes I took were almost a year ago. Also, things change constantly. I have no idea how long BPA has been in the news. I tried to learn as much about baby stuff as I could before Sophia arrived, but because I intended to breastfeed types of bottles never made it to the top of the list. And there are too many products and recalls to keep up.

BPA showed up on the local news one night and then I came across this article:

April 22, 2008 By TARA PARKER-POPE – A Hard Plastic Is Raising Hard Questions

While most of the focus is on products for children, including clear plastic bottles and canned infant formula, the chemical is also used in food-storage containers, some clear plastic pitchers used for filtered water, refillable water bottles and the lining of soft-drink and food cans.

Holy crap it’s in can food too?!

Rat pups exposed to BPA, through injection or food, showed changes in mammary and prostate tissue, suggesting a potential cancer risk. In some tests of female mice, exposure appeared to accelerate puberty.

All the chatter about accelerated puberty in humans I always chalked up to hormones in milk and meats, but it could be this too.

The main concern is the possible risk to infants and pregnant women, although Canada has begun a study to monitor BPA exposure among about 5,000 people to assess any danger to adults.

Really Canada has just *begun* a study to monitor BPA? Funny because an article in the Kansas City Star that came out on the same day said that Canada BANNED PBA on the 18th of April.

But back to the NYTimes,

Virtually every canned product, even those labeled organic, has a liner with BPA.

That’s really scary.

Many of us put our faith in the FDA to keep the bad stuff of the shelves. The FDA’s stance as four days before Canada banned BPA was that they were going to think about it, but don’t stop using it until further notice – unless of course you’re concerned then go ahead and find something that doesn’t contain BPA. Gee thanks. You’re such a big help.

April 19, 2008 By Lyndsey Layton and Christopher Lee – Canada Bans BPA From Baby Bottles

“We have immediately taken action on bisphenol A because we believe it is our responsibility to ensure families, Canadians and our environment are not exposed to a potentially harmful chemical,” Tony Clement, the minister of health, said in a statement.

Clement said the action was based on a review of 150 worldwide studies. “It’s pretty clear that the highest risk is for newborns and young infants,” he said in a telephone interview.

150 worldwide studies seems like a legitimate basis.

The debate over BPA, which has simmered for a decade, grew intense this week after the National Toxicology Program, an office within the National Institutes of Health, acknowledged in a draft report that the chemical might cause cancer and other serious disorders. The chemical mimics estrogen in the human body, scientists say.

Although the office does not regulate BPA, its findings are used by other federal agencies such as the FDA and the Environmental Protection Agency, which set safe exposure limits for chemicals.

On April 30, 2008 By Lyndsey Layton – Senators Propose Ban on Chemical in Plastics

This month, the National Toxicology Program, part of the National Institutes of Health, was the first federal agency to raise concerns about the effect of the chemical on fetuses, infants and children. “The report earlier this month was an eye-opener,” Schumer said. “Now we want to get one final, indisputable ruling, once and for all, on the effects of BPA on adults, and pregnant women in particular.”

But the chemical industry and the agencies that regulate the use of BPA, the Food and Drug Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency, have deemed the chemical safe.

The FDA’s handling of BPA is being investigated by the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Chairman John D. Dingell (D-Mich.) said he is concerned that the FDA based its safety rating on two studies, both funded by the chemical industry. More than 100 studies performed by government scientists and university laboratories have found health concerns associated with BPA; the industry-funded studies say it is safe.

May 2, 2008 By Susan DeFord – Nutrition Program Spurns Bottles, Cans With Chemical

Talks about the health department of Howard County Maryland not waiting for the federal government to take action.

Beilenson said there is “mounting evidence” that BPA exposure may be linked to conditions including cancer, diabetes and hyperactivity, as well as early onset of puberty, because it mimics the effects of the hormone estrogen. Last month, Canada banned the chemical’s use in baby bottles.

I find it odd that a chemical that’s been widely used in food cans and food storage containers since the 1950′s is suddenly hitting the news with such force. I question when politicians get behind a popular movement, especially when elections are coming up *ahem* Clinton. But with my already natural tendency to try to keep things natural I’d rather play it safe and get rid of the BPA plastics that are used for food storage. Making my gut feeling stronger, a friend sent me a link to CNNMONEY…

May 14, 2008 – Former FDA Official Says FDA Approval Shouldn’t Bar Lawsuits

Food and drug companies, along with the FDA, have advocated before the Supreme Court a legal doctrine that would bar states and consumers from suing companies for products that have received FDA approval. This legal doctrine is known as “preemption,” and has gained favor during the Bush administration.

House Government Reform and Oversight Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D- Calif., said in an opening statement that preemption would take away “one of the most powerful incentives for safety – the threat of liability.”

This has nothing and everything to do with BPA.

American Chemistry Council insists that bisphenol A is safe and urges us to have faith in the underfunded FDA.

While consumers should have confidence in the safety of these products, we have called on the US Food and Drug Administration, as the premier authority on food safety in the US, to re-review the safety of bisphenol A for additional reassurance to the public on the safety of consumer products.

Yeah, uumm I don’t think so! I’m going to make my move away from plastics in my food containers a bit faster. That includes a move to less canned food!

Related posts

• Bisphenol A and the FDA
• Toys R Us does refund for BPA bottles
• Toys R US – Refunds on BPA Bottles
• She’s like People
• Nursery Water