Chicago Bans BPA (while the FDA moves at a glacial pace)

Towns, states and muncipalities are taking the BPA situation in their own hands. We’ve been talking about BPA in baby bottles, sippy cups and food containers for years. In fact, my first post ever was about this subject. And since that day I have reported countless studies, attempted legislation, and proposed bans of BPA.

Today Chicago added their voice, banning the sale of baby bottles and sippy cups containing BPA. What’s all the fuss about BPA or bisphenol A (in case you’ve been living in a remote village, or have been in the continual fog of new parenthood)? According to the New York Times:

“Some animal studies have found that BPA apparently accelerates puberty and poses a cancer risk, and, while the issue’s focus has been on the safety of children, the chemical has also been tied to an increased risk of heart disease and diabetes in adults. ”

Of course, the American Chemistry Council (read: large chemical maker lobby) tells Canada, Suffolk County, New York, and the state of Minnesota that they are all wrong about BPA. It’s just fine. Really. Trust us.

It is heartening that cities, counties and states are taking action about this. And there is legislation being worked on in Congress to ban BPA. But we’ve been talking about this for years. How long will it take before the U.S. takes action on this chemical, and the thousands like them that are untested and unresearched and are in most of our everyday products? It’s like putting a band aid on a bleeding gash. We need comprehensive chemical reform in this country that uses the precautionary principle as a guide. I’ll keep reporting and celebrating these successes, but I have my eye on the prize (and it I’ve been looking for a long time already).

Comments

  1. That is great news!

  2. gemcity says:

    Folks, you have to recognize that behind most of these industrial or chemical scares is a group of trial lawyers hoping to get enough traction through muckracking to result in some juicy lawsuits. They play on our fears. Quoting the New York Times is irrelevent. The NYT are not experts on anything. A better source to quote would be the FDA or European Union. Along with the governments of France, Germany, Japan, Canada, and many other countries, the FDA and EU have studied BPA for years and all of them report the use of BPA results in no significant risk. When politicians make wild claims about BPA causing diabetes, obesity, cancer, or something else, you should ask yourself why the Germans, French, or Japanese don’t show any negative effect. They have just as much BPA use as Americans.

  3. gemcity:
    Could you cite your sources on how bispehol-A is safe? (And please don’t link to anything from the American Chemistry Council. They’re the lobbying group for this nasty stuff.) You’re blaming lawyers, politicians, and the NYT? Really?!
    Fact is, it’s been studied since the 1930s for its hormone-like qualities. The many studies about it were performed by various independent scientific groups and universities. The FDA relies on two –count them, TWO– studies backed by the chemical industry. Even the National Toxicology Program says there is “some concern” over its effects on infants and children.
    Most of the reporting and the push for bans have been done by concerned parents and consumer groups. With our buying power, many manufacturers are phasing it out. Seems as though it’s not totally necessary, then, for these products.
    Bisphenol-A is NOT “safe”. Period. (And BTW, Canada put it on its “Toxic” list last year.)

    http://blog.thenatureschild.com/2008/10/bpa-roundup-fdas-conflict-of-interest.html
    https://www.thenatureschild.com/Articles.asp?ID=211
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TC0-45JCS4M-3&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=7959a0c4e91de466ffdc296b15590298
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T8X-48TKTFF-10&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=34614d95adc0ea155f3b29acf702b8a4
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17123778?dopt=Abstract
    http://www.boston.com/news/health/articles/2008/01/14/is_plastic_making_us_fat/
    http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2004/7534/abstract.html

    Sorry if I linked to too much, there. That’s just the tip of the BPA iceberg.

Trackbacks

  1. [...] of consumers, especially parents, to avoid BPA products has affected bottom lines; however, the BPA industry is fighting back.  Green Century Funds continues: Notes released from a recent “Joint BPA [...]

  2. [...] bottles are free of BPA, PVC and phthalates and fit most narrow necked [...]

  3. [...] the endocrine disruptor from gear for young children and babies. Although the U.S. hasn’t banned BPA, consumers here have benefited from our Northern neighbor’s efforts, as companies don’t [...]

  4. [...] a move the Chicago Tribune called “largely symbolic”, the Windy City banned BPA. That slightly cynical quote was referring to the fact that many infant and toddler food contact [...]

Speak Your Mind

*