Advertisement

SKIP ADVERTISEMENT

Letters

The Chemical BPA: Views of the Industry and Others

To the Editor:

In “Heightened Concern Over BPA” (editorial, Jan. 21), you wrote that light needs to be shed on the effects of small amounts of bisphenol-A, or BPA. In fact, scientific reviews from regulators around the world have confirmed that exposures to BPA are very low, and that such low doses present little to no risk to human health.

An October 2009 rodent study financed and conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency examining low-dose exposure of BPA showed no effects on the range of reproductive functions and behavioral activities measured.

And an April 2009 study by researchers at Harvard and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention showed that even premature infants have the capacity and capability to metabolize BPA.

We are disappointed that The Times did not report on either of these peer-reviewed studies, but did cover a non-peer-reviewed Consumer Reports article that was inconsistent with conclusions of expert regulators worldwide.

Steve Russell
Vice President, Plastics
American Chemistry Council
Arlington, Va., Jan. 21, 2010

•

To the Editor:

Re “U.S. Concerned About the Risks From a Plastic” (front page, Jan. 16):

It is a welcome sign that the Food and Drug Administration has expressed its concern that the chemical bisphenol-A, or BPA, commonly found in polycarbonate plastics, may have adverse effects on the brain, behavior and prostate gland of fetuses, infants and children.

The chemical BPA has been used in consumer products since 1910. The first evidence that it was estrogenic in animals came in the mid-1930s.

There is no debate that BPA leaches from plastic into our food and that it is found in the bodies of more than 90 percent of Americans tested, including infants.

More than 100 studies have reported significant effects of BPA on animals; nearly half of these studies involved doses currently considered safe by regulatory agencies.

How long does it take to ban a harmful chemical from entering our food and water? From previous examples like DDT, PCBs and alar, the answer is between 25 and 50 years from the time scientists first learn of its potential harm. The reason for this is that our society has adopted an unusually high burden of proof before a chemical can be regulated or banned.

Until we change this, endocrine disruptors like BPA, which are biologically active in human cells and potentially dangerous to the developing fetus, will likely be around for another 20 years.

Sheldon Krimsky
Medford, Mass., Jan. 16, 2010

The writer, a professor in the department of urban and environmental policy and planning at Tufts University, is the author of “Hormonal Chaos: The Scientific and Social Origins of the Environmental Endocrine Hypothesis” and a board member of the Council for Responsible Genetics.

•

To the Editor:

Your article refers to “activists on both sides of the passionately debated issue,” as if BPA had supporters as well as detractors among the citizenry.

As it turns out, however, the pro-BPA “activists” cited in the article consist exclusively of companies that make and use BPA, represented by the American Chemistry Council.

The BPA saga is a classic American tale of marginalized, underresourced nonprofit groups agitating for the public good against entrenched commercial interests. To apply the “activist” mantle to the latter is a grave distortion.

Maia Ettinger
Berkeley, Calif., Jan. 16, 2010

•

To the Editor:

Calling the statement by the Food and Drug Administration about the plastic additive bisphenol-A “a shift in position” from the Bush era is an overstatement.

In 2008, the F.D.A. ignored recommendations of its advisory board and several other government scientific bodies when it determined that BPA is safe. That decision, large portions of which were drafted by chemical industry lobbyists, relied on a couple of industry-financed studies. It contradicted hundreds of studies showing that at extremely low doses BPA causes numerous reproductive abnormalities and other health effects related to the endocrine system, like obesity and diabetes.

In the recent F.D.A. announcement, the agency has not determined that BPA is unsafe. Rather, it suggests that people limit their own exposure to BPA. Such guidance is reminiscent of the Bush administration and other anti-regulation advocates.

An agency whose mandate is to protect public health once again abdicates its responsibility, instead telling consumers that the burden of protection is theirs. By failing to take swift action to ban BPA, the F.D.A. erodes confidence that the administration is about change.

Miriam Gordon
California Director
Clean Water Action
San Francisco, Jan.

16, 2010

•

To the Editor:

The Food and Drug Administration says that regarding bisphenol-A, used widely in plastics, it had “some concern” about its safety, but there was no proof that it was dangerous to humans. Isn’t it wrong to allow its continued use in the absence of proof that it is harmful? Isn’t it the F.D.A.’s duty to prohibit the use of a potentially dangerous substance until after there is proof that it is safe?

Whose interest is paramount, the public’s or the manufacturers’?

Raymond A. Firestone
Stamford, Conn., Jan. 16, 2010

Advertisement

SKIP ADVERTISEMENT