Op-Ed Columnist
Chemicals in Our Food, and Bodies
Published: November 7, 2009
Your body is probably home to a chemical called bisphenol A, or
BPA. It’s a synthetic estrogen that United States factories now use
in everything from plastics to epoxies — to the tune of
six pounds per American per year. That’s a lot of estrogen.
More than 92 percent of Americans have BPA in their urine, and
scientists have linked it — though not conclusively — to everything from
breast cancer to obesity, from attention deficit disorder to genital
abnormalities in boys and girls alike.
Now it turns out it’s in our food.
Consumer Reports magazine tested an array of brand-name canned foods
for a report in its December issue and found BPA in almost all of them.
The magazine says that relatively high levels turned up, for example, in
Progresso vegetable soup, Campbell’s condensed chicken noodle soup, and
Del Monte Blue Lake cut green beans.
The magazine also says it found BPA in the canned liquid version of
Similac Advance infant formula (but not in the powdered version) and in
canned Nestlé Juicy Juice (but not in the juice boxes). The BPA in the
food probably came from an interior coating used in many cans.
Should we be alarmed?
The chemical industry doesn’t think so. Steven Hentges of the
American Chemistry Council dismissed the testing, noting that
Americans absorb quantities of BPA at levels that government regulators
have found to be safe. Mr. Hentges also pointed to
a new study indicating that BPA exposure did not cause abnormalities
in the reproductive health of rats.
But more than 200 other studies have shown links between low doses of
BPA and adverse health effects, according to the
Breast Cancer Fund, which is trying to ban the chemical from food
and beverage containers.
“The vast majority of independent scientists — those not working for
industry — are concerned about early-life low-dose exposures to BPA,”
said Janet Gray, a Vassar College professor who is science adviser to
the Breast Cancer Fund.
Published journal articles have found that BPA given to pregnant
rats or mice can cause malformed genitals in their offspring, as well as
reduced sperm count among males. For example, a European journal found
that male mice exposed to BPA were less likely to make females pregnant,
and the Journal of Occupational Health found that male rats administered
BPA had less sperm production and lower testicular weight.
This year, the journal Environmental Health Perspectives found that
pregnant mice exposed to BPA had babies with abnormalities in the
cervix, uterus and vagina. Reproductive Toxicology found that even
low-level exposure to BPA led to the mouse equivalent of early puberty
for females. And an array of animal studies link prenatal BPA exposure
to breast cancer and prostate cancer.
While most of the studies are on animals, the Journal of the American
Medical Association reported last year that humans with higher levels of
BPA in their blood have “an increased prevalence of cardiovascular
disease, diabetes and liver-enzyme abnormalities.” Another published
study found that women with higher levels of BPA in their blood had more
miscarriages.
Scholars have noted some increasing reports of boys born with
malformed genitals, girls who begin puberty at age 6 or 8 or even
earlier, breast cancer in women and men alike, and declining sperm
counts among men. The Endocrine Society, an association of
endocrinologists, warned this year that these kinds of abnormalities may
be a consequence of the rise of endocrine-disrupting chemicals, and it
specifically called on regulators to re-evaluate BPA.
Last year, Canada became the first country to conclude that BPA can
be hazardous to humans, and Massachusetts issued a public health
advisory in August warning against any exposure to BPA by pregnant or
breast-feeding women or by children under the age of 2.
The Food and Drug Administration, which in the past has relied
largely on industry studies — and has generally been asleep at the wheel
—
is studying the issue again. Bills
are also pending in Congress to ban BPA from food and beverage
containers.
“When you have 92 percent of the American population exposed to a
chemical, this is not one where you want to be wrong,” said Dr. Ted
Schettler of the Science and Environmental Health Network. “Are we going
to quibble over individual rodent studies, or are we going to act?”
While the evidence isn’t conclusive, it justifies precautions. In my
family, we’re cutting down on the use of those plastic containers that
contain BPA to store or microwave food, and I’m drinking water out of a
metal bottle now. In my reporting around the world, I’ve come to terms
with the threats from warlords, bandits and tarantulas. But endocrine
disrupting chemicals — they give me the willies.
Copyright 2009 The New York Times
Company
|