|
News & Analysis | REG•WATCH Blog | Press Room
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
More Evidence of Harm on BPA, but FDA Unmoved
Today, the Food and Drug Administration debated the safety and potential need for regulation of bisphenol-A (BPA), a common chemical used in hard plastics and the lining of food cans. There has already been one surprise at the long-awaited meeting: today, a group of scientists revealed the results of a study linking BPA exposure to heart disease and diabetes.
The new study will throw more fuel on the debate over whether FDA should set strict limits on the use of BPA. Two other recent studies also indicate a potential risk. One of those was conducted by the National Toxicology Program which, like FDA, is housed within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
A few other studies have drawn a link between BPA exposure and adverse health effects. Lyndsey Layton at The Washington Post reports:
Scientists flagged possible health risks of BPA more than a decade ago. From 1997 to 2005, 116 studies of the compound were published. Of those funded by government, 90 percent showed evidence of a health effect linked to BPA.
The study released today is significant because it ties BPA exposure to human health effects, whereas most other studies look at effects on lab rats. This may prove to be a landmark study. The Post has more on the findings:
The research, published today in the Journal of the American Medical Association by a team of British and American scientists, compared the health status of 1,455 men and women with the level of the chemical, also known as BPA, in their urine.
The researchers divided the subjects into four groups according to their BPA levels and found that those in the quartile with the highest concentrations were nearly three times more likely to have cardiovascular disease than those with the lowest levels, and 2.4 times more likely to have diabetes. Higher BPA levels were also associated with abnormal concentrations of three liver enzymes.
Although the scientists acknowledge certain limitations to their study and call for more research, shouldn't this evidence be enough to prod the federal government into action? Shouldn't regulators extend at least some protection to the public in the interim instead of waiting for more conclusive, but potentially more frightening, science to develop? Considering the grave consequences, uncertainty should not be used as an excuse to delay regulation.
And yet, for now, it will be. From the Associated Press:
"A margin of safety exists that is adequate to protect consumers, including infants and children, at the current levels of exposure," Laura Tarantino, a senior Food and Drug Administration scientist, told an expert panel…
Of course, the plastics industry will do everything in its power to make the debate even more contentious. Early reports on today's news are peppered with quotes from industry lobbyists attacking the scientific conclusions of the human health study.
According to the Post, "The North American Metal Packaging Alliance, which represents can manufacturers, dismissed the JAMA study article as an "unsubstantiated scientific leap" and called for additional research." According to AP, "The American Chemistry Council, an industry trade group, said the study is flawed, has substantial limitations and proves nothing."
Posted by Matt Madia
|