Bills raise awareness about BPA in plastics

This editorial was published in the Feb. 15, 2010, Yakima Herald-Republic.

Keeping our families safe and healthy is no easy task. Sure, common sense helps a lot, but the complexity of modern life adds layers of concerns about toxins in our daily lives.

After all, if something as innocent as a plastic baby bottle might be a health risk because of the chemical, bisophenol a (known as BPA), is anything safe?

The science isn't absolutely airtight, but concerns have been raised. The Washington Legislature has passed bills in both the Senate and House that would outlaw the manufacture of and the sale of certain plastic items designed to hold food and beverages primarily for children ages 3 and under.

The Senate passed its version 36-9, and the House 95-1.

State Rep. Bruce Chandler, R-Granger, who was the lone vote against the House bill, noted that he saw no need for it because the federal Food and Drug Administration has already agreed to study BPA, and because there are no manufacturers in Washington state.

We'll grant Chandler those points, but we also won't criticize legislators who want to help consumers make wise choices.

*****

Here's a little history about this synthetic chemical.

BPA was first developed in 1891. In the 1930s, it was used as a synthetic estrogen in hormone replacement therapy for women -- and also apparently to promote growth in cattle and poultry. It was then replaced by a more potent synthetic estrogen, diethylstilbestrol (DES), which is now known to cause cancer and reproductive abnormalities in both men and women.

The plastics industries found other uses for BPA, and it became a building block of polycarbonate plastic, which helps to make hard, clear plastic for items such as baby bottles and also to line metal food cans, including those for liquid infant formula.

In 1998, a graduate student, who is now a Washington State University genetics professor, noticed something disturbing. The control mice in her experiment had an alarming number of defective eggs. She traced the defects to a mistake. The plastic habitats for the mice had been cleaned with an abrasive floor cleaner instead of a milder cleaning agent, which let BPA leach out of the plastic. Patricia Hunt, then at Case Western Reserve University, helped to raise the alarm about potential hazards to humans.

*****

Since then, the debate has raged in scientific communities -- do the defects found in the mice really mean danger for humans? Understandably, the potential danger was enough for some to call for an end to using the chemical, especially in children's products. After all, if running your infant's baby bottle through the dishwasher kills the germs, but releases a toxin that could -- and we emphasize the word could -- be tied to cancer, genital defects, early onset of puberty, obesity and even behavior problems, albeit in rodents, what would you do?

Other states have enacted bans on BPA. The Canadian equivalent of the FDA has since banned BPA in polycarbonate baby bottles. Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and CVS are phasing out some polycarbonate products in response to consumer concerns. The Nalgene company, which seemingly put a plastic, reusable water bottle in every hiker and athlete's hand, is phasing out BPA products because consumers are trying to steer clear of the substance.

Not everyone is convinced that the chemical is a danger -- Washington Sen. Pam Roach, R-Auburn, was quick to defend the sippy cups her family had used for years. Others argue that the body quickly rids itself of the chemical and that while high doses might be dangerous, low doses aren't.

It may not be time to panic about BPA, but it is time for the FDA to thoroughly study its effects on humans. If our legislators are a part of making that happen, good for them. In the meantime, consumers are now able to make better informed decisions.

* Members of the Yakima Herald-Republic editorial board are Michael Shepard, Bob Crider, Spencer Hatton and Karen Troianello.