(organic chemistry) (CH3)2C(C6H5OH)2 Brown crystals that are insoluble in water; used in the production of phenolic and epoxy resins.
| Sci-Tech Dictionary: bisphenol A |
(organic chemistry) (CH3)2C(C6H5OH)2 Brown crystals that are insoluble in water; used in the production of phenolic and epoxy resins.
| 5min Related Video: Bisphenol A |
| Wikipedia: Bisphenol A |
| Bisphenol A | |
|---|---|
| IUPAC name |
4,4'-dihydroxy-2,2-diphenylpropane
|
| Other names | BPA, 4,4'-(propan-2-ylidene)diphenol, p, p'-isopropylidenebisphenol, 4,4´-isopropylidenediphenol. |
| Identifiers | |
| CAS number | 80-05-7 |
| PubChem | 6623 |
| EC number | 201-245-8 |
| RTECS number | SL6300000 |
| SMILES |
Oc1ccc(cc1)C(c2ccc(O)cc2)(C)C
|
| InChI |
1/C15H16O2/c1-15(2,11-3-7-13(16)8-4-11)12-5-9-14(17)10-6-12/h3-10,16-17H,1-2H3
|
| InChI key | IISBACLAFKSPIT-UHFFFAOYAI |
| ChemSpider ID | 6371 |
| Properties | |
| Molecular formula | C15H16O2 |
| Molar mass | 228.29 g mol−1 |
| Appearance | White to light brown flakes or powder |
| Density | 1.20 g/cm³, solid |
| Melting point |
158 to 159 °C (430 K) |
| Boiling point |
220 °C (493 K) / 4 mmHg |
| Solubility in water | 120–300 ppm (at 21.5 °C) |
| Hazards | |
| R/S statement | R: 36, 37, 38, 43 S: 24, 26, 37 |
| NFPA 704 | |
| Flash point | 227 °C, autoignition: 600 °C |
| Related compounds | |
| Related compounds | phenols Bisphenol S |
| Except where noted otherwise, data are given for materials in their standard state (at 25 °C, 100 kPa) |
|
| Infobox references | |
Bisphenol A, commonly abbreviated as BPA, is an organic compound with two phenol functional groups. It is a difunctional building block of several important plastics and plastic additives. With an annual production of 2–3 million metric tonnes, it is an important monomer in the production of polycarbonate.
Suspected of being hazardous to humans since the 1930s, concerns about the use of bisphenol A in consumer products were regularly reported in the news media in 2008 after several governments issued reports questioning its safety, and some retailers have removed products made of it from their shelves.
Contents
|
Bisphenol A was first reported by A.P. Dianin in 1891.[1][2]
It is prepared by the condensation of acetone (hence the suffix A in the name)[3] with two equivalents of phenol. The reaction is catalyzed by an acid, such as hydrochloric acid (HCl) or a sulfonated polystyrene resin. Typically, a large excess of phenol is used to ensure full condensation:
A large number of ketones undergo analogous condensation reactions. The method is efficient and the only by-product is water.[4]
Bisphenol A is used primarily to make plastics, and products containing bisphenol A-based plastics have been in commerce for more than 50 years. It is used in the synthesis of polyesters, polysulfones, and polyether ketones, as an antioxidant in some plasticizers, and as a polymerization inhibitor in PVC. It is a key monomer in production of epoxy resins[5][6] and in the most common form of polycarbonate plastic.[4][7] Polycarbonate plastic, which is clear and nearly shatter-proof, is used to make a variety of common products including baby and water bottles, sports equipment, medical and dental devices, dental fillings and sealants, eyeglass lenses, CDs and DVDs, and household electronics.[8] Epoxy resins containing bisphenol A are used as coatings on the inside of almost all food and beverage cans.[9] BPA is used to produce paper[10] such as thermal paper and carbonless copy paper.[11] Bisphenol A is also a precursor to the flame retardant, tetrabromobisphenol A, and was formerly used as a fungicide.[12]
Global production of bisphenol A in 2003 was estimated to be over 2 million metric tonnes (t).[13] In the U.S., it is manufactured by Bayer MaterialScience, Dow Chemical Company, SABIC Innovative Plastics (formerly GE Plastics), Hexion Specialty Chemicals, and Sunoco Chemicals. In 2004, these companies produced just over 1 million t of bisphenol A, up from just 7,260 t in 1991. In 2003, annual U.S. consumption was 856,000 t, 72% of which was used to make polycarbonate plastic and 21% going into epoxy resins.[8] The amount of BPA used in the US is equivalent to six pounds per habitant per year.[14]
BPA has been detected in "very high" (2 to 430 parts per million) concentrations in toilet paper.[10] According to unpublished research, an average BPA-containing carbonless copy paper receipt contains a high concentration (~80 milligrams of BPA) in comparison to the amount that leaches from polycarbonate liquid containers (the nanogram range).[15]
There are seven classes of plastics used in packaging applications. Type 7 is the catch-all "other" class, and some type 7 plastics, such as polycarbonate (sometimes identified with the letters "PC" near the recycling symbol) and epoxy resins, are made from bisphenol A monomer.[4][16]
Type 3 (PVC) can also contain bisphenol A as an antioxidant in plasticizers.[4]
Types 1 (PET), 2 (HDPE), 4 (LDPE), 5 (polypropylene), and 6 (polystyrene) do not use bisphenol A during polymerization or package forming.[citation needed]
Bisphenol A is an endocrine disruptor, which can mimic the body's own hormones and may lead to negative health effects.[17][18][19][20] Early development appears to be the period of greatest sensitivity to its effects.[21] Regulatory bodies have determined safety levels for humans, but those safety levels are currently being questioned as a result of new scientific studies.
In 2009 the The Endocrine Society released a scientific statement expressing concern over current human exposure to BPA.[22]
In 2007, a consensus statement by 38 experts on bisphenol A concluded that average levels in people are above those that cause harm to animals in laboratory experiments.[23] A panel convened by the U.S. National Institutes of Health determined that there was "some concern" about BPA's effects on fetal and infant brain development and behavior.[8] A 2008 report by the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) later agreed with the panel, expressing "some concern for effects on the brain, behavior, and prostate gland in fetuses, infants, and children at current human exposures to bisphenol A," and "minimal concern for effects on the mammary gland and an earlier age for puberty for females in fetuses, infants, and children at current human exposures to bisphenol A." The NTP had "negligible concern that exposure of pregnant women to bisphenol A will result in fetal or neonatal mortality, birth defects, or reduced birth weight and growth in their offspring."[24]
A 2008 review has concluded that obesity may be increased as a function of BPA exposure, which "merits concern among scientists and public health officials".[25] A 2009 review of available studies has concluded that "perinatal BPA exposure acts to exert persistent effects on body weight and adiposity".[26] Another 2009 review has concluded that "Eliminating exposures to (BPA) and improving nutrition during development offer the potential for reducing obesity and associated diseases".[27] Other reviews have come with similar conclusions.[28][29] A later study on mice has shown that perinatal exposure to drinking water containing 1 mg/L of BPA increased adipogenesis in females at weaning.[30]
A 2008 review has concluded that "perinatal exposure to (...) low doses of (..) BPA, alters breast development and increases breast cancer risk".[31] Another 2008 review concluded that " animal experiments and epidemiological data strengthen the hypothesis that foetal exposure to xenoestrogens may be an underlying cause of the increased incidence of breast cancer observed over the last 50 years".[32] A 2009 review, funded by the "Breast Cancer Fund", has recommended "a federal ban on the manufacture, distribution and sale of consumer products containing bisphenol A".[33]
Neither the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency[34] nor the International Agency for Research on Cancer[35] have evaluated bisphenol A for possible carcinogenic activity.
A panel convened by the U.S. National Institutes of Health determined that there was "some concern" about BPA's effects on fetal and infant brain development and behavior.[8] A 2008 report by the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) later agreed with the panel, expressing "some concern for effects on the brain".[24]
A 2007 review has concluded that BPA, like other xenoestrogens, should be considered as a player within the nervous system that can regulate or alter its functions through multiple pathways.[36] A 2007 review has concluded that low doses of BPA during development have persistent effects on brain structure, function and behavior in rats and mice.[37] A 2008 review concluded that low-dose BPA maternal exposure causes long-term consequences at the level of neurobehavioral development in mice.[38] A 2008 review has concluded that neonatal exposure to Bisphenol-A (BPA) can affect sexually dimorphic brain morphology and neuronal phenotypes in adulthood.[39] A 2008 review has concluded that BPA altered long-term potentiation in the hippocampus and even nanomolar dosage could induce significant effects on memory processes.[40] A 2009 review raised concerns about BPA effect on anteroventral periventricular nucleus.[41]
A 2008 study by the Yale School of Medicine demonstrated that adverse neurological effects occur in non-human primates regularly exposed to bisphenol A at levels equal to the United States Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) maximum safe dose of 50 µg/kg/day.[42][43] This research found a connection between BPA and interference with brain cell connections vital to memory, learning and mood.
A 2005 review concluded that prenatal and neonatal exposure to BPA can potentiate the central dopaminergic systems, resulting in the supersensitivity of the drugs of abuse-induced rewarding effects and hyperlocomotion in the mouse.[44]
A 2009 study on rats has concluded that prenatal and neonatal exposure to low-dose BPA causes deficits in development at dorsolateral striatum via altering the function of dopaminergic receptors.[45]
A 2007 review has concluded that bisphenol-A have been shown to bind to thyroid hormone receptor and perhaps have selective effects on its functions.[46]
A 2009 review about environmental chemicals and thyroid function, raised concerns about BPA effects on triiodothyronine and concluded that "available evidence suggests that governing agencies need to regulate the use of thyroid-disrupting chemicals, particularly as such uses relate exposures of pregnant women, neonates and small children to the agents".[47]
A 2009 review summarized BPA adverse effects on thyroid hormone action.[48]
A study in mice in 2009, which found ovary anomalies from exposition as low as 1 µg/kg, concluded that BPA exposure causes long-term adverse reproductive and carcinogenic effects if exposure occurs during prenatal critical periods of differentiation.[49]
Another study in 2009 suggested that neonatal exposure of as low as 50 µg/kg disrupts ovarian development in mice.[50][51][52]
Yet another study on mice in 2009 has concluded that neonatal BPA exposition of as low as 50 µg/kg permanently alters the hypothalamic estrogen-dependent mechanisms that govern sexual behavior in the adult female rat.[53]
A 2009 study has found that prenatal exposure to BPA at levels of (10 μg/kg/day) affects behavioral sexual differentiation in male monkeys.[54]
A 2009 in vitro study on placental JEG3 cells concluded that BPA potentially reduced estrogen synthesis.[55]
A 2009 study has found that BPA exposure disrupted the blood-testis barrier when administered to immature, but not to adult, rats.[56]
A 1997 study in mice has found that neonatal BPA exposure of 2 μg/kg increased adult prostate weight.[57] A 2005 study in mice has found that neonatal BPA exposure at 10 μg/kg disrupted the development of the fetal mouse prostate.[58] A 2006 study in rats has shown that neonatal bisphenol A exposure at 10 μg/kg levels increases prostate gland susceptibility to adult-onset precancerous lesions and hormonal carcinogenesis.[59] A 2007 in vitro study has found that BPA within the range of concentrations currently measured in human serum is associated with permanently increase in prostate size.[60] A 2009 study has found that newborns rats exposed to a low-dose of BPA (10 µg/kg) increased prostate cancer susceptibility when adults.[61]
In vitro studies have suggested that BPA can promote the growth of neuroblastoma cells.[62][63]
In 2009, at an Endocrine Society meeting new research reported data from animals experimentally treated with BPA.[64] Studies presented at the group's annual meeting show BPA can affect the hearts of women, can permanently damage the DNA of mice, and appear to be entering the human body from a variety of unknown sources.[65]
The first major study of health effects on humans associated with bisphenol A exposure was published in September 2008 by Iain Lang and colleagues in the Journal of the American Medical Association.[13][66] The cross-sectional study of almost 1,500 people assessed exposure to bisphenol A by looking at levels of the chemical in urine. The authors found that higher bisphenol A levels were significantly associated with heart disease, diabetes, and abnormally high levels of certain liver enzymes. An editorial in the same issue notes that while this preliminary study needs to be confirmed and cannot prove causality, there is precedent for analogous effects in animal studies, which "add[s] biological plausibility to the results reported by Lang et al."[20]
A 2009 study on Chinese workers in BPA factories found that workers were four times more likely to report erectile dysfunction, reduced sexual desire and overall dissatisfaction with their sex life than workers with no heightened BPA exposure.[67] BPA workers were also seven times more likely to have ejaculation difficulties. They were also more likely to report reduced sexual function within one year of beginning employment at the factory, and the higher the exposure, the more likely they were to have sexual difficulties.[68]
Studies have associated recurrent miscarriage with BPA serum concentrations,[69] oxidative stress and inflamattion in postmenopausal women with urinary concentrations,[70] and externalizing behaviors in two-year old children, especially among female children, with urinary concentrations.[71]
The first evidence of the estrogenicity of bisphenol A came from experiments on rats conducted in the 1930s,[72][73] but it was not until 1997 that adverse effects of low-dose exposure on laboratory animals were first reported.[9]
| Dose (µg/kg/day) | Effects (measured in studies of mice or rats, descriptions (in quotes) are from Environmental Working Group)[74][75] |
Study Year |
|---|---|---|
| 0.025 | "Permanent changes to genital tract" | 2005[76] |
| 0.025 | "Changes in breast tissue that predispose cells to hormones and carcinogens" | 2005[77] |
| 1 | long-term adverse reproductive and carcinogenic effects | 2009[49] |
| 2 | "increased prostate weight 30%" | 1997[78] |
| 2 | "lower bodyweight, increase of anogenital distance in both genders, signs of early puberty and longer estrus." | 2002[79] |
| 2.4 | "Decline in testicular testosterone" | 2004[80] |
| 2.5 | "Breast cells predisposed to cancer" | 2007[81] |
| 10 | "Prostate cells more sensitive to hormones and cancer" | 2006[82] |
| 10 | "Decreased maternal behaviors" | 2002[83] |
| 30 | "Reversed the normal sex differences in brain structure and behavior" | 2003[84] |
| 50 | Adverse neurological effects occur in non-human primates | 2008[42] |
| 50 | Disrupts ovarian development | 2009[50] |
| 50 | Current U.S. human exposure limit (a guideline set by EPA) | 1998[85] |
A study from 2008 concluded that blood levels of bisphenol A in neonatal mice are the same whether it is injected or ingested.[86]
There is evidence that bisphenol A functions as a xenoestrogen by binding strongly to estrogen-related receptor γ (ERR-γ).[87] This orphan receptor (endogenous ligand unknown) behaves as a constitutive activator of transcription. BPA seems to bind strongly to ERR-γ (dissociation constant = 5.5 nM), but not to the estrogen receptor (ER).[87] BPA binding to ERR-γ preserves its basal constitutive activity.[87] It can also protect it from deactivation from the selective estrogen receptor modulator 4-hydroxytamoxifen.[87]
Different expression of ERR-γ in different parts of the body may account for variations in bisphenol A effects. For instance, ERR-γ has been found in high concentration in the placenta, explaining reports of high bisphenol A accumulation in this tissue.[88]
Bisphenol A has been known to leach from the plastic lining of canned foods[89] and, to a lesser degree,[citation needed] polycarbonate plastics, especially those that are cleaned with harsh detergents or used to contain acidic or high-temperature liquids. A recent Health Canada study found that the majority of canned soft drinks it tested had low, but measurable levels of bisphenol A.[90] This exposure through metal cans is due to the fact that BPA is an ingredient in the internal coating of food and beverage metal cans used to protect the food from direct contact with metal. While most human exposure is through diet, exposure can also occur through air and through skin absorption.[91]
Studies by the CDC found bisphenol A in the urine of 95% of adults sampled in 1988–1994[92] and in 93% of children and adults tested in 2003–04.[93] Infants fed with liquid formula are among the most exposed, and those fed formula from polycarbonate bottles can consume up to 13 micrograms of bisphenol A per kg of body weight per day (μg/kg/day; see table below).[94] The most sensitive animal studies show effects at much lower doses, while the EPA considers exposures up to 50 µg/kg/day to be safe.[74][95] In 2009, a study found that drinking from polycarbonate bottles increased urinary bisphenol A levels by two thirds, from 1.2 micrograms/gram creatinine to 2 micrograms/gram creatinine.[96]
Consumer groups recommend that people wishing to lower their exposure to bisphenol A avoid canned food and polycarbonate plastic containers (which shares resin identification code 7 with many other plastics) unless the packaging indicates the plastic is bisphenol A-free.[97] The National Toxicology Panel recommends avoiding microwaving food in plastic containers, putting plastics in the dishwasher, or using harsh detergents, to avoid leaching.[98]
| Population | Estimated daily bisphenol A intake, μg/kg/day. Table adapted from the National Toxicology Program Expert Panel Report.[8] |
|---|---|
| Infant (0–6 months) formula-fed |
|
| Infant (0–6 months) breast-fed |
|
| Infant (6–12 months) |
|
| Child (1.5–6 years) |
|
| Adult |
|
BPA can contaminate the environment either directly or through degradation of products containing BPA, such as ocean-borne plastic trash.[99]
As an environmental contaminant this compound interferes with nitrogen fixation at the roots of leguminous plants associated with the bacterial symbiont Sinorhizobium meliloti. Despite a half-life in the soil of only 1–10 days, its ubiquity makes it an important pollutant.[100] According to Environment Canada, "initial assessment shows that at low levels, bisphenol A can harm fish and organisms over time. Studies also indicate that it can currently be found in municipal wastewater."[101]
A 2009 review of the biological impacts of plasticizers on wildlife published by the Royal Society with a focus on annelids (both aquatic and terrestrial), molluscs, crustaceans, insects, fish and amphibians concluded that BPA have been shown to affect reproduction in all studied animal groups, to impair development in crustaceans and amphibians and to induce genetic aberrations.[102]
The Australia and New Zealand Food Safety Authority (Food Standards Australia New Zealand) does not see any health risk with bisphenol A baby bottles if the manufacturers instructions are followed. Levels of exposure are very low and do not pose a significant health risk. It added that “the move by overseas manufacturers to stop using BPA in baby bottles is a voluntary action and not the result of a specific action by regulators.”[1] It suggests the use of glass baby bottles if parents have any concerns.[103]
In April 2008, Health Canada assessed that the chemical may pose some risk to infants[104] and proposed classifying the chemical as "'toxic' to human health and the environment."[105]
After the release of that assessment, Canadian Health Minister Tony Clement announced Canada's intent to ban the import, sale, and advertisement of polycarbonate baby bottles containing bisphenol A due to safety concerns, and investigate ways to reduce BPA contamination of baby formula packaged in metal cans. While the agency concluded that human exposures were less than levels believed to be unsafe, the margin of safety was not high enough for formula-fed infants.[21][106] Around the same time, Wal-Mart announced that it was immediately ceasing sales in all its Canadian stores of food containers, water and baby bottles, sippy cups, and pacifiers containing bisphenol A, and that it would phase out baby bottles made with it in U.S. stores by early 2009.[107] Nalgene also announced it will stop using the chemical in its products,[108] and
In 2006, Canadian regulators selected bisphenol A as one of 200 substances deserving of thorough safety assessments because preliminary studies had found it to be "inherently toxic"; the chemical had not previously been studied by them in depth, having been accepted under grandfather clauses when stricter regulations were passed in the 1980s.[74]
The federal government has formally declared bisphenol A a hazardous substance as of October 2008 and is now placed on its list of toxic substances. Health officials wrote in Canada Gazette that "It is concluded that bisphenol A be considered as a substance that may be entering the environment in a quantity or concentration or under conditions that constitute or may constitute a danger in Canada to human life or health."[111] The federal ministries of health and the environment announced they would seek to restrict imports, sales and advertising of polycarbonate baby bottles containing BPA.[112]
In its statement Gc.ca released on 18 October 2008, Health Canada noted that “bisphenol A exposure to newborns and infants is below levels that cause effects” and that the “general public need not be concerned”.
The updated 2008 European Union Risk Assessment Report on bisphenol A, published in June 2008 by the European Commission concluded that bisphenol A-based products, such as polycarbonate plastic and epoxy resins, are safe for consumers and the environment when used as intended.[113]
On 24 October 2008, European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) issued a statement following the Lang Study concluding that the study provided no grounds to revise the current TDI (Tolerable Daily Intake) level for BPA of 0.05 mg/kg bodyweight.[114]
On 2009 a scientific study criticized the European risk assessment processes of endocrine disruptors, including BPA.[115]
In May 2009, the Danish parliament passed a resolution to ban the use of BPA in baby bottles.[116]
On 24 October 2008, a French Food Safety Agency (AFSSA) literature review concluded that the heating of polycarbonate baby bottles on microwave, in realistic conditions (less than 10 minutes), was safe as by EFSA's maximum TDI.[117]
Later, in March 2009, the French health minister Mrs. Roselyne Bachelot-Narquin agreed with the AFSSA conclusion evaluating that “The Canadian authorities decided on the ban on BPA (baby bottles) as a result of public pressure not on the basis of valid scientific studies.” [118]
On 27 July 2009, French senator members of the RDSE proposed legislation to ban BPA of plastics used as food containers.[119]
On 16 October 2009 the French Food Safety Agency (AFSSA) announced it would reevaluate BPA safety.[120]
On 19 September 2008, the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (Bundesinstitut für Risikobewertung, BfR) stated that there was no reason to change the current risk assessment for bisphenol A on the basis of the Lang Study.[121]
On October 2009, the German environmental organization Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland requested a ban on BPA for children products, specially pacifiers,[122] and products that make contact with food.[123] In response some manufactures voluntary removed the problematic pacifiers from the market.[124]
On 6 November 2008, the Dutch Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority (VWA), stated in a newsletter that baby bottles made from polycarbonate plastic do not release measurable concentrations of bisphenol A and therefore are safe to use.[125]
In February 2009 the Swiss Federal Office for Public Health, based on reports of other health agencies, stated that the intake of bisphenol A from food represents no risk to the consumer, including newborns and infants. However, in the same statement it advised for proper use of polycarbonate baby bottles and listed alternatives.[126]
As of the release of NTP and Health Canada reports in April, 10 U.S. states, including California,[127] Maryland,[128] and New Jersey,[129] already had legislation pending that would affect the use of BPA. In the wake of these reports, U.S. Senator Charles Schumer (D–N.Y.) introduced legislation that would ban bisphenol A nationally from products for infants.[128] In addition, the U.S. Congress is investigating the Weinberg Group, a chemical industry consulting firm, for its role in downplaying the health effects of bisphenol A and other chemicals,[130] and the Energy and Commerce Committee in the House of Representatives is investigating the use of BPA in baby products as well as the FDA's approval of the chemical. In asking the FDA to reassess its approval of bisphenol A, committee chairman Bart Stupak (D–Mich.) said "We would expect the FDA to make decisions based on the best available science…Yet the FDA relied on only two industry-funded studies, while other respected authorities used all available data to reach vastly different conclusions." The FDA maintained that bisphenol A is safe and did not recommend that people avoid using products made from it. The Consumer Product Safety Commission agreed, and its deputy director stressed that use of bisphenol A based plastics has many practical benefits and that "a ban could result in less effective protection of children from head, eye, or bodily injury."[9] FDA then announced it would set up a task force to address these concerns, and in August it released a draft finding[131] concurring with its initial position that the chemical is safe. The agency will make its final decision after an advisory panel on the issues is convened in September.[132]
In response to these events, an American Chemistry Council (ACC)/BPA Global Group (an industry trade association) spokesman said, “The weight of scientific evidence, as assessed by Health Canada and other agencies around the world, provides reassurance that consumers can continue to safely use products made from bisphenol A."[133] The Grocery Manufacturers Association also insisted that bisphenol A is safe, and argues that "Data purporting to demonstrate 'low' dose effects on the male reproductive system by BPA have not been successfully replicated and, therefore, are not credible to estimate human health risks and safety in light of the weight of a large body of evidence to the contrary."[134] A spokesman for the tin can industry said that without lining cans with bisphenol A based resins, E. coli and botulism poisoning would be "rampant."[9]
In September, the National Toxicology Program finalized their report on bisphenol A, finding "some concern", mid-point of a five-level scale, that infants were at risk from exposure to the chemical.[24]
At that time, the FDA reassured consumers that current limits were safe, but convened an outside panel of experts to review the issue. The Lang study was also released that month, and David Melzer, a co-author of the study, presented the results of the study before the FDA panel.[135]
The editorial accompanying the Lang study's publication in JAMA criticized the FDA's assessment of bisphenol A: "A fundamental problem is that the current ADI [acceptable daily intake] for BPA is based on experiments conducted in the early 1980s using outdated methods (only very high doses were tested) and insensitive assays. More recent findings from independent scientists were rejected by the FDA, apparently because those investigators did not follow the outdated testing guidelines for environmental chemicals, whereas studies using the outdated, insensitive assays (predominantly involving studies funded by the chemical industry) are given more weight in arriving at the conclusion that BPA is not harmful at current exposure levels."[20]
The Union of Concerned Scientists similarly criticized the agency saying, "We're concerned that the FDA is basing its conclusion on two studies while downplaying the results of hundreds of other studies.... This appears to be a case of cherry-picking data with potentially high cost to human health."[135] Diana Zuckerman, president of the National Research Center for Women and Families, also criticized the FDA, saying, in her testimony at the FDA's public meeting on the draft assessment of bisphenol A for use in food contact applications, that "At the very least, the FDA should require a prominent warning on products made with BPA".[136][137]
In contrast, the American Chemistry Council, the manufacturing industry's lobby group, was skeptical of the latest study.[135]
Sunoco, a producer of gasoline and chemicals, is now refusing to sell the chemical to companies for use in food and water containers for children younger than 3, saying it can't be certain of the compound's safety. Sunoco plans to require its customers to guarantee that the chemical will not be used in children's food products.[138]
The six largest US companies which commercialize baby bottles decided to stop using bisphenol A in their products.[139] A NY County decided to ban baby bottles and toddler sippy cups made with bisphenol A.[140]
On March 13 leaders from the House and Senate proposed legislation to ban bisphenol A.[141]
In the same month, Rochelle Tyl, author of two studies used by FDA to assert BPA safety in August 2008, said those studies didn't claim that BPA is safe since they weren't designed to cover all aspects of the chemical's effects.[142]
Among the first states to pass regulations limiting or banning BPA were Minnesota and Illinois. Minnesota's regulation takes effect in 2010, "manufacturers of ... children's products containing BPA may not sell them in the state after Jan. 1, 2010. The ban extends to all retailers in the state a year later." The products impacted are known as sippy cups and baby bottles.[143] The City of Chicago adopted a similar ban shortly thereafter. Coverage of Chicago's ban in the news showed a relentless opposition by the industry. A Chicago Tribune article noted an up-hill battle while passing legislation, "[industry officials] used FDA’s position on the issue when they tried to block the city’s measure." It further notes that,
“The FDA continues to be recalcitrant and very slow about taking any action on BPA,” said Ald. Manny Flores (1st), who co-sponsored the Chicago measure with Ald. Edward Burke.
Chicago bans the sale after 2010 of any empty food or drink container containing BPA that is intended for use by children less than 3 years old.
Burke and Flores pushed the measure through after backing down from a more aggressive version that would have outlawed nearly any product for children that was made with the chemical. Still, the chemical industry fought hard to thwart the scaled-back ban, including hiring former Ald. Terry Gabinski to lobby against it. The American Chemistry Council trade group responded with a written statement that called [the] vote “unwarranted.”.[144][145]
In May 2009 the Washington Post accused the manufacturers of food and beverage containers and some of their biggest customers of trying to devise a public relations and lobbying strategy to block government BPA bans.[146]
In June 2009, the FDA announced the decision to reconsider the BPA safety levels.[147]
Connecticut was the first US state to ban bisphenol A from infant formula and baby food containers, as well from any reusable food or beverage container.[148]
The California Environmental Protection Agency's Developmental and Reproductive Toxicant Identification Committee unanimously voted against placing Bisphenol A on the state's list of chemicals that are believed to cause reproductive harm. The panel, although concerned over the growing scientific research showing BPA's reproductive harm in animals, found that there was insufficient data of the effects in humans.[149] Critics point out that the same panel failed to add second-hand smoke to the list until 2006, and only one chemical was added to the list in the last three years.[150]
On August 3, Massachusetts' Department of Public Health advised mothers to take certain actions to prevent possible health impact in children. Mothers with children up to two years old were advised to limit exposure by avoiding products that might contain BPA, such as plastic drinking bottles and other plastic materials with recycling codes of 7 or 3.[151]
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, as part of an ongoing investigative series into BPA and its effects, revealed plans by the Society of the Plastics Industry to execute a major public relations blitz to promote BPA, including plans to attack and discredit those who report or comment negatively on the monomer and its effects.[152][153]
On September 29, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced that it is evaluating BPA, and another five chemicals, for action plan development.[154]
The Consumer Reports magazine published a analysis of BPA content in some canned foods and beverages, where in specific cases the content of a single can of food could exceed the current FDA Cumulative Exposure Daily Intake.[155][156]
|
||||||||||||||||||||
This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)
| phenoxy resin (organic chemistry) | |
| bithionol (organic chemistry) | |
| epoxy resin (organic chemistry) |
| Does Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene Plastic ie. ABS Plastic contain bisphenol-a? Read answer... | |
| Does melamine has bisphenol? Read answer... | |
| How does bisphenol A harm humans? Read answer... |
| What health concers does bisphenol A have in food? | |
| Does bisphenol a soluble in dimethyl sulfoxzide? | |
| What is the process of making bisphenol a called? |
Copyrights:
![]() | Sci-Tech Dictionary. McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms. Copyright © 2003, 1994, 1989, 1984, 1978, 1976, 1974 by McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Read more | |
![]() | Wikipedia. This article is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Bisphenol A". Read more |
Mentioned in