Inside Prevention

Is BPA as harmless as California claims?

The answer, of course, is no, according to just about everyone except the chemical industry and the metal packaging industry.

Yesterday's decision by a panel of political appointees that there isn't "clear and credible" evidence that bisphenol A (BPA) causes damage to the human reproductive system was baffling. Sarah Janssen, a scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council who testified yesterday, summed it up in a blog post, and the decision was widely reported by the Associated Press.

Over the course of the day, the panel -- officially charged with determining whether substances should be added to California's Prop. 65 list of chemicals known to cause cancer or birth defects -- listened to details from hundreds of studies suggesting harm, and to hours of testimony from scientists, doctors, breast cancer survivors, parents and advocates of all stripes.

One of those bold testifiers was our own Strong Voice, Nancy Bellen from Santa Rosa, Calif. Nancy spoke of her own experience with breast cancer and her hope that parents would be able to make safe, BPA-free choices under Prop. 65 (the listing triggers a right-to-know labeling requirement for consumers' benefit). Thanks to Nancy and all the Strong Voices and supporters who came out for the hearing!

And, of course, this isn't the last word. We're still advocating for bills in California and in Congress that would reduce our exposure to BPA. NRDC has already filed a petition with the California EPA to reconsider BPA for Prop. 65 listing.

Climb photos are online!

Photos, photos and more photos of Climb Against the Odds 2009 on Mt. Shasta are now on our Flickr page. We've posted gear check through the trailhead return so far; check back for photos from the Community Celebration and the farewell dinner, too.

California fails to list BPA on Prop. 65

I’m disappointed to report that, despite the overwhelming science linking BPA to health problems, the state’s science advisory board voted this afternoon against adding it on California’s Prop. 65 list of chemicals known to cause cancer or birth defects.

We heard some damning testimony today from scientists, doctors, parents and breast cancer survivors who hoped, as we did, that the California EPA would declare that bisphenol A is too toxic to ignore.
 
This is a missed opportunity. Had the advisory board voted to add BPA to the Prop. 65 list, manufacturers would have been required to report its use in consumer products. Californians most often associate Prop. 65 with the WARNING signs at gas stations, on lead crystal glasses and next to the canned tuna in supermarket aisles.
 
But to the national community of health advocates and legislators working to reduce our exposure to this toxic chemical, today’s vote is by no means the end of the conversation. Prop. 65 listing would have meant a boost to legislation and market changes already underway, but those efforts will continue in California, in Congress and in corporate board rooms.

Prop. 65 testimony done, deliberations beginning

We've heard from parents, scientists, breast cancer survivors, reproductive health professionals, lawyers and other advocates who have all told the panel in no uncertain terms: This panel has a responsibility to all Californians to list BPA on Prop. 65. Californians have a right to know if the products they buy contain this toxic chemical.

Stay tuned: deliberations are starting now.

And now to set the record straight on BPA

Industry spent 80 minutes trying to convince the panel that BPA has no effect at low doses. (without really looking at low dose effects), can't possibly affect humans (while admitting it causes "systemic toxicity" in rodent models) and is utterly lacking safe alternatives (despite the existance of safer alternatives in Japan).

The next set of speakers is up, including the Breast Cancer Fund and other environmental health leaders. Time to refute industry's biased science and ridiculous claims.

Prop. 65 hearing underway

The Prop. 65 BPA hearing is underway, and can be (sort of) heard via audiocast.

It’s worth noting that there is an incredible amount of national grassroots support for adding BPA to California’s list of known carcinogens and reproductive toxicants. Check out, for example, the list of people and organizations who submitted comments to the state before the hearing, most of whom support the listing. The state’s science advisory board will be hearing from many of these folks today.

The complete agenda for the day includes reviews of the science on BPA from California EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, public comment time and the big vote.

California to consider BPA for state toxics list tomorrow

Will bisphenol A join the ranks of other toxic substances on California’s Proposition 65 list? Officially called the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, Prop. 65 protects Californians from substances that cause cancer and birth defects – and paves the way for national change.

Tomorrow, BPA is up for a review, thanks to the mounting science linking it to reproductive toxicity (a term that includes infertility, miscarriage and other conditions that impact a woman’s ability to have children). Exposure to the chemical also contributes to breast cancer risk and can interfere with chemotherapy treatment. It's found in hard plastic food and drink containers, the lining of food cans and other things we touch and use daily.

The science advisory board that recommends these chemicals for Prop. 65 listing will meet in Oakland from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. to hear testimony from scientists, parents, doctors and the chemical industry. An audiocast of the hearing is supposed to be available online as it happens.

If BPA is listed as a Prop. 65 chemical, manufacturers will be forced to disclose its presence in products they sell in California. Even more highly anticipated are the national ripple effects, which could impact legislative efforts in California and in Congress to reduce BPA exposure.

I’ll be at the hearing tomorrow and posting the results of the vote as soon as it happens, which is supposed to be no later than 5 p.m.

California takes another step toward regulating toxic bisphenol A

Yesterday, the California Assembly Health Committee approved the Toxics-Free Babies and Toddlers Act (SB 797), which would ban bisphenol A, or BPA, from food and drink containers designed for children ages three and younger. BPA, a synthetic estrogen that has been linked to breast cancer and other serious health problems, is used in some plastic baby bottles and sippy cups, as well as in the lining of infant formula cans. The bill, which has already passed the Senate, will now be voted on by the full Assembly, likely in August. If it passes, it will go to the Governor’s desk and hopefully become law by September.

While environmental health advocates are cheering, the BPA industry is fuming. Our Policy Manager Gretchen Lee Salter, who was testifying at the Capitol yesterday, reported on more (and more desperate) industry shenanigans. Among their arguments to the committee on why toxic BPA should continue to be allowed to leach from baby bottles into developing babies’ bodies was this choice reasoning: BPA is so ubiquitous that it is found in breast milk, so perhaps breast milk would be banned under this bill. Our response: BPA is in breast milk because it leaches from food containers! BPA does not naturally occur in breast milk...give us a break!

Luckily, the committee had the sense to see through industry’s desperate logic. As Gretchen put it, “The chemical industry put on a full-court press and Assembly Health Committee members got an earful from industry lobbyists. Ultimately, legislators saw that the science against BPA is just too strong, and that kids had to come before high-priced lobbyists.”

Now we’re getting back to work to make sure the full Assembly does the same.

A virtual expedition for breast cancer prevention

During the week of Climb Against the Odds, the Breast Cancer Fund held the inaugural Virtual Climb Against the Odds, an opportunity for those at sea level to join the expedition to prevent breast cancer. Family and friends of climbers and supporters of the Breast Cancer Fund chose their own adventure for the week of June 21 to do in solidarity with the climb team. Among them was Sue Davis-Killian and several close friends of Jennifer Wilson from Florida, who agreed to climb one flight of stairs for every $5 donated to the Breast Cancer Fund. Together, they climbed 142 flights of stairs and raised $770! We asked Sue to write about her experience:

It was quite a shock to me and all of Jennifer’s friends when she was diagnosed with breast cancer last year. Although we all know the statistics, no one expects it to hit so close to home – especially not in the healthiest person in our group! 

I had the honor of attending a few chemo sessions with Jennifer. She was so brave! It takes a certain presence of mind to quietly let nurses pump toxins into your body through a hole in your chest. 

Like Jennifer’s other friends, I was looking for ways to show Jennifer that I love her and respect the vast struggle she endured last year. I seriously considered doing the climb at Mt. Shasta with Jennifer, but the realities of money, time, and children crept in.   My next thought was that our group would have a get-together while Jennifer was climbing, so that we could send her mental thoughts of strength, energy, and love. That idea morphed into the idea of climbing stairs in solidarity with Jennifer. I was thrilled when I found out that there was a “Virtual Climb” option for Climb against the Odds.

What made our virtual climb successful in terms of fund-raising was that a bunch of us all used the same fund-raising page. I created a page that was appropriate for us all, and everyone forwarded it to family and friends. I think that if everyone had to create their own page, it just would not have happened. We agreed to climb one flight of stairs for each $5 donated. Since we were asking for only $5, it was easy to send to a lot of people, although most people who donated gave more than $5. People enjoyed the thought of us huffin’ and puffin’ on the stairs, and one friend donated $100 the morning of the climb just to make us climb an extra 20 flights!

We had a blast doing the climb, although a few climbers were disappointed when I told them that no, coming down does not count as a flight of stairs! They all doubted that we could do the required 142 flights of stairs, but we did it in about two hours.   We planned it for the morning of the real climb, and stopped periodically to think of Jennifer on the mountain (and to rest and eat a donut!). We did the climb at my house. For part of the climb my two children, the 12-year-old dog, and the guinea pig joined in! 

I can’t wait to do it again next year.  I’m thinking maybe a media event, climbing stairs at a famous local hotel.  I guess I’ll have to leave the dog and guinea pig at home!

Thank you to all of our climbers - virtual and actual alike - for your extraordinary commitment and support of the Breast Cancer Fund's work to identify and eliminate the environmental causes of breast cancer.

Interested in climbing Mt. Shasta in 2010? Visit www.breastcancerfund.org/climb or contact Connie George at cgeorge@breastcancerfund.org.