Inside Prevention

Feinstein floats BPA-labeling bill (E&E, Greenwire, 6/11/2013)

Breast Cancer Fund Director of Program and Policy Janet Nudelman was quoted in a Greenwire article about Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)'s BPA labeling bill:

"Sen. Feinstein is the strongest champion in the U.S. Senate on this issue and has been since day one," Nudelman said, and the legislation has evolved with the issue.

The E&E story is not available online, but you can read more about the bill in Nudelman's statement.

Senate BPA labeling law introduced to improve consumer right to know

Statement by Janet Nudelman, Director of Program and Policy, Breast Cancer Fund.

Motivated by the growing number of studies that show exposure to the toxic chemical bisphenol A (BPA) harms health, particularly for babies and young children, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) introduced legislation today to require labels on food packaging made with BPA.   

Feinstein’s bill comes on the heels of two pieces of proposed legislation aimed at reforming our nation’s federal chemical regulatory system: a House bill introduced last week that would ban BPA in food packaging, and the Chemical Safety Improvement Act (S.1009), which was introduced on May 22 by a bipartisan group of 20 senators and attempts to reform the woefully outdated Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976.

BPA in Food Packaging Right to Know Act

If enacted, the BPA in Food Packaging Right to Know Act would protect the public from BPA exposure and improve food packaging safety by making consumers aware of products containing endocrine-disrupting chemicals, like BPA, that interfere with a body’s normal hormone functioning, and may increase risk for cancer, infertility and other disorders. 

First, all food packaging containing BPA in whole or in part would include a label that reads “This food packaging contains BPA, an endocrine-disrupting chemical.” This simple label will alert consumers as to the presence of the chemical and help them make more informed decisions about the products they buy.

Secondly, the legislation directs the Department of Health and Human Services to do a safety assessment of food containers containing BPA. The assessment would provide much-needed information about whether there is reasonable certainty that no harm would come from long-term, low dose exposure to BPA. This is an important directive to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which, in its last safety assessment, ignored over 100 independent studies showing harm from low dose exposures to BPA in favor of two industry-funded studies showing no harm.  

Feinstein’s proposed legislation also directs the FDA to study the effects of BPA exposure on vulnerable populations including pregnant women, infants, children, the elderly, and populations with high exposure to BPA, like workers. The FDA would use safety assessments to evaluate alternatives, so that BPA would not be replaced with an equally toxic chemical. 

The bill is cosponsored by Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Angus King (I-Maine).

Exposures to BPA

The most common source of exposure to BPA is food packaging, including canned foods. The Centers for Disease Control found BPA in 93 percent of all Americans tested. Recent studies on the health effects have raised concerns about the ubiquitous exposure of the population to both low and high levels of BPA.

Nearly 200 scientific studies show that exposures to even low doses of BPA, particularly during pregnancy and early infancy, are associated with a wide range of adverse health effects later in life, including increased breast cancer risk. Studies show that BPA exposure can make non-cancerous breast cells grow and survive like cancer cells, and can actually make the cells less responsive to the cancer-inhibiting effects of tamoxifen, a drug used in the treatment of breast cancer.

BPA has been found in blood and urine of pregnant women, in the umbilical cord blood of newborns and in breast milk soon after women gave birth. These data indicate that pregnant women exposed to BPA can easily pass this chemical to their children during pregnancy or breastfeeding.

Feinstein’s record as public health champion

Sen. Feinstein has long championed restrictions on BPA in food packaging. Feinstein was particularly fired up during the 2010 reauthorization of the Food Safety Modernization Act when the food industry threatened to kill the whole bill after they learned of her intention to offer an amendment to ban BPA from infant food packaging and beverage containers. At that time, Feinstein told The Washington Post, “I feel very strongly that the government should protect people from harmful chemicals. BPA should be addressed as a part of the food safety overhaul.” Feinstein was forced to drop her proposed amendment after the American Chemistry Council hijacked the Senate support she had generated, but kept her word to keep working on making food packaging safer, particularly for babies and young children, by introducing the BPA in Food Packaging Right to Know Act today.

In 2013 alone, 14 states have introduced legislation to more strictly regulate BPA in food packaging. Three states – South Dakota, Nevada and Connecticut – introduced BPA labeling laws this year, suggesting the momentum to curb the use of BPA in food packaging is growing at the state level as well. The Breast Cancer Fund supports the BPA in Food Packaging Right to Know Act and thanks Sen. Feinstein for her national leadership to ensure food safety and to establish strong standards that protect people from toxic chemicals.

Federal Ban on BPA in Food Packaging Introduced in Congress

Statement by Janet Nudelman, Director of Program and Policy, Breast Cancer Fund.

As U.S. states, manufacturers, and governments around the world reject the use of the toxic chemical bisphenol A (BPA), Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) took the challenge to the U.S. Congress, introducing the Ban Poisonous Additives Act of 2013 (BPA Act) to prohibit the use of BPA in food and beverage containers. Since 2008, Markey has taken the lead in the House of Representatives to banish BPA from food packaging, a major source of exposure to the chemical, due to rising health concerns. In the Senate, Diane Feinstein (D-CA) has been the champion against BPA in food packaging, and is also likely to introduce new legislation this month.

The more that is understood about BPA, the more urgent it becomes to eliminate this chemical from food packaging and consumer products. Nearly 200 scientific studies show that exposures to even low doses of BPA, particularly during pregnancy and early infancy, are associated with a wide range of adverse health effects later in life, including increased breast cancer risk. Studies show that BPA exposure can make non-cancerous breast cells grow and survive like cancer cells, and can actually make the cells less responsive to the cancer-inhibiting effects of tamoxifen, a drug used in the treatment of breast cancer.

BPA has been found in blood and urine of pregnant women, in the umbilical cord blood of newborns and in breast milk soon after women gave birth. These data indicate that pregnant women exposed to BPA can easily pass this chemical to their children during pregnancy or breastfeeding.

Yet most people are exposed to BPA every day. The Centers for Disease Control found BPA in 93 percent of all Americans tested and the National Institutes of Health point to food packaging as a major route of exposure.

One route of BPA exposure has been halted in the U.S.: in 2012, the FDA prohibited BPA from baby bottles and sippy cups. The FDA took this action only after the American Chemistry Council (ACC) petitioned the agency to support the ban. Ironically, due to public demand, the vast majority of manufacturers had already stopped using BPA in baby bottles by the time the ACC asked for and the FDA decided to issue their ban. The ACC’s support of the regulation most likely represents a tactical move. Their fear of more expansive BPA regulations, such as banning BPA from canned food, is a better explanation for the chemical industry’s support of the bottle ban.

Over the past five years, 34 states have introduced legislation to restrict BPA; twelve states adopted legislation to ban BPA from baby bottles and sippy cups, and three of those states also banned BPA from infant formula and baby food. The baby bottle ban has not slowed down efforts to restrict use of the chemical; in 2013 alone, 14 states have introduced legislation to more strictly regulate BPA in food packaging.

Market campaigns against BPA in canned foods also have been successful in pushing manufacturers to move away from the chemical. The Breast Cancer Fund’s Cans Not Cancer campaign announced last year that Campbell Soup Company  will phase out the use of BPA in its can linings. Heinz and Eden Foods have transitioned away from BPA, as has ConAgra and Muir Glen. Supermarket chain Kroger announced earlier this year its store brands and baby products will be BPA free.

Worldwide bans on BPA have been enacted. The EU, Malaysia, China, Denmark, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, and Canada have all banned BPA from baby bottles. France announced a ban on BPA in packaging for children under age 3 as of 2013, and all food packaging (effective 2014).

In stark contrast, the U.S. government has failed to act on BPA, with the sole exception of the baby bottle ban, which was requested by chemical makers. But Representative Markey hopes to change that. In addition to championing federal legislative action, Representative Markey has been relentless and creative in his efforts to get the government to take action.

In 2012, Markey filed three petitions with the FDA to ban the use of BPA in food packaging, becoming the first member of Congress to use FDA’s citizen petition process to pressure the FDA to take regulatory action against the toxic chemical. His petitions asked the FDA to amend its regulations for infant formula and baby food uses of BPA, ban the use of BPA in canned food intended for children 12 or younger, and ban BPA from reusable food containers.

The FDA formally accepted his infant formula petition, opened a public comment period last summer but has yet to formally respond. In 2011 the FDA rejected a petition filed by Natural Resources Defense Council to ban BPA from food packaging, stating that it needed more evidence of harm before acting.

Despite clear signals from scientists, consumers, retailers, manufacturers and state and world governments that BPA does not belong in any of our food packaging, the FDA has yet to finish its safety assessment of BPA.  Clearly the FDA needs to catch up. And, in the meantime, Congress should pass Rep. Markey’s legislation, the Ban Poisonous Additives Act of 2013.

Calif. governor proposes reforms to landmark toxics law (Environment & Energy Publishing, 5/8/13)

Calif. Governor Jerry Brown has proposed significant reforms to Prop. 65, the state's Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act. We generally support the Brown administration's efforts—particularly when it comes to warning labels. Brown's proposal would make warning labels much more specific, telling people about particular chemicals while providing tips on how to minimize exposure.

We also support efforts to limit frivolous lawsuits that don’t make California’s products any safer. While there may be some unscrupulous attorneys only looking to make a quick buck using Prop 65, it is important to note that many Prop. 65 lawsuits have propelled momentum on regulations of toxic substances including caramel coloring and lead.

Despite our support of these items, we are concerned about one portion of the proposed reform. Brown is considering lowering the threshold levels of chemicals that would trigger warning labels. Though his newly proposed no-observed-adverse-effect levels may make sense for some chemicals, endocrine disruptors like BPA and phthalates require a more nuanced approach since they can be harmful (especially to pregnant women, infants and children) at extremely low doses. In the end, any provisions should maintain the integrity of Prop. 65 and avoid rendering it toothless regulation.

Gretchen Lee Salter, the Breast Cancer Fund's senior policy manager, was recently interviewed for an E&E article about the proposed changes: 

The law has "really been successful taking toxic chemicals out of consumer products," said Gretchen Lee Salter, senior program and policy manager at the Breast Cancer Fund. Companies have reformulated items rather than disclosing chemicals, she said, because landing on the state's Proposition 65 list is like the "Scarlet Letter."

"We just want to make sure that any reforms that may happen, that we don't lose that aspect of Proposition 65," Salter said.

And as other states enact toxics policies and create lists of problematic chemicals, they often look to the Golden State's list as authoritative, she said, adding "we want to make sure that California maintains its leadership."

Salter also said she was concerned that the process of changing the law could open the door for the chemical industry lobby to advance the rewrites it wants.

We’ll continue to work with the administration to ensure Prop 65  protects public health in the way it always has.

The E&E story is not available online, but you can read more about Gov. Brown's proposed changes in the San Francisco Chronicle and the LA Times.

American Chemistry Council blocks state scientists from doing their jobs

Just as BPA disrupts our hormones, Big Chem is doing everything it can to disrupt the democratic process, using its money, power and influence to block government action that would protect pregnant women and children.

On Friday, shortly after California’s Environmental Protection Agency had announced its decision to add BPA to its list of Prop 65 reproductive toxicants, a judge ordered BPA off the same list.  The judge granted an injunction in the American Chemistry Council's case against California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. The chemical industry is trying to argue in court that BPA does not cause birth defects.

Prop 65 requires the governor of California to publish, at least annually, a list of chemicals known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity and, in some instances, requires labeling of products containing those chemicals.

If BPA is safe, as the chemical industry asserts, why would the FDA have banned it from baby bottles and children’s drinking cups in 2012? Why would 12 states have introduced legislation either banning or requiring the labeling of BPA in food packaging? Why would France have banned it all together from food packaging? Why would countless studies have demonstrated a clear link between BPA and a long list of health problems including infertility and breast cancer?

Stay tuned. We will be following this issue as it progresses. In the meantime, please share your thoughts and comments below!

 

Will Your Canned Soup Carry a Warning Label? (Rodale, 4/12/2013)

A Rodale article about California’s declaration that BPA would be added to the state’s list of Prop 65 chemicals quotes our policy manager, Gretchen Lee Salter:

“The Prop 65 listing is yet another indictment of this toxic chemical that industry continues to argue is safe, despite waves of peer-reviewed scientific studies finding that BPA harms reproduction and is linked to breast cancer," says Gretchen Lee Salter, policy manager at the Breast Cancer Fund. "And the listing is happening the same week that the French government began warning pregnant women to avoid BPA because fetal exposure has been linked to later-life breast cancer. This is a seriously toxic chemical that none of us should be exposed to." Read the full article here.

Proposition 65 requires the governor of California to publish, at least annually, a list of chemicals known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity. The law also requires labeling of  products that contain high levels of these chemicals, but because BPA can exert negative effects at extremely low levels, environmental health advocates and state officials are still hashing out acceptable levels for labeling.  For more information on the health effects of BPA, check out our recently updated State of the Evidence on BPA.

Phthalates and BPA make an unexpected appearance

A new dietary intervention study suggests that an individual may not be able to avoid food packaging chemicals like phthalates (plastic softeners) and BPA (found in canned foods and older hard plastic containers) by cutting out canned and plastic-wrapped foods because these chemicals can—and do—enter the food during processing.

Researchers from the University of Washington replicated the 2011 Breast Cancer Fund and Silent Spring Institute dietary intervention study and found DEHP (a phthalate used in food packaging) levels increased 24-fold during the intervention.

The researchers were puzzled by this finding—our study found phthalate and BPA levels declined during the intervention diet—so they followed up by testing spices and dairy used in the intervention diet. They found high levels of DEHP in spices like coriander, cinnamon and cayenne pepper, as well as in dairy products.

The researchers also found modest increases in BPA during the intervention. This finding may be due to a study population who already ate mostly fresh foods—in fact, only three of the 10 families who participated indicated eating canned foods.

These findings underscore the need for federal reform of food contact laws that can ensure chemicals linked to hormone disruption don't end up in our food supply. The FDA has the authority to regulate chemicals our food touches at all points in the process from field to table: from the type of plastic tubing used in milking equipment, to the containers spices are held in before being divvied up in store-shelf sizes, to the plastic wrap on supermarket cheese.

Our role is to see that the FDA actually uses this power to protect our health.

For more on this study, check out Fast Company (You’re Eating Toxic Chemicals, Even If You Eat Organic And Avoid Plastic) and the NRDC blog (What's for lunch? Likely a few hormone-disrupting chemicals - phthalates and BPA).

U.S. report urges deeper look into breast cancer's environmental links (Center for Public Integrity, 2/12/2013)

More coverage of this week's major report release, this from the Center for Public Integrity:

Compiled by the congressionally mandated Interagency Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Coordinating Committee, the report notes that most cases of breast cancer “occur in people with no family history,” suggesting that “environmental factors — broadly defined — must play a major role in the etiology of the disease.”

Yet only a fraction of federal research funding has gone toward examining links between breast cancer and ubiquitous chemicals such as the plastic hardening agent bisphenol A; the herbicide atrazine; and dioxin, a byproduct of plastics manufacturing and burning, says the report, prepared for Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and released today.

“Prevention needs to be as important as other investments that are made in screening, treatment and access to care,” Jeanne Rizzo, co-chair of the committee and president of the San Francisco-based Breast Cancer Fund, said in an interview. (Read complete article.)

Eat like a Mennonite (New York Times, 1/18/2013)

What does it take for a modern American family to lower its BPA levels? Author Florence Williams offers a peek into her stint in the nearly-plastic-free world in an opinion piece for the New York Times:

On the second day of my chemical-detox diet, I was very hungry. I’d been eating like a rabbit, all carrots and greens that I’d gathered, barehanded, from the baskets of the farmer’s market, no gloves or plastic bags allowed. I cooked up some quinoa that I bought packaged in paper from the supermarket sometimes known as Whole Paycheck. I was effectively a vegan because I couldn’t find meat or cheese that wasn’t wrapped in plastic, and I didn’t have access to accommodating livestock.

My 7-year-old daughter and I were participating in a pilot study conducted in 2011 by the Silent Spring Institute and the Breast Cancer Fund (a follow-up study was published later that year in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives). We had urinated into some glass containers a few weeks earlier, back when we were "normal" Americans, and now we were spending three days trying to reduce our exposure to plastics before supplying our urine again.

As Williams notes, the "normal" phase of the study, which allowed for painted toenails and canned beans, was more fun. Yet it's possible to create modern conveniences that don't leave toxic traces in their human consumers.

Says Williams, "It's why we need the government to require testing of commercial chemicals for hormonal effects, and to regulate them in a meaningful way. And it's why we need manufacturers to design products with safer substances in the first place." (Read complete article.)

Now undeniable: Breast cancer that comes with the job (Huffington Post, 11/26/2012)

Our own Jeanne Rizzo published her thoughts about the recent Canadian factory worker study on Huffington Post yesterday. Now we have evidence that women who are exposed to hormone-disrupting chemicals in food canning and plastics factories have a sharply higher risk of breast cancer—so what will we do about it? And who will act on behalf of these women?

Unfortunately for these women workers and for all of us (for we too are exposed to some of these chemicals on a daily basis), many industry and government leaders refuse to act based on biological plausibility. Instead, they prefer plausible deniability, saying we need more and more and more evidence—incontrovertible truth, in fact—before we take action. (Read complete article.)

Related articles

Can certain jobs cause breast cancer? A new study suggests yes (The Daily Beast, 11/21/2012)

Jeanne Rizzo: Now Undeniable: Breast Cancer That Comes With the Job

Study spotlights high breast cancer risk for plastics workers (Center for Public Integrity, 11/19/2012)