Inside Prevention

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Act (S.1009), which was introduced on May 22 by a bipartisan group of 20 senators and attempts to reform the woefully outdated Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976.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.

Pioneering Prevention: A public conversation on breast cancer and the environment

What happens when you put a champion of breast cancer research, an award-winning science journalist, a fearless advocate for underserved communities and a fiery breast cancer prevention leader in a room together?

A fascinating conversation and a breeding ground for real and lasting change.

On May 30 a group of trailblazers in the movement to prevent breast cancer gathered at UCSF Mission Bay for the Breast Cancer Fund's Pioneering Prevention event.

The panelists, including Jeanne Rizzo, Breast Cancer Fund President, Florence Williams, award-winning journalist and author of Breasts: A Natural and Unnatural History; Mhel Kavanaugh Lynch, M.D., M.P.H., director of the California Breast Cancer Research Program; and Ysabel Duron, founder of Latinas Contra Cancer talked about their inspiration in joining this movement, the implications of the recently released Interagency Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Coordinating Committee report and turning the report's conclusion into a national breast cancer prevention strategy.

Listen to the full conversation below.

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.

Fiery leader of breast cancer group puts chemical exposures in spotlight (Greenwire, E&E, 5/28/2013)

This in-depth Greenwire profile of our fearless leader Jeanne Rizzo explores how she has steered us "with a highly tuned focus, delicately balancing science and advocacy to ensure the organization can never be marginalized or dismissed."

Gwen Collman, director of extramural research and training at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, describes Rizzo's agility while commanding the team:

"Her leadership of the [Breast Cancer Fund] probably brought the organization to the next level because she is such a people person," Collman added. "She really engages with people, and people leave thinking, 'My God, I just met someone truly extraordinary.'"

Read the full article here.

 

Focus on preventing cancer (San Francisco Chronicle, 5/15/2013)

Thousands of women each year face decisions like Angelina Jolie's bold choice to undergo a preventative double mastectomy. But in her San Francisco chronicle op-ed Breast Cancer Fund President and CEO Jeanne Rizzo asks: what if fewer women had to?

Most women who develop breast cancer do not have a family history of, or genetic predisposition to, the disease. In fact, the majority of cases can be attributed to environmental causes including toxic chemicals and radiation:

"Decades of scientific evidence points to modern living as a major culprit. In our daily lives we are exposed to toxic chemicals and radiation from a wide range of sources, including cleaning and personal-care products, plastics, food, air, water, medical treatments, our workplaces and our neighborhoods."

We have the power to stop breast cancer before it starts, and reduce risks for the vast majority of women who have no genetic predisposition to the disease:

"We need to develop a federal research agenda that prioritizes investment in the study of chemical agents that contribute to the disease, and public health measures to reduce exposures."

Read more at the San Francisco Chronicle , join us in creating a breast cancer prevention strategy and learn about a groundbreaking report, which concludes that identifying and eliminating the environmental causes of breast cancer presents the greatest opportunity to prevent the disease.

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.

J&J removes some chemicals from its baby shampoo, other products (5/6/13)

Breast Cancer Fund Director of Program and Policy Janet Nudelman was quoted in an Environmental Health News article about Johnson & Johnson's landmark decision to remove many harmful chemicals from its personal care products:

"The small companies demonstrate to the big cosmetic giants that making safe products is not only possible, but it's also profitable. It's what consumers want."

She points out that disclosure requirements can serve as de facto bans on toxic chemicals:

"Companies would rather quietly reformulate their products than have consumers know there are carcinogens or reproductive toxins in the product."

 Read the full article here.

Breast Cancer and the Environment (National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences podcast, 3/15/2013)

Our fearless leader, Breast Cancer Fund President and CEO Jeanne Rizzo, was featured in a National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences podcast about breast cancer and the environment. She talked about why translating breast cancer research is critical for the decisions we make in our everyday lives.

"We deal with what personal actions individuals can take to reduce their exposure to known or suspected carcinogens or endocrine disrupting chemicals. We also talk about corporate accountability and responsibility, the businesses that manufacture and sell those products, and how can we engage you, the public, in helping us drive industry to make better decisions." 

Have a listen and let us know what you think.

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.