Inside Prevention

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.

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.

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.

California says BPA is toxic, France warns pregnant women

Gretchen Lee Salter, the Breast Cancer Fund's senior policy manager, reacts to this week's big BPA news.

There were two big strikes against BPA this week. Yesterday California added BPA to the state's Proposition 65 list of chemicals known to cause cancer or birth defects. 

On Monday, the French government warned pregnant women to stay away from BPA. In their warning, French authorities point to the numerous studies linking prenatal exposure to BPA with increased risk for later breast cancer. This warning comes on the heels of a new French law that will ban BPA from all food packaging, including food cans by 2015. 

The Prop 65 listing and French government's warning are powerful indictments of this toxic chemical that the industry has argued is safe, despite waves of peer-reviewed scientific studies finding that BPA harms reproduction, and is linked to infertility and breast cancer.

While I'm heartened by these steps, we need our governments and industry to take even more decisive action to protect the public health. We’ve known for years about the dangers of BPA, especially to pregnant women, who should not have to worry whether or not their canned food is toxic. When I was pregnant three years ago, I did everything I could to stay away from BPA in canned food. But I was lucky. I had access to fresh fruits and vegetables and alternatives to canned soups and meals.

The Breast Cancer Fund's Cans Not Cancer campaign is working to make sure everyone is protected from BPA. We're pressuring canned food manufacturers to stop using BPA and to ensure the safety of any alternative chemical used in its place. We're also working with states around the country and with members of Congress to pass legislation to require the labeling of canned food containing BPA.

So while we applaud California and France, we all need to call on governments and industry to get this toxic chemical out of our products.

 

Big day for safer chemicals initiatives

If we want to transform how our society thinks about and uses chemicals, we need to shift markets and shift policy.

Today two initiatives were launched that will take us in the right direction:

• The reintroduction of the Safe Chemicals Act in the U.S. Senate by Frank Lautenberg and Kirsten Gillibrand
• The launch of Mind The Store, a campaign  targeting retailers headed by our partners at the Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families Coalition

The Safe Chemicals Act  would overhaul the archaic Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976. A Philadelphia Inquirer article mentions our involvement in this issue and notes that TSCA is the only major environmental law passed in the 1970s that hasn’t been updated:

“When it was passed, TSCA grandfathered in about 60,000 chemicals. Now, more than 80,000 chemicals are in common use. The EPA can call for safety testing only after evidence of potential danger. The EPA has been able to require testing on only about 200 chemicals, and has regulated or banned five.”

The bill would give the EPA the necessary tools to oversee safety testing of toxic chemicals. It would put the burden on industry to prove that chemicals are safe before being put in products we use in our homes and schools.

We were also mentioned in a USA Today article about Mind the Store, a campaign headed by the Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families coalition asking the top 10 retailers in the country to determine whether or not hazardous chemicals are present in the products they sell. If these retailers do sell products containing chemicals from the Hazardous 100+ List, we're asking them to develop a public action plan within the next 12 months to address these chemicals, including reducing, eliminating or safely substituting the chemicals as appropriate.

In the end, we need both market and legislative initiatives to change the landscape of chemical use in our country. Take action by telling your senator to support the Safe Chemicals Act. Its passage will reduce breast cancer incidence in our country and lead to a healthier world for future generations.

Does ExxonMobil have your senator's ear?

If you live in Louisiana, the answer is yes. But even if you don't, you might want to chat with the public officials you voted into office.

We see a lot of chemical industry shenanigans in our legislative efforts to protect people from toxic chemicals, both in Washington and in statehouses. But this is too much:

Sen. David Vitter, a Republican from Louisiana, last year opposed the Safe Chemicals Act, and pledged to write his own bill on chemical regulations. Based on reports of who he's been meeting with—Dow Chemical, ExxonMobil—and who he's not—no health or environmental groups, to our knowledge—this bill promises to be less about protecting people from toxic chemicals than about protecting chemical companies from regulation. 

Now Sen. Vitter is trying to drum up bipartisan support for his "Pro-Chemicals Act." If you're not sure where your senators stand on chemicals policy reform, now's the time to ask.

We suspect Sen. Vitter's bill will be introduced around the same time as Sen. Lautenberg reintroduces the Safe Chemicals Act—a classic case of strategic confusion. But make no mistake: the Lautenberg bill is the one that protects our health.

In fact, a recent federal advisory committee report on breast cancer points to key elements of the Safe Chemicals Act—safety standards that protect human health (and follow recommendations from the American Academy of Pediatrics), required safety reviews of new chemicals by manufacturers, action on chemicals found to be toxic—in its recommendations for breast cancer prevention.

By contrast, Sen. Vitter has gone on record opposing both the safety standard proposed in the Safe Chemicals Act and safety reviews for new chemicals.

Email or call your senator's office now and ask him or her to steer clear of Sen. Vitter's bad bill and instead support Sen. Lautenberg's Safe Chemicals Act. ExxonMobil and Sen. Vitter don't speak for us.

Congress re-introduces safe cosmetics legislation in attempt to update 1938 law

Today, Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., and Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., introduced the Safe Cosmetics and Personal Care Products Act of 2013, which would give the Food and Drug Administration authority to regulate the products we use for grooming, primping and beautifying.

Loopholes in current federal law have left the U.S. cosmetics industry basically unregulated. That means that companies can put ingredients linked to breast cancer (or any other other disease), including phthalates, 1,4-dioxane, parabens and ethylene oxide in everything from shampoo to hand soap to lipstick.

Instead of meeting public demand for truly healthier products, the cosmetics industry would prefer to maintain the status quo. In fact, the industry has spent more than $3.5 million lobbying against similar legislation, according to ABC News.

The 1938 law that currently regulates cosmetics companies has created a free-for-all—one in which consumers are the big losers. Companies essentially can put whatever they want in their products and they don’t even have to tell the public about the ingredients they use. To top it off, they can slap an organic, natural or unscented label on a product, with no oversight. As a result, the majority of chemicals in cosmetics have not been assessed for safety, and more than 500 products sold to U.S. consumers contain ingredients banned in cosmetics in Japan, Canada or the European Union, according to the Environmental Working Group.

At the Breast Cancer Fund we believe preventing exposure to environmental risk factors, including exposures to harmful chemicals in personal care products, will enable us to protect women from being diagnosed with breast cancer in the first place.

Tell your member of Congress that it’s time to fix this broken regulatory system. Take action today.

Media Roundup: Groundbreaking report on breast cancer and the environment (2/11/13- 3/7/13)

A congressionally mandated federal advisory committee of leading breast cancer experts, co-chaired by Breast Cancer Fund President and CEO Jeanne Rizzo, released a report on Feb. 12 entitled "Breast Cancer and the Environment: Prioritizing Prevention." The report could mark a turning point in how our government acts on breast cancer, and it generated the attention of more than 80 media outlets across the country including:

Courier Journal

The Philadelphia Inquirer

The China Post

WTOP-FM

HealthyCal

Los Angeles Daily News

McCarthy a strong choice for EPA chief

Today President Obama nominated Gina McCarthy to head the Environmental Protection Agency, and we at the Breast Cancer Fund think he’s made a wise decision.

Nancy Buermeyer, our senior policy strategist, said, “Based on her record of working with both Democrats and Republicans to support environmental health, Gina McCarthy is a great choice to head the Environmental Protection Agency. We encourage Congress to confirm her quickly. The Breast Cancer Fund will look to McCarthy to continue former EPA Chief Lisa Jackson’s focus on doing everything the agency can to protect the public from toxic chemicals, as well as calling on Congress to reform the broken Toxic Substances Control Act.”

According to The Washington Post’s Wonkblog, she could be President Obama’s most significant nominee.

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.)