Inside Prevention

Domino effect: more states move to restrict BPA

For those of us who care about public health and chemical safety, the progress of the campaign against bisphenol A is like watching the electoral map on Election Night, waiting for another state to change color. For the chemical industry, it must feel like the story of the Dutch boy and the dike – every time they try to plug a leak, another bursts through.

The movement to ban or restrict BPA – the hormone-disrupting carcinogen found in hard plastics like baby bottles and sports water bottles, and in food can linings – is spreading from the West Coast to the Midwest to the Eastern Seaboard, and across the Atlantic to Europe. Bans on BPA in baby bottles and some other children’s products are in place in Minnesota, Connecticut, Chicago and three counties in New York.

Last week, Wisconsin and Maryland took big steps toward banning BPA in baby bottles and sippy cups for children age 3 and under. Wisconsin’s bill passed the state Assembly 95-2, and having already passed the state Senate unanimously, is headed this week to the desk of Gov. Jim Doyle, who is expected to sign it.  Maryland’s bill passed the House 137-0, and is headed to the Senate, where its sponsor believes it has “a good chance this year.”

"Today, we are putting the safety and well‐being of citizens before corporate profits," Wisconsin State Rep. Kelda Helen Roys, the bill’s co-sponsor, told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. 

Unfortunately, the chemical industry’s $10 million lobbying campaign did succeed in getting lawmakers in both Wisconsin and Marland to weaken the bills so they do not ban or restrict BPA in the sports water bottles used by adults. That’s also the case in Washington state, where different versions of legislation banning BPA in baby bottles have passed the House and Senate, but the differences must be reconciled before the bill can be sent to Gov. Christine Gregoire.

Meanwhile, the Danish Parliament moved earlier this month to expand Denmark’s ban on BPA in baby bottles to include all food contact packaging materials for products aimed at children, including packaging used for infant formulas as well as foods and soft drinks aimed at toddlers. The Parliament also called on the Danish government to press for a European Union-wide moratorium on the use and sale of food contact materials with BPA.

So where’s the U.S. Congress in all this? Playing catch-up. Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California and Rep. Edward Markey of Massachusetts have introduced legislation, supported by the Breast Cancer Fund, to ban BPA in all food and beverage containers, but the bills have not yet had either committee hearings or floor votes. Stay tuned.

California signals intent to add BPA to state's toxics list

California's Environmental Protection Agency today made a critical move in adding bisphenol A to the state's Prop. 65 list of chemicals known to cause cancer or birth defects.

Cal EPA said on its Web site today that BPA "appears to meet the criteria for listing as known to the State to cause reproductive toxicity." The agency is now soliciting public comments (add your thoughts!) regarding listing BPA.

The upside for Californians is that once BPA is listed, manufacturers and retailers may have to disclose the presence of BPA in products they sell in California.

The upside for residents of other states? In many cases, manufacturers have chosen to remove Prop. 65 chemicals from their products rather than label them, which could mean safer products nationwide.

You might recall that last summer the state failed to list BPA on Prop. 65 through a hearing process, of which the Breast Cancer Fund and some of our amazing advocates were a part. This new listing opportunity was put into motion via a different Prop. 65 process by our colleagues at the Natural Resources Defense Council.

It's yet another knock for BPA, a chemical that doesn't belong in our food, our drinks or our kids' bottles.

Bill sponsor sees support for BPA ban (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 1/6/2010)

Could Wisconsin become the latest state to ban BPA from baby bottles and sippy cups? The bill's sponsor thinks so, as reported yesterday:

The sponsor of a state bill to ban bisphenol A in baby bottles and sippy cups said Wednesday she is confident there is enough support to institute such a ban in Wisconsin.

State Sen. Julie Lassa (D-Stevens Point) said a Senate committee vote on the matter could come in the next few weeks. (Read complete article.)

Wisconsin is one of dozens of states, counties and cities nationwide that have considered laws to limit human exposure to this estrogenic chemical. Alongside these efforts, the Breast Cancer Fund is working on a proposal now in Congress that would enact a nationwide ban on BPA in food and beverage containers. So no matter where you live in the U.S., you can voice your support for protection from BPA.

California Assembly protects industry instead of infants

On September 11, the California Assembly failed to pass SB 797, which would have banned toxic bisphenol A, or BPA, from plastic baby bottles, sippy cups and the lining of infant formula cans.

Who fought for this bill? An impressive and diverse coalition that included the Breast Cancer Fund, Environmental Working Group, Physicians for Social Responsibility, California Women Infants and Children (WIC), Moms Rising, NRDC, the California Teachers Association and the California Labor Council, and thousands of concerned people—perhaps including you.

Who fought against this bill? The chemical and infant-formula industries, which waged a lobbying campaign like nothing we’ve seen before in Sacramento.

Who did the majority-Democratic Assembly listen to? Sadly, the lack of votes needed to pass the bill answers that question.

But there is good news. The bill may be taken up again next year and, in the meantime, the movement away from this toxic chemical grows in strength and pace. As our policy manager Gretchen Lee Salter put it, "It's sobering that our Assembly did not act to protect the millions of California babies and toddlers who are exposed to BPA every day. But the tide has turned against this toxic chemical, and other states, Congress, and innovative companies are leading the way. Hopefully, California will catch up."

So, we say THANK YOU to all who joined us in supporting this bill, and we say ONWARD!

Moms to Calif. state Assembly: We want BPA-free kids!

On Wednesday morning, over 100 California moms, kids and health  advocates gathered on the steps of the State Capitol in support of banning the synthetic estrogen BPA from feeding products designed for children 3 years old and younger.

Following the rally, the kids, wearing "Make Me BPA-Free!" t-shirts, joined their mothers in visiting Assemblymember offices to deliver messages in BPA-free baby bottles, encouraging their support for SB797.

“Our message to the Assembly is clear: We can’t wait any longer to protect kids,” said Gretchen Lee Salter, policy manager at the Breast Cancer Fund. “No matter what the chemical industry says, scientists, health professionals and parents insist that synthetic hormones have no place in baby food and beverage products.”

Meanwhile, the chemical industry continues their intense public relations blitz to fight efforts to restrict BPA. An investigation by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel revealed a well-funded campaign by the chemical industry to fight legislation, downplay BPA’s risks, and discredit any efforts to warn the public of the dangers of BPA.

The Assembly is scheduled to vote on this important legislation as early as next week. Join the Breast Cancer Fund and concerned Californians in taking action to support for SB797!

View the Breast Cancer Fund's press release on the Sacramento rally.

Toxic baby bottle swap in L.A. tomorrow

As reported by the L.A. Times, you can stop by St. John’s Well Family & Child Center in Los Angeles tomorrow and trade your old, toxic (BPA-containing) baby bottle for a BPA-free bottle.

Why are we giving away baby bottles? Although BPA (bisphenol A) is a synthetic estrogen linked to increased breast cancer risk, it's used in many brands of baby bottles. Babies' growing bodies are especially sensitive to the chemical's hormone-disrupting effects, which may not show up until they're adults. We want BPA out of kids' bottles and bodies!

Also at the bottle exchange will be Dr. Harvey Karp, world-renowned pediatrician and author of “The Happiest Baby on the Block,” along with advocates of California Senate Bill 797, a piece of legislation sponsored by Sen. Fran Pavley that would ban BPA from baby bottles and other food and beverage containers for kids 3 and under.

The Breast Cancer Fund, a co-sponsor of the bill, will be there, too. You can get all the details on Facebook (you don't need to be a member to view the information), but here's the basics:

Date: Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Time: 10 to 11:30 a.m.
Location: St. John’s Well Family & Child Center at Magnolia Place
Street: 1910 S. Magnolia Avenue
City/Town: Los Angeles, CA

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.

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.