Inside Prevention

Chemical industry shifts on BPA after spending millions to fight legislation (New York Times, 10/12/2011)

Days after California passed a ban on BPA in baby bottles and sippy cups, the American Chemistry Council—trade group for the chemical industry—declared that it was petitioning the FDA to ban the chemical from these products nationwide. It's an intriguing reversal in the ACC's history of lobbying against state and federal BPA bills (including the California ban) over the last several years.

Despite the move, the ACC still maintains that BPA is of no concern for health. We disagree.

As reported by the New York Times yesterday:

The trade group's announcement came after [Gretchen Lee] Salter, the policy manager of the Breast Cancer Fund, had spent the past six years on the frontlines of a major battle over California legislation to ban BPA from those products.

Salter's group and others were able to declare victory when Gov. Jerry Brown (D) signed A.B. 1319 into law last week -- only to see ACC say three days later that the problem does not exist.

To Salter, something didn't ring true.

"The amount of resources they poured into states trying to regulate baby bottles and sippy cups and the amount of resources they poured into California," Salter said, then paused. "To all of the sudden say, 'Folks, there is no problem here, we don't use BPA anyway.' It's this weird, almost Orwellian double speak."

ACC had doggedly insisted that BPA is safe, and the group has fought fiercely against federal and state legislative proposals to ban the chemical, which public health advocates have linked to a hormonal disruption and other developmental problems in children.

Disclosure forms shows that ACC has invested heavily in lobbying in California since 2005, when the first bill limiting BPA was introduced in the state Legislature. (Read complete article.)

Neither the California law nor the ACC petition to the FDA include canned foods or other products known to contain BPA. The Breast Cancer Fund continues to push for safe alternatives to BPA in canned foods through our Cans Not Cancer campaign and support of Rep. Ed Markey's (D, Mass.) Ban Poisonous Additives Act, currently in the U.S. House.

BPA-free baby bottles become California law

California babies have a better chance at being BPA-free, thanks to legislation signed into law yesterday by Gov. Jerry Brown. The law bans the estrogenic chemical BPA from baby bottles and sippy cups sold in the state.

California is the eleventh state to restrict BPA in baby products, adding to the mass of governmental, corporate and scientific concerns about the chemical's effect on health, even at low levels. BPA exposure is associated with a wide range of adverse health effects, including breast and prostate cancer, birth defects, infertility in men, early puberty in girls, diabetes and obesity.

Because of BPA's link to breast cancer in lab studies, the Breast Cancer Fund has been advocating to get it out of consumer products for the last six years: We've supported the new California law through previous iterations in 2008, 2009 and 2010; we're working with Congress on federal bills that take aim at BPA in kids' products as well as BPA in food-related products for all ages; we've done research that demonstrates the close link between our eating habits and our BPA exposure; and we recently launched a market-based effort to get BPA out of canned goods.

All to say, we're thrilled California has finally taken this important step to make sure ALL babies in the states are protected from BPA in their baby bottles. While the big bottle manufacturers have already moved away from BPA because of consumer concerns, only a law like this can guarantee that all stores, from health food stores to dollar stores—regardless of the brands they carry— stock only safe products.

Clearly, though, this new law isn't our endgame. We took aim at baby bottles and sippy cups first because babies are most vulnerable to the effects of chemicals like BPA. But there's still BPA in baby food jar lids and cans of ready-to-feed formula. And older children, pregnant women, and women and men of all ages are almost certain to be exposed to BPA on a daily basis, and susceptible to the chemical's effects, too.

Our aim: a BPA-free dinner table for all ages, all income levels, all degrees of BPA-savvy and all states. This is a start; help us get further.

New evidence adds to case against bisphenol A (San Francisco Chronicle, 9/21/2011)

An editorial in the San Francisco Chronicle highlights two BPA topics that the Breast Cancer Fund supports: passage of California's Toxin-Free Infants and Toddlers Act (AB 1319), which now awaits Gov. Brown's signature; and our new BPA in Kids' Canned Food report.

The editorial points out that legislation around baby bottles and sippy cups are helpful, but not enough to protect children from BPA exposures:

There is no reason to have that chemical in baby products when safer alternatives are readily available. Brown should sign SB1319 to limit infants' BPA exposure, as 11 states have done in recent years, while lobbyists for the chemical and canning industries have been deflecting California BPA bills in each of the three previous years.

The real issue is whether the California Legislature went far enough. The bill originally would have extended the ban to infant food containers - specifically formula - but that provision was deleted to increase the chances of passage. And even that restriction may have been insufficient to protect children.

A report being released today by the Breast Cancer Fund showed disturbing levels of BPA in canned foods marketed for children. The fund commissioned an independent laboratory testing of a dozen popular canned foods - and all tested positive for the presence of BPA, which is used in the epoxy coatings in the inner lining of cans. (Read complete article.)

Study: BPA, methylparaben block breast cancer drugs (San Francisco Chronicle, 9/13/2011)

For years, the Breast Cancer Fund has advocated to eliminate BPA (in hard plastics and can linings) and parabens (in cosmetics) from consumer products because of their links to breast cancer risk. Now we have new evidence that BPA and methylparaben not only spur normal human breast cells to behave like cancer cells, they also resist the cancer-inhibiting effects of the drug tamoxifen.

Our CEO Jeanne Rizzo spoke to the San Francisco Chronicle about this new research from California Pacific Medical Center:

Jeanne Rizzo, chief executive officer of the Breast Cancer Fund, a San Francisco advocacy group, said the study shows that BPA and methylparaben have a triggering effect when it comes to cancer. The next step, she said, has to be for consumers to demand changes that reduce environmental exposure to these chemicals.

A bill sitting on the governor's desk would ban BPA in sippy cups and baby bottles manufactured or sold in California. AB1319 was authored by Assemblywoman Betsy Butler, D-Los Angeles.

This research is sharp warning to consumer, legislators, manufacturers and researchers alike. As the Chronicle article explains:

Since most breast cancers are driven by the hormone estrogen, the bulk of the drugs used to treat breast cancer are designed to knock down estrogen. BPA and methylparaben not only mimic estrogen's ability to drive cancer, but appear to be even better than the natural hormone in bypassing the ability of drugs to treat it, [lead researcher Dr. William] Goodson said. (Read complete article.)

California legislature must pass bisphenol A bill (San Francisco Chronicle, 4/1/2011)

The editorial board of the San Francisco Chronicle has been following the issue of BPA in California for some time, and today they fit our new study into the state's legislative puzzle:

The disgrace of the California Legislature's failure to protect infants and toddlers from a hormone-disrupting chemical was brought into sharp relief with a new study that showed the extent to which its use as a food container reaches the human system.

...

Those findings take on one of the chemical and can-manufacturing industries' arguments against legislation to ban the chemical from baby bottles, formula-can liners and other products aimed at children under 3. Those companies lobbied furiously last year to kill SB797, arguing that both the levels of exposure and danger from it were minuscule. (Read complete article)

A disappointing result for California

After two years of hard work by countless nonprofits and leadership from the Breast Cancer Fund, today we unfortunately had to oppose regulations set forth by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) outlining what was supposed to be a groundbreaking Green Chemistry Initiative in California.

No one is more disappointed than us. We had hoped that our work with government officials would ensure that the Green Chemistry Initiative in California would be one of the best consumer protection programs in the nation against toxic chemicals in our products. But these just-announced regulations are anything but protective.

From cleaning products to food cans, from cosmetics to furniture, we are surrounded by chemicals—including those linked to breast cancer—that have been virtually unregulated. That's why environmental, health and consumer groups joined together in 2008 to pass two laws (collectively known as the Green Chemistry Initiative) that promised to minimize or eliminate the use of cancer-causing and other toxic chemicals in our everyday products and to promote green businesses and green alternatives.

The initiative held the promise of a day when individuals could go to the store and have confidence that the products they bought would be safe and healthy for their families.

But after fierce lobbying from the chemical and manufacturing industries, the final set of regulations do exactly the opposite of protecting consumers and promoting green business. These regulations are fundamentally flawed because they:

1. do not meet the intent of the original green chemistry law (AB 1879), which calls for the development of safer alternatives based on inherent hazard rather than how much of a chemical is "OK";
2. force government to compile evidence of harm rather than requiring industry to prove safety; and
3. introduce a number of potential loopholes that industry can use to prevent the government from taking action on harmful products and chemicals.

Luckily, there’s still hope. A new administration lands in Sacramento on January 3, 2011, led by Governor-elect Jerry Brown, and you can bet we'll be asking him to protect California consumers by implementing an innovative and comprehensive Green Chemistry Initiative—as it was meant to be.

California aims to remove toxins in products (Associated Press, 11/21/2010)

The Associated Press shines a rare light on an innovative (we hope) program taking shape in the Golden State: the California Green Chemistry Initiative. The program's goal: to protect Californians from toxic chemicals in a wide range of consumer products, not specific to one chemical or one product category. Instead, the idea was to spur innovation in green chemistry solutions--those that are good for the health of people and planet.

"It's really important for this to get off on the right track," said Assemblyman Mike Feuer, D-Los Angeles, who authored the bill, saying it "could be a whole new model for how we break the link between toxic chemicals and cancer and other serious diseases." (Read complete article.)

Way back when, the Breast Cancer Fund helped secure passage of two state laws that created the initiative in 2008. We've been at the table throughout implementation, most recently rallying public comment on a draft version of the program before a Nov. 1 deadline. The chemical industry, not surprisingly, has been lobbying to weaken the regulations. The final version of the program is due sometime next month.

Formaldehyde prompts Brazilian Blowout recall effort, Calif. AG lawsuit

Those smooth, straight locks promised by expensive salon applications of a product called Brazilian Blowout sound like a dream come true for many women. In actuality, Brazilian Blowout products recently tested by Oregon OSHA and Health Canada were as much as 8 to 12 percent formaldehyde.

Formaldehyde is a known human carcinogen. While we don't have evidence of a breast cancer connection, formaldehyde is linked to leukemia, lung cancer, nasal cancer, asthma, miscarriage and other serious or life-threatening health problems. Even the cosmetics industry's own safety panel recommends formaldehyde concentration in cosmetics not to exceed 0.2 percent.

Though the governments of Canada and Ireland were quick to act on the Brazilian Blowout tests, the U.S. FDA hasn't done a thing. On Tuesday our Campaign for Safe Cosmetics launched a public effort to convince the FDA to issue a voluntary recall (the agency can't issue a mandatory recall under current law) of Brazilian Blowout products.

And yesterday the California Attorney General's office filed a lawsuit against California-based Brazilian Blowout for violating Prop. 65 and falsely claiming its products to be "safe" and even labeling some "formaldehyde free."

According to California Watch, the lawsuit also "marks the first time the state has sued to enforce reporting requirements under its safe cosmetics law, a novel system requiring cosmetics makers to submit reports about harmful chemicals."

That "novel" law was the California Safe Cosmetics Act of 2005, the Breast Cancer Fund's first major victory in our work for safe cosmetics. Today we're cheering that the law that we - and you - helped pass is, in turn, helping California protect its citizens.

Now, five years later, we have our sights set on passing the federal Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010, which will protect all Americans from toxic products like Brazilian Blowout. In the meantime, join our recall effort!

Calif. Senate fails to protect babies from BPA

Minutes before midnight on August 31, California’s dream of becoming the eighth state to restrict BPA died on the floor of the state Senate. A late-night vote on a bill that would have banned BPA from all infant food containers fell two votes short of passage. This same bill had already passed the Senate last year, but faced a challenge during this year’s concurrence vote, as two senators who had been strong supporters of the bill were ill and not able to make it back to Sacramento for the final vote.

The Breast Cancer Fund is deeply disappointed by this loss. In the seven states that have voted to restrict BPA, both Republicans and Democrats have joined together to protect children. So why did California not step forward to protect children from this toxic chemical? Could it have to do with the intensive and expensive lobbying campaign by the chemical and pharmaceutical industries? It’s a sad day in California when big money trumps the health of babies.

Luckily, children’s health does not depend on California alone. In addition to the seven states that have already acted to restrict BPA, now Congress is poised to take action, and innovative companies are voluntarily removing BPA from their products.

Read the Breast Cancer Fund’s statement on the loss in California, and why this loss won’t stop the momentum to reduce our exposure to this toxic chemical linked to breast cancer.

New studies confirm BPA in receipts, while NY bans chem from baby bottles

Two forms of progress on the bisphenol A front in recent weeks, with the good news first:

On Friday, New York's Gov. Paterson signed into law a ban on BPA in baby bottles, sippy cups, pacifiers and straws. Borrowing from our friends at Clean New York, "New York is now the seventh state - and by far the largest in both population and economy - to pass phase out of BPA in young children's products, joining Connecticut, Maryland, Minnesota, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin."

Kids' exposures to BPA have been a top priority for advocates across the country because their developing bodies are especially sensitive to the chemical's estrogenic effects. With so many states now on board, we're hopeful that Congress will fast-track the issue, too.

And now the less-good news. New tests confirm what we've known but had little data on: BPA is on cash register receipts printed on thermal paper, the type widely used in ATMs, gas pumps, grocery stores and other retailers. Cashiers are particularly at risk.

But as the Washington Post reported last week, there's some good coming of this news. For one, the EPA is pushing register paper suppliers to find alternative coatings that don't contain BPA. And because the largest U.S. supplier of such papers has already ditched BPA, we know it's possible. While upsetting, these new tests could spur quick change that reduces our overall BPA exposure. Every bit counts.