Search Consumer Health
Newsfeed
Submit news[release]
General health News
Get to know importance of water
Water for Life USA KYK Harmony Water Ionizer
More than 100 credit cards available at uscards.com 
|
|
|
Last Updated: Apr 18, 2008 - 12:51:37 PM |
Friday April 18, 2008 (foodconsumer.org) -- John Baird, Minister of the Environment on April 18 announced that the Canadian government is soliciting comments from the public for a period of 60 days on whether to ban the importation, sale and advertising of polycarbonate baby bottles which contain bisphenol A.
The decision came after the country completed a risk assessment of bisphenol A. The comment period will begin today April 19, 2008 and a summary notice of the risk assessment findings will be published in Canada Gazette Part 1.
In response to the risk assessment findings, Health Canada will initiate a screening assessment of bisphenol A for Canadians of all ages, but the focus will be on its impact on newborns and infants up to 18 months.
It's determined that polycarbonate baby bottles and cans of infant formula are the major sources of exposure for newborns and infants. Although scientists concluded that exposure of newborns and infants to bisphenol A is below levels that trigger an effect, the gap between exposure and effect is not large enough.
That finding is what has triggered the Canadian government to propose to reduce bisphenol A exposure in infants and newborns. Actions to take include banning polycarbonate baby bottles, developing stringent migration targets for bisphenol A in infant formula cans and working with the industry to develop alternative food packaging among other things.
According to Environment Canada, scientists have found at low levels, bisphenol A, which can be also found in wastewater and sludge treatment plants, can harm fish aquatic organisms over time.
In response, Wal-Mart Canada and many of Canada's largest retailers are reportedly to remove food-related items made of polycarbonate plastics which contain bisphenol A including baby bottles, toddler-sipping cups and food containers from their stores this week, The New York Times reported.
But Wal-Mart operations in the United States have no definite plan to remove any bisphenol A containing products. The company was quoted as saying in a statement "We are working to expand our BPA-free offerings and expect the entire assortment of baby bottles to be BPA-free sometime early next year."
Also in response to the Canadian government’s finding that bisphenol A is toxic, Nalgene announced that it will stop using the hard, clear and unbreakable polycarbonate plastic for water bottles because of growing concerns over bisphenol A.
But Nalgene Outdoor Products, a unit of Thermo Fisher Scientific said the move does not mean the company agrees on the notion that polycarbonate plastic is unsafe. Rather, the decision was made in response to the demand of consumers who increasingly prefer bisphenol A free water bottles.
But the industry have said that there is no evidence suggesting that bisphenol A is unsafe, meaning by the industry’s logic that the chemical is safe for use.
Today, the American Chemical Council, an industry group representing leading chemical companies, posted a statement on its website saying that "Consistent with the safety evaluations conducted by many other scientific and government bodies, the draft assessment released today by Health Canada confirms that health risks to the general population in Canada from exposure to bisphenol A are negligible."
In the United States, the National Toxicology Program, an agency under the Department of Health and Human Services released on Tuesday a 68-page final draft brief saying that "there is some concern for neural and behavioral effects in fetuses, infants, and children at current human exposures. The NTP also has some concern for bisphenol A exposure in these populations based on effects in the prostate gland, mammary gland, and an earlier age for puberty in females."
But the U.S. health agency also says that exposure of pregnant women to bisphenol A is unlikely to result in fetal or neonatal mortality, birth defects, or reduced birth weight and growth in their offspring and exposure of adults to the chemical through non-occupational routes is unlikely to cause adverse reproductive effects. The concern is minimal for workers exposed to higher levels in occupational settings.
The U.S. assessment drew attention from the Environmental Working Group, a not-for-profit organization that promotes environmental health. The EWP sent a commentary letter to Dr. Michael D. Shelby, Director of the Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction (CERHR), which initiated the NTP draft on bisphenol A and its toxicity, suggesting that the report may downplay the potential hazards of the chemical to the public.
In the letter, Anila Jacob, M.D. pointed out a few facts that may have led to biased assessment on the risk of bisphenol A. For one thing, the report was drafted by a company known as Sciences International, which may be a conflict of interest as some employees were tied to the industry. Also the report left out more studies from the government and not-for-profit organizations than the industry studies. Significant studies on effects of infant formula cans were ignored, according to Jacob.
The American Chemistry Council sent a letter yesterday to FDA Commissioner Andrew von Eschenback to request an assessment by the agency on the safety of bisphenol A in food contact applications.
"We hope that the leading regulatory agency charged with protecting the public's health, including evaluating the safety of food containers, will put to rest questions about the safety of bisphenol-a," the group said.
But Dr. Jocob said bisphenol A experts have raised serious concerns about potential human health impacts from exposure to the chemical. Thirty eight experts who convened under the sponsorship of the Department of Health in November 2006 released a comprehensive consensus statement regarding bisphenol's toxicity and determined that exposure to the chemical is a risk to human health.
© 2004-2008 by foodconsumer.org unless otherwise specified
Top of Page
|
|
|
|