If you are a frequent reader, you know that I have made it a goal to educate as many people as I can about two things: Bisphenol-A and media manipulation.  I am about to write about the convergence of the two: the minutes from a meeting held by major corporations, whose purpose was to discuss how best to change the perception of BPA, were released and they aren’t pretty.

In the meeting, which was attended by Coca-Cola, Grocery Manufacturer’s Association (a lobbying group), and Del Monte, amongst others, it was discussed how to get people to not believe the data that shows that BPA is harmful.  The strategy: FEAR.  But I will get to that in a moment.

I want to first remind everyone about Bisphenol-A, or BPA, as it is more commonly known.  This is an additive used in the manufacture of plastic and canned goods.  For plastic, it is used during the synthesis of the plastic into components like water and baby bottles, toys, to-go food containers, and other similar items.  In canned goods, it is used as a liner, to limit the contact between the food or drink item and the metal materials used to make the can.

BPA came onto the scene in the 1930’s and has grown to be a $6-10 billion industry.  Even though there were indications when it was first manufactured, growing concern of the effects to the body increased in the 1990’s.  This is when some of the first studies came to light about the possible estrogenic effects of the component onto the body.

Data is conclusive that BPA is a hormone mimicker.  This means when it enters our system, the body interprets it as estrogen and reacts accordingly.  This has increased cancers, created premature reproductive development, sterility, and the feminization of males.  It has a greater influence on the bodies of children, which is why having it in baby bottles and toys, makes it so detrimental.  They have found that BPA leaches into every product that is stored in the various containers, and is transferred to our bodies.  In fact, 95% of all Americans have BPA in their blood stream and urine.

There is a lot of conflict about the research into BPA, so I will try to make it as understandable as possible.  Everyone should know that BPA has been approved for use by the Food and Drug Administration.  Since that time, there have been independent research studies that call into question the data used in approval of the chemical.  Aside from conflicting results, more importantly, there is evidence of negligent activity on the part of the FDA.  First, they approved BPA using two non-multi-generational studies that were funded by the American Chemical Council, who are the same folks that make money off of BPA.  Secondly, the FDA also allowed the American Chemical Council to write the safety and efficacy reports affiliated with the approval documentation.  Bottom line, there are allegations that FDA knowingly approved an unsafe chemical because it best served corporate interest instead of citizen interest.

In light of the new evidence, and because of consumer awareness, many countries, including the United States, have or are looking into legislation that bans the use of BPA.  One catch, the are banning it in bottles.  Most people are unaware that BPA is used in canned goods; sodas, soups, canned fruits and vegetables.  These are all lined with BPA.

Which brings us to the topic at hand.

Last week, a meeting was held sponsored by the North American Metal Packaging Alliance, Inc.  Attendees, including Coca Cola and Del Monte, “discussed the need to be more proactive in communications to media, legislators, and the general public to protect industries that use BPA, prolong the life of BPA, put risks from chemicals in proper prospective, and transcend the media and the blogosphere.”

The meeting minutes were obtained and released by EnviroBlog and Environmental Working Group.  Excerpts are as follows:

- Attendees suggested using fear tactics (e.g. “Do you want to have
access to baby food anymore?”)

- The committee doubts obtaining a scientific spokesperson is attainable.  Their “holy grail” spokesperson would be a “pregnant young mother who would be willing to speak around the country about the benefits of BPA.”

- The members are focusing on more legislative battles and befriending people that are able to manipulate the legislative process.

- Focusing on the impact of BPA bans on minorities (Hispanic and African American) and poor is also important.

There is much more to the three page long minutes, but you get the idea.

Here it is, in black and white, big corporations discussing how to manipulate the consumers to use something that is harmful to themselves and their children because it might hurt their bank account.

Bottom line, I believe that these companies do not care about you.  When you see advertising, I think it is important for everyone to understand, that the executives have made the decision that the particular campaign is felt to be the most effective way to convince you to buy the product, so that they make more and more money, but they don’t really believe or stand behind that advertising.  It is manipulation to get you to buy, buy, buy.

And this is the most abhorrent version of that.  They are going to manipulate you and your family to putting poison into your body for the good of their pocket books.

Coca-Cola products:  Coke, Sprite, Dasani, MinuteMaid, Bacardi, Fanta, Dr. Pepper, Nestea

Del Monte: Del Monte, S&W, Contadina, 9Lives, MilkBone

To refresh your memory…  the FDA approved BPA for use in the manufacture of plastics and to line the aluminum surface of canned products after TWO studies (that we funded by the American Chemistry Council). They decided to ignore the HUNDREDS of studies that indicated the harm BPA could cause in humans, especially children, because it acts as a hormone mimicker in our bodies, increasing cancers and other problems, such as sterility.

Bisphenol A is found in the blood of nearly every American tested, and is used to make hard, clear plastics for food containers, dental sealants and the sealants that line food and beverage cans.

You may be doing everything possible to prevent ingestion of BPA, in your own home.  But, please do not assume you are not getting exposed.  You have no idea how restaurants, and the like, are getting their ingredients for recipes, and they may not have the option of NOT buying a huge can of tomatoes, for example, from their vendor.

The bottom line, BPA is bad for you.  That is why an international consortium of scientists has gone on record to reject the FDA’s approval of the chemical, per the Milwaukee Sentinal Journal.

According to the report, and this is very important that you read this:

Speakers at the conference included Rochelle Tyl, the author of the two studies that are being used as the FDA’s benchmarks. Both of Tyl’s studies were paid for by the American Chemistry Council, a trade association for BPA makers.

According to scientists at the meeting, Tyl conceded that there were errors and inconsistencies in the 2008 report that the FDA used as the foundation for its findings.

and then there is this:

Tyl told the Journal Sentinel in an e-mail that her studies do not claim that BPA is safe. Her studies were not designed to cover all aspects of the chemical’s effects. They simply show no effects to the reproductive system of rats and mice that were exposed to the chemical at low doses, she said.

Despite all of this… the FDA is still, currently, holding strong.  

I could go on about the political tie to food safety, big agri-business and government entities.  I think what is important to remember is that the production on BPA results in a $6 billion profit for the chemical companies, much of that they turn around and give to your politicians to ensure election.  Those politicians want to come back next year, and the year after, so they allow those companies to win over you the consumer.

The best, and only thing, you can do is make sure you know what you are putting into you and your family’s bodies.  All studies indicate that this stuff is bad, bad, bad.  Please stop the genocide we are conducting on our children.

We have already discussed, at length, the addition of Bisphenol-A and phthalates to a variety of items and the affect they are having on our infants and children.  Now, scientists have identified two food additives that could be possible hormone mimickers, as well: propyl gallate and 4-hexyl resorcinol, according to Environmental Health News.

In the study, the scientists used computer models to test 1500 chemicals for estrogen mimicking properties, which brought the potential culprits down to thirteen.  When those thirteen were exposed to cells, two of them (listed above) were confirmed as “xenoestrogens”.

Propyl gallate is the more common additive which is used to prevent fats and oils from spoiling that can be found in a range of foods including baked goods, shortening, dried meats, candy, fresh pork sausage, mayonnaise and dried milk.  4-hexyl resorcinol is a chemical used to prevent shrimp, lobster and other shellfish from discoloring.

It is important to note that of the 3000 food additives used none of them are required to go through stringent testing, per the FDA.  In fact, just over half that have actually been tested for toxicology reports.  

Globally, the market for additives is expected to reach more than $33 billion by 2012. There are five main reasons that companies add compounds to food: to emulsify, to preserve, to add nutritional content, to add flavor or color and to balance alkalinity and acids.

 

“With some 3,000 compounds being used in food formulations there may be other additives with estrogenic properties that come to light with these types of studies,” Hicks said.

 

Using the traditional animal testing system, “it would be impossible to test all of the additives in a short time,” Cozzini said. “Every day we discover new molecules, and we must continue to identify new ways to study them.”

This comes on the heels of the House vote (76-21) to ban BPA in baby bottles and sippy cups.  As well as the move by major retail chains (Babys’R'us and Target) to stop selling the products.

It should be noted that this is a voluntary move by the manufacturers.  However, and this is a big HOWEVER, they are NOT going to stop using BPA in products sold overseas.  

I don’t know about you, but I kind of read this like… Americans deserve to not be poisoned.  Foreigners, not so much.

Thoughts?

You can go to many a link on this page about High Fructose Corn Syrup or Crystalline Fructose and read about the disease issues related to both of these chemicals…. (yes, CHEMICALS.  Make no mistake about it, despite what the Corn Bureau may say, these are chemicals.  They are not natural. They are not “just like sugar”).  To continue… first off, sodas are bad because of HFCS and the associated diseases.

However, I have a second, and maybe a more important reason why I am on my knees begging you to stop.  And, even if you do not want to stop, if you have a child… please have them stop.

Tests find Bisphenol A in majority of soft drinks: controversial chemical found in at least 84% of canned soda, with highest levels in energy drinks

I have written about the dangers of BPA and you can go to the dedicated section to read more.  But to summarize:

1.) BPA is used in the synthesis of plastic to make it more flexible.  It is used in canned goods as a “protective” liner to stop contact between the content and the metal.

2.) BPA is known to leach during heat (in plastic) and under acidic conditions (metal). (Sodas and energy drinks are HIGHLY acidic materials).

3.) BPA is a known hormone mimicker causing serious developmental problems in children leading to diseases such as cancer, insulin resistance, sterility, other fertility related illnesses such as spontaneous miscarriages, and the list goes on.

4.) In studies, it has been found to cross the blood brain barrier, resulting in cancers in less than 30 days of exposure

In other words, this is a chemical that we are all exposed to, however, due to its influence during developmental stages children are more affected by it than adults. There has been a push to create BPA free baby bottles and toys, which is great and necessary.

Until now, there had been very little research done on its levels in soda.  

I can’t tell you what to do or how to raise your children.  I will tell you that I think in America we are not only in an epidemic of obesity and food related illnesses, but we are harming our children in ways unimaginable.  Children today are exposed to much more than anything even 20 years ago… and I am not talking about racy music videos. I do feel it is up to the parents to stop being friends and start being parents, again, to their children and take control of how they eat and drink.

If someone doesn’t start acting soon, it may be too late.

Critical Windows of Development was created by Theo Colburn, who is most often credited with the discovery of hormone mimicking chemicals, stating that she created the site as a way to “give scientists, policymakers, journalists and others immediate access to the information in a user-friendly, visually interesting way.”

When a Critical Windows user chooses a chemical, red lines appear on a timeline, displaying the areas of development where effects have been found in laboratory animals exposed to low doses. Clicking on a triangle retrieves a summary of each study, which then leads to direct access to the published article in a scientific journal.

The site shows how normal development should occur versus results obtained in lab results of development in the presence of these various chemicals, like BPA and phthalates.  It does focus on human gestation and compares to results found in mice gestation.

The site has links to where you can get the latest news, how you can contact the EPA and other agencies to ask for change, and all the definitions of the chemicals and the products they can be found in.  This is seriously the most comprehensive site for anyone concerned about the health of their babies and the impact from environmental factors. 

To read more about how to interpret results, please go to Environmental Health News.

Researchers from the Univeristy of Rochester in NY have found that Bisphenol-A lingers in the body longer than first expected.  The significance of which is that the longer the chemical is in the body, the more likely it is to cause harm, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

Most often BPA is transferred to the body through plastic products like water bottles, baby bottles, re-usable food storage containers, and the like.  This study found that the transfer can also occur through plastic water pipes, like those that might be found in your home, and dust off of carbonless paper, for example a receipt.

The American Chemistry Council still maintains that BPA is safe.  There has been a lot of debate in the various studies of the safety of Bisphenol-A.  Arguments for safety is that the studies that had the largest sample population, therefore the study deemed statistically significant, has shown the chemical to be safe.  However, these studies were done by the chemical companies making the product, which is a $6 billion per year chemical.  Many of the independent studies, performed by chemical researchers throughout the world, have shown time after time that BPA results in cancers, genital deformities, sterility, brain disorders, and the list goes on.

This latest data indicates that either people are being constantly bombarded with exposure to BPA, from non-food sources, or they are storing the chemical in their fat cells and are unable to effectively rid them from their bodies.  Either way, if you believe the data that this chemical is dangerous, this does not bode well for the future health of the human population.

I have felt this for a long time.  I have made a point in my life to fully understand science, specifically the science and health behind global warming.  With each article I read about children’s exposure to chemicals, or increase in unnecessary diseases like diabetes and asthma, or the growing concern over food shortages or the decline of water, I make the logical conclusion that who will be most affected by these issues is our children.

I have spent much of my time on this site being polite; trying to educate and hoping that the public starts to understand the severity of climate destabilization. But that hasn’t seemed to be effective.  I used to worry about saying things controversial. I was apologetic to my friends with children when I hinted at my theories.  However, as I think about it more and more, I can’t help but think that this one is accurate.  

So, I decided to look up the legal definition:

 - Any recent act, or failure to act, on the part of a parent or caretaker which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse or exploitation; or

 - An act or failure to act which presents an imminent risk of serious harm.

So, I ask you, do you not see how not doing everything imaginable to change how we are currently living is a form of child abuse?

The act or failure to act which results in death or serious physical harm.  

This site has spent a lot of time writing about phthalates, bisphenol-a, food shortages, water shortages, and air quality.  In many cases, especially the cases of toxic poisoning, study after study has shown the negative impact to children through premature cancers, genital deformities, male extinction, and the list goes on.  

If the result of such acts is physical harm to a child then I conclude that by using the products that contain chemicals that are known to hurt infants, you are abusing your child.

If a parent would go to jail for purposefully starving their child, then I argue by not providing your child with the best food in the present, and ensuring high quality of food in the future, you are abusing your child.

If you, as a parent, were to find out that a neighbor had done something inappropriate to your child, you would go after that neighbor with all of your force.  But, when your neighbor drives an SUV, polluting the air and creating a place where your child can’t live, you let it go by without a second glance.  You and your neighbor are negatively impacting the future of your child and that is neglect and abuse.

I can probably come up with an argument to prove in many cases that you are inflicting abuse on your child, or neighbors child, by your lifestyle.  It is quite pathetic that there is some level of acceptable abuse that we put onto the children of this world.  We have made a silent assent that convenience is more important than your child’s health.  We have made a silent assent that corporations can manipulate us into buying harmful products and that we will not hold them accountable.  We have made a silent assent that we will not demand that we, as a community, are accountable and responsible to future generations.

You are going to argue that child abuse is violent and sexual, by nature.  And, I would come back to you and ask you to read the legal definition.  Read it over and over and over again until it sinks in.  Anything you do (or fail to prevent) that causes physical harm or damage is abuse.  Being passive and ill-informed is not an valid defense.

By exposing your child to something that is toxic, causing physical harm is abuse.  By not investigating everything you bring into your home to ensure that it does not harm your child is neglect.

My hope is that I make you angry.  I don’t care if it is being angry at me, or angry at some corporation, or angry at our government or angry at yourself.  Be angry.  Anger is the place in which people tend to start doing something. I want you to get so angry that you start learning more and researching, in a way to defend your actions, because you will find that the science backs me up.   I want you to get so angry that you learn everything you can about global warming, find out that this is real, that we are in a dire position, and learn that every action you take is not inconsequential. 

I want you to get so angry that you prove me wrong, because in all honesty, I want to stop caring about your child, since you seem to not care about them.

The article is long, about eight pages, so as always below are some excerpts.  But in all seriousness, this is an amazing write-up.  Please give David Case (the author) the visibility it deserves.  

Along side a wonderful history lesson, there is also some interesting information about the “independent research” performed by the chemical companies.  Including the hiring of Sciences, an independent lab, that has, in the past, done some deceitful things to help out other harmful industries, like tobacco.  It should be noted that Sciences was started by a woman that also helped start the EPA.

-How could our nation’s health watchdogs reach such divergent conclusions? Are we being unnecessarily scared by the NTP? Or could the FDA be sugarcoating things? What exactly is going on?  We went on a journey to find out. What we learned was shocking. To some degree, the BPA controversy is a story about a scientific dispute. But even more, it’s about a battle to protect a multibillion-dollar market from regulation. In the United States, industrial chemicals are presumed safe until proven otherwise. As a result, the vast majority of the 80,000 chemicals registered to be used in products have never undergone a government safety review. Companies are left largely to police themselves.

-Of the more than 100 independently funded experiments on BPA, about 90% have found evidence of adverse health effects at levels similar to human exposure. On the other hand, every single industry-funded study ever conducted — 14 in all — has found no such effects .  It is the industry-funded studies that have held sway among regulators. This is thanks largely to a small group of “product defense” consultants — also funded by the chemical industry — who have worked to sow doubt about negative effects of BPA by using a playbook that borrows from the wars over tobacco, asbestos, and other public-health controversies.

-But Fast Company has learned that Sciences’ conflicts of interest went even deeper. The firm had passed its verdict on BPA, under oath, even before it began the government review. In 2003, Sciences provided expert testimony for the defense in a lawsuit over BPA. On an archived page of the firm’s Web site, the company bragged that, for a private client, it had acted as an expert witness “challenging the validity” of the science on BPA’s health risks. “The case was decided in favor of the defendants,” the site said. (Anderson, who sold Sciences for $5.1 million in 2001 and left for rival Exponent in 2006, confirmed by email that the testimony happened but declined to provide details. Herman Gibb, who took over as president of Sciences, says the staff working on the CERHR contract was not aware of the testimony.)

The NIH terminated the Sciences contract in April 2007, and the firm is now down to four employees. The Environmental Working Group has since reported that Sciences had client relationships with the makers of nearly every chemical it reviewed under the CERHR contract.

** photos by Nigel Cox, taken from Fast Company article

Study predicts BPA in babies 11 times higher than adults