new news for bpa

Despite the continuing decisions by many states, and Congress, the FDA has decided to stick to its guns and declare that BPA is safe.

 

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.

pharm animal

It’s like a one, two punch… in the stomach.

The FDA approved a drug today that is used for people with a rare condition that creates fatal blood clots.  But, in doing so, they also approved the genetically altered goats that were used to make the drug, thereby opening the way for other companies to use GMO animals in pharmaceutical products.  

Proponents claim that this is a means of producing pharmaceuticals at a lower cost and will be reflected on the consumer price, that it is safe, and there is no way the animals can be released out of captivity.

However, opponents feel that “it is a mechanistic use of animals that seems to perpetuate the notion of their being merely tools for human use rather than sentient creatures,” the Humane Society of the United States says in its position paper on the practice.

There are other concerns: that the animals could be harmed, that animal germs might contaminate the drug, that the milk or meat from genetically engineered drug-producing animals might enter the food supply or that the animals might escape and breed with others, spreading the gene, with unpredictable consequences.

In any case, they are now approved for use and time will tell if it is going to be harmful.  

* This was originally reported by the New York Times

phthalates in the news

So, a pretty important study was released today from Taiwan regarding the impact of exposure to phthalates during pregnancy.  Essentially the data has proven that mother’s can pass on the hormone altering chemical while the child is in utero, resulting in deformities, according to Environmental Health News.

 

Amniotic fluid and urine samples from 65 pregnant women undergoing amniocentesis were analyzed for five kinds of phthalates. At birth, the researchers measured the distance from the anus to the genitals in both male and female babies. This measure is called the anogenital distance (AGD) and indicates abnormal sexual development (specifically, differentiation) in the womb.

The metabolite monobutyl phthalate (MBP) in the amniotic fluid and urine was correlated in all newborns. This means the pollutant was able to pass from the mother, through the placenta and into the fetal circulation system.

Phthalates is a chemical that is, most commonly used, in the synthesis of plastics, but has also been found in fragrance used in everyday household items.  It acts as a hormone mimicker and has been linked to a higher occurrence of cancers, genital deformities and learning disabilities.

This is just another example proving that the approval of the chemical was premature on the part of the FDA and the chemical companies.

genetically engineered approval

 

Last week, federal health officials announced plans for an approval process of genetically engineered (GE) animals used for food.  However, consumer groups say the plan is not enough to ensure the safety of the consumer, according to the Los Angeles Times.

Genetic engineering, already widely used for crops, is on the threshold of producing animals that can grow faster or even yield drugs that treat human illnesses. Although the potential benefits — and profits — are huge, many individuals have qualms about manipulating the genetic code of other living creatures.

The FDA has stated that it will not allow for the approval of GE animals without severe scrutiny.  But, many criticize the policy because, approving an GE animal, does not mean it will be labeled as such.  In other words, because of lack of labeling consumers, without knowing about or wanting to, may be ingesting GE animals.

There is also criticism that the evaluation of the animals does not include what might happen to the environment.  Of particular concern, is the possibility of am animal escaping and mating with a non-GE animal.

And, while many talk about the eating of GE animals, there is also debate from drugs made from GE animals.  Last week, a product made from the milk of a GE goat was before the FDA for approval.  At this point, it was deemed safe and effective for human use.  But, is it?

Many are urging the upcoming Obama administration to reconsider the current FDA policy on genetically engineered animals.  Although, the biotechnology industry welcomed the announcement from the FDA, and as we all know, the lobbying power of that group is strong in D.C.

surprise inspection: FDA

This publication has been very critical of the FDA in recent months. Under the Bush Administration, the organization has seemed to lean towards corporate well-being instead of patient well-being; allowing drugs, chemicals, and equipment to get approval without sound research. Bisphenol-A seems to be the leading example of such activity.

Well, we seem to not be the only ones. A group of scientists at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration sent a letter to President-elect Barack Obama’s transition team pleading with him to restructure the agency, saying managers have ordered, intimidated and coerced scientists to manipulate data in violation of the law, according to the Wall Street Journal.

Indicating that the organization is “fundamentally broken”, the scientists main concern centered around the review process for medical devices. The critics contend that it has been “corrupted and distorted by current FDA managers, thereby placing the American people at risk.”

The group also says that they have taken their concerns to the head of the FDA, Andrew von Eschenbach, as well as the Commissioner in Charge of Accountability and Integrity, Bill McConagha. The response has been less than positive as either nothing has been done or the problematic managers have been rewarded and promoted.

Much of this will have to be addressed to Tom Daschle, who is Obama’s appointment for the Department of Health and Human Services. It will be his responsibility to investigate the charges and make changes, appropriately.

We have reported in the past about the FDA’s failings with the approval of Bisphenol-A. The chemical was approved after only two multi-phase studies, which would be considered unacceptable, normally. There is even evidence that the chemical manufacturers, such as Dow, was allowed to write the safety and efficacy reports.

Since the approval, repeated studies have shown this to be a much more dangerous chemical than expected. Doing most of its harm because it acts as a hormone mimicker it seen as the cause of cancers, sterility and genital deformities. The chemical is used as a synthesizing agent during the process of plastics and other metals (such as soda cans). And, unfortunately, is found at high levels in products targeted towards children (bottles, toys, and drinks) making exposure to the the toxin abnormally high.

It will be very interesting to see how the Obama Administration follows up with FDA and the changes implemented.

took you long enough

Many WEEKS after its own advisory board accused the FDA of approving Bisphenol-A for use well before adequate testing was done, and without consideration of possible dangers, the agency has finally decided to reconsider the issue.

The FDA approved Bisphenol-A for use based on a TWO multigenerational studies by research groups that had received grant money from the American Plastics Council. Since the green light that BPA was supposedly safe for use in food packaging and water bottles, many independent studies have been issued in which the findings were not so positive.

In September, a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that adults with high levels of BPA in their urine were more prone to heart and liver disease and diabetes.

More than 200 animal studies have linked ingesting minute amounts of the substance to a range of reproductive problems, brain damage, immune deficiencies, metabolic abnormalities, and behavioral oddities like hyperactivity, learning deficits and reduced maternal willingness to nurse offspring.

The FDA’s position was that this data lacked specifics as to how the study was overseen, and lacked raw data. However, it was noted by many that the FDA never requested to see extensive versions of the published articles.

Manufacturers of the plastics still contend, despite the data otherwise, that BPA is safe. Rather than pulling the BPA products from shelves, they have created BPA-free products to be marketed side by side. The manufacturers position is that they would like consumers to “make the best decisions for their families.” There is one issue with this: if consumers are unaware or being lied to about safety and efficacy, how can they make the best decisions?

And, so that you are unaware, BPA is not only found in plastic.

More than 2 billion pounds of BPA are produced each year. According to the Can Manufacturers Institute, more than 22 billion cans to be used for food and more than 100 billion cans for beer and soft drinks were produced last year. John Rost, a chemist and chair of the North American Metal Packaging Alliance, says “the vast majority” of them are lined with a resin coating containing BPA.

A study by the CDC (Centers for Disease Control) has shown that BPA exists in 93% of urine in the sample population tested. Given that statistic, and the potential harm listed above, don’t you think it is time you stop using and buying products with potential BPA exposure?

If you are reading this, you have no excuse for not knowing about the harm done from this material.

The full report came from the NY Times, HERE.

my temperature is rising

The FDA is sending in a draft report to the White House asking it to amend its advisory on fish consumption; suggesting that women and children should eat more fish, saying that the benefits of the fish out weigh the harm caused by the mercury present.

Many, including the EPA, argue that the report was sent before legitimate scientific data could be found to prove that point. It is also felt that it is, once again, another indication that the FDA cares more about being a friend to the corporations than an advocate for the consumer. Especially when the National Fisheries Institute applauds the move, while scientists question the move.

Mercury can damage the neurological development of fetuses and infants. Recent studies have suggested that mercury may also pose a health risk for adults, including an increased risk of cardiovascular disease.

If the FDA is wrong, the ramifications have the potential of being enormous.

Go HERE for information from the Washington Post.

HERE is a great site about the most and least eco-friendly fish.

do you know what would happen if i used something “off-label”?

Back in July, under pressure from the citizenry and the American Medical Association, the FDA placed a ban on certain types of antibiotics that are used in the livestock industry.

The antibiotic in question is cephalosporin. This is a very powerful antibiotic used to treat bacterial infections and is structurally similar to penicillin.

The issue at hand is, first, that it is being used off label. That means that the drug has not been approved for veterinary use. However, that has not prevented Pfizer from selling it, or members of the industry from using it to treat livestock with severe infections. Many critics argue that use of this antibiotic can affect the human population by building up resistance to bacteria, making infections lethal and not treatable.

In July, the FDA placed on a ban on off label use of this drug and said it would “crack down” on ranchers that used the medication. In fact, the veterinary director for the FDA, at the time, stated: ‘We have [bacterial organisms] moving around the world that we have never seen before,’ he told a conference, according to Dairy Herd Management magazine and that “antibiotic-resistant bacteria are becoming more common in cattle.”

Despite this, today, under pressure from the pharmaceutical industry and the livestock industry, the FDA reversed its ban on the use of these antibiotics.

Many things can be said about the FDA practices and the impact this will have. What will not be mentioned and needs to be is the ongoing research into the large effect the livestock industry has on the environment and the need to reduce the intake of meat. And, not only that, but have you ever wondered why your meat is filled with disease? Why would you want to eat something that has been sick enough that it needed STRONG medication?

If humans drastically reduced, although I would prefer gave up, their intake of meat, animals could be raised in ways that do not harm the environment and are not getting sick.

Bisphenol-A.. it just keeps getting worse

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinal sure is becoming the lead periodical for Bispenol-A research, as found in their latest watchdog report: BPA leaches from ‘safe’ products

The newspaper published scientific findings today revealing that “microwave safe” is not that.

Lab tests of 10 items’ containers found that all of the advertised “microwave safe” containers allegedly released toxic doses of the chemical known as BPA, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported Saturday.

The newspaper said according to the tests it commissioned, the detected levels of the chemical were allegedly identical to levels previously blamed by scientists for causing neurological and developmental damage in lab animals.

I have written extensively about BPA, which is a chemical commonly found in plastic and canned goods. BPA is a chemical that acts on the endocrine system, which is instrumental in regulating metabolism, growth, development and puberty, tissue function, and also plays a part in determining mood. As a result, it does not act like another toxin might, in that more exposure leads to more harm. Instead, BPA mimics estrogen, which in abundance can cause cancers, birth defects (seen mostly in male genitals), and learning disabilities. Studies have also shown that while BPA can cause cancer, it can also prevent chemotherapy from being efficacious. It is a double edged sword.

The FDA allowed for the approval of this chemical in products, under pressure from the Bush Administration and its love of the chemical corporations; i.e. Dow, DuPont, etc. It has also been revealed that the FDA even allowed for those chemical companies to write the safety and efficacy reports, after extremely limited testing occurred. An independent panel of scientists has concluded that the FDA acted unethically and all approvals should be reversed and BPA taken off the market immediately.

The sad fact of all of this is that the products with the highest level of BPA are the same products targeted to infants and children. We have no idea what kind of impact this is going to have on our youth.

The point to all of this is that you really should move away from plastic, as much as possible. This means water bottles, storage containers, pre-packaged foods, and the like.

Here are some helpful links to updating your kitchen:

My favorite glass containers come from The Container Store
I highly recommend getting either a SIGG bottle or a Klean Kanteen for your water.
I also have been told that Brita is the only filtration system that is specially coated to prevent leaching into the water.

Happy Halloween

I got a late afternoon treat that put a big smile on my face.

The FDA’s science board, a group of outside experts, voted unanimously to endorse a report that found major flaws in the agency’s decision to declare BPA safe.

The science board agreed with the finding that that the FDA was wrong to base its August decision that BPA is safe only on studies funded by the chemical industry. Excluded studies suggest that BPA, which acts like the hormone estrogen, could pose harm to children at levels at least 10 times lower than what the agency allows.

It is not good when an organization like the FDA lets itself get manipulated into approving a chemical by ignoring that it is harmful and instead focusing on the corporate interest and revenue.

I am so happy that the public outcry created the need for an independent review!

HERE is an article about the decision. Although, I will warn you, it is depressing to see how little the FDA did to ensure our safety. For example:

When measuring the amount of BPA to which babies are exposed from liquid infant formula, for example, the FDA used data from more than a decade ago and sampled only 14 liquid formula cans, all from the Washington, D.C. area. It also based its exposure estimate on the average BPA level. That could allow children fed from cans with above-average BPA levels to receive far more of the chemical.

I am sure you will be hearing more about this as the week goes on.

Next Page »