BPA Reports to Be Reviewed (Thank God)

[Guest guest]

Plastics report reviewed

Agency to scrutinize oft-criticized findings that chemical poses

little risk

 

By MEG KISSINGER, CARY SPIVAK and SUSANNE RUST

mkissinger

Posted: Jan. 9, 2008

 

A controversial report on chemicals found in baby bottles and

hundreds of other household products is under intense review by the

National Toxicology Program after the agency was swamped with

complaints that the authors were unduly influenced by the chemical

industry.

 

John Bucher, head of the toxicology program, said Wednesday that the

agency is giving unprecedented scrutiny to the work of a panel

studying the effects of bisphenol A, a chemical used as a hardening

agent for plastic. The panel had downplayed the risks of bisphenol

A, finding some concern for fetuses and small children but that

adults had almost nothing to worry about.

 

The chemical, commonly used as dental sealants, eyeglasses, CDs,

DVDs and as lining in aluminum cans, was found in the urine of 93%

of Americans tested. More than 6 billion pounds are produced each

year in the United States.

 

The Journal Sentinel reported in December that the study, by a panel

of 12 scientists appointed by the National Institute of Environment

Sciences, gave more weight to industry-funded studies and more

leeway to industry-funded researchers. The newspaper found that the

panel missed dozens of studies publicly available that the newspaper

found online using a medical research Internet search engine.

 

Scientists, many of whom have spent years studying bisphenol A and

have found it to be harmful, also criticized the panel's report.

These scientists have found that bisphenol A can cause breast

cancer, testicular cancer, diabetes, hyperactivity, obesity, low

sperm counts, miscarriage and a host of other reproductive failures

in laboratory animals.

 

" In this case, there's been so much criticism raised, " Bucher said.

 

The Journal Sentinel found that studies paid for by the chemical

industry were much less likely to find damaging effects or disease.

The newspaper's stories were widely circulated in the scientific

community. Bucher said the newspaper's findings will be considered

in the review, including criticism that the panel allowed a study to

be translated by the American Plastics Council.

 

Bucher said the review would consider why the panel had rejected

academic studies that found harm when looking at the effects of low

doses of bisphenol A. The panel did not accept any studies that

found an effect at low doses in its review of 742 studies.

 

Once the panel weeded out studies it believed had been done poorly,

no studies remained that showed effects from low doses, panel

chairman Robert Chapin said in an earlier interview.

 

" There's a lot of bad science out there, " he said at the time.

 

Chapin could not be reached for comment Wednesday.

 

A growing number of scientists have found that bisphenol A causes

harm to animals in low doses. And the National Academy of Science

and the toxicology program itself have called for a radical reform

in the way that government screens chemicals such as bisphenol A.

But, so far, the government hasn't budged from its original formula.

 

Michael Shelby, director of the government agency that selected the

panel to evaluate bisphenol A, said he welcomed the review.

 

" We want to get it right, " he said. " That's the way science works is

through scrutiny and through peer review. " Shelby said he was not

surprised at the extraordinary amount of criticism aimed at the

report.

 

" It's a hot topic, and there's a considerable amount of literature, "

he said.

 

The federal government is soliciting public comment on the panel

report until Jan. 25. After that, agency staff will review comments,

criticism and any new research on bisphenol A. Then, the toxicology

program will issue a report that will be subject to another round of

public comment, and, ultimately, a scientific review in June.