Iowans Take Action to Ban BPA in Baby Products

Toddler drinks from sippy cup

Is this sippy cup safe for baby? Not if it contains BPA. Photo: © Melastmohican - Fotolia.com

There’s good news for the children of Iowa today — though it’s not quite a done deal yet. The Iowa Senate passed a ban on Bisphenol-A (BPA) in the manufacture of certain children’s products sold in the state, including baby bottles, baby bottle liners, sippy cups, pacifiers, and teething rings.

A synthetic estrogen, BPA is used to harden clear plastics in all sorts of products, such as water bottles, containers for storing leftovers, plastic eyeglasses, ice cube trays, beer and soda cans, baby food jar lids, thermoses, and cell phones. It’s even likely to be in the cash register receipt you get at the grocery store. And, you can find BPA in the plastic lining inside cans of food and in some children’s toys.

Far from Harmless

The ubiquitous nature of this chemical might fool consumers into thinking it’s completely safe. It’s not.

According to the Environmental Working Group (EWG) — a public-health watchdog that monitors toxic chemicals in such things as children’s products, cosmetics, cell phones, and produce — BPA is far from harmless:

Trace BPA exposure has been shown to disrupt the endocrine system and trigger a wide variety of disorders, including chromosomal and reproductive system abnormalities, impaired brain and neurological functions, cancer, cardiovascular system damage, adult-onset diabetes, early puberty, obesity and resistance to chemotherapy.

Not bad enough? Here’s what the Breast Cancer Fund website says:

Bisphenol A (BPA) has been associated with increased risk for cardiovascular disease, miscarriages, breast and prostate cancer, reproductive dysfunction, metabolic dysfunction and diabetes, and neurological and behavioral disorders (Braun, 2009; Lang, 2008; Li, 2009; Sugiura-Ogasawara, 2005).

“What’s the Fiscal Impact?”

Baby bottles should be free of BPA for our children's health. Photo: © Vibe Images - Fotolia.com

After passing 48-2 in the Iowa Senate, SF 405 will now move to the Iowa House. Seems like this should be an easy win, doesn’t it? You might think that keeping toxic chemicals out of products designed for infants and toddlers would be a slam-dunk for conservatives and liberals alike.

Yet, in today’s discussion on the floor of the Iowa Senate, some Republican lawmakers “questioned how much this legislation will cost, and whether retailers could get in trouble if products with bisphenol A … end up on their shelves,” Jennifer Jacobs wrote in today’s Des Moines Register.

Jacobs quotes the bill’s sponsor, Senator Joe Bolkcom, as responding, “What’s the fiscal impact of neonatal mortality? What’s the fiscal impact of birth defects, reduced birth weight, and miscarriages, all associated with BPA in these particular containers?”

To their credit, all but two state Senators eventually voted in favor of the bill, with Senator Shawn Hamerlinck (R-Dixon) suggesting the addition of baby bottle liners to the list of BPA-free products. Who voted against it? Senator Tom Hancock (D-Epworth) and Senator David Johnson (R-Ocheyedan).

The bill still has to get through the House.

That’s why Iowans of every political party, parents and grandparents, uncles and aunts, cousins and kin of all sorts — anyone who cares about children’s health — need to let our state representatives know what we think. It’s high time to protect Iowa’s children from the harmful effects of BPA.

Even if the bill passes the House and is enacted into law, it won’t take effect until 2013. In the meantime, you’ll have to look carefully to find a sippy cup, baby bottle, pacifier, or teething ring without BPA in it. That’s not to say they’re unavailable in Iowa, just that BPA-free baby items aren’t mandated.

Why Not More?

If BPA is so hazardous, don’t you wonder why our legislators aren’t doing more to protect all Iowans? Why only baby bottles, pacifiers, and the like?

Even if the focus is just on protecting children, don’t we also need to ban BPA from products that can harm fetuses by contamination through their mothers?

Here’s another quote from EWG:

In September 2008, the National Toxicology Program found that BPA at current human exposure levels may be toxic to the brain, behavior and prostate gland of fetuses, infants and children.

At minimum, why not also ban BPA from any item that holds or comes into contact with food, beverages, or a person’s mouth?

But let’s get real.

A recent Press-Citizen.com article reported that a gentleman named John Easter argued at the capitol that the Food and Drug Administration should have the final word on BPA in canned goods. That’s because the FDA regulates such products — and the FDA says it hasn’t yet determined just how bad BPA is.

Waiting for a definitive answer from the FDA might be wise — if there weren’t already such overwhelming evidence that BPA is hazardous. So let’s consider the source: Mr. Easter is a lobbyist for the American Chemistry Council, which the Register article calls “a trade group for chemical makers and one of the most vocal opponents of any ban on BPA.”

Take Action

If the prospect of eliminating one of the many toxic chemicals that infiltrate our children’s bodies (and our own) seems sensible to you, do something. Don’t assume that your legislators will be unswayed by lobbyists such as Mr. Easter. Call your state representatives and tell them that children aren’t expendable in the name of profits.

Let them know that you will hold them accountable for their votes. If you need to, remind them that children they know and love also deserve to be protected.

And by the way, don’t forget to say thanks to the Senators who got the bill this far along. It was a bipartisan effort that we can all be proud of.

Julia Wasson

Blue Planet Green Living (Home Page)

For More Information

Iowa Senate File 405

Tips to Avoid BPA

EWG’s Guide to Infant Formula and Baby Bottles: Safe Baby Bottle and Formula Guide

 

 

Slow Death by Rubber Duck

When friends and family ask, “What are you reading?” they can pretty much expect my answer isn’t going to be a mystery or a romance or even an engaging novel (though I do miss great novels), at least these days. So, when my sister-in-law, Judy, and I discussed books the other day, she probably had a pretty good idea of what she was in for.

When I said I’m reading Slow Death by Rubber Duck, at first she laughed — it sounds like a lighthearted title or maybe a bizarre mystery where the victim dies from having a rubber duck stuffed down his throat.

“No,” I said, responding to her quizzical look. “It’s not a mystery. It’s about the toxic chemicals found in all sorts of items we come into contact with each day — including toy rubber ducks.” That got her attention; Judy has grandchildren, one of whom is just six months old. The full title of the book is Slow Death by Rubber Duck: The Secret Danger of Everyday Things. (Titled Slow Death by Rubber Duck: How the Toxic Chemistry of Everyday Life Affects Our Health in Canada.) Not exactly a bodice ripper, legal thriller, or gumshoe tale.

Taking Risks in the Name of Science


The information in Slow Death by Rubber Duck doesn’t make for relaxing reading, even though the authors, Rick Smith and Bruce Lourie, do a masterful job of translating statistics and technical data (sometimes very technical) into highly readable prose. The problem is, the book is about a very unsettling topic.

When I first received my review copy and read the introduction, I was struck by the experiment that forms the basis for the book: The authors voluntarily and quite deliberately exposed themselves to toxic chemicals — lots of them.

Now, why would these men risk their health by loading their bodies with toxins? Isn’t that irresponsible? I wondered. It sounded so dangerous. And, from the way they tell it, their families were none too thrilled by their participation, either.

How They Did It


The scary thing is, the test the authors ran on themselves, the one in which levels of toxins in their blood and urine shot up (“from 64 to 1,410 nanograms per millilitre” of urine for monoethyl phthalate [MEP], for example), involved ordinary exposure to regular household items. They didn’t do anything extraordinary, other than to purposely select products they knew contained high levels of toxins.

Just try avoiding plastics — they're everywhere. Photo: © Maurizio Targhetta - Fotolia.com

The authors tried to stay away from products containing the chemicals and metals in question before immersing themselves in products heavily laden with toxins.

Bruce avoided eating fish for one month before the tests, and Rick tried to steer clear of phthalates, bisphenol A and triclosan for 2 days [48 hours] prior to the tests. We measured any increases or decreases by methodically taking blood and urine samples before and after performing our planned activities.

It wasn’t easy to eliminate phthalates and Bisphenol A, as Rick recounts: “This is a lot harder than it sounds. Try it. I dare you.” Because he couldn’t be sure which plastics contain these chemicals, he decided to avoid plastics completely. “I sort of knew it already, but once you start carefully keeping track, it really hits you: plastic has taken over our lives…. I started to realize that virtually everything … with a few notable exceptions … are [sic] covered in plastic.”

To control their exposure to the chemicals they were testing, the men spent two 12-hour days together in Bruce’s condo in their “test room”:

About 10 by 12 1/2 feet, the room was much like any bedroom, TV room or home office in any apartment across North America.

Mimicking Real Life


Looking at their test schedule, I’m struck by how ordinary their testing days were. The only thing that seems at all unusual (to me, a recently converted vegetarian) is that they ate a large amount of fish during the two days. (Fish is a staple in many people’s diets, of course, so I’m the odd one out here.)

Otherwise, the two Canadian environmentalists do mundane activities like drink Earl Grey tea, “drink coffee brewed in a polycarbonate French press,” have a carpet company come “to protect/STAIN-MASTER the test-room carpet & couch,” use antibacterial soap, microwave chicken noodle soup & canned spaghetti “in Rubbermaid microwavable containers,” wash dishes, use lotion, brush their teeth and wash their hands, and so on. Nothing really out of the ordinary at all. In fact, they write, “We set only one ironclad rule: Our efforts had to mimic real life….”

As we started consulting experts and poring over scientific studies, it frequently felt as if we were assembling a giant puzzle. the critical pieces that needed fitting together were a list of chemicals for which there was mounting human health concern, a good sense of daily activities that might expose the average person to these chemicals and the outline of an experiment that would reveal whether these daily activities measurably affect the levels of the chemical in question in our bodies.

Finger-Lickin’ Bad


The authors alternate writing the chapters, each one chronicling his own chemical exposure and test results.

Children ingest phthalates by putting everything into their mouths. Photo: © ping han_Fotolia.com


In Chapter 2, “Rubber Duck Wars,” I found it touching to read Rick’s worries about the phthalates his own small sons are consuming as he writes about the ubiquitous chemical and how impossible it seems to avoid it.

He has very real concerns, as Dr. Ted Schettler, the Science Director at the Science and Environmental Health Network, tells him —

“The child is going to encounter the same environment as an adult but in a different way. They’re going to be playing and moving around in it in a different way and putting their fingers in their mouths much more frequently than you are. They’re going to be more intimately in contact with their physical environment than adults are, and this will be reflected in their level of exposure.”

In other words, by virtue of being closer to the dust bunnies, licking their fingers relentlessly and chewing on phthalate-containing items that they shouldn’t be putting in their mouths, my kids are sucking in more of this stuff than I am.

And so are everyone else’s kids.

It’s Everywhere


In Chapter 3, “The World’s Slipperiest Substance,” Bruce writes about perflurorooctanoic acid (PFOA), a major chemical ingredient in Teflon, Silverstone, and Capstone, non-stick coatings for cookware. PFOA “is considered by many scientists to be toxic and to cause birth defects, developmental problems, hormone disruption and high cholesterol. The EPA has labelled it a ‘likely carcinogen,’ and it’s now found in every corner of the globe,” he writes.

Pans coated with nonstick surfaces contain triclosan. Photo: © ZTS - Fotolia.com

To no one’s great surprise, PFOA is also found in drinking water in the town of Parkersburg, West Virginia, where Teflon is manufactured. Bruce writes of the class action lawsuit filed by some of the town’s residents against DuPont, the sole manufacturer of PFOA. It’s an intriguing story, and about as close to a legal thriller as the book gets.

Parkersburg is at the center of the PFOA story. We can all likely think of more than enough examples of people being polluted by the chemical factory or toxic waste dump ‘next door’. And this is one of the dimensions of the Parkersburg experience. But the tale of Parkersburg may be the first environmental-disaster story in which a small town is also responsible for contaminating the entire world and almost every living thing in it.

“It turns out that DuPont knew of health risks associated with PFOA as far back as 1961,” Bruce writes, though the company wouldn’t admit to it when sued in 2001. This chapter alone makes the corporation seem to be out for profit at any cost, and damn the consumer. ” ‘They knew [PFOA] was in the water, they knew it caused deformities, they knew of the problem and they knew how to solve it,’ ” said Joe Kiger, the lead plaintiff in a class action lawsuit against DuPont.

But there was one surprising result. The authors tried to raise their own levels of PFOA during their experiment, but two days of exposure to what they believed to be Teflon Advanced stain protectant on the test room’s furniture didn’t do the trick. Why not? They later learned that the buildup of PFOA in the blood takes time. Still, they, like just about every other living thing on this planet, already had some levels of PFOA in their bloodstream.

Recommended Reading


I don’t want to spoil the read by giving you a blow-by-blow account of every chapter. And, I really couldn’t, because there’s just so much information woven into each one. But here’s a taste of what you’ll find if you give it a read (and I recommend that you do, whether or not you have kids or grandkids).

Children's pajamas treated with flame retardant chemicals may contain PFOA. Photo: © Lisa Eastman - Fotolia.com

In Chapter 4, “The New PCBs,” Rick learns about flame-retardant clothing and “brominated flame retardants, a family of compounds that seems to be repeating the nasty history of PCBs.” Again, Rick uses his own small children’s clothing as an example of the dangerous toxins we unthinkingly expose our little ones to.

Chapter 5, “Quicksilver, Slow Death,” explains how all that fish Bruce ate quickly elevated his blood mercury level. “After seven meals/snacks in three days, I had managed to more than double the mercury levels in my blood! Almost two and a half times, in fact…. After reading these results, I got a firsthand understanding of how communities that depend on fish in their diets can quietly poison themselves.”

Chapter 6, “Germophobia,” Rick explains that the chemical triclosan, which was originally used only in hospitals, is now ubiquitous. You can’t get away from “antibacterial” products. And even if you want to, you’ll find that many people around you are trying to use more and more of them.

The Environmental Working Group has found the chemical in household items as disparate as liquid hand soap, toothpaste, underwear, towels, mattresses, sponges, shower curtains, phones, flooring, cutting boards, fabric and children’s toys. One hundred and forty kinds of consumer products in all.

He goes on to say that, by 2007, the Canadian government had “registered 1,200 brands of cosmetics containing triclosan.”

Who cares?

We all should. According to Stuart Levy, Director of the Center for Adaptation Genetics and Drug Resistance at Tufts University, “wide-scale antimicrobial misuse and related drug resistance is challenging infectious disease treatment and health care budgets worldwide.”

The (Im)Perfect Lawn


And then there’s Chapter 7: “Risky Business: 2,4-D and the Sound of Science.” Here we meet up with pesticides and herbicides. We learn about the health effects of DDT, long-since banned, but still present in our environment, it contributes to both testicular and breast cancers.

And let’s not forget the herbicide named in the chapter title. 2,4-D is used to “beautify” lawns (a matter of opinion), but it’s been banned in some parts of Canada:

Like many pesticides 2,4-D is associated with a number of potentially serious health hazards for humans. In fact, the list of known or suspected health effects reads like an inventory of the worst possible things that could happen to a human…. non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (a form of blood cancer), neurological impairment, asthma, immune system suppression, reproductive problems and birth defects….

[I]n a subsample of the U.S. population between the ages of 6 and 59… one-quarter of Americans who had their blood tested in 2001 or 2001 has detectable levels of 2.4-D in their bodies.

So why isn’t 2,4-D banned everywhere?

Danger Lurking in Sippy Cups


In Chapter 8: “Mothers Know Best,” Rick talks about the power of moms to persuade the Canadian government to ban bisphenol A (BPA), a chemical that’s frequently found in children’s toys, baby bottles, and sippy cups. It’s also found in the lining of food cans, in microwaveable containers, and in plastic thermal mugs, among a whole lot of other things.

Even your baby's sippy cup isn't safe if it has BPA in the plastic. Photo: © Roberto Anguita - Fotolia.com

Rick describes his diet and the containers he used for cooking and eating. It’s not much different from most people who haven’t gone organic and natural — the majority of North Americans, I’d wager: lots of canned food and a couple of Cokes (there’s BPA lining the cans). He made coffee in a polycarbonate French press he purchased at Starbucks, drank it from a child’s plastic bottle, and microwaved his food in a Rubbermaid microwaveable container.

And the result? His BPA levels shot up “more than sevenfold from before exposure to after exposure.”

But there was also BPA in his blood even after trying to detox before the test. I was amazed to learn some of the sources, as was Rick.

So-called “carbonless” paper—the very white, glossy, coated paper that most cash register receipts are printed on these days—has very high levels of BPA. High enough levels that absorption of BPA through the skin on the fingers is likely an increasing source in daily life. printers ink used in newspapers also contains BPA. Because these high-BPA-content papers end up in the recycling bin in many places, levels of BPA in recycled paper are generally extremely high.

Maybe you’d like to know why BPA is such a bad thing to have in your blood. It’s a hormone disruptor that has potentially disastrous effects. In 2005 —

the U.S. National Toxicology Program … raised concerns regarding BPA’s links to early puberty, breast cancer, prostate effects and behavioural problems and highlighted that pregnancy and early life are especially sensitive periods, given higher exposure to the chemical and limited ability to metabolize it.

Remember, BPA is in baby bottles and sippy cups! As I checked on line to find out if the U.S. has followed Canada and the E.U. in banning BPA, I’ve found mention of two bills being “introduced” in the House of Representatives in March 2009. Their intent was to ban BPA in food and beverage containers in the U.S. But I haven’t seen anything that says either bill has been passed. What are we waiting for?

Still, There’s Hope


There’s so much that’s worth reading in Slow Death by Rubber Duck. And it’s not all depressing, despite what I’ve written above. I’ll leave you with a short excerpt from Chapter 9: “Detox.”

It would be easy, given the daunting nature of the toxic dilemma we’ve laid out, to be either paralyzed into inaction or driven to distraction with anxiety or both. But there’s no need for this. We’re trying to instill some concern, not worry. As we outline in this chapter, there are many things you can do to protect yourself and your family. And many that will start to take effect almost immediately.

So buy the book. Learn about the perils of the chemicals discussed in it, then find out what you can do to make your home — and your family’s — a safer, healthier place to live. The book cover lists the price at U.S. $25, and, in my opinion, it’s worth every dime.

Julia Wasson

Blue Planet Green Living

Fine Print


Blue  Planet Green Living received a complimentary copy of Slow Death by Rubber Duck: The Secret Danger of Everyday Things. Other than the review copy, we received no compensation or incentive for reviewing the book. No one influences the content of any of our reviews other than the writer. The opinions expressed are entirely my own.

Blue Planet Green Living is an Amazon associate. If you choose to purchase this book or anything else by clicking on our Amazon link, we receive a very small percentage of your sale, which goes toward the operating expenses of this website.

For more information about our review policies, please visit the Policies link in our top navigation bar.

Related Posts


KSCA Would “Change the Paradigm” to Protect Kids’ Health

Homemade Bread with Pan Flakes? No, Thanks!

Environmental Working Group Gets “Feisty” about Chemical Pollution

Environmental Working Group: A Nonprofit with Great ROI

Healthy Child Healthy World – Inspiring Positive Action for Kids’ Sake

Environmental Working Group – A Nonprofit with Great ROI

July 29, 2009 by  
Filed under Blog, EWG, Front Page

EWG worked effectively to bring awareness to the dangers of BPA. Photo: © NICOLAS LARENTO - Fotolia.com

EWG is working effectively to bring awareness to the dangers of BPA for babies and toddlers. Photo: © NICOLAS LARENTO - Fotolia.com

Any number of nonprofit groups are doing good work for the environment, but, to me, one of the most impressive is the Environmental Working Group (EWG). We’ve written in the past about their Skin Deep Cosmetic Safety Database and posted (twice) the ever-sobering EWG video 10 Americans. But those are just two of the many projects this group has sponsored.

In today’s email, I found a letter from EWG president, Ken Cook, listing several other group activities and projects that are making a real difference to the planet and to the health of the people who live here. Cook wrote to supporters to publicize the group’s activities.

Over the last several months, EWG has drawn a lot of attention to the topics you and I care about. They’ve provided critically important information to consumers and influenced the passage of legislation on issues that affect our well-being. It’s a lengthy list. The following excerpts from Cook’s letter give just a few of the highlights. To learn more, please visit the EWG website.

Here’s some of what Cook had to say:

“We’ve told decision makers what you want. . . and they’re listening.

    • We caught food industry giants plotting to mislead mothers and minority parents about the hazards of bisphenol-A (BPA) and spurred grassroots pressure to find a safe alternative…
    • The California State Senate passed the Toxics-Free Babies & Toddlers Act, which we sponsored, to ban BPA in children’s food products. If the State Assembly approves the bill, the largest market in the country will join Connecticut and Minnesota whose state legislatures enacted partial BPA Bans earlier this year…
    • Five environmental justice leaders joined us for an extensive two-year study that tested them for 75 chemical contaminants. They took their results directly to Congress as a compelling argument for reform of the failed federal toxics law…

“We researched, reported and testified for better public policies.

    • We released our third annual sunscreen report to help consumers identify safe, effective products and better understand the ingredients in sunscreen. We found that sunscreen companies are reformulating many products to be safer and more effective as a result of our three-year campaign…

“We created and shared important, useful information.

If you’re able to contribute charitable dollars this year, please consider donating to the Environmental Working Group. Your support of EWG will help make the world safer and healthier for the ones you love. And that’s the best return on investment you could ask for.

Julia Wasson

Blue Planet Green Living (Home Page)