Breast Cancer: Let’s Stay the Course on the Path to Prevention

I’ve written before about breast cancer prevention and how important it is to seek preventative solutions to a disease that impacts millions of women and their loved ones. There are hundreds of amazing organizations working tirelessly to support those with breast cancer and fund research into the best treatment and prevention methods. And within this field, it is widely acknowledged that breast cancer is caused by a series of well identified and well accepted factors that are largely genetic or lifestyle related.

Given what we do know about breast cancer, I was surprised to read a report that Breast Cancer UK recently published entitled “Body of Evidence: An Overview of the Low Dose Effects of Bisphenol A in Relation to Breast Cancer”. The report states that low levels of exposure to BPA can cause breast cancer and implies that banning BPA in food and drinks packaging will reduce breast cancer rates. Not only is this statement incredibly misleading; these arguments distract from proven risk factors and prevention methods for breast cancer by focusing on one substance which has never been scientifically linked to breast cancer.

Despite the many regulatory agencies around the world that have confirmed the safe use of BPA in food contact materials via rigorous risk assessments, it appears that Breast Cancer UK does not believe there is a safe level of daily exposure to BPA, as it calls for an all-out ban on BP…

Transatlantic Parallels on BPA

I’ve written quite a bit of late about some happenings on the other side of the Atlantic, but I think it’s important to discuss, as there are some interesting parallels to the regulatory challenges for BPA in the EU.

As I mentioned in a previous post, the FDA has been conducting a comprehensive research program on BPA to answer some key scientific questions and reduce uncertainty about the safety of BPA. So far the FDA’s research (some of which I recently reported on in this post) has strongly supported the safety of BPA. Further updates on this research is expected in the coming months and it is likely that the FDA will update their views on BPA, based on these findings, later this year.

However, despite the findings of the FDA, some states in the US are going forward with their own state laws to put restrictions on the use of BPA in certain consumer products. For example, in April Minnesota voted to prohibit the sale of food containers, formula and baby food containing BPA by 2015. Several other states including California, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin have also enacted restrictions or labeling requirements on BPA in some consumer products.

This patchwork of state by state legislation is very similar to what we are seeing here in the EU. We have, at the EU level, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) which has confirmed the safe use of BPA a…

“Examinons de plus près le Bisphénol A” – vidéo en ligne!

La version française de notre vidéo “A closer look at Bisphenol A” est en ligne depuis ce matin! “Examinons de plus près le Bisphénol A” donne une vue d’ensemble du BPA et de ses utilisations, et aborde la controverse à propos de la sécurité du Bisphénol A.

Bonne vision, n’hésitez pas à transmettre le lien à vos contacts!

The French version of our “A closer look at Bisphenol A” video is online. Don’t hesitate to share this link with your French-speaking contacts!

…

Some Perspective on the ANSES Report

As you may know, a few weeks ago a new report on the assessment of BPA was published in France by the National Agency for Food Safety, Environment and the Workplace (ANSES). In contrast to the numerous regulatory agencies around the world that have confirmed the safe use of BPA, ANSES claims, amongst other things, that BPA is a potential risk to unborn children and pregnant women and calls for reduced exposure to BPA.

As I discussed in a previous post, the ANSES assessment should be disputed for a number of reasons, including for relying on only four studies to determine threshold values of safe BPA exposure – four studies that have also been repeatedly dismissed by other regulatory agencies around the world because they do not provide a valid, reliable reference basis. Beyond this fundamental shortcoming, the ANSES report contradicts the findings of regulatory agencies around the world, including a recent update by the US FDA, as well as a spate of new studies that support the safe use of BPA.

As expected, the report generated quite a bit of media attention and reactions, mostly in France but also elsewhere in Europe. We saw headlines across Europe like “BPA and Cancer: The Proof Grows” and “Chemical in food packaging can harm unborn babies”. This all, understandably, sounds like scary stuff, however it is important to note that there is no established link between BPA and any of these accusations…

Une évaluation qui pose question: l’ANSES rend son rapport sur le BPA

L’ANSES vient tout juste de publier une nouvelle évaluation du bisphénol A, qui « met en évidence des risques potentiels pour la santé [du BPA] et confirme la nécessité de réduire les expositions »

A la lecture du dossier de presse accompagnant cette évaluation, je ne peux m‘empêcher de m’interroger sur les contradictions flagrantes entre ce rapport et la mise à jour récente par la FDA (agence américaine pour l’alimentation et les médicaments) de son site web consacré au BPA. La FDA y confirme que, vu le niveau de présence extrêmement bas du bisphénol A dans certains aliments, le BPA est tout à fait sûr.

Cette importante conclusion de la FDA, que j’ai déjà eu l’occasion de commenter, repose sur de solides études réalisées dans le cadre du programme de recherches de la FDA sur le BPA. Ces études, réalisées dans une perspective holistique (prise en compte de l’ensemble des facteurs pouvant contribuer à l’évaluation des risques) ont été effectuées par des laboratoires de l’administration américaine – indépendants donc de l’industrie.

Le contraste avec le rapport de l’ANSES est saisissant. Ce qui me frappe et m’inquiète en particulier, c’est le fait que l’ANSES ait utilisé une méthode d’évaluation des risques du BPA très sélective, se basant notamment sur seulement quatre études pour décider des valeurs de seui…

FDA Moves to Reconfirm Safety of BPA

I wanted to share some more interesting and important news on BPA from the other side of the Atlantic. As you may know, the FDA has been conducting a comprehensive research program on BPA to answer some key scientific questions and reduce uncertainty about the safety of BPA. More than 10 papers have been published in peer-reviewed scientific literature and more will be published in the near future.

So far the FDA’s research (some of which I reported on in this post last week) has strongly supported the safety of BPA. While the FDA has not yet provided a full update on their views on BPA, they have provided a partial, but very significant, update on their BPA webpage; as follows:

“FDA’s current assessment is that BPA is safe at the very low levels that occur in some foods. This assessment is based on review by FDA scientists of hundreds of studies including the latest findings from new studies initiated by the agency.”

The FDA decided to undertake these additional studies because of concerns expressed in the last few years about the safety of BPA and specifically it’s use in food packaging and containers. The studies are being conducted by the FDA’s National Center for Toxicological Research (NCTR) under strict quality-assurance guidelines. The findings will be published in peer-reviewed scientific journals and will also be reviewed by toxicologists and other scientists from the academic and private …

Breaking New Ground on BPA

Thanks to a great article in Forbes, I recently came across some really fascinating research on BPA from the other side of the Atlantic, that, despite being about BPA, has not peaked much media interest. This is truly ground breaking science and regardless of your opinion on BPA, it’s important to take the results of this research into consideration.

The research is being conducted by the US Food and Drug Administration in conjunction with the US National Toxicology Program on BPA and the scientists involved presented their latest findings at the American Association for the Advancement of Science (which I have previously written about) in February.

Daniel Doerge and his team have been investigating the pharmacokinetics (PK) of BPA, which essentially means they are studying the way BPA passes through and interacts with the body and its tissues. While BPA levels measured in blood and urine are related, it is the level of active BPA in blood that determines tissue exposures and possible effects. Since the FDA’s PK studies are focused on the amount of BPA in the bloodstream, they are essential to our understanding of BPA and whether it poses a risk to health.

Furthermore, Doerge’s research directly addresses the valid concerns of vulnerable populations such as pregnant women and fetuses as his research explicitly examines the different pharmacokinetic and metabolic way fetuses and adults process B…

ED or not ED? Adverse Effect Matters

Today the European Parliament adopted a non-binding report calling on the EU to address the issue of endocrine disruptive chemicals (EDCs or EDs) as a priority and make EU rules on them stricter.

I have followed with great interest the debate and the preparation of the report since its very beginning and I made some comments on the issue already in the past (see here my first post on it). I absolutely agree with the need to develop a common EU approach to the issue by establishing a shared definition of what an EDC is, and by defining clear criteria, based on science, to identify EDCs.

However, I believe it is crucial to reiterate a fundamental distinction; a hormone-active (endocrine-active) substance is not necessarily an endocrine disruptor. Many substances, be they natural or man-made, are endocrine-active. Think for example, a 200 g meal of carrots contains 800 times more estrogen-like compounds than the same amount of food that was in contact with a BPA-based polycarbonate container. Despite the endocrine activity displayed by a vegetable like carrots, no one would call carrots an endocrine disruptor!

Let’s thus keep in mind that a substance is an endocrine disruptor when it causes an adverse effect on the hormone system. In this respect, the criterion of “potency” is crucial to guide policy-makers in identifying and addressing harmful substances. Under this criterion, some hazardous substanc…

Don’t go with the flow, facts on BPA in water pipes

A story has emerged in Sweden about the use of BPA in water pipes. I noticed that some in the media have raised concerns on the presence of BPA in drinking water and I thought it would be useful to bring some perspective to the discussion.

Just to give some background on the issue, it is extremely important that potable water supplied to major cities and towns is chemically treated to avoid microbiological contamination. If water is not properly treated, it can cause serious illness. The chlorination used to treat the water has a significant impact on which coatings materials will survive for a reasonable period of time and BPA based epoxy resins coatings are one of the durable materials that are approved by governments across Europe for water piping.

Epoxy resins coatings are also one of the best systems on the market in terms of a cost effective way to reduce leaks due to corrosion and abrasion during water processing and distribution. Improving the water flow and reducing abrasion also improves water quality and we can all agree that access to safe drinking water is essential! Furthermore, old and damaged water pipes, instead of being completely replaced, can be relined with epoxy based coatings, which can be a significant cost saving for governments.

The Swedish Chemicals Agency (KemI) has been mandated by the Swedish Government to undertake a study to assess the extent to which BPA may be released into the drinkin…

Research in the News

Two new studies on BPA have generated quite a bit of media attention lately, so I thought it would be useful to provide some thoughts on those studies and address some of the misleading conclusions that are being drawn from this new research.

The first study is from Professor Kathleen at Columbia University who argues that there is a link between childhood exposure to BPA and increased risk of asthma in young children. The research measured BPA levels before birth and after birth (at ages 3, 5 and 7) in the urine. The results were published in the Journal of Allergy & Clinical Immunology and received coverage in a number of media outlets including El Mundo and Chemical Watch, and lots of news organization in the US. Unfortunately, some people have jumped to the wrong conclusion that the mere presence of BPA is the cause of childhood asthma. It is difficult to draw any meaningful conclusions from this report and the authors themselves point out the connection between BPA and asthma is unclear. In fact, in the same study the authors report that in the third trimester of pregnancy, exposure to BPA actually showed a reduced development of asthma at 5 years of age! I can’t stress enough that causation cannot be inferred from these types of studies and speculation about potential future health effects will not bring us any closer to finding real, actionable ways to reduce public health issues like childhood asthma. F

…