Chemically at Risk

We know the chemicals in the cleaner
are dangerous.  But what about the ones
on the plastic itself?
Image found at mommybrainreports.com

Today, I read the article "Reducing Toxic Chemicals: Do We Know Enough About Chemical Risk?".  I was surprised by how much I didn't actually know.  As mentioned in the article, I assumed that the products I bought at stores and such were regulated by the government to be as safe as they could for human use.  Be it the chemicals in cleaners with proper warning labels to the plastics used in my reusable water bottles, I thought all of it was regulated by the same standards.  This is not true.  Different agencies of the government adopt different levels of acceptable risk for the same chemicals.  Many scientists and activists are arguing that the government should impose laws that will standardize the regulation and adopt the precautionary principle of making a significant effort in researching the safety of a chemical before allowing human contact.  This is different from the current system in which a product must be proven dangerous before it will be pulled off the shelves.

As with all things, there are pros and cons to changing current regulation standards.  A definite positive would be stricter guidelines and more assurance that we, the consumers of the products, are safe from being exposed to toxic chemicals.  A more standardized system would make sure we aren't playing a game of Russian roulette when buying products regulated by different agencies but containing the same chemicals.  A severe downside of this would be the sheer cost of time and money it would take to both implement and carry out these new regulations.  In an already broken economy such regulation reform could cause the country even more economic hardship.  Furthermore, enforced use of different chemicals could result in inferior products.

I was mostly interested in the chemical formerly used in producing plastics: BPA or bisphenol A.  There were five levels of concern in regards to exposure to this chemical as outlined by the National Toxicology Program, and frankly, the definitions were downright shocking and kind of nauseating.  "Reproductive toxicity in adult men and women and malformation is newborns" was defined as "Negligible Concern."  "Developmental toxicity for fetuses, infants, and children (effects on the mammary gland and early puberty in females, and productive toxicity in workers)" was defined as "Minimal Concern".  And "Developmental toxicity for fetuses, infants, and children (effects on the brain,  behavior, and prostate gland)" was classified as "Some Concern".  Very fortunately, many large companies such as Target, Wal-Mart, Costco, and REI have stopped selling products containing BPA and found safer substitutes that sell just as well.

This is a representation of the chemical structure of Bisphenol A.
Image found at viewzone.com

For further research on BPA, I went to these two websites: 
http://www.bisphenol-a.org/about/faq.html?gclid=CIzx3KT-9K8CFWQ0QgodCEP3RQ
http://www.fda.gov/newsevents/publichealthfocus/ucm064437.html

At the first website, I learned that BPA is used primarily to make polycarbonate plastic and epoxy resins.  The products made from BPA's byproducts are things such as electrical and electronic equipment (like CDs and DVDs), automobiles, sports safety equipment, reusable food and drink containers - products most of us use on a daily basis. This website declares that, and I quote, "the weight of scientific evidence clearly supports the safety of BPA and provides strong reassurance that there is no basis for human health concerns from exposure to BPA." 

Are these bottles safe for your child?  I don't know either.
Image found at diapersect.com

Thankfully, the second website shows that the FDA is not so convinced that BPA is not harmful.  In fact, the FDA recognizes potential effects of BPA on the brain, behavior, and prostate gland of fetuses, infants and children.  They also understand the uncertainties surrounding the current research of BPA effects on human health and have commissioned further research to be done on this topic.  The FDA has taken steps to support reducing human exposure to BPA, BUT the FDA is not recommending that families change the use of infant formula or foods, as the benefit of a stable source of good nutrition outweighs the potential risk of BPA exposure.  This recommendation is due to the aforementioned uncertainties regarding BPA research, but I don't believe families should follow such advice when their is such risk to their baby's health and other infant formulas not packaged in BPA-produced containers.

After reading this article, I firmly believe we should use the precautionary principle approach when regulating chemicals in the country.  It may cost more, but I believe human lives should be protected.