The answer to BPA plastics? There is no answer!
BPA's are to the baby products industry what phthalates are to the toy industry; trouble. Phthalates are used to soften plastics; BPA, also called Bisephenol, is also a chemical but it shows up in hard plastics used in a number of baby products like drinking cups and baby bottles. Both chemicals have caused consumer concern and political activism.
But what about the science of these plastics? The New York Times showcased an extensive article on the subject of BPA's in its Science section last week. Entitled, In Feast of Data on BPA Plastics, No Final Answer," we learn that there has been abundant testing. The problem is that the answers contradict each other resulting in discord at academic conferences and journals.
If the scientists can't agree how the toy and baby industries are supposed to respond? Here is how the article puts the problem:
The research has been going on for more than 10 years. Studies number in the hundreds. Millions of dollars have been spent. But government health officials still cannot decide whether the chemical bisphenol-A, or BPA, a component of some plastics, is safe... "
The article goes on to site the consumer reaction: "Consumer fears have made the words "BPA-free" a marketing tool. Wal-Mart, Whole Foods, Sears, CVS and other retailers have said they will stop selling baby bottles made with BPA, and major formula and baby-bottle manufacturers have also scrapped it."
But should consumers be concerned, should politicians be hectoring and should manufacturers be pulling BPA products off the shelves? Based on the research it's hard to know what to say. The New York Times article tells us that:
The mountains of data produced so far show conflicting results as to whether BPA is dangerous, in part because different laboratories have studied the chemical in different ways. Animal strains, doses, methods of exposure and the results being measured - as crude as body weight or as delicate as gene expression in the brain - have all varied, making it difficult or impossible to reconcile the findings. In science, no experiment is taken seriously unless other researchers can reproduce it, and difficulties in matching BPA studies have led to fireworks.
What is obviously needed is some kind of definitive finding. That may not come for a long, long time. In the mean time, the fight will go on with lots of heat and little light.
Old Toy Safety Guy commented:
Boy some real misleading statements going on here. Okay, I have some experience with toys and plastics. You don't need to use polycarbonates in these applications. Just change the base polymer you're using to something more benign (PP, HDPE, glass) and the issue goes away. As for the inconsistent results with these endocrine disruptors,I don't know why anyone is surprised. Studies have shown small amounts can affect the body, but body chemistries are so complex, you can't introduce any real controls into these research studies. Just seems to me, given that the concern exists why even take the chance with our babies and children? You can make do with other materials.
BTW, Soft Landing does not make toys, they are a reseller- not sure what you're even talking about?
Mel commented:
Super Safety Dad, VERY well said.
Amber, take a look at CPSC.gov and search by "wooden" and tell me that these little manufacturers know what they're doing. Plan Toys and The Soft Landing both had recalls for infant products because of poor design. Preschool toys should have redundantly entrapped small parts or be designed without small parts at all (pieces that fit into the CPSC choke tube gauge) ever heard of it? ...Nice job on the penguin who's round head pops off and creates a choking hazard along with exposed wires as a laceration hazard. That was by Plan Toys (type in Plan Toys as a search). These small manufacturers are popping up without a qualified safety engineer who knows how to safely design toys. Consumers are fooled into thinking "oh thank goodness, this toy will be safe for my child because it has no plastic". I agree that some chemicals are unsafe when ingested, such as lead at certain levels, but most phthalates are banned from toys already. If you knew anything about plastics and emissions, you wouldn't ride in your car because it is loaded with DEHP, a regulated plasticizer in toys, but not in cars. It is slowly emitting from your dashboard as we speak.
Super Safety Dad commented:
Let's admit that any chemical, man made or modified in some way by may be harmful or a “cause for concern”. Amber is right; some studies have shown that BPA, an environmental estrogen has been linked to premature development in girls. However, unlike lead and other known hazardous compounds, there is no definitive data to support the link. The phthalates studies that were eventually used to support the introduction of the CPSIA legislative limits were performed on mice. A later study showed no adverse effects on monkeys; a much closer genetic relative to humans. There is no perfect answer for how these studies should be performed, as there shouldn't be, because the studies themselves are an attempt to gain answers to our questions on the hazardous nature of chemicals and compounds. It is a study and often times, researchers are beginning blindly, not knowing what could or will happen. That’s the beauty of science; perform research and see if the theories are true or if these subjects are affected by the chemicals in question.
However, once a study’s findings are published (although that study may not be all inclusive), the media often glorifies the findings as the answer to all of our concerns, which is often premature and leads to unnecessary concern by retailers, media and especially the consumer. I am a huge supporter of things healthy; whether its food, the toys I choose for my daughter or the cleaning agents used at her daycare...I find myself recommending or discouraging folks from unsafe activities or practices. Yet at the same time, I am a realist and a manufacturer as well. Of course, I wouldn't allow a product to be made if it threatened the harm of any user, especially children and although the law dictates that certain phthalates are limited in toys and child care articles, there are more studies proving that they are perfectly safe, than they can cause harm. The same can be said for BPA; if it were a legitimate concern, federal legislation would have already been passed.
Sometimes you have to wonder what political forces are behind these law changes and what their motivation truly is. Why were lead limits so drastically reduced after being considered safe for over 30 years? Why did it take legislators a year after the Mattel recalls to get the ball moving on the proposed legislation (which was an election year)? And last, after making the law retroactive for manufacturers, meaning we were not allowed to sell existing merchandise, why weren't all toys with now "excessive" levels of lead recalled? God forbid anyone still owns a toy made before February 2009! There children are exposed to hazardous amounts of lead! No….no they aren’t….and everyone, including those legislators agree. Mattel failed to meet the current limit in 2007; it had nothing to do with that limit being hazardous. Oh! the FDA limit for lead in children’s candy is currently still 1000ppm (0.1%), while the lead in paint limits stand at 90ppm (0.009%)…makes no sense, right? Because the FDA doesn’t feel that something, intended to be consumed and which contains lead at this percentage is truly harmful to the child consuming it. But, here are our incredibly knowledgeable legislators passing a law to reduce the lead limits in paints; again….election year…not an increasing the safety of toys.
CPSIA has done nothing to improve the safety of children; I promise you that. Nothing has truly changed, except for the poorly written legislation that we are forced to follow, but your children and mine included are no safer than they were before Mattel violated the federal lead limits, so don’t be fooled or mislead by everything you hear.
www.supersafetydad.com
Amber @ Nater Tot commented:
@Mel - are you serious?! You are obviously completely ignorant on this topic. We are all "fine" from drinking BPA laden bottles? BPA is an endocrine disruptor and mimics estrogen. Girls are hitting puberty earlier, cancer rates and infertility rates are rising. Many scientists think environmental toxins are to blame. Just because people don't die instantly from a toxin doesn't make it safe (think of the effects of cigarette smoke). There are many bottles made without BPA. BPA-free plastic bottles are an option, as are glass. What kind of moron would think that wooden bottles are an alternative? There are tons of gorgeous safe wooden toys - Plan Toys, Little Sapling Toys. I don't know what you're talking about with respect to little wooden balls falling off. Please educate yourself. Check out The Soft Landing, Safemama dot com, and my blog mylifewithnate dot blogspot dot com for starters. State governments are starting to ban BPA for a reason. Even the FDA admits that there is a reason BPA is viewed as as a "chemical of concern."
Mel commented:
Really? Let's see, BPA has been in baby bottles for what, the past 40 years, and I think we are all fine from drinking from those baby bottles aren't we? What unknown chemicals are manufacturers replacing the BPA with? Are you going to give your baby a wooden bottle to drink from? The chemicals found in wood, which by the way can splinter, can be far worse. It's so sad because we have small manufacturers who are making wooden toys with little balls glued on the ends that children can choke on, and parents are buying them thinking they are safer than the plastic toys. It's really quite frightening.
Amber @ Nater Tot commented:
This is precisely why our federal laws regarding chemicals need to be changed. Chemicals should not be introduced into the products in our marketplace before they are proven safe. I'm not taking any chances with the health of my developing baby. I'll stick to safer alternatives - like wooden toys. They last longer and look nicer anyway!
Stephenie Hendricks commented:
Mr Gottleib,
Since you gt paid by the Toy Industry to consult for them, why don't you give them possibly the best advice they will ever hear from you:
Make Safer Products!
The science on BPA linked to a myriad of health effects is so overwhelming that I appears as if your essay portrays you as someone who is lacking in credibility, not the best thing for a consultant!
And anyone with an ounce of common sense would understand why people have become "activists" on this issue - as an EPA scientist told me, "The chemical issue is so dire that anyone not advocating for environmental health is crazy at this point."
