FDA defends toxic baby bottles

FDA defends toxic baby bottles

by William Campbell Douglass II, M.D.

BPA is back in the news because of a tussle between government experts and lawmakers over its safety. At a hearing held by House Committee on Energy and Commerce's Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection, an FDA representative said that the agency had no reason to recommend that consumers stop using BPA – even, incredibly, in baby bottles.

It boggles the mind.

BPA is added to plastics to make them hard and shatterproof. It's also used to prevent corrosion in cans. While its most visible use is in those ubiquitous plastic water bottles that are seen in gyms and aerobics classes all over the country, BPA is also regularly used in plastic food containers, soda cans, and, yes, baby bottles.

Back in April, the U.S Department of Health and Human Service's National Toxicological Program released a report claiming that even small amounts of BPA has been found in animal tests to cause developmental problems, behavioral changes, early puberty, and changes in the prostate gland, all of which could warrant "some concern" about BPA exposure to fetuses, infants, and children. If you ask me, "some concern" is a gross understatement.

The pro-BPA bottle manufacturers claim that the studies linking BPA to health and developmental issues contradict other animal studies (industry-funded, of course) that found the concern "minimal." Norris Alderson, the FDA's Associate Commissioner for Science, said that based on two previous studies, "we concluded that the current level of [BPA] exposure to adults and children is safe," but added that more research is needed and that an FDA task force is looking into the issue.

Whew. Now that Norris Alderson, low-level FDA apparatchik, is on the case, I'm sure that parents all over the country will sleep better at night. I'm confident they'll have no problem feeding their developing children with bottles made with a "minimal risk" of exposure to a deadly toxin. Who are these FDA people? Did they ever live in the same world as the rest of us do, or have they always been bureaucratic robots!? You've got to love the legal word parsing here. What parent is willing to accept ANY risk when it comes to the long-term health of their children, even if industry research (likely biased) concluded it was "minimal"?

Not willing to rely on Norris Alderson and others of his double-speaking ilk, some senators and consumers are calling for a ban on BPA in baby products. These groups point out that heating plastics made with BPA can release hormone-disrupting chemicals into liquids and foods. Anyone who's ever done any parenting knows that there's A LOT of heating up that goes on with plastic baby bottles, which are not only sterilized (though one wonders what good this does if the process is releasing BPA), but also heated to get formula to a palatable temperature for babies to ingest.

What's amazing to me is that this argument over the safety of BPA hinges on exactly how the BPA studies in question were conducted. Pro-BPA groups argue that the tests that exposed the risks of BPA used too small a sample group, or weren't conducted along regulatory standards. Amazing! In spite of the danger to our children, the government agencies argue semantics. If that doesn't prove there's something wrong with the system, I'm not sure what does.