For years, American farmers have relied on the herbicide atrazine to control weeds. The chemical is used on 75 percent of cornfields in the U.S., the Washington Post recently reported. From there, it washes into nearby streams and rivers, traveling throughout the waterways of the Midwest.
For years, Syngenta, the Swiss corporation that makes atrazine, has maintained that the herbicide does not pose a health risk, that, as the Post put it, it’s “safe for wildlife, and for the people who are exposed to small amounts of it in drinking water.”
A new study published last week by the National Academy of Sciences and led by UC-Berkeley scientist Tyrone Hayes suggests otherwise. Earlier studies had shown that when animals ingest atrazine, it disrupts their hormonal systems and affects their development. The latest study makes it clear how dramatic those changes can be: according to the research, male African horned frogs who were exposed to atrazine-tainted water as tadpoles were “feminized” to varying degrees. Some showed lower testosterone levels and decreased fertility. Ten percent actually became what Hayes called “functionally female,” meaning they could mate with males and lay viable eggs.
Atrazine “causes hormone havoc,” and that has implications for humans, Hayes told the Post: “You need to look at things that are affecting wildlife, and realize that, biologically, we’re not that different.”
Syngenta disputed the findings and sent the Post reporter to another scientist who backed the company’s position.
It’s not surprising that a corporation would dismiss scientific research that runs counter to its bottom line. More alarming—although, sadly, not necessarily more surprising—is the fact that government officials have also maintained that atrazine is safe. While mounting research has raised concerns about the herbicide, the EPA has said, as recently as 2007, that there’s no evidence of ill effects on the health of exposed wildlife.
As in so many other cases, when it comes to atrazine, the government has appeared too willing to err on the side of corporate interests over the health of the public, too willing to take a wait-and-see approach that requires the dangers of a chemical be proven, rather than its safety. Unfortunately, that’s also been the approach to another consumer chemical that’s finally getting public attention because of the particular risks it poses to children: BPA.
*
The day after the National Academy of Sciences published Hayes’ study, Gov. Deval Patrick publicly called for a state ban on certain products containing bisphenol A, or BPA, a common plastic hardening agent that’s been linked to a host of human health problems. Environmental and public health activists point to more than 200 independent studies that link the chemical to serious health problems including cancer, diabetes, early puberty, sexual dysfunctions, hyperactivity and obesity.
It’s virtually impossible to avoid exposure to BPA, which is used in plastic bottles and other food containers, as well as the lining of many food cans, and can leach into food and beverages. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more than 90 percent of Americans show traces of the chemical in their urine. Experts say the risks are especially great for babies and young children, whose development can be adversely affected by even small amounts of the chemical, which for years has been used in baby bottles, sippy cups, infant formula cans and other baby products.
The American Academy of Pediatrics, citing “concerns & over the possible harmful effects BPA may have on humans, particularly on infants and children,” has issued a list of precautions “concerned parents” can take to reduce children’s exposure, such as avoiding certain plastic bottles. Meanwhile, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration—which for years has assured consumers that BPA is safe—has now, apparently, rethought that position. In January, an FDA official said the agency now has “some concern” about the chemical, especially its effect on developing fetuses and young children, and will conduct a major study into its health risks.
A number of states and municipalities have already enacted limited bans on BPA. Last week, Patrick announced that he’s ordered the Department of Public Health to prepare draft regulations that would ban the use of BPA in certain consumer products. “We are taking this action as a precaution to protect vulnerable children in the light of evidence about potential dangers of BPA,” Patrick said in a press release. The announcement comes several months after the DPH issued a public warning against storing expressed breast milk or baby formula in containers made with BPA.
The governor’s announcement is a promising start—or at least it would have been about five years ago. But as evidence piles up about the potential risks posed by BPA, some activists are concerned that Patrick’s efforts won’t go far enough. Last week’s press release cited as an example of BPA legislation a 2009 Minnesota law that bans BPA in bottles and cups made for babies and toddlers, but not in other products, including food containers and formula cans.
The environmental group Clean Water Action responded to Patrick’s announcement with limited praise. While the group said it’s “pleased” that the governor has taken up the issue, it’s also anxious to see Massachusetts move beyond the limited bans like Minnesota’s to create a wider-reaching policy that addresses other sources of BPA exposure.
“We need to see it include cans. Unfortunately, the governor stopped short of including cans in his statement,” Elizabeth Saunders, environmental health legislative director of Clean Water Action Massachusetts, told the Advocate. “We’d like to see a stronger stance coming from Gov. Patrick.”
*
For guidance on a state BPA law, Patrick doesn’t need to look as far away as Minnesota. Closer to home, the state of Connecticut has been a leader in the effort, last year passing a comprehensive bill that bans the chemical’s use in reusable food and beverage containers, as well as baby food and formula cans and jars. The law will go into effect in 2011.
Connecticut’s approach makes a good deal of sense, Saunders noted; what good is it to ensure that baby bottles don’t contain BPA if the formula being poured into them was exposed to the chemical in its can? For activists concerned about the risks of BPA, “the next frontier is formula containers and other food and beverage containers,” she said.
While the state government takes up the BPA question, one Massachusetts lawmaker is pushing for a larger, federal approach to the issue. U.S. Rep. Edward Markey, chairman of the House Energy and Environment subcommittee, has authored a bill that would ban the use of BPA in all food and beverage containers. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) has introduced similar legislation in the Senate.
Markey praised Patrick’s announcement, saying in a press release that it “will help the most vulnerable populations steer clear of this dangerous chemical. … I commend the governor and the DPH for taking bold action to keep this dangerous chemical out of the reach of our children. Parents have enough to worry about without wondering if the bottles and cups they use to feed their children are safe.”
It’s important to note that Patrick’s announcement did not specifically exclude the possibility of a wide-reaching BPA ban along the lines of Connecticut’s. Still, the language used in the governor’s announcement—his calls for a “limited ban”; his references to Minnesota’s narrow law, rather than the broader approach taken in Connecticut—make activists worry that the result won’t be broad enough in scope.
That’s why it’s especially important for members of the public who are concerned about BPA to heed Patrick’s call for “all interested citizens [to] engage in this process.” The governor has called on the DPH to prepare draft BPA legislation in time for the Mass. Public Health Council’s May meeting. “Final passage of the regulation will be preceded by an open public comment process involving all interested parties,” the governor’s statement adds.
Public concerns about BPA have already yielded results in the marketplace: in recent years, a number of national retailers, including Babies ‘R’ Us, Target and Wal-Mart, have pledged to stop carrying BPA products such as baby bottles, while major bottle manufacturers have announced they will no longer sell products made with the chemical in the U.S.
Those changes were made despite the insistence of industry groups that there’s no conclusive evidence that the chemical poses health risks. In a statement in January, in response to the pending FDA study, the American Chemistry Council maintained, “Regulatory agencies around the world, which have recently reviewed the research, have reached conclusions that support the safety of BPA. Extensive scientific studies have shown that BPA is quickly metabolized and excreted and does not accumulate in the body. BPA is one of the most thoroughly tested chemicals in commerce today.”
But to a public that’s repeatedly seen evidence that chemicals once promised to be “safe” are, indeed, not, such reassurances are hardly convincing. After years of assuming that the numerous chemicals we spray on our fields, put in our mouths and give to our babies are safe until proven otherwise, isn’t it time we start exercising a good deal more caution?
