When the Patrick administration earlier this year called for a state ban on the use of the controversial chemical bisphenol-A (or BPA) in certain products, environmental activists reacted with guarded praise.
In early March, the governor announced that he was ordering the Massachusetts Department of Public Health to draft regulations banning the use of BPA in some consumer products, citing, in particular, scientific studies suggesting that the chemical—a common plastic hardener—poses development risks to young children. “We are taking this action as a precaution to protect vulnerable children in the light of evidence about potential dangers of BPA,” Patrick said at the time.
In response, the environmental group Clean Water Action said it was “pleased” by the governor’s move, but worried that it wouldn’t go far enough. As an example of BPA legislation, Patrick had cited a 2009 Minnesota law that bans the chemical in baby bottles and sippy cups. But, CWA noted, that law does not apply to two other potential sources of BPA exposure: baby formula cans and baby food containers, both of which can be lined with a plastic containing the chemical.
“We need to see it include cans. Unfortunately, the governor stopped short of including cans in his statement,” Elizabeth Saunders, CWA Massachusetts’ environmental health legislative director, told the Advocate this spring. “We’d like to see a stronger stance coming from Gov. Patrick.”
But that stronger stance does not appear to be coming. Last week, the state Public Health Council began discussion on a draft BPA proposal—one that, as activists feared, does not extend to food and formula containers.
“This limited scope of products does not protect the developing fetus and babies because it allows BPA in infant formula and containers that pregnant women utilize,” Lee Ketelsen, co-director of Clean Water Action, said in a statement after the meeting of the PHC, which would have to approve a new policy. “We call on Governor Patrick to support a regulation that takes real measures to protect developing children.”
*
BPA is ubiquitous in modern society, showing up in a range of plastic products, including the linings of food containers. Numerous scientific studies have linked the chemical to health problems including cancer, diabetes, early puberty, sexual dysfunctions, hyperactivity and obesity. The American Academy of Pediatrics has issued guidelines for parents who want to reduce their children’s exposure to the chemical, pointing to “concerns over the possible harmful effects BPA may have on humans, particularly on infants and children.” In January, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced that it has “some concern” about potential health risks, especially on the very young, and would begin a major study on BPA. That study comes after years of assurances from the FDA that the chemical is safe.
Industry groups insist that BPA poses no health risks. “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,” the American Chemistry Council said in a statement earlier this year.
Still, mounting concerns about the potential risks have prompted a number of large retailers and manufacturers to take action. Wal-Mart, Target and Babies ‘R’ Us are among the stores that have pledged to stop carrying baby products that contain BPA. Meanwhile, major bottle manufacturers have announced they will no longer sell products made with the chemical in the U.S.
The state of Connecticut has taken the most aggressive stand against BPA use. Last year, lawmakers there banned the use of BPA in reusable food and beverage containers, as well as baby food and formula containers. The law will go into effect in 2011.
A number of other states and counties have enacted limited bans on BPA use, while U.S. Rep. Edward Markey, a Democrat from Massachusetts’ 7th District, is sponsoring a federal bill that would ban its use in all food and beverage containers. In Vermont, bills are pending that would ban BPA in baby food and formula containers as well as in reusable food and beverage containers (with the exception of the large plastic bottles used in water coolers).
That’s the kind of broader approach many environmental and public health activists would like to see Massachusetts take. “We have unnecessary exposure of vulnerable fetuses and infants to a hormone disrupting chemical,” Cheryl Durr Patry of the grassroots group Medfield Green said in a statement released by the Alliance for a Healthy Tomorrow, a coalition of 160 health, environmental and community organizations. “It is imperative action be taken to phase out BPA from a wide scope of products to begin to protect our developing children.”
*
Meanwhile, the Patrick proposal is drawing criticism from a different angle: at last week’s meeting of the Public Health Council, some members expressed concern that, faced with a ban on BPA, manufacturers might replace the chemical with others that are even more dangerous.
“My concern is the unintended consequences,” Alan Woodward, a physician who sits on the PHC, told the Boston Globe. “My concern is that we may find out five to 10 years down the line that compounds in the replacement are more toxic.”
Members of the Alliance for a Healthy Tomorrow point out that there are already alternatives to BPA in use. AHT also backs a state bill—known as the “Safer Alternatives to Toxic Chemicals” bill—that would require manufacturers to replace known toxics in their products with safer alternatives, if feasible. That bill’s primary sponsors are state Rep. Jay Kaufman (D-Lexington) and Sen. Steven Tolman (D-Brighton).
