Fake Banner
    By Susan Young | October 14th 2009 10:20 PM | 15 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
    You've probably noticed that more and more of your friends and co-workers are switching from the once ubiquitous plastic water bottle to stainless steel or glass water bottles. Most likely, they made the switch because they're concerned about the effects those plastic
    bottles have on their health.

    Over the last decade or so, we have come to understand that plastic is not the innocuous and stable material it appears to be.  Bisphenol A (BPA), a molecular building block of many 
    polycarbonate plastics and epoxy resins, can leech out of materials and contaminate the surrounding environment. Animal studies have provided us with several examples of the potentially harmful effects of BPA exposure on development and behavior. In the first study
    on the effects of BPA exposure on human behavior
    , scientists have connected BPA exposure in the womb to more aggressive behaviors in  girls1.

    BPA is a widely used compound that can be found in items like water bottles, food containers, and medical devices as well as in the linings of aluminum cans used for food storage.  BPA mimics  the hormone estrogen and can bind to and activate estrogen receptors. In a growing fetus, this estrogen mimic could disturb delicately-balanced, hormonally-driven developmental processes. Over the last decade or so, animal studies have shown that prenatal BPA exposure does indeed affect development and can lead to physiological and behavioral changes in young animals. For example, young male mice exposed to BPA in utero exhibited increased aggressive behavior as well
    as a reduced testis size
    2.

    The first study on prenatal BPA exposure and human behavior, headed by Bruce Lanphear, director of the Cincinnati Children's Environmental Health Center, suggests that prenatal BPA exposure is associated with an increase in externalizing behaviors in two-year-old girls. Negative externalizing behaviors include hostile, defiant, and aggressive actions.

    The study's participants began as 249 expectant mothers in the Cincinnati area.  The women gave three urine samples, one at 16 weeks of gestation (early second trimester), one at 26 weeks of gestation (end of second trimester) and one at the time of delivery. At each time
    point, there were detectable levels of BPA in samples from 90% of women. Once the children reached the age of two, parents scored their behavior with the Behavior Assessment System for Children (BASC-2), a widely-used clinical rating-scale system that assesses many aspects of
    behavior, both positive and negative.

    Looking across the entire dataset for an association between prenatal BPA levels and behavior, researchers found no significant correlation.  However, when they split the data into mother-daughter and mother-son pairs, they did see a significant association between average prenatal BPA levels and higher externalizing-behavior scores in girls.  In particular, it was the level of BPA at the earliest timepoint of gestation, 16 weeks, that was correlated with the externalizing behaviors in girls. Daughters of women who had the highest BPA concentrations at time of delivery (top two quartiles) had externalizing scores similar to males. The researchers will continue to follow the children through 5 years of age to monitor the persistence
    of these behaviors. 


    These results suggest that BPA in a mother's body can affect the neurodevelopmental processes of her children and that the sex of the child can modulate these effects. It should be noted that this study was based upon a relatively small number of participants and that the children were very young, which might make it difficult to accurately qualify their behavior.  However, the fact that prenatal BPA exposure has been shown to affect behavior in other animals raises my confidence in the author's conclusions. I don't know if it is more alarming or more astounding that a material so intertwined with our everyday life, especially with food and water, could be the source of a developmentally-disrupting toxin found in over 90% of Americans3. We trust that materials found in grocery aisles and hospitals are safe, but unfortunately, some are "safe-until-proven-otherwise." 

    Although the jury may still be out on the safety of BPA, this initial foray into the effects of BPA exposure on human development and behavior has nonetheless convinced me it is time to be serious about minimizing my exposure to this compound.

    References

    1) Braun J, et al. Prenatal Bisphenol A Exposure and Early Childhood Behavior. Environmental Health Perspectives, online. doi:10.1289/ehp.0900979; 2009.
    2) Kawai K, et al. Aggressive Behavior and Serum Testosterone Concentration during the Maturation Process of Male Mice: The Effects of Fetal Exposure to Bisphenol A. Environmental Health Perspectives: Vol. 111 (2); 2003. 
    3) Calafat AM, et al. Exposure of the U.S. Population to Bisphenol A and 4-tertiary-Octylphenol: 2003-2004. Environmental Health Perspectives: Vol. 115 (12); 2007.

    Comments

    Very interesting read. With so many toxins in our environment that are not brought to our attention, when something is, we should sit up and take notice.

    slyoung
    A friend told me that our local REI (in Berkeley, CA) accepts unwanted plastic water bottles for recycling near its customer service desk.  Other REI locations should also accept bottles for recycling-- just ask at the customer service desk.
    I have a related question. Is there a federal agencey that controls the types and the amounts of chemicals used in the manufacturing of food and beverage containers?

    slyoung
        td, I'm certainly no expert on this, but I think both the FDA and EPA have a role in regulating the types and amounts of chemicals used in food storage containers.
        The FDA has rules about what are acceptable amounts of chemicals that get released into our food from food containers.  You can launch the FDA's database of acceptable daily intake levels and estimated daily intake levels of chemicals they monitor from the link at the bottom of this page:  http://tiny.cc/0teMY
        The EPA reports on the human health effects of chemicals in our environment, which would include food storage containers.  Here is their current list of monitored chemicals: http://tiny.cc/ACh4F
    Gerhard Adam
    Perhaps another question that needs to be asked is whether behavioral changes are considered safety risks? 

    Since your reference(2) is from 2003, it is curious why the FDA would state:
    Based on our ongoing review, we believe there is a large body of evidence that indicates that FDA-regulated products containing BPA currently on the market are safe and that exposure levels to BPA from food contact materials, including for infants and children, are below those that may cause health effects. However, we will continue to consider new research and information as they become available.
    What is one to conclude?
    slyoung
    Gerhard, Good point—it will be interesting to see if the researchers still see an effect on behavior when they reexamine the children at 5 years of age.  I think if human development is being altered (whether the issue at hand is behavioral or physiological, they are totally intertwined in my book) then there is a safety risk.  However, I don't know whether the FDA considers behavioral effects a safety risk.

    I agree it is curious that the FDA stands by the idea that BPA, as it is currently used, is safe for consumers, given that in 2008 the FDA science board (an advisory board outside the FDA) unanimously agreed that the FDA had ignored evidence that BPA could harm children.  Interestingly, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel obtained emails between the FDA members and BPA lobbyists hinting that the FDA’s decisions may have been influenced by manufacturers of BPA products. It’s not all bad though-- the FDA has announced it will take another look at the research on the health effects of BPA and should release a new report by the end of this month.

    The FDA, of course, is in a difficult position. If they were to decide that current levels of BPA in food containers are potentially harmful, there would be some difficult changes ahead, especially if the staple of most Americans’ kitchen cabinets— canned goods— were deemed unsafe. While it seems reasonable to have a touch of suspicion over the FDA’s past decisions about BPA, it is also
    important to consider that changing an economical food option found in most American’s kitchen cabinets would be quite burdensome for many people.  I’m not saying that our safety should be risked because changes are difficult, just that there needs to be no question that those difficult decisions were made correctly.
    Gerhard Adam
    The FDA, of course, is in a difficult position.
    Actually they aren't.  There job is to assess the safety of the food supply.  It is NOT their job to worry about economic consequences, nor to advance the interests of those that might profit from their decisions.

    It's certainly reasonable that they may not be able to make a decision or recommendation because they lack the data.  Similarly, they may conclude that there is no harm.  However, the only thing that makes their position "difficult" is when they want to insert themselves in the middle between business interests and their responsibility for food safety.
    So I am not crazy! All along I always thought that plastic changes the taste of water and food; that taste is not a healthy one. Plastic is unhealthy in so many ways. Thanks Scientists and Environmentalists you guys rock our world! Will there be more studies on cell phone usage and the effects on the brain especially in children and young adults? Please recycle all that you can and show the love for our beautiful planet.

    Gerhard Adam
    Check out the following link regarding cell phones.  I don't believe we're dealing with radical or irrational views, but it's something to keep up with.

    http://www.livescience.com/technology/091112-cell-phone-brain.html
    oops! I mean 'affects'....sorry

    Susan I voted for you and I posted it on my Facebook. Hope you win Sweetie! Good Luck!

    slyoung
    Thanks Jen!
    jtwitten
    I'm not saying you are making this argument, but I find it interesting that this standard:
    We trust that materials found in grocery aisles and hospitals are safe, but unfortunately, some are "safe-until-proven-otherwise."
    accurately describes the regulatory regime for dietary supplements, many of which have proven pharmacologically active ingredients and some of which wind up containing undeclared pharmaceuticals.
    I think the billion dollar vitamin and supplement industry and the quack "complimentary" medical industry should have to demonstrate safety and effectiveness before they rake in one more dollar from medical plans or people's pockets.

    jtwitten
    It is probably also worth noting that the plausibility of BPA effects on humans extrapolated from animal models is not without debate.