Health, Taken Seriously

Our modern environment is chock-full of chemicals and compounds that threaten our health and safety. Few people, much less government agencies, seem very concerned though. Certainly, this in part due to the impracticality of thoroughly testing the safety of every chemical we come in contact with, much less examining its safety in not only adults, but in children and infants as well. U.S. policy regarding chemicals added to the products we consume is that they are assumed safe until proven otherwise. Alarmingly though, this lack of safety testing and appropriate regulation is also due to industry pressures to minimize government regulations on what can or cannot be added to the materials we come in contact with daily. There are many arguably dangerous substances in our immediate environment that our government fails to acknowledge or to protect us from by enacting appropriate legislation. This concerns me greatly. We certainly have been in denial before about the dangers of products we consume regularly—for example, lead, cigarettes, and most recently, trans fats. For years, research mounted against these dangers while industry touted their safety. How long did the general public believe that margarine, with all its trans fats, was actually better for our health than butter? Are we again in denial about products we use now that could be a threat to our health? I began to believe so when years ago I learned that a chemical found in plastics was banned in Europe, but freely added to products sold in the US. I was worried because this chemical was shown to leak from the plastic and was added to, of all things, baby toys.

The reason why chemicals in children’s toys is so alarming is that young children tend to mouth toys. They explore the world through their mouths, where they have extensive nerve endings that, at certain stages of development, can even outnumber those found in their hands. Plastics are loaded with chemicals that have been documented to leak with time and with exposure to extreme temperatures. But two chemicals in particular have recently been brought to the average consumer’s attention because of their ability to not only leach out of plastic but to also pose significant health threats. These chemicals are phthalates, most frequently found in polyvinyl chloride (plastic #3), and bisphenol-A (BPA), found in polycarbonate (usually labeled #7, which is actually a category for miscellaneous plastics rather than solely polycarbonate).

Pthalates are chemicals that are added to plastic to soften it. The primary plastic that contains phthalates is polyvinyl chloride or PVC. Any plastic that has the #3 is made with this PVC and could contain phthalates. How do you know if the #3 plastic toy you are holding contains phthalates? You don’t. Manufacturers are not required to disclose that information. Even more disheartening, phthalates are not only found in soft plastic toys like teethers, they are also added to quite an array of beauty products from deodorants to hair gels to nail polish to fragrances. They are even used as solvents in pesticides and in a variety of medical equipment, such as PVC tubing for the administration of IV medication or the bags that store donated blood. Phthalate containing plastics are also used to package many food products. In 1999, the European Union placed an emergency ban on any phthalate use in toys made for children under the age of three (a ban that has since then been renewed), but the removal of any phthalates from US formulas and plastics is totally voluntary. Why is this chemical allowed in the US but not the EU?

There are enough studies to demonstrate that the safety of phthalates is questionable. The EPA has even classified a certain type of phthalate—diethyl hexylphthalate, or DEHP—as a “probable human carcinogen,” based upon studies that show increased liver cancers in animals fed the chemical. Certain phthalates also have effects on the kidneys, lungs, and blood clotting. Perhaps the most sensitive is the developing male reproductive tract, where the ability of phthalates to mimic estrogen can disrupt genital development and cause a host of other problems for baby boys¹. Not only is this possible when the infant is exposed to phthalates himself, but also when his mother is exposed to them while he is in utero. This is notable as the group of Americans found to have the highest exposure to phthalates is often women of child-bearing age². As if being an endocrine disrupter and a probable carcinogen isn’t bad enough, it appears that phthalates have the ability to affect fertility by damaging the DNA of sperm³, are correlated with allergies in children⁴, and are correlated with insulin resistance in adults⁵ (a serious condition which can lead to Type II diabetes). Despite all the research demonstrating the questionable safety of phthalates, these chemicals are still added to an array of products we encounter daily.

Are phthalates a limited case of safety oversight? Unfortunately not when it comes to plastics. A couple years ago my mother, a cancer survivor, stopped drinking out of plastic water bottles. She mentioned that they contained some estrogen-mimicking chemical that she was trying to avoid. For those of us that know any breast cancer survivors, and chances are that most of us do, estrogen and anything that can act like the hormone in our bodies is an evil to be avoided at all costs. This estrogen-mimicking chemical that my mother was referring to is bisphenol-A, or BPA. I had heard about estrogen mimickers, or endocrine disrupters, but what I had not heard before was that the estrogen-like compound BPA was in my Nalgene water bottle, coated the majority of canned food items found in my pantry, and to my horror, was also found in the baby bottles I used to feed my newborn. My tiny 8 pound infant, with his immature liver and kidneys, was being exposed to a chemical that had the power to affect most of the cells in his body. What could this chemical possibly be up to? According to Frederick vom Saal and Claude Hughes, nothing good. These scientists noted that of the 115 studies performed between 1997 and 2004 on BPA, all 11 industry studies showed the chemical to be safe (but of course!) while 94 of the studies found otherwise.

Bisphenol-A is a chemical compound that is used in polycarbonate plastics (PC, usually labeled #7). These plastics are clear and look almost like glass; any cloudy or opaque looking plastic is not made with PC. We have known of BPA’s ability to mimic estrogen since the 1930’s. Since then, numerous studies have demonstrated BPA to be carcinogenic, affect fertility, and to possibly be neurotoxic as well. What a list of qualifications for something that leaks into my child’s milk! Most disturbing is that BPA has been shown to have hormone disrupting effects in animals and in human cancer cells at extremely low doses, as low as 2-5 parts per billion, and that like phthalates, BPA can leach out of plastic⁶. The U.S. safety level of BPA has been set to 50 µg/kg/day, a level above what has been shown to be dangerous to humans, double the safety level set in Canada, and a level that has not been changed in 20 years. Studies have found that at only 2-2.5 µg/kg/day, there are signs of early puberty, decline in male fertility⁷, and increased rates of breast cancer in predisposed breast cells⁸. At 20 µg/kg/day, damage to eggs and chromosomes has been demonstrated, while at 30 µg/kg/day alterations in brain structure and corresponding behavioral changes have been observed⁹. It appears that the typical American diet exposes us to anywhere from 1.5 to 13 µg/kg/day. An infant fed from PC bottles can be exposed to 11 µg/kg/day, while an adult that eats 3 kg of food and beverages from BPA lined cans or BPA containing plastics will be exposed to about 1.5 µg/kg/day¹⁰. It is alarming that developing infants can be exposed to such high levels. Remember that temperature extremes increase the leaching of BPA from plastic, so heating milk in baby bottles as well as heating toddler food in the microwave on PC plates can increase exposure to BPA. The infant exposure of 11 µg/kg/day was determined without heating the plastic, so it’s possible that infants are exposed to even higher doses than that.

It is dangerous that those who are exposed to the highest levels of BPA (infants and young children) are also those who are most susceptible to serious health risks from it. Prenatal exposure to BPA increases the sensitivity of breast tissue to cancer-causing chemicals later in life in female rats and increases susceptibility to prostate cancer in male rats. Exposure to BPA can also disrupt the function of pancreatic cells and induce insulin resistance¹¹. A study in Japan found that BPA exposure was linked to recurrent miscarriages¹². And brain studies have found that low doses of BPA in rats causes changes in brain structure and sexual behavior⁹, while another study found that BPA can alter maternal behavior as well¹³. This is just a glimpse of hundreds of studies that have been performed on BPA, the majority of which show negative effects of BPA on health (keeping in mind that none of the industry studies have shown any adverse effects of BPA). Why hasn’t the U.S. government done anything to reduce our exposure to this dangerous chemical? Surely the research to date demonstrates that this chemical has no place in our bodies, much less in those of developing children and infants.

Fortunately, the dangers of BPA are becoming mainstream knowledge. When my child was born in 2005, it took quite a deal of effort on my part to learn about BPA and its risks to our health. But now, a mere two years later, articles in parenting magazines warn of BPA (see Parenting, September 2007), pregnancy books advise caution (The Complete Organic Pregnancy by Deirdre Dolan and Alexandra Zissu), and baby bottles are being advertised as BPA-free (Born Free). If the government won’t pass legislation to remove BPA from plastics, consumers can change how they shop to avoid the chemical. Consider replacing your PC products with glass baby bottles, glass storage containers, and non-plastic water bottles. Never buy food packaged in #7 containers, especially not baby food. Avoid plastic wraps, as some contain BPA and/or phthalates. Reduce your consumption of canned foods, particularly canned soups, pastas, and infant formulas. Try to buy frozen or fresh foods instead, or look for foods stored in glass jars instead of cans. Every can does not necessarily contain BPA so if you can’t give up your favorite canned tomatoes in the dead of winter, contact the manufacturer to see if their cans are lined with BPA.

While the dangers of BPA are finally being brought to the awareness of the general public, the concerns surrounding phthalates seems to be less pronounced. When I talked to my child’s pediatrician about phthalates in baby toys in 2005, he told me he had not heard of the chemical nor was he aware of any reports concerning its safety in current pediatric literature. How could my child’s doctor not know of a probable human carcinogen that my child mouthed regularly? Perhaps the greatest lesson in our modern world of dangerous substances is that consumers must take matters into their own hands! Just because your doctor hasn’t heard of it or just because the FDA has not banned its use does not mean it is safe. Chemicals like phthalates and BPA have no place in our homes, or in our children’s bodies, and you can do something to reduce your exposure to them. In addition to the steps for avoiding BPA, limit the number of plastic toys in your home, particularly those designed for infants. Do not let your child play with soft plastic toys, such as pool floaties or soft bathtub toys. Contact manufacturers of toys you simply can’t give up and ask whether their plastic contains phthalates. Never give your child plastic teethers (Consider wood teethers and toys instead. Websites like Oompa Toys and Moolka sell wood toys made in Europe with toxic-free paints). Limit your use of beauty products that contain phthalates, particularly nail polish and fragrances. Try to remove any items made from plastic #3 or #7 in your home and replace them with glass or wood options, or with safer plastics (#1, 2, 4 or 5). Never microwave food or beverages in plastic containers. Wash all plastic containers by hand rather than in the dishwasher (where high temperatures increase the leaching of chemicals). Replace worn plastics immediately, as visible signs of damage to the plastic suggest that it leaches its chemicals more readily. Stay abreast of current research by frequenting websites like that of the Environmental Working Group or Our Stolen Future. And then of course, forward this blog onto your friends and family.

Sites worth visiting….

• http://www.ewg.org
• http://www.healthobservatory.org/library.cfm?refid=77083
• http://assets.panda.org/downloads/reduce_risk.pdf
• http://www.ourstolenfuture.org/NewScience/oncompounds/phthalates/phthalates.htm
• http://www.safecosmetics.org/docUploads/NotTooPretty_r51.pdf
• http://www.ewg.org/reports/bisphenola
• http://www.ewg.org/node/20944
• http://zrecs.blogspot.com/2007/07/z-report-bisphenol-in-polycarbonate.html
• http://www.deliciousorganics.com/Controversies/plastic.htm
• http://www.myhouseisyourhouse.org/

1. Barrett JR (2005). Phthalates and Baby Boys: Potential Disruption of Human Genital Development. Environmental Health Perspectives. 113(8): A542.

2. Blount, BC, MJ Silva, SP Caudill, LL Needham, JL Pirkle, EJ Sampson, GW Lucier, RJ Jackson, JW Brock (2000). Levels of Seven Urinary Phthalate Metabolites in a Human Reference Population. Environmental Health Perspectives 108: 979-982

3. Duty, SM, NP Singh, MJ Silva, DB Barr, JW Brock, L Ryan, RF Herrick, DC Christiani and R Hauser (2003). The relationship between environmental exposures to phthalates and DNA damage in human sperm using the neutral comet assay. Environmental Health Perspectives. 5756

4. C.-G. Bornehag, J. Sundell, C. J. Weschler, T. Sigsgaard, B. Lundgren, M. Hasselgren, L. Hägerhed-Engman (2004). The Association between Asthma and Allergic Symptoms in Children and Phthalates in House Dust: A Nested Case–Control Study. Environmental Health Perspectives 112 (13): 1319–1340

5. Stahlhut RW, van Wijngaarden E, Dye TD, Cook S, Swan SH. (2007). Concentrations of urinary phthalate metabolites are associated with increased waist circumference and insulin resistance in adult u.s. Males”. Environmental Health Perspectives 115 (6): 876-82

6. E. C. Dodds and W. Lawson. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B, Biological Sciences, 125, #839 (27-IV-1938), pp. 222-232.

7. Ho, S-M, W-Y Tang, J Belmonte de Frausto, and GS Prins (2006). Developmental Exposure to Estradiol and Bisphenol A Increases Susceptibility to Prostate Carcinogenesis and Epigenetically Regulates Phosphodiesterase Type 4 Variant 4. Cancer Research 66: 5624-5632.

8. Durando, M, L Kass, J Piva, C Sonnenschein, AM Soto, EH Luque, and M Muñoz-de-Toro (2006). Prenatal Bisphenol A Exposure Induces Preneoplastic Lesions in the Mammary Gland in Wistar Rats. Environmental Health Perspectives, in press

9. Kubo, K, O Arai, M Omura, R Wantanabe, R Ogata, and S Aou. (2003). Low dose effects of bisphenol A on sexual differentiation of the brain and behavior in rats. Neuroscience Research 45: 345-356.

10. http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/science/afc/afc_opinions/bisphenol_a.html. Accessed on 8/27/07.

11. Alonso-Magdalena, P, S Morimoto, C Ripoll, E Fuentes and A Nadal. (2006). The Estrogenic Effect of Bisphenol-A Disrupts the Pancreatic ß-Cell Function in vivo and Induces Insulin Resistance. Environmental Health Perspectives 114:106-112.

12. Sugiura-Ogasawara, M, Y Ozaki, S Sonta, T Makino and Kaoru Suzumori (2005). Exposure to bisphenol A is associated with recurrent miscarriage. Human Reproduction 20:2325-2329.

13. Palanza, P, KL Howdeshell, S Parmigiani and FS vom Saal. (2002). Exposure to a low dose of bisphenol A during fetal life or in adulthood alters maternal behavior in mice. Environmental Health Perspectives 110: 415-422.

Filed under: BPA, Chemicals, Children, Phthalates, Plastic on August 31st, 2007