those with the largest amount of BPA in their urine had nearly three times the risk of heart disease and more than twice the risk of diabetes as those who had the lowest levels.

We already know there's concern about whether BPA harms babies, but frankly this author is a baby-free grown up, and I want to know whether BPA hurts me. This study may indicate a link but the co-author says it's not conclusive—the heightened BPA levels may be a reflection of the diets of those with heart disease and diabetes, and not a cause.

Still, there is some evidence from previous animal studies that BPA may interfere with insulin production:

"Even those with the highest BPA levels still had levels way below the currently established 'safe' level," says David Melzer, an epidemiologist at the University of Exeter in England and coauthor of the study. Other researchers say there's enough evidence from previous animal studies to suggest that BPA is harmful to adults. BPA levels that are slightly elevated but still just one-fifth the safe dose limit established by the Food and Drug Administration trigger an alarming release of insulin in the pancreatic cells of mice—and higher levels lead to pre-diabetes or insulin resistance, says Frederick vom Saal, a biologist at the University of Missouri. BPA also suppresses the release of a hormone from fat cells that normally protects against diabetes and heart disease.

"Heart Disease, Diabetes Linked to Chemical in Plastics" [U.S. News & World Report] (Thanks to Shaula!)
(Dramatization of BPA attack: Brymo)

Researchers at the Yale School of Medicine have linked [BPA] to problems with brain function and mood disorders in monkeys—the first time the chemical has been connected to health problems in primates.

Last month, the FDA declared BPA safe enough to keep using in manufacturing, but yesterday another federal group reignited the issue:

The National Toxicology Program, a federal interagency initiative, released a final report saying it has “some concern” that BPA is linked to health and developmental problems in humans. Of the NTP’s five categories of concern, “some” would rate a three, or the middle of the dial between the extremes of negligible and serious.

The report doesn't call for a ban, but suggests more research is needed. And here we go: this new study on monkeys seems to add more evidence to the argument that BPA may have negative consequences on humans.

The FDA will hold a public meeting on September 16th to discuss the matter some more, with academics and industry reps in attendance.

"Chemical in Plastic Is Connected to Health Problems in Monkeys"
(Photo: mape_s)

Now—right before California decides whether to ban BPA in children's products—the FDA has revisited its earlier studies and reaffirmed that "the trace amounts of bisphenol A that leach out of food containers are not a threat to infants or adults."

Critics are saying the FDA is cherry-picking what studies to consider in its decision:

"It's ironic FDA would choose to ignore dozens of studies funded by (the National Institutes of Health) — this country's best scientists — and instead rely on flawed studies from industry," said Pete Myers, chief scientist for Environmental Health Sciences.

Myers said the agency disregarded recent studies of bisphenol's effects included in the National Toxicology Program's April draft report.

That group's review of animal studies suggested low doses of bisphenol can cause changes in behavior and the brain, and that it may reduce survival and birth weight in fetuses. A final version of the group's findings is expected next month.

Commenting on those studies in its 105-page assessment, the FDA said they had "inconsistencies and inadequacies which limit the interpretations of the findings."

We're not sure what sort of effect this will have on the pending lawsuits or on California's potential ban, but the BPA debate should take on new energy next month, when the National Toxicology Program's final report is released and the FDA brings in outside "advisors" to debate its own findings.

"FDA says chemical found in plastic bottles is safe" [Associated Press]
(Photo: Oop)

The chemicals industry maintains that polycarbonate bottles contain little BPA and leach traces considered too low to harm humans. The industry cites multiple studies in the United States, Europe and Japan.

But the lawsuit, filed last week in U.S. District Court in New Haven, contends that hundreds of studies and papers have repeatedly shown that BPA can be toxic even at extremely low doses.

"Lawsuit filed against plastic baby bottle maker" [MSNBC]
"U.S. lawsuit alleges plastic baby bottles contain dangerous chemical" [The Canadian Press]

"They address the issue of BPA in their bottles (on their Web site); they cite the (Food and Drug Administration) stating that they see no problem with it. The problem is they didn't cite the many other studies that show there is a risk and there is a great concern about the issue," attorney Harold Hewell, who represents Felix-Lozano, said.

The lawsuit does not describe any physical ailment suffered by the plaintiffs and seeks unspecified damages.

"Nalgene sports bottle maker sued over toxic claims" [Reuters]
(Photo: Getty)

Hello Consumerist,
 
After reading your articles on Canada banning BPA filled baby products and hopefully soon the US, I did some research and was shocked to find the ever popular "First Year's Breastflow" baby bottles I bought for myself last Christmas at Target were not BPA free. Nor has the "First Year" company done anything to remedy the BPA in their wide variety of baby products. Thank goodness my little girl hasn't been born yet and the bottles still sit in her nursery waiting to be used.
 
I figured they'd own up if confronted about it and provide a refund since A) they haven't been used and still sit in their original boxes and B) they should feel some sort of remorse for not making BPA free baby products. I know Target isn't going to care since it's been 90 days and who knows where the receipt is anyways. I don't think it necessarily needs to be solely Target's issue anyways, "First Years" needs to take responsibility for selling products with the BPA chemical and hopefully if more parents catch on and email in, they might actually recall their products and start making safer items for our kids.
 
So I sent in an email to customer care and got this bs canned response about how they don't care. Any advice on how I can get this taken care of and actually read by someone of importance? Thanks!
 
Sincerely, Portia

From: CustomerService Date: Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 7:39 AM Subject: Re: Care and Safety Question or Feedback for LearningCurve.com Customer Care   Thank you for your inquiry,   If you are unhappy with your purchase, the company has established return policies with retailers who buy our products directly. Please return the product along with your receipt to the place of purchase for an exchange or refund. The exchange is subject to the discretion and return policies of the individual retailer.   Thank you, Consumer Services

In the U.S., the current status of BPA is "needs more research," The American Chemistry Council says research proves "there are no serious or high-level concerns for adverse effects of bisphenol-a on human reproduction and development," but we don't trust any organization that has "American" and "Council" in their name.

"Canada Likely to Label Plastic Ingredient 'Toxic'" [The New York Times]
(Photo: ToastyKen)

"The Z Report on BPA In Children's Feeding Products, Third Edition" [Z Recommends]

Polycarbonate plastic, which can only be produced by using B.P.A., creates bottles that are transparent and almost as hard as glass, but particularly shatter-resistant.

Recently, however, the use of B.P.A.-based plastics in food containers has questioned in Canada by Environmental Defence , a Toronto-based group. Environmentalists in the United States are also raising concerns about the chemical.

Last year, San Francisco's board of governors passed a local law banning the use of the chemical in children's products. B.P.A. was removed from the ordinance before it went into effect, however, after an industry lawsuit.

Critics point to studies dating back to 1936 showing that the chemical can disrupt the hormonal system.

While there is little dispute about that, the plastics industry, supported by several studies from government agencies in Japan, North America and Europe, contends that polycarbonate bottles contain very little of the chemical and release only insignificant amounts of B.P.A. into the bodies of users.

Canadian Retailer Bans Some Plastic Bottles [NYT]