THE NEVERENDING GLOBAL BPA CONTROVERSY

The global controversy and mass hysteria, particularly in the United States, centered on the health effects of Bisphenol A (BPA), an industrial chemical invented nearly 120 years ago has lasted several decades. There are concerns about the effects of the production and use of BPA and its follow-up products on the environment. Numerous studies by scientists, opinions of environmental activist groups and politicians, and publications by journalists confirm the existence of a public health threat. However, these views are contradictory to those of major international authorities such as, the European Commission, the European Food and Safety Authority (EFSA), the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare, and the World Health Organization (WHO).

In the midst of these relentless and powerful debates, wrapped in controversy, and fueled by aggressive media coverage, where do the consumers stand? Whom should they believe? What choices are best for them? What is the industry not telling them? These questions have left the consumers in a state of unremitting panic and utter confusion. The debate over BPA has further added to the list of the decisions to be made to live healthy: expensive organic foods or cheaper chemically processed foods, soy milk or whole milk or almond milk, tuna or salmon, Splenda or Equal, and the list goes on. It is necessary to look at the views of different stakeholders and their impact on consumers and the choices consumers make.
Bisphenol A (2, 2-bis(4-hydroxyphenyl) propane, CAS No. 80-05-7), a monomer also commonly referred to as BPA, is an industrial chemical that is used in the production of polycarbonate (PC) and epoxy resins. At a global consumption level of over 95% for PC and epoxy resins, it is one of the most widely used chemicals in the world (14). BPA is present in food contact materials: infant feeding bottles, tableware, microwave ovenware, food containers including those used for infant formula, water bottles, milk and beverage bottles, processing equipment, water pipes, protective linings for canned foods and beverages, as a coating on metal lids for glass jars and bottles, adhesives, dental fillings, medical devices, and recently in point of sale receipts at fast food restaurants, grocery stores, gas stations, post offices, and automated teller machines. The levels and patterns of consumer exposure to BPA vary, but oral exposure from the diet is the primary cause of concern. However, the level of concerns, or in some cases even the acknowledgement of the mere existence of concerns regarding BPA consumption, varies in the opinions of the different stakeholders involved.

The reason BPA has sparked numerous debates and scientific studies, as well as extensive media coverage, is that this chemical, which was earlier categorized as a weak environmental estrogen, is now defined as a known human endocrine disruptor, similar in potency levels to estradiol in its ability to stimulate a myriad of molecular and cellular pathways in the human body (8). This chemical has been found to leach into food and water from polycarbonate containers. According to a study conducted by the researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health, BPA migration from polycarbonate bottle use increases at extreme temperatures, indicating a higher dose intake when consuming food or beverages from hot or cold containers (3). Over the years, as a result of both in vitro and in vivo studies, BPA exposure has been linked to adverse effects on the male reproductive system, such as the effects on male sex hormone levels, androgen receptors, and organs such as the testes, epididymis, sperm, seminal vesicles, the prostate gland, and sperm production (15). Additionally, reported adverse effects include the early onset of sexual maturation in females, altered development and tissue organization of the mammary gland, induction of pre-neoplastic mammary gland and reproductive tract lesions (3), risk of chronic disease development (such as, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and obesity due to metabolic disorders resulting in alterations of insulin/glucose homeostasis and liver enzymes)(9), carcinogenicity, genotoxicity, acute and repeated dose toxicity, immunotoxicity, neurotoxic, neuroendocrine, and neurobehavioral effects (1,15,10,5). Even though BPA has the potential to cause harm in all age groups, the more vulnerable groups in the population are pregnant women, infants and children (5).

From the perspective of scientists and researchers of the world’s leading academic and governmental institutions in the fields of endocrine disruption, endocrinology, neurobiology, reproductive biology, genetics, and metabolism, BPA must be regulated.

In stark contrast to the deductions of scientific experts, international regulatory bodies have repeatedly declared BPA to be a safe chemical. Their deductions are based on separate risk assessments and government reviews conducted by individual countries worldwide. Risk assessments conducted by Germany (German Federal Institute of Risk Assessment Bundesinstitut für Risikobewertung- BfR), UK (Food Safety Authority –FSA), France (Agence nationale de sécurité sanitaire de l’alimentation, de l’environnement et du travail- ANSES), Spain (Agencia Espanola de Securidad Alimentaria y Nutrición- AESAN), Switzerland (Bundesamt für Gesundheit- BAG), The Netherlands (Voedsel en waren autoriteit –VWA), Denmark (Danish Minister for Food, Agriculture and Fisheries and Danish Environmental Protection Agency,) Ireland (Food Safety Authority), USA (Food and Drug Administration- FDA), Canada (Government of Canada and Health Canada), New Zealand and Australia (Food Standards Australia New Zealand FSANZ) and Japan (National Institute for Advanced Industrial Science and Technology-AIST) reached the same consensus that “human BPA exposures are low and within safe limits set by government authorities (4).” These major regulatory bodies worldwide have discounted many of the scientific studies conducted on the basis of “lack of sufficient evidence,” “no clear effect,” “still an emerging area of research,” “design and data analysis issues that limit utility,” “no health concern at current low dose levels,” and “considerable uncertainty regarding the validity and relevance of these observations (2, 12).” Previous studies have been criticized for focusing too much on injected effects of BPA on the body instead of on the effects of oral consumption, as ingestion is the primary mode of transmission of BPA into the body (2, 12).

In the light of these two strongly opposing views, the matter still remains unsettled and the world continues to be obsessed with BPA. Despite decades of continuous research by scientists, resulting in the production of a vast array of studies covering a dizzying range of potential ways BPA might be toxic to humans and the relentless assurance by major government agencies, the tension and turmoil created by the health effects of BPA has still not ended. News reports, media coverage and scientific publications continue to surface for this environmental estrogen. The decision of several states and local governments in the US (Minnesota, Chicago and Connecticut in 2009, Washington, Wisconsin, Massachusetts, Maryland, New York and Vermont in 2010), as well as of governments worldwide (Canada in 2008; Denmark in 2010; China; all of the EU and Malaysia in 2011) to ban BPA in products for infants, especially baby bottles, is contradictory to their original claim that BPA is safe.

However, the fact that BPA does in fact leach into food and beverages is undisputed between these two opposing groups of thinkers. It is the level and existence of severity that is disputed. BPA is claimed to be safe for human consumption as the dose levels are very low and because it has a half- life of less than 6 hours, allowing it to be excreted from the body nearly completely within 24 hours (3).

Despite claims of BPA being safe for human consumption, there are certain elements of concern and unresolved questions that continue to lurk and must be contemplated upon and perhaps addressed in the future. The effects of not only continuous and widespread exposure to BPA but also the potential effects of BPA interactions with other synthetic chemicals in our environment and diet should be considered. This is important because chemical interaction with BPA may result in further manifestation of the impact of BPA exposure several fold no matter how low the dose might be. Additionally, given the ubiquitous nature of BPA, individuals might be subjected to multiple exposures of BPA on any given day. For instance, the exposure to BPA starts for many with the first cup of hot morning coffee, the paper receipts handed out at retail stores and dollar bills used to pay, drinking of bottled water during the day, and eating take- out for lunch served in styrofoam boxes that are BPA reserves. Again, as individuals are not exposed solely to BPA but several other synthetic chemicals, the morning coffee is more than just coffee and requires plenty of forethought as a consumer. It is a milieu of unidentifiable chemicals and toxins- coffee (organic grown or chemically processed?), milk (are there synthetic hormones present?), sugar (Is it chemically processed?) and the infamous BPA.

The BPA controversy has encouraged consumers to use alternate materials that are BPA free. Since there is no single replacement for BPA; the new alternative plastics involve replacement of BPA with chemicals such as polypropylene, polyethersulfone, polyethylene terephthalate, high-density polyethylene, PVC, polyamide, silicone, Tritan copolyester, polyesters, polyacrylates, vinyl resins and oleoresins. However, what if its replacement turns out to be more toxic? BPA has been subjected to extensive research to arrive at present day conclusions and a partial ban of its use by countries worldwide, but the new replacements are yet to be put to the test. So, should consumers now be more concerned? Should uncertainty in findings of health effects of BPA be translated to no health risks? Is this trade-off worth making?

Comic Strip highlighting the constant dilemmas of ” us” – The Consumers

REFERENCES
1.Allsopp Michelle, Santillo David and Johnston Paul. 1997. “Poisoning the Future-Impacts of Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals on Wildlife and Human Health.” 1997. Available at: http://archive.greenpeace.org/toxics/reports/ptf/ptf.html

2.Butterworth Trevor. 2009. “Science Suppressed: How America became obsessed with BPA.” STATS Investigation. Available at:

http://stats.org/stories/2009/Science%20Suppressed_%20America’s%20Obsession%20with%20BPA_June30_09.pdf

3.Carwile Jenny L., Luu Henry T, Bassett Laura S, Driscoll Daniel A., Yuan Caterina, Chang Jennifer Y., Xiaoyun Ye, Calafat Antonia M., and Michels Karin B. 2009. “Polycarbonate Bottle Use and Urinary Bisphenol A Concentrations.” Environmental Health Perspectives. Volume 117;number 9.

4.European Information Center on Bisphenol. 2011. “The safety of Bisphenol A-based consumer products – what the authorities say.” Available at:http://www.bisphenol-a-europe.org/uploads/EN_Regulatory%20Assessments.pdf

5.Houlihan Jane, Lunder Sonya, and Jacob Anila. “Timeline: BPA from invention to Phase-out.” Environmental Working Group. 2011.
Available at: http://www.ewg.org/reports/bpatimeline

6.Huang YQ, Wong CK, Zheng JS, Bouwman H, Barra R, Wahlström B, Neretin L, Wong MH. “Bisphenol A (BPA) in China: A review of sources, environmental levels, and potential human health impacts.”2011. Environmental Int. 10.1016/j.envint.2011.04.010.

7.International Food Safety Authorities Network (INFOSAN). “BISPHENOL A (BPA) – Current state of knowledge and future actions by WHO and FAO”. 2009. Available at: http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/fs_management/No_05_Bisphenol_A_Nov09_en.pdf

8.Rubin BS. “Bisphenol A: an endocrine disruptor with widespread exposure and multiple effects.”2011. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. ;127(1-2):27-34.
9.Saal vom Frederick and Myers Peterson John. “Bisphenol A and risk of Metabolic Disorders.” 2008. JAMA. Vol 300, No. 11. Available at:

http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/300/11/1353.full.pdf+html

10.Stump Donald G., Beck Melissa J., Radovsky Ann, Garman Robert H., Freshwater Lester L., Sheets Larry P., Marty M. Sue, Waechter John M. Jr, Dimond Stephen S. ‖, Van Miller John P. , Shiotsuka Ronald N. ‖, Beyer Dieter, Beyer Anne H. Beyer and Hentges.Steven G. 2010. “Developmental Neurotoxicity Study of Dietary Bisphenol A in Sprague-Dawley Rats”. Toxicol. Sci. 115 (1): 167-182.

11.U.S. Food and Drug Administration. “Update on Bisphenol A for Use in Food Contact Applications” .2010 Available at:

http://www.fda.gov/downloads/NewsEvents/PublicHealthFocus/UCM197778.pdf

12.WHO. “Toxicological and Health Aspects of Bisphenol A”.2010. Available at: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2011/97892141564274_eng.pdf

13.WHO. “Sources and Occurrence of Bisphenol A Relevant for Exposure of Consumers”. 2010. Available at:

http://www.who.int/foodsafety/chem/chemicals/3_exposure_assessment.pdf

14.Yoot Mo Lee, Min Jae Seong,Jae Woong Lee, Yong Kyung Lee, Tae Myoung Kim, Sang-Yoon Nam, Dae Joong Kim, Young Won Yun, Tae Seong Kim, Soon Young Han, Jin Tae Hong. “Estrogen receptor independent neurotoxic mechanism of bisphenol A, an environmental estrogen.” 2007. J Vet Sci.; 8(1): 27–38.

15.Zhou D. Li. Z., Qing D, Y. He, Wu T, Miao M, J. Wang, Weng X, Ferber J.R, Herrinton L.J, Zhu Q., E Gao, Checkoway H. and Yuan W. 2010.
“Occupational exposure to bisphenol-A (BPA) and the risk of Self-Reported Male Sexual Dysfunction.” Human Reproduction, Vol.25, No.2 pp. 519–527.