START A PETITION 25,136,189 members: the world's largest community for good
START A PETITION
x

How Industry and the Feds Suppressed Evidence That Plastics Wreak Havoc on Our Hormones


Health & Wellness  (tags: abuse, babies, cancer, children, diet, disease, drugs, environment, family, food, government, healthcare, illness, investigation, medicine, plastics, prevention, protection, research, risks, science, society )

Kit
- 169 days ago - motherjones.com
A history of regulatory capture.



Select names from your address book   |   Help
   

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.

Comments

Kit B. (277)
Monday March 3, 2014, 11:53 am
Photo Credit: Tampa Bay Times/Zuma



Since the 1990s, a vast body of research has linked BPA and other chemicals found in plastics to serious health problems, ranging from cancer to infertility. But the industry—often using tactics pioneered by Big Tobacco as it sought to bury evidence about the health risks of smoking—has managed to shield these substances from federal regulation. ​How did Big Plastic bring regulators to heel? Read on.

1937: Forty-six years after bisphenol A (BPA) is first synthesized, researchers discover that it acts like the hormone estrogen.

1976: Congress passes the Toxic Substances Control Act. BPA is presumed safe and grandfathered in.

1988: The EPA sets a safety threshold of 50 micrograms per kilogram of body weight per day, still its standard.

1996: Zoologist Theo Colborn finds that synthetic hormones in plastics, pesticides, and other products short-circuit endocrine systems, leading to disease and reproductive problems.

1996: Congress requires the EPA to screen 80,000-plus chemicals for endocrine-disrupting effects and report back by 2000. The EPA convenes an advisory panel that includes industry scientists, some with Big Tobacco ties.

1997-98: Researchers Frederick vom Saal and Wade Welshons find BPA causes enlarged prostates and lowered sperm counts in mice exposed in utero—at levels 25 times lower than the EPA'S safety threshold.

1998: Tobacco companies agree to curtail their deceptive marketing. Many tobacco scientists and consultants go to work for the plastics industry.

1998: The Consumer Product Safety Commission strikes a voluntary deal with manufacturers to remove some phthalates—endocrine-disrupting chemicals used to soften plastics—from pacifiers and teethers.

1999: Consumer Reports finds BPA leaches from baby bottles when they're heated (PDF). Nevertheless, the FDA affirms BPA's safety, even for infants.

2003: The NIH's National Toxicology Program (NTP) hires Sciences International, a product defense firm with industry ties, to evaluate BPA.

2005: Vom Saal publishes a paper showing 90 percent of government-funded studies find very low doses of BPA are harmful, yet not a single industry-funded study does.

Nov. 2006: The NIH helps to convene 38 scientists to evaluate BPA. It concludes 95 percent of humans have BPA exposure "within the range" associated with disease in animals and find "great cause for concern." Nevertheless, the NTP publishes a draft assessment (PDF), written largely by Sciences International, that downplays the evidence.

Feb. 2007: The Environmental Working Group reveals that Sciences International's clients include BPA producers. Congress launches an investigation.

April 2007: The NTP fires Sciences International (PDF) but continues working with its flawed draft assessment of BPA.

May 2007: The Dallas Morning News reports that the EPA's Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program may be a "misleading $76 million waste."

Oct. 2007: Eastman Chemical introduces Tritan, a BPA-free plastic, and soon hires Sciences International to advise it on safety testing.

Nov. 2007: The NTP's final report expresses "some concern" about BPA's effect on the brain and behavior but overlooks links to other diseases.

Feb. 2008: The FDA admits to Congress that its assurances about BPA's safety were based mostly on two industry-funded studies.

April 2008: Canada decides to label BPA a "dangerous substance" and ban it from baby products. Major US retailers say they will stop selling bottles and sippy cups that contain it.

July 2008: Congress bans some phthalates from children's products.

Oct. 2008: As attorneys general in three states call on baby bottle and formula makers to quit using BPA, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reveals that a draft FDA assessment finding it safe was penned partly by industry lobbyists. Meanwhile, an Eastman study finds that one of Tritan's ingredients is likely more estrogenic than BPA.

2009: At least 20 states weigh BPA bans.

March 2009: Researchers find the BPA-free plastic PET also leaches synthetic estrogen.

June 2009: Reps. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) and Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) ask the FDA to reconsider its ruling that BPA is safe.

2010: Eastman markets Tritan as estrogen-free.

Jan. 2010: The FDA reiterates that it considers the "current low levels of human exposure to BPA" safe.

March 2010: UC-Berkeley researchers find the estrogenic weed-killer atrazine can turn male frogs female.

Sept. 2010: A California bill banning BPA in baby products is defeated. According to its sponsor, "highly paid lobbyists" argued that "food production plants in their districts would close even though those plants do not produce any baby products."

Nov. 2010: The American Chemistry Council successfully lobbies the Senate to strike down a proposed ban on BPA in baby bottles.

Late 2010: Initial results in an Eastman-commissioned study appear positive for estrogenic activity. Eastman's senior toxicologist calls it an "oh shit moment."

March 2011: A CertiChem study published by an NIH journal finds "almost all" plastic products tested are estrogenic. Eastman claims, falsely, that the EPA has rejected CertiChem's testing method. The American Chemistry Council and Society of the Plastics Industry pay a former tobacco scientist $15,000 to write a letter to the journal's editor refuting CertiChem's findings.

May 2011: The EPA's inspector general reports that the agency's Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program, which was supposed to be implemented by 2000, has yet to develop "a management plan laying out the program's goals," let alone fully vet any chemicals.

June 2011: China and the European Union ban BPA in baby bottles.

Dec. 2011: Eastman launches a PR blitz to refute CertiChem's findings.

March 2012: A research review finds "substantial evidence" that low doses of endocrine disruptors "are associated with human diseases." It concludes that "fundamental changes" to the way we test and regulate chemicals are "needed to protect human health."

July 2012: At industry request, the FDA bans BPA in baby bottles, while maintaining the chemical is safe.

Aug. 2012: Eastman files a false-advertising lawsuit against CertiChem and asks the court to gag the lab.

July 2013: A federal jury rules against CertiChem, concluding the company falsely asserted that Tritan is estrogenic. The judge bars it from discussing its findings.

Sept. 2013: The EPA withdraws a three-year-old proposal to label BPA and other endocrine disruptors found in plastic as "chemicals of concern."
****

By: Nina Liss-SchultzSenior Online Editorial Fellow | Mariah BlakeReporter | Mother Jones Magazine |


Nina Liss-Schultz is an online editorial fellow at Mother Jones. You can follow her @NinaLisss and email her at nliss-schultz [at] motherjones [dot] com. RSS | Twitter

Mariah Blake is a reporter in Mother Jones' DC bureau. Got a tip? E-mail her at mblake [at] motherjones
 

Kit B. (277)
Monday March 3, 2014, 11:59 am

Also read:
The Scary New Evidence on BPA-Free Plastics --By Mariah Blake

http://www.care2.com/news/member/830372471/3747951
 

Carrie B. (309)
Monday March 3, 2014, 4:11 pm
Get the feeling no one cares about us except us?
 

Laurie H. (703)
Monday March 3, 2014, 6:28 pm
We are in the arena alone, these days to sort out safety---scary is right!!~ Thank you so much Kit!!~~
 

Ros G. (90)
Monday March 3, 2014, 7:57 pm
Thanks Kit.....why am I not surprised????? ...Spammer flagged..at lest the report button is working now
 

Angela J. (62)
Monday March 3, 2014, 9:15 pm
Thank you.
 

Nancy C. (795)
Tuesday March 4, 2014, 1:04 am
Thanx for the news link...so glad I like glass containers!!! Need a new travel coffee container with this info on my mind! It is friggin' scary!!! I filter my tap water in a glass pitcher and my everyday travel water vessel is metal...thinking of changing that to glass too...they do exist. All of the baby, child products are even more frightening. flagging spam
 

Shalvah Landy (0)
Tuesday March 4, 2014, 2:41 am
Platics are moneymakers. I work for a big chain of supermarkets here and my manager once said to me that the big profits are from the plastics....
 

Jonathan Harper (0)
Tuesday March 4, 2014, 4:29 am
ty
 

Lindsay Kemp (1)
Tuesday March 4, 2014, 5:43 am
This is so scary - it sometimes seems that we are at the mercy of people who have little or no concern for anything other than profits/
 

Lindsay Kemp (1)
Tuesday March 4, 2014, 5:44 am
Spammer flagged
 

Julie W. (21)
Tuesday March 4, 2014, 7:38 am
Well, if I wasn't a cynic before, I am now! Who can you trust?
 

JL A. (275)
Tuesday March 4, 2014, 9:12 am
Seems to be the history of what money can buy.
 

Micheael Kirkbym (85)
Tuesday March 4, 2014, 10:18 am
Noted & posted
 

Patsy Olive (0)
Tuesday March 4, 2014, 1:46 pm
Noted & tweeted.
 

Lois Jordan (54)
Tuesday March 4, 2014, 2:33 pm
Noted. Thanks for posting this great info, Kit!
 

Yvonne Taylor (41)
Tuesday March 4, 2014, 3:28 pm
Scary political timeline there and at our expense.
 

Nelson Baker (0)
Tuesday March 4, 2014, 4:38 pm
I believe our government agencies work more for corporations than they do for the people of this country. Are they corrupt?
 

Jeanne Rogers (712)
Tuesday March 4, 2014, 9:17 pm
Why am I not shocked or, evenly, mildly surprised?
 

Colleen L. (2)
Tuesday March 4, 2014, 9:18 pm
This is very serious and shouldn't be taken lightly by anyone. Thanks Kit
 

Craig Pittman (45)
Wednesday March 5, 2014, 5:51 am
"Business" (big Business) as usual for the FDA. In the end we pretty much must look after ourselves. Passing this around is a good start. Thanks Kit.
 

Val R. (235)
Wednesday March 5, 2014, 6:58 pm
Glad I don't use them - thanks Kit
 

Debra G. (0)
Thursday March 6, 2014, 12:07 pm
Do you think this is (one of many reasons) why there's been a huge increase in IVF pregnancies? Tip of the iceberg for "living better through chemistry."
 
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story


Loading Noted By...Please Wait

 

 
Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of Care2.com or its affiliates.