BPA: THE POISON IN THE PLASTIC THAT SURROUNDS US

BPA shows up in 93 percent of Americans, according to CDC data, and has been linked to obesity, heart disease and cancer, among other human health concerns. Every time you make a call on a mobile phone or tap something into a computer, handle a compact disc or sports equipment, put on sunglasses or paint your nails, drink water from your tap or run your tongue against a tooth filling, you may be in contact with BPA.*

Henk Ruyssenaars

March 31st 2010 - Could a ubiquitous chemical, found in everything from food cans to baby bottles, be killing us? In a special investigation, Martin Hickman examines the horrifying evidence dividing scientists and big business, writes the Independent in the UK:

"It is massively used by the food industry. As a transparent resin, it lines food containers on supermarket and kitchen, your kitchen, shelves. Most tinned food and drinks, including household names, are lined with a BPA membrane.

Most controversially of all, it is in baby bottles. Biomonitoring tests show that the chemical – which can leach into humans – is present in more than 90 per cent of people; it is almost certainly in your bloodstream now.

But why the concern?

Because BPA – aka 4,4'-dihydroxy-2,2-diphenylpropane – is an endocrine disruptor, something which may synthetically mimic hormones, affecting the vital workings of the endocrine system of glands, which release hormones around the body, stimulating everything from puberty and the menopause to hunger cravings, fight or flight responses – and the programmed death of cells which would otherwise grow remorselessly, threatening the development of cancer.

Put bluntly, interfering with these processes, some scientists fear, may be causing a public health disaster, and BPA, they believe, may be a factor in the rising incidence of a myriad of human illnesses, such as breast cancer, heart disease and genital birth defects.

Breast Cancer UK and the Cancer Prevention and Education Society are so worried about BPA they are calling for it to be withdrawn from products. Eminent British scientists have concerns, too.

At the end of last year, experts from five universities – London, Plymouth, Reading, Stirling, and Ulster – urged the Government to launch a review of BPA. In a letter to the Health Secretary Andy Burnham, they wrote:

"Although there are still some gaps in our knowledge on the health impact of BPA on humans, the major body of scientific research and evidence presented over the last decade strengthens the growing consensus that low-level exposure to BPA has a significant impact on increasing the risks of developing conditions such as cancer, diabetes, impaired brain function and behavioural problems in mammalian laboratory animals."

Mr Burnham didn't reply [like the commercially oriented mindless and compassionless killing 'american' idiots - HR] an official in the Food Standards Agency did two months later), and efforts to encourage Britain to act have failed. Other countries around the world have, however, not been so slow.

A decade ago Japan limited the levels of BPA in tins and has removed it from plastic containers used by children. Canada listed BPA as a toxic chemical and banned it from baby bottles.

The biggest American firms no longer make BPA bottles and their sale has been banned in Chicago, Connecticut, Minnesota and Wisconsin.

And in January, after years of denying a problem, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) said it was concerned about BPA's impact on the brain and behaviour of children and agreed to support industry's attempts to remove it from infant feeding products and tinned food.

France's Senate last week voted to ban baby bottles containing BPA.

Britain still takes its lead from a heavily-criticised assessment by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), which took a similar approach to the now-revised US position.

Critics talk darkly of a cover-up. Some suspect the same tactics of "misinformation" that big tobacco companies once deployed to muddy the link between smoking and lung cancer.

What is certain is that there has already been a public health disaster involving a synthetic oestrogen like BPA." - [end excerpt]

You can read the rest of The Independent article here at Url.: http://tinyurl.com/ye8hr4w

And then there was this item:

"BPA a "chemical of concern," EPA makes it official."

By David Biello

March 30th 2010 - First Environmental Protection Agency administrator Lisa Jackson warned in September 2009 that reform of chemical regulations was coming and that bisphenol A, or BPA—a building block of many plastics—was among those that might be due for enhanced scrutiny.

Then the U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced it had concerns about BPA and would conduct further testing of its safety in January.

Now the EPA has made it official by designating BPA as a "chemical of concern" for its human health and environmental impacts.

Ultimately, such a listing might lead to BPA being regulated under the Toxic Substances Control Act.

That also means the EPA will begin requiring testing of water for BPA levels and requiring manufacturers to provide data on its impacts to human health, the environment and wildlife.

EPA will coordinate its efforts with the FDA, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the National Institute on Environmental Health Sciences. Already, EPA estimates that more than 450,000 kilograms of BPA are released into the environment annually, out of the roughly 2.7 million kilograms produced.

But it also shows up in 93 percent of Americans, according to CDC data, and has been linked to obesity, heart disease and cancer, among other human health concerns.

At least five states have banned it, most recently Wisconsin, and Canada and the European Union restrict its use.

"We share FDA's concern about the potential health impacts from BPA," said Steve Owens, assistant administrator of EPA's Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, in a prepared statement.

"Both EPA and FDA, and many other agencies are moving forward to fully assess the environmental and health impacts to ensure that the full range of BPA's possible impacts are examined."

Scientific American - Mar 30, 2010 - The very careful, if not criminally slow US reaction. Showing who runs the EPA and the FDA - "BPA a "chemical of concern," EPA makes it official" - Url.: http://tinyurl.com/ygtvt5o

Also 'Franklin's Focus' centers on this enormous BPA scandal:

"Obama Stalls, and Stalls Regarding the BPA Menace."

3/30/10 - Forgive me for once again beating on the same drum. The whole BPA scandal and Obama's criminal handling of this immense poisoning of both wildlife and human beings is enough to continuously provoke any thinking, rational person.

Hundreds of studies of the impact on human health and our wildlife have indicated a serious problem. This chemical has been proven to have deleterious effects on 'the brain, behavior, and prostates of fetuses, infants, and small children'. You'd think that would be enough for Obama to finally forget about genuflecting before his corporate masters in the BPA industry.

Despite a massive body of independent scientific evidence indicating a serious human and environmental problem in the form of BPA, Obama refuses to outlaw it. I would surely like to see just how much money he and fellow Democrats have received from the huge BPA industry.

This chemical seriously leaches when it is heated. Damn it! We have proof positive that BPA is a poison and it leaches. Dig this: it is used in dental sealants! The effects of BPA are not short lived. Children are especially receptive to BPA and the effects will last through the entire life of those victims. Growth, reproduction, and development in human children, wildlife, and aquatic organisms is permanent.

Kids are marked for life. And they have no say about this curse. Obama decrees the curse, and they suffer for life. BPA acts just like a hormone, a permanent, lifelong, pernicious hormone.

How much is a billion? All I know is that it is a one followed by nine zeros. That, of course, is no help whatsoever. A 'billion dollars' makes no sense to me mathematically or intuitively." - [ ]

HR: How much is a trillion? - Url.: http://www.fortunewatch.com/how-much-is-a-trillion-dollars/

Quote Franklin's Focus again: "Consider that six billion pounds of BPA are manufactured every year in Amerika. At least a million of those pounds are released into the environment annually! So what the hell does that mean? Sometimes I feel overpowered by the leviathan sins of this administration.

Obama says not to worry. The industry has financed its own studies and these indicate BPA is harmless. The hundreds of scientific independent studies strongly indicating otherwise are not worth taking into consideration according to Herr Obama. (I'm inferring here.)

There has been considerable talk on TV among the talking heads about how the minions of the political right are spreading hatred of Obama. This has not affected me. Obama's stance on BPA alone is enough to trigger my brand of intense dislike for that s.o.b.

It took years and years to stop the sale and use of DDT in the U.S. That did not stop the production of DDT and sundry other deadly pesticides within this nation. These poisons are made here, but are illegal to use here. They are, however, sold in massive amounts to third world countries, where havoc has been wreaked on the wildlife of those nations, not to mention the hapless children who grow up being steadily poisoned.

Take note environmentalists: wild animal preserves in Africa have seen a decimation of herds from pesticides sold by American industry, pesticides that are illegal in the U.S. We just make them here and then spread them all over third world countries.

Mexico buys agricultural poisons from U.S. makers that cannot be legally used in the U.S. The fruits and vegetables coming from Mexico bring those poisons right back into the U.S. The Mexican tomato industry, using peon labor and heavy amounts of DDT, effectively destroyed the huge tomato industry in Florida, which could not compete with the Mexican toxic tomato industry.

If you buy tomatoes in this country, they damned well better be organically grown by reputable organic farms.

We don't know what goes into our food products, and this is probably so because we might not like what goes into them.

I wonder where the White House buys their tomatoes. If I send a letter asking them, what will they say? If I send a crate of Mexican tomatoes to the White House as a gift, will Secret Service agents swoop down on my home and arrest me for attempted assault?

Today's Quotation

'If it had been the purpose of human activity to bring the planet to the edge of ruin, no more efficient mechanism could have been invented than the market economy.' - Jeremy Seabrook

Warmest regards, Richard.


-0-


Related:

Independent (UK) - Bad chemistry: The poison in the plastic that surrounds us. - Url.: http://tinyurl.com/ye8hr4w

Google search: Web Results 1 - 10 of about 1,420,000 for BPA +chemical +dangerous. - Url.: http://tinyurl.com/yfdjfbt

HR blog - LiveJournal - Url.: http://forpressfound.livejournal.com/

-0-