Consumers Union is an expert, independent, nonprofit organization whose mission is to work for a fair, just, and safe marketplace for all consumers and to empower consumers to protect themselves.
The battle to ban BPA, a chemical used in baby bottles, canned food liners and many other products, continues in several states. Hundreds of studies point to adverse effects of BPA on human health, from lowered sperm counts in factory workers where BPA is used, to increased diabetes rates in people with elevated BPA levels. However, industry lobbyists continue to say that it is safe to expose kids (and the rest of us) to BPA, making claims that are out of context, oversimplified, or just incorrect. This drumbeat of misinformation has become the industry’s tired line in the BPA debate. Consumers Union has taken a look at some their claims and shows that their assertions of BPA safety are overblown, oversimplified and in some cases just plain wrong.
BPA is a $6 billion industry, and the chemical is used by thousands of companies in their products. Ironically, while their trade associations fight the bans, some companies are simultaneously phasing the chemical out of their products or investing in research to find alternatives. It certainly begs the question: if BPA is so safe, then why are many of these companies starting to shift away from its use in consumer products – and why, for example, did Sunoco, a manufacturer of BPA, decide it won’t sell the chemical to companies unless they guarantee that BPA will not be used in children’s food and beverage products?
No place is the battle more alive than in California where a bill to ban BPA in children’s products has been re-introduced – following last year’s fierce debate in which a similar bill ultimately lost by two critical votes. Now, once more, the industry is pounding the drum supporting their view that BPA is safe.
However, the government and scientific bodies they cite say something very different from what industry claims. In response to a letter submitted by a slew of industry groups to the California State Assembly, Consumers Union has drawn up a point-by-point reply that sets matters straight. With direct quotes from bodies like the FDA and EPA, international government agencies, scientists and the World Health Organization, CU refutes the industry groups’ assertions that there is no cause for concern over ingesting BPA and that most government bodies have declared it perfectly safe. If only that were absolutely true – but we know better.
You can read Consumers Union’s rebuttal to the BPA industry’s array of misleading and at times, false claims about BPA’s safety here.
We’ll keep you posted as the bills in California and other states continue to progress, and we’ll certainly remain vigilant when industry group claims of safety need some double-checking.
Check out the documentary called “Bag It”. It discusses the dangers of BPA’s and other plastic chemicals in our food chain.
Here’s their web site: http://www.bagitmovie.com/. We saw it at the Durango Independent Film Festival this year (March 2011) and it does a great job of explaining the whole BPA issue.
I also support the struggle to protect procedures done for public safety and I appose any proposals or policies that cut back on safety.
[...] risk of cancer, diabetes, reproductive, neurological, and developmental disorders. We also recently refuted the misinformation put out by industry about the alleged safety and lack of alternatives to [...]
Bag it was so informational!
I don’t understand why it is not important for them to bring awareness of people that are potentially really harming their children and the environment
Senator Lisa Murkowski has forwarded a response from the FDA regarding the potential harm to children while using this certain type product as directed
This response states that the FDA has already researched or is aware of one of these facts or factors of toothbrush abrasion and resulting exposure of the tooth dentin, by stating this in a document given to a US Senator (Lisa Murkowski) writing that “it is true that overly aggressive brushing with any type of toothbrush may be detrimental to one’s health.”
This issue, of a product that is continuing to be used by consumers in your state including children has the potential to cause injury to the gingival tissue resulting in exposed tooth dentin by multiplying toothbrush abrasion damage while using these certain types of power toothbrushes as directed, that cannot be duplicated during the same minutes use while brushing manually, and will become clear to every one who views this correspondence.
If a person were to insert a manual toothbrush into their mouths and then press aggressively against the gingival tissue without any additional motions there would be no significant damage to this tissue. For any significant potential for damage to the gingival tissue there must be motions made against this tissue. As these certain type of power toothbrushes operate at approximately 5000 to over 8000 more motions that persons are able to accomplish manually per the same minutes use, the use of these certain power toothbrushes clearly qualifies as aggressive and excessive brushing.
These certain devices are also designed as children’s toys or characters and do not have the pressure sensors that have been included in other similar operating types of power tooth brushes. Children as young as 3 years of age may not have the awareness of adults that they may be using slightly more pressure that necessary while brushing, which would then be multiplied by thousands of motions in every minute they are using these certain types of power toothbrushes, and resulting in multiplying aggressive tooth brushing abrasion damage.
You will find that the facts and evidence presented to you in these letters dated June 3, 2011 and June 13, 2011 are undisputable, with these products multiplying tooth brush abrasion that cannot be duplicated during the same minutes use manually, and may result in the tooth dentin to become exposed which is a very serious injury and one of the most intense forms of pain that children are forced to endure.
Representative Don Young has reviewed these letters and already responded in a letter dated June 15 2011, writing that he has contacted the appropriate officials with the FDA and will assist in helping me with this issue in every way that he can.
June 13, 2011
To: The FDA
Dear Sirs or Madams
Please review this additional information that reinforces the FDA’s responsibility in protecting the public health by assuring the safety of devices, and in the FDA’s ability to take action over known facts or factors to prevent this potential for harm.
The potential for damage to the gingival tissue from toothbrush abrasion is now a known fact by the dental profession’s having established three factors that are evident while using these certain types of power toothbrushes that include 1- using improper brushing motions that would push back and away horizontally at this tissue 2- using too much pressure while brushing 3- brushing aggressively or excessively.
It is an undeniable fact that the definition of overly aggressive brushing clearly and fully qualifies under the FDA’s research as detrimental and a harm to health when applying this to the number of motions that an adult or child is able to accomplish manually per minute as to the numbers of motions per this same minutes use of these certain type of power toothbrushes without pressure sensors, with these thousands more motions resulting in multiplying toothbrush abrasion damage to the gingival tissue, and this potential to expose the tooth’s cementum and dentin.
You have been given evidence of the suppliers advertizing that children tend to use these certain types of power toothbrushes over 30 percent longer than a regular toothbrush which will further multiply this damaging operating motion that would bush back and away horizontally during the high speed operation, resulting in tooth brush abrasion and damage to the gingival tissue.
This evidence also shows that the power toothbrushes designed as children’s toys or characters, do not have the pressure sensors that have been included in other similar operating types of power tooth brushes. Children as young as 3 years of age may not have the awareness of adults that they are using slightly more pressure that necessary while brushing, which would then be multiplied by thousands of motions in every minute they are using these certain types of power toothbrushes, and also multiplying this aggressive tooth brushing abrasion damage.
Many of the products or devices on the FDA’s and CPSC recall websites state the recall was regarding the known facts or factors of harm, along with including that no illnesses or injuries were been reported in connection with the recall.
That no injuries need to be reported for the FDA to issue a recall with a Class 1 listing, which are the most serious type and involve situations in which there is a reasonable probability that use of these products will cause serious adverse health consequences or death are evidenced by the Class 1 recall involving the company Xoft and tungsten particles.
This company (Xoft) conducted an extensive and comprehensive failure investigation and risk assessment regarding this matter. After laboratory testing and a comprehensive literature review, Xoft has concluded that there is no evidence that these tungsten particles are toxic – only a few health effects have been reported in humans with this material, each of which involved exposure at much higher levels. No permanent impairment of bodily functions or permanent damage to body structures is anticipated.
This example is evidence that although extensive and comprehensive investigations and risk assessments including laboratory testing and literature review, a Class 1 recall over this safety issue was still taken, and now that the FDA has acknowledged that they are aware of the known factors of toothbrush abrasion these known factors overrule and invalidate any other studies, laboratory testing or other reviews of literature that concludes that these certain types of power toothbrushes are safe and will not multiply toothbrush abrasion that cannot be duplicated by persons manually with the same minutes use.
These spinning-rotating –osculating types of power toothbrushes without pressure sensors are used by millions more people including very young children than are affected by the example of the Class 1 recall above, and many persons would consider having the potential of exposed tooth dentin throughout the upper and lower sets of teeth with the resulting intense pain that is felt whenever eating or drinking cold foods or liquids, a serious adverse health consequence.
Again the FDA has a direct responsibility for protecting the public health by assuring the safety of devices and as the facts, factors and evidence are undisputable that these certain type of power spinning-rotating-osculating types of power toothbrushes without pressure sensors will accelerate or multiply toothbrush abrasion to the millions of children who are continuing to use them, continuing to allow these companies to sell these certain products does not fulfill your responsibility for protecting the public from the potential for harm or injury from extended use of these devices.
just had our first child and we just heard of BPA bottles and the problems they are causing. We are going out to the store and changing all of our bottles today. Thanks for the informative post.