Legislature Goes Where Science Fears to Tread

Senate Panel Passes Bill Banning BPA Plastics in Baby Products

By Erik Smith

Staff writer/ Washington State Wire

OLYMPIA, Jan. 19.—Washington lawmakers are getting set to go where science fears to tread, with a bill restricting the use of bisphenol A (BPA) plastics – even though federal regulators say the case against BPA hasn’t been proven.

            The Senate Health and Long-Term Care committee passed a bill Monday that would ban the use of BPA-based plastics in baby bottles, sippy cups and other products likely to be used to by children and infants under the age of three. The measure is a top priority for the state’s environmental lobby, and it would make Washington the third state to enact a ban on BPA in baby products, behind Connecticut and Minnesota. The measure now advances to the Senate floor.

            The ban would put Washington state far ahead of regulatory agencies around the world, which rely on scientific studies before taking action. No regulatory agencies in the industrialized world have concluded that BPA is harmful. And manufacturers and commercial users of the plastic say a worldwide furor being whipped up by environmental organizations is even more troubling than the activists’ allegations of human health hazards. They say the environmental organizations are trying to win in the political arena, because the science isn’t behind them.

            Senate Bill 6248, sponsored by state Sen. Karen Keiser, D-Kent, is supported by a broad coalition of environmental and activist groups, headed by the Washington Toxics Coalition. “I just don’t think we can afford to wait,” said Erica Schrader, staff scientist for the activist group. “We have plenty of evidence that says this is a harmful chemical that is in our bodies, and we need to take action now.”

            New FDA Decision

            For more than 50 years BPA has been used to make clear shatter-resistant plastic for baby bottles and other consumer products, as well as to make the protective liner for most metal food cans and the lids on glass jars. Traditional scientific studies have judged it safe. Over the last dozen years, however, concern has arisen in some scientific quarters that the chemical is an estrogenic compound that can interfere with reproduction, delay development in fetuses and infants, cause cancer and heart disease in adults. The trouble with those study results, however, is that they rely on nontraditional scientific standards, and they have proven difficult if not impossible to reproduce – a fundamental principle of scientific proof.

            Last week the federal Food and Drug Adminstration, which maintains BPA is safe, changed its position slightly. Because scientific opinions range widely, it urged caution in the use of BPA products for children and infants. The agency noted that many manufacturers already have removed BPA from baby products. Meanwhile, the National Institutes for Health has launched a $30 million study program using the nontraditional scientific methods that may eventually produce more conclusive results. Though the FDA announcement has little practical effect and was not the turnaround environmental groups had been hoping for, the activist community celebrated it last week as a stunning reversal and many news agencies reported it as fact.

            Opinions are one thing, but industry points out that if the decision comes down to science, the highest-quality studies find no harm in BPA. “Over the last 10 to 12 years or so, it has become one of the best-tested substances in commerce, and what that means is that we have an extraordinarly rich database to assess the safety of bisphenol A,” said Steven Hentges of the American Chemistry Council. “There are hundreds, even really thousands of studies. They’re conflicting, they’re not consistent, and that is why when government agencies look at all the science they do not find a very compelling story.”

            Most recently the health authorities in Australia and New Zealand issued an updated report this month stating that low levels of BPA do not pose a significant health risk.
            The fact that adverse studies are inconsistent and irreproducible are red flags for anyone who evaluates the issue objectively, he said. Many of the studies showing harm have been conducted on lab rats and other rodents, he said, while studies of primates – who have much more humanlike qualities – demonstrate that the chemical passes through the body quickly, and exposures do not occur at levels that would cause harm.

            The FDA has been monitoring the studies closely and the Environmental Protection Agency is conducting a separate review.

            The Minority View

            Some in the scientific community say the case against BPA is strong enough to warrant action now. Among them is Patricia Hunt, a Washington State University researcher. Hunt told the Senate Health and Long Term Care Committee that she began noticing odd effects in her studies of lab rats years ago when a lab assistant mistakenly put harsh detergent in a plastic spray bottle and used it to clean out cages, resulting in unintentional exposure to BPA. Since then she has become a crusader against the plastic.

            “We really need to look at the totality of the evidence out there,” she said. “And when you do that, the evidence is overwhelming.”

            Traditional study procedures, devised years ago, are inadequate to measure the harm of chemical compounds that act like hormones, she said. She acknowledged it is difficult to isolate effects and that reproduction of results has been a problem. Hunt's studies could not be replicated in follow-up studies by European researchers. And under questioning from the Senate panel, Hunt admitted that her own studies do not comply with federal Good Laboratory Practice regulations, which impose strict rules for quality assurance, statistical procedures, equipment validation, certification of laboratory facilities and other factors.

           After a number of notorious cases in the 1970s involving faulty and falsified data, federal regulators began insisting on standards for the scientific studies that are used as the basis for policy. Lack of adherence to these standards is one of the reasons regulators have been dubious of the studies claiming harm.

Some lawmakers say they wonder if they are jumping the gun. Asked Sen. Chris Marr, D-Spokane, “Wouldn’t it be the best approach to see that the science forms some type of consensus so that we can move ahead?”

Politics Way Ahead of Science

A political compromise in the Senate committee Monday seemed to ease those concerns. The original version of the bill banned BPA plastics in sports-water bottles, but an amendment in the committee removed it – thus confining the bill to baby products. Keiser said she agreed to the change “in the interest of moving the bill.”

Marr said the compromise was essential. He noted that the FDA decision urged caution only on baby products, and he said the bill now would have little effect, because manufacturers are eliminating BPA from those products already, under pressure from environmental groups. “For those of us who believe we need to adhere to a scientific standard, I think many of us also believe that we have a somewhat lower standard when it comes to products that affect kids and young children.”

State Sen. Cheryl Pflug, R-Maple Valley, said the whole debate frustrates her. Federal regulators don’t support a ban, and the Legislature seems to be responding more to politics than science. “And you know, the fact of the matter is that the alternatives have had zero research… We have no evidence that the alternatives are safe.”

Legislation Creates a Stigma

Environmental groups have been lobbying state legislatures from Maine to Alaska, and have made BPA a national crusade. Meanwhile their protests have prompted retailers to remove BPA from store shelves. Six baby-bottle manufacturers have announced plans to remove BPA from their formulations.

The national furor worries businesses that use BPA products. Bottled water, for instance, might not be affected by the bill, but if the Washington Legislature declares BPA to be dangerous, it will be a huge impediment to sales.  There really aren’t any cost-effective alternatives to BPA-plastic water-cooler jugs, said Jim Conway of the Lodi Water Co. in Chewelah, and if customers start thinking the bottles are toxic -- that's a problem. “We’ve already felt the effects of this from the media hype that is out there right now,” he said. “Just in the last year I’ve lost numerous customers.”