Response from Avent America, Inc, one of the largest US baby bottle manufacturer, to the request for information by a mother. Comments below that are by Dr. John Peterson Myers, past director of the W. Alton Jones Foundation, Senior VP for Science at the National Audubon Society, and co-author of the book Our Stolen Future. There is a companion website for Our Stolen Future at www.ourstolenfuture.org
Thank you for contacting us with your questions about polycarbonate plastic and the Avent feeding bottle. Avent America confirms that our baby bottles are made from FDA-approved polycarbonate plastic which has been used in the manufacturing of baby bottles for over 30 years.
We understand your concerns about the safety of polycarbonate plastic. However, the overwhelming body of scientific evidence and research shows that this material is totally safe.
The specific scientific data referenced in the "Consumer Reports" article states that bisphenol-A, a chemical found in polycarbonate might have an effect on laboratory mice. However, the article ignores three subsequent studies that were much larger that never found any adverse effects in laboratory animals. No study has ever proven any danger to any infant from the normal use of polycarbonate feeding bottles. The "Consumer Reports" article indicates it showed very minute traces of BPA leaching from polycarbonate bottles after 30 minutes of boiling. Absolutely NO BPA was found or has ever been found to "leach" during normal usage. In fact, the Consumers Union itself has admitted that their study does not show that polycarbonate bottles have had any harmful effects on any babies.
Avent bottles are sold in 65 countries around the world, resulting in millions of happy, healthy babies and families. Please be assured that we are confident that polycarbonate is safe and that using the Avent bottle poses no risk to your baby.
If you would like to read more about this topic, please visit our website at www.aventamerica.com. If this does not address your inquiry please email us back for further assistance or call our Customer Service group at 800-542-8368 to speak with us directly. Customer Service is available Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Central Standard time.
Thank you, Avent America, Inc.
Comment:
Overwhelming body of scientific evidence shows BPA is safe...Response:
The reality is that there is a significant body of scientific research that establishes, beyond any doubt, that bisphenol A is highly estrogenic. In other words, it binds with the estrogen receptor and has the capacity to stimulate estrogenic responses. This means that it is biologically active and therefore not "totally safe." Moreover, there are a series of animal studies in the last 5 years that show that bisphenol A actually does lead to developmental abnormalities in laboratory animals at low levels of exposure. This also directly contradicts their assertion that it is totally safe.
Some of the more recent studies:
BPA caumses changes in rat ventral prostate cells that appear similar to events that make nascent prostate tumors in humans more potent: Ramos, JG, J Varayoud, C Sonnenschein, AM Soto, M Muñoz de Toro and EH Luque. 2001. Prenatal Exposure to Low Doses of Bisphenol A Alters the Periductal Stroma and Glandular Cell Function in the Rat Ventral Prostate. Biology of Reproduction 65: 1271–1277.
BPA induces changes in mouse mammary tissue that resemble early stages mouse and human of breast cancer: Markey, CM, EH Luque, M Muñoz de Toro, C Sonnenschein and AM Soto. 2001. In Utero Exposure to Bisphenol A Alters the Development and Tissue Organization of the Mouse Mammary Gland. Biology of Reproduction 65: 1215–1223.
BPA at extremely low levels creates superfemale snails. Oehlmann, J, U Schulte-Oehlmann, M Tillmann and B Markert. 2000. Effects of endocrine disruptors on Prosobranch snails (Mollusca: Gastropoda) in the laboratory. Part I: Bisphenol A and Octylphenol as xenoestrogens. Ecotoxicology 9:383-397.
BPA is rapidly transfered to the fetus after maternal uptake: Takahashi, O and S Oishi. 2000. Disposition of Orally Administered 2,2-Bis(4-hydroxyphenyl) propane (Bisphenol A) in Pregnant Rats and the Placental Transfer to Fetuses. Environmental Health Perspectives 108:931-935.
An independently funded, academic laboratory can verify controversial BPA results, even though industry can't: Gupta, Chhanda. 2000. Reproductive malformation of the male offspring following maternal exposure to estrogenic chemicals. Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine 224:61-68.
Metabolic differences between rats and humans probably mean that humans are more sensitive to BPA than are rats: Elsby, R, JL Maggs, J Ashby and BK Park. 2001. Comparison of the modulatory effects of human and rat liver microsomal metabolism on the estrogenicity of bisphenol A: implications for extrapolation to humans. Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics 297-103-113.
A confirmation of BPA low dose effects, and demonstration that the effects include impacts on estrous cyclicity and plasma LH levels: Rubin, BS, MK Murray, DA Damassa, JC King and AM Soto. 2001. Perinatal Exposure to Low Doses of Bisphenol A Affects Body Weight, Patterns of Estrous Cyclicity, and Plasma LH Levels. Environmental Health Perspectives 109: 675-680.
BPA speeds the pace of sexual development in mice, and causes mice to be obese: Howdeshell, K, AK Hotchkiss, KA Thayer, JG Vandenbergh and FS vom Saal. 1999. Plastic bisphenol A speeds growth and puberty. Nature 401: 762-764.
Comment:
"Consumer Reports" article ignores three subsequent studies...Response:
How convenient for them to point out that "Consumer Reports" ignores three subsequent studies. Why do they then ignore more recent research from university laboratories that independently confirms the laboratory mouse study to which they refer (by vom Saal et al.). And they also ignore the other studies (at the url above) that identify other effects of low level exposure to bisphenol A.Here is info about vom Saal's work: http://www.ourstolenfuture.org/Myths/vomsaal.htm
The first independent confirmation of vom Saal:
Reproductive Malformation of the Male Offspring Following Maternal Exposure to Estrogenic Chemicals
Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine 224:61-68 Jun00The "three subsequent studies" to which they refer were all carried out by industry labs. There is a long history of industry based research finding no effects when there really are effects. Given that independent laboratories have now confirmed vom Saal's research, these three subsequent studies appear to fit the industry pattern.
Comment:
No study has ever proven any danger...Response:
That's because no study has ever been done that would be able to ask the types of questions raised by animal studies. For example, the animal studies indicate that low level in utero exposure to bisphenol A leads to enlarged and hypersensitized prostates in adults. Not a single study has EVER been done in humans that would be able to resolve that question. Again, industry believes that the absence of data means safety. It really means ignorance.Based on data I have seen, the older the polycarbonate bottle, the higher the rate of leaching of bisphenol A. It is likely that new baby bottles leach only a little. Older ones, however, leach increasing amounts. If you want to use polycarbonate baby bottles, at the very least don't wait til they fade and discolor to replace them. I don't know enough about the rate at which leaching increases with age to be able to tell you whether that is a safe approach. My recommendation would be to find a replacement.
This is a typical industry response to a concerns of this nature, one that has no basis in scientific study. Let me respond to the key pieces of their assertions:
From the point of view of human safety, the most important conclusion from the literature is no one has carried out a legitimate study that would determine whether or not the effects now established in animals are occurring in humans. The work simply hasn't been done. Industry concludes that the absence of data means safety. The more appropriate response is that the absence of data reflects ignorance. Based therefore on the animal studies, it would be prudent to avoid exposures.
|
If you have come to this page from an outside location click here to get back to mindfully.org |