In recent years, the American public was exposed to the dangerous effects of a substance known as Bisphenol A, commonly known as BPA. The concern revolved around individuals being exposed to this substance through containers, such as baby bottles, water bottles, and metal food containers. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), “BPA is a high production volume chemical widely used in manufacturing polycarbonate plastics and epoxy resins used in many industries…Releases of BPA into the environment exceed one million pounds per year” (2010). Although the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is responsible for regulating this substance in food and beverage containers, the EPA is taking a deeper look into how this substance is affecting the environment through water and air pollution.
To begin, one must look at how BPA disrupts human development, both in utero and outside the womb. Most studies up to date have focused on how BPA enters the human body through food and beverage containers. In order for the EPA to effectively evaluate the effect of BPA outside of consumption through such containers, researchers have looked into previous studies regarding such negative effects of BPA.
In the 1997, researchers at the University of Missouri-Columbia found that low levels of BPA harms the prostate (Houlihan, Lunder, & Jacob, 2011). This research was the catalyst for hundreds of studies to be completed linking BPA to “breast and prostate damage, early puberty, behavioral problems, and other effects at levels up to 25 times lower than EPA’s ‘safe’ dose” (Houlihan et al., 2011). Also in 1997, the government tested BPA levels in infant formula and found that 12 of 14 samples in canned form had BPA leaking from the lining. Two years later, researchers found BPA leaching into formula and other beverages from baby bottles. Years later, in 2008, the government found BPA to pose risks to humans causing major retailers to pull products with known BPA from shelves. After this was released, states started phasing-out BPA products on shelves. The first of these states included Connecticut, New Jersey, and Delaware whom urged 11 formula producers to stop using BPA. Canada quickly then was added to the list as the first nation to ban BPA in bottles and formulas. In 2009, over 20 states introduced bills that support reducing childhood exposure to BPA. Finally, on March 29, 2010, the EPA released an action plan that requires manufacturers to report the environmental release of BPA and the ecological risks associated with the release. “EPA will evaluate substitutes to BPA in thermal paper, a major source of environmental contamination, and assess risks to children from non-food sources of BPA” (Houlihan et al., 2011). This created a snow ball like effect of regulation in countries like Germany, Denmark, and China.
Most studies conducted to evaluate the risks of BPA have been conducted on mice or rats. This leads to some concern regarding the scientific basis for limiting BPA use in containers and other products. However, there have been studies using human subjects. In January 2010, researchers found an association between heart disease and BPA exposure in Americans (Environmental Working Group (EWG), 2011). Similarly,
A study of 218 Chinese men, some of whom had occupational exposure to BPA, found clear links between daily BPA exposure and sperm number and quality. Men with undetectable BPA levels were three times less likely to have low sperm vitality and four times less likely to have low sperm counts (EWG, 2011).
The studies continue showing that out of 249 Cincinnati area families, University of North Carolina researchers reported high BPA prenatal exposure and aggressive behavior in two year old girls (EWG, 2011). With that said, the BPA concern is not just for infants or in utero babies, but for adults as well.
Today, many products with lining or plastic materials have banned the use of BPA. However, because this type of regulation is done by the FDA, the EPA is looking at other products that contain BPA and how the companies producing such products are effecting the environment. The EPA developed an action plan in 2010 to address these concerns. Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the EPA is considering adding BPA to the list of toxic substances because of its, “unreasonable risk of injury to the environment on the basis of its potential for long-term adverse effects on growth, reproduction and development in aquatic species at concentrations similar to those found in the environment” (EPA, 2010). In this report, the EPA says that there was an estimated 2.4 billion pounds of this chemical produced in 2007, costing an estimated two billion dollars. “It is a monomer used in manufacturing most or all polycarbonate plastics, the majority of epoxy resins, and certain other products such as flame retardants (EPA, 2010). Not only is BPA found in these products, but is also in transportation equipment, DVDs, electronic equipment, inside drinking water pipes, and construction materials. The EPA, however, has not found sufficient research to limit, or ban, BPA from such products. Instead, the EPA focused on the effects of BPA on aquatic species in freshwater environments. Their studies have shown that BPA can affect reproduction, growth, and development of aquatic species.
Continuing, the EPA indicates that BPA is present in the environment due to manufacturing facilities releasing the chemical into the air, as well as through emissions during processing and handling of products containing the chemical. In 2007, the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) indicated that the release of BPA into, “was 1,132,062 pounds, with releases of 122,965 pounds to air, 6,246 pounds to water, 14,972 pounds released on-site to land, and 684,638 pounds transferred to off-site land” (EPA, 2010). As stated above, BPA can be ingested through food and beverage from containers, but can also be through inhalation of air.
Although the EPA has data regarding amounts of BPA in the environment, the data has not yet resulted in strict regulation. Adding BPA to a list of substances of known contaminants has not yet been approved to the Candidate Contaminant List by the EPA Office of Water. This is due to the fact that BPA has not met the screening criteria of potential risks of BPA traces in water systems (EPA, 2010). As stated above, the sale of containers like polycarbonate baby bottles and food containers with BPA has been banned in many states. Canada has not only banned such sales, but has also considered appropriate precautionary action regarding BPA entering the environment. Likewise, in August of 2009, Taiwan labeled BPA as a, “Class 4 toxic substance under the Toxic Chemical Substances Control Act” (EPA, 2010). The class of toxicity is because of the concern that BPA has on the environment and pollution, however, class four is the lowest designation of toxic substances in the country.
Since the EPA has jurisdiction over environmental impact of BPA and the health risks to humans, the research does not yet support more government regulation. Nonetheless, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences announced it is providing 30 million dollars to the study of BPA in the environment (FDA, 2010). The EPA (2010) says, “The complicating factor, however, is the uncertainty surrounding the meaning and relevance both to humans and the environment of the effects seen in some novel low-dose studies, because some concentrations are similar to levels associated with observed effects reported in those studies.” Thus, there is no environmental government regulation at this time, but researchers continue to look into the effects of BPA on human health from environmental factors.
I believe that the EPA is dealing with this subject well given that it is a relatively new concern. Some caution should be used when developing regulations around environmental effects of BPA because regulation is expensive without statistical proof. However, a success in beginning the regulation was the EPAs requirement for companies to report the environmental release of BPA. Similarly, having research that statistically proves that BPA has harmful effects when consumed through containers is a step in a positive direction in more environmental regulation. In the next couple years, I predict that the EPA will have substantial research about BPA appearance in water and other materials causing increases in regulations around products and factories using BPA in manufacturing.
References
Environmental Working Group. (2011, May 27). More than 10 recent human studies show that BPA is toxic at current levels of exposure. Retrieved from:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2010, March 10). Bisphenol A Action Plan. Retrieved from:
U.S. Food and Drug Administration.(2010). Update on bisphenol A for use in food contact applications.Retrieved from:
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2012). FDA continues to study BPA. Retrieved from: