Butyl Paraben is a preservative found in many creams, lotions, gels, cosmetics, deodorants and even some food. If you aren’t already in the habit of reading labels for everything you buy, now is a good time to start. Look for parabens on the label – typically at the end of the ingredients list. Many products even have many of the paraben types: ethyl-, butyl-, methyl- and propylparaben.

This study examined the relationship between paraben levels in men and sperm health, something that had not been done previously. The findings were quite disturbing. They found that the higher the levels of BP in men’s urine, the more more sperm damage they had.  When combined with higher Bisphenol A levels, the sperm damage was even worse. And when there is DNA damage to the sperm, the chances of infertility issues increases.

Of course, this was a relatively small study and it was preliminary so there are many out there that will disregard it or poke holes into it. But there is clearly something here that is concerning. Not good. For anyone.

The thing is, we can’t even estimate our exposure to this hormone-mimicking chemical that is found in things made from polycarbonate plastics. According to the National Institutes of Environmental Health, “polycarbonate plastics have many applications including use in some food and drink packaging, e.g., water and infant bottles, compact discs, impact-resistant safety equipment, and medical devices. Epoxy resins are used as lacquers to coat metal products such as food cans, bottle tops, and water supply pipes. Some dental sealants and composites may also contribute to BPA exposure.” Want to avoid BPA on your own? Good luck. It’s pretty much impossible.

The primary way we are exposed to BPA is through our diet. Again, according to the National Institutes of Environmental Health, “The primary source of exposure to BPA for most people is through the diet. While air, dust, and water are other possible sources of exposure, BPA in food and beverages accounts for the majority of daily human exposure.”

The NIEH go on to say that “Bisphenol A can leach into food from the protective internal epoxy resin coatings of canned foods and from consumer products such as polycarbonate tableware, food storage containers, water bottles, and baby bottles. The degree to which BPA leaches from polycarbonate bottles into liquid may depend more on the temperature of the liquid or bottle, than the age of the container. BPA can also be found in breast milk.”

BPA has been shown to be in the blood of more than 90% of Americans. Just THAT fact should be eye opening.  The EPA had stated that BPA exposure up to 50 micrograms per kilogram of weight per day is safe. But guess what? This Environmental Health Perspectives study is suggesting that we are exposed actually to at least 8 times that amount. Oh boy.

I don’t know about you, but I find this highly disturbing. According to a New York Times article covering this study, they state that BPA  “was first synthesized as a man-made estrogen substitute before being used widely in the linings of canned goods and polycarbonate plastics.”  Because it mimics hormones, key to development and determination of things like gender, it has been of great concern to many environmental health scholars as well as concerned citizens. In the New York Times article Thomas Zoeller, a biology professor at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst is quoted saying that “BPA, since it mimics estrogen, is an ‘endocrine disrupter.’… And amazingly, BPA has the ability to bind to not one, but three receptors — the estrogen, the male hormone and the thyroid hormone receptors, Zoeller said.”

I know there are many many people including well respected and brilliant scientists, who will try to convince us all that we should not be worried. It’s all fine. But based on what we DO know about BPA, I think it is clear that it is just bad news. Do we really want to wait around for more evidence to prove what we really already know? BPA is just not safe. And there’s no need to keep it around.

The methodology for this study was carefully planned. According to the report:

“We enlisted 20 people from 19 U.S. states and Ontario, Canada to donate 50 food and beverage containers from their home pantry shelves and local groceries. Cans were collected from Alaska, California, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and Ontario, Canada.

In most cases, two cans per location were submitted: one can from a home pantry or kitchen cupboard, and a matching or similar product purchased from a chain grocery store specifically for this project. The double sampling allowed us to investigate the possible correlation between the amount of BPA in the canned food and the age of canned products.

We selected a wide variety of products, including fish, fruits, vegetables, beans, soups, tomato products, sodas, and milks, which are common ingredients and meal options for a wide range of North American consumers.”

So basically they took all of these cans of food and had them sent to an independent testing lab. Here’s where it get icky. Of the 50 cans of food that they tested, 46 were found to have detectable levels of BPA. Yep – 46 of 50. A whopping 93%.  And what I found to be disturbing was the fact that  they discovered that BPA levels in canned food cannot be predicted by the price of the product, the quality, or relative nutrition value of the product, or where it was purchased. So that means more expensive, organic canned products purchased at Whole Foods were just as likely to have BPA as cheaper, lower quality products purchased at a discount store.

Why all the fuss? Well here’s the thing. BPA has been shown (despite what chemical companies want you to think) to have an impact on health that has been documented in numerous studies. On the EWG.org website, you can see a complete chart of these studies. The cumulative impact of eating foods that are packaged in BPA-lined cans can add up quickly in a day – which is especially worrisome for pregnant women, particularly during their first trimester.  No Silver Lining shows an example of a hypothetical diet for a woman in her 20’s. According to the study, “these hypothetical diets show that a pregnant woman may be exposed to potentially harmful levels of BPA that have been shown to alter fetal development in laboratory animals.” Oh. Not good.

And you know what? Canned foods is only ONE way we are exposed to BPA – it’s in many other products as well. Polycarbonate water bottles (unless they say BPA-free), plastic baby bottles and sippy cups (again, unless they say BPA free) and even those big 5 gallon water coolers at your office. BPA was found in the urine of 93% of adults tested in the US by the CDC, and it has been found in the cord blood of newborn babies by the Environmental Working Group BEFORE they have even been exposed to the “real world”. Yikes.

Some states are working to ban BPA in baby products (currently Massachusetts is developing legistlation). But it needs to go further. There are alternatives that are notably safer for can linings. These are outlined in the report as well. So why should we stop at baby bottles – shouldn’t it be banned in all food/beverage products? And shouldn’t it be happening in all states? Seriously. What ARE we waiting for?

When I received the lunchbox, I immediately loved it. It’s adorable, bright and is incredibly easy to clean up. I find that the “soft” cooler-bag type lunchboxes get kinda stinky and icky after awhile and they are so hard to get clean. This lunchbox comes completely apart and you can wash each section (personally, even though it’s BPA-free and they say it’s dishwasher safe, I would still wash it by hand).

It really is a very clever design, and I’m impressed with the concept. As with so many cool products out there, this was designed by a mom and dad, Cyndi and Paul Pedrazzi, who were getting tired of the endless plastic baggies they used for their two daughter’s lunches each day. Not to mention the foul odors that accumulate in the typical lunch boxes. So they literally approached an award-winning design company, Whipsaw, in Silicon Valley (they also designed LeapFrog’s LeapPad). And they have gotten tons of press coverage – check out all of chatter on the Press page of their website.

I will say, there were a few things that I think could be improved:

• The design is really best for smaller children – maybe 5 and under? My 7 year old thought it was very cool but said he wouldn’t bring it to school. He does think it would be fun for bringing snacks on short trips.
• On the same note, the food containers are too small for bigger kids. My boys have to bring a snack and a lunch to school each day and these containers wouldn’t fit all the food they need. There also isn’t a place for a sports bottle or other reusable water bottle for drinks.
• The food containers are very cute and I love that  they are BPA free, but I did think that the tops seemed a little loose and they were a little leaky for liquidy foods (like yogurt). That said, I do appreciate the fact that the lids come off easily. My boys complain about some of the containers where the lids are so hard to pull off. So I’m on both sides of that one, I guess!

But definitely check this site out for your little ones. Perfect for “lunch bunch” at preschool or lunches for daycare. The kids will love picking out the faceplate. And who knows, maybe someday they’ll have a bigger version for bigger kids!

It’s not easy to find cans that don’t have BPA linings in them. Pretty much all cans (soda, food, baby formula etc) have linings that are laden with the chemical BPA (or Bisphenol A). For those of you who haven’t heard, BPA has been linked to a whole host of issues including cancer and reproductive issues. The FDA announced last month that they have reversed their previous position that BPA was “safe” and now have requested further studies to determine the real impact of this chemical that is used in so many things.

But according to an article in the Washington Post this week , a number of major manufacturers are investigating alternatives and new can liners. Of course, it is not going to be an easy – or a cheap – fix. The reason that the can linings have been so ubiquitous is that they are excellent at protecting food from spoiling  and protecting consumers from food borne illness. Of course, we are only now beginning to see the toll it is taking on health in other ways.

The new liners that are being tested are not foolproof – nor are they cheap. Food touted to be packed in “BPA Free” cans are still showing levels of BPA after being tested by the Consumers Union. Why? Maybe some of the products used in the production of the end product were already contaminated by the cans they came from (think canned tomatoes used in a tomato sauce) – or perhaps they are getting exposed at some point during the production. The Washington Post article details a couple of companies that area trying to do the right thing but are getting frustrated along the way with continued BPA presence in their food. But at least they are trying!

So while it may be awhile before our food sources are all BPA-free, it is good to know that there are finally steps being taken to get the process moving forward.

In the news last week was an announcement from the FDA that they acknowledge that the chemical bisphenol A (or BPA) causes “some concern” and they are going to investigate it further. According to an article in the Boston Globe, while the FDA did say that there is not yet any evidence to further regulate the use of BPA , the Department of Health and Human Services did suggest that people throw away scratched plastic cups and baby bottles with BPA to avoid the ingestion of small amounts of the chemical that can seep out into drinks. It looks like the governmental agencies are showing potential to give this the attention it deserves.

The Health and Human Services has a great posting on their website at :http://www.hhs.gov/safety/bpa/. They give some good explanations of what is being investigated further, and they also list other helpful suggestions – in addition to the one above – to avoid exposing your children to BPA. One interesting fact is that powdered infant formula is generally free of BPA, it’s the liquid version that can be contaminated.

The only tip they offer that I disagree with is the one that says it is generally OK for infants to suck on soft plastic toys. They may be safe from BPA but they are often packed with phthalates (a whole different concern) – so always find out as much as you can about the safety of plastic toys before you allow your infant to suck on them. Wish I’d know about all of this before I had kids. Ugh. It’s scary to think about all that they may have been exposed to!

In case you aren’t familiar with BPA – or bisphenol A – it is a chemical compound that is a synthetic estrogen. It is found in all kinds of products including neoprene water bottles and other #7 plastics, as well as the plastic lining in canned foods. It is so prevalent that it has been found in the urine of 93% of the US population. And it’s something I have blogged about many times in the past.

Well, the chemical companies have been hiding behind the idea that there hasn’t been any proof that BPA is harmful to humans (only animals). So according to today’s Washington Post, researchers in China did a study of “634 male workers at four factories in China who were exposed to elevated levels of BPA. They followed the men over five years and compared their sexual health with that of male workers in other Chinese factories where BPA was not present.”

Guess what? There was a clear link between the men exposed to BPA and erectile dysfunction as well as other issues. The Post article stated: “The men handling BPA were four times as likely to suffer from erectile dysfunction and seven times as likely to have difficulty with ejaculation.” Uh oh. The most troubling finding was that the thing is that the men started having issues within months of starting to work at these factories. It was not something that needed years to build up.

So here’s my 2 cents, despite the fact that there have been numerous other studies showing the dangers of BPA exposure, this one – with its connection to “ED”, will get the most attention… But regardless, it’s time for this issue to get some serious attention. BPA needs to be banned. Period. Banning it in baby bottles and formula cans is a start but we need to just ban it across the board.

Meantime, continue to avoid #7 plastics unless it is clearly labeled as “bpa free” – and also try to minimize your use of canned foods.

If you want to learn more, check my other posts about bisphenol A.

So here’s the scoop – if you have a Sigg water bottle from before August 2008, you might want to consider using it as a vase instead. To get more details on the difference between the two liners – the old “bad” one and the new, BPA- and phthalate-free one – check out the BlogHer blog posting for pictures that show the difference between the two liners so you can see which one you have.

To be safe, always choose an unlined stainless steel bottle, a water bottle that states it is 100% BPA-free or even an HDPE #2 plastic bottle (not ideal, but not bad). And don’t forget, try to avoid the individual bottles of water (like Dasani, Poland Springs etc) if at all possible. Save those for times when you are in a bind and don’t have access to a refillable bottle. (see related post on how bottled water sales have declined – yea!!)

Due to the fact that infants are unable to process the chemical in their system as efficiently as adults, compounded by the fact that infants are exposed to the chemical through plastic bottles and formula from plastic-lined cans, infants are more likely to have more of the chemical in their bodies. We’re talking infants here – 3 months old. We’re talking ELEVEN TIMES the level of adults in these tiny bodies.

At what point is the FDA going to step in and do what should be done – what has been done in Canada and many other countries? This chemical MUST be banned! Forget the lobbying from the plastics industry and the chemical companies. We are only going to see the effects of this more and more in upcoming years. Something needs to be done.