.
Feedback

Brown Says Bye Bye to BPA Baby Bottles

Jerry Brown signed a new law banning the plastic chemical BPA from baby bottles, but is the chemical really harmful?

Gov. Jerry Brown announced Tuesday that he signed a law banning the chemical bisphenol A, more commonly known as BPA, from baby bottles and sippy cups.

Baby bottles and sippy cups that have a BPA level of more than 0.1 parts per billion are now banned from being manufactured, sold and distributed in California, effective next July.

The law had many supporters in the health industry, including the California Nurses Association and the California Medical Association.

A scientist studying birth defects in lab mice first announced the potential dangers of BPA in 1998. Patricia Hunt concluded the chemical was emulating estrogen, leading to birth defects in as many as 40 percent of newborn mice.

Since then, seven states have banned the chemical outright: Connecticut, Washington, Maryland, Wisconsin, Minnesota, New York and Vermont.

However, no government study has ever concluded BPA is harmful, according to science writer Jon Entine.

A government study has shown that BPA appears in the urine of 90 percent of U.S. adults and children.

But the U.S. Food and Drug Administration said in 2010 the chemical "is not proven to harm children or adults."

The World Health Organization came to a similar conclusion last year.

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Mission Viejo Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Jon Entine October 6, 2011 at 08:42 pm
This is Jon Entine. I am misquoted here. I have never written that "no government study has ever concluded BPA is harmful," although that may in fact be true. "Harm" is a subjective word, however. What I have written, and wrote in the article linked here, is: "scientific institutions around the world have carefully reviewed the entire body of evidence about the chemical and have opposed calls for bans." There is not one example in North America, Europe, Japan, Australia or New Zealand in which scientists at an agency charged with evaluating and overseeing the effects of BPA have recommended that a ban be imposed on BPA in products used by adults or children. Why? Because studies on mice and rats do not replicate how humans are exposed to BPA. Humans ingest microscopic particles of thousands of substances daily, including BPA. Studies have shown BPA is metabolized in children and adults before it has a chance to do any harm. Studies on rats and mice, such as Dr. Hunt's, in which they inject rats or mice with BPA bypasses the natural cleansing system of the body. When government oversight organizations evaluated studies, those such as Dr. Hunt's do not carry much weight because they overstate and even misrepresent potential harm. They are referred to by scientists as "hypothesis driven" studies...which is helpful as part of the research chain, but of little stand alone use to regulators. In sum, the evidence is overwhelming that BPA is relatively harmless.
Peter Schelden (Editor) October 6, 2011 at 09:01 pm
Hi Jon, in the article you also wrote, "no governmental science-based advisory board in the world has concluded that BPA is harmful." That's the quote I drew from.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Greg Raths announced for Congress
Shripathi Kamath June 19, 2013 at 10:51 am
"As a Republican, he will go head to head with our current incumbant [sic]" Wait, areRead More there no other contenders? John Webb on the Republican side might run, and then there was that Irvine mayor Sukhee Kang fella, who finished second. The more the merrier. The more diversity in the views, even better. I would like to hear from contenders how they would vote differently on some of the votes the incumbents have cast. Because all too often we have "an independent minded Republican" or a "progressive reformer" or "Heck, I am BATMAN himself" only to have disappointing regurgitation of ideology of what should not be done ("low taxes", "freedom", "family values", "apple pie, motherhood"). Not what will be done. And until we have that, corporate monies shall determine our representative. I mean I can imagine Mr. Raths voting for the 45th time to repeal Obamacare, but seriously, which vote that John Campbell cast would be different if Mr. Raths were in office? If 90% of the positions are the same, it looks like a remarkable coincidence that an independent thinker is so like the incumbent, does it not? Mr. Raths did offer an 'independent' idea endorsing civil unions but not gay marriage. Cool. Is he going to sponsor a bill for civil unions? Or simply insist on enforcing DOMA because "sanctity of marriage", "religious liberty". How about H.R. 1797? How about the Gang of 8 bill on immigration if it passes the Senate and comes to the House? Will his vote be different than that of Mr. Campbell's? That is the key question. But again, I welcome Mr. Raths entry in the field, we need more variety, and if we cannot get that, we at least need more people willing to run. Good luck to you, sir.
Gregory Raths June 19, 2013 at 05:30 pm
I've talked with both John Webb & Sukhee Kang and they have indicated they will not be runningRead More in 2014. I do welcome all entries into the 2014 race. GREG RATHS
Human Options' Cristi Dugger
Peter Schelden (Editor) June 19, 2013 at 09:29 am
Uncanny timing—this is especially poignant in light of this announcement:Read More http://alisoviejo.patch.com/groups/police-and-fire/p/elder-sexual-abuse-caregiver-suspect-arrested
M June 19, 2013 at 07:32 am
Anymore info on this place? When I looked online the only location is vista, ca
Dan Avery June 16, 2013 at 10:09 am
Tom Thumb you didn't read section 1021(b)(2) closely enough. It wouldn't apply to those arming theRead More rebels because of the word "suspicion." We know they are arming the rebels. See the difference. 1021(b)(2) only applies to those we "suspect" like you. Notice how the word "reasonable" doesn't appear anywhere near "suspicion"? Hmmmm wonder why that would be. Section 1021(b)(2) seems to be the modern day "suspicion of lurking with intent."
Tom Thumb June 16, 2013 at 02:31 pm
Shoot, I don't know about that. What we are hearing now is Obama/McCain are pushing to arm theRead More rebels who are supporting and are part of Al Qaeda: www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22095099
Shripathi Kamath June 16, 2013 at 03:02 pm
Hey Avery, I am totally stealing the "suspicion of lurking with intent" phrase. It mightRead More even flourish on reddit.