Re: [pronut-hiv] bisphenol A, another danger from infant formula (2)

["Rachel Stern" <sternworks@verizon.net>]

Hi, Ted. Your posting got me curious. And alarmed.

I did look up the FDA report and it didn't seem to jive with the EWG's take. 
For example, BPA was higher in breastmilk than in formula. I just read the 
tables quickly, and not the 180+ page text, so I'm not sure if those figures were only from within the US, the US and Europe, or what. And because I'm not a chemist, am unable to judge their methodology.

Anyway, those figures should certainly not disuade a mother from 
breastfeeding, as I'm sure you agree.  Amounts in both breastmilk and fomula looked exceedingly small vs the bottom threshold of harm in rat studies which they said were daily 14 to 23 milligrams/kilogram body weight in developing male rats, and daily 1088 mg/kg body weight in developing female rats.

Their figures for DEHP content were:  breast milk - median 0.062 
micrograms/gram (range 0.01 to 0.6 mcg/g)  vs  liquid formula - median 0.006 microgams/g (range 0.005 to 0.15 mcg/g)

Their estimates for DEHP intake by infants 0 to 6 months of age were: 
breast-fed infants - daily 7.3 micrograms/kilogram body weight   vs 
formula-fed - daily 5.0 mcg/kg body wt

Because these numbers are so tiny in relation to the estimated harmful dose, they don't seem that worrisome - either for formula or breastmilk.

My impression is that the main concern is for young babies, pregnant and 
lactating mothers who undergo medical procedures in which they may be in 
contact with pvc - like babies that are tube fed, catheterized, etc -  are 
exposed to DEHP. For such infants, exposure during the procedures is 
estimated at 130 to 6,000 mcg/kg. Also, I wonder if the higher levels in 
breastmilk are because some women were exposed to PVC, and in that case, 
maybe the figures are only valid for countries where such procedures occur 
more often.

Another concern - the use of electric breast pumps. I was wondering if the 
tubing and other parts of the machines that come in contact with milk are 
free of DEHP.  Because these pumps are costly, it's common practice among 
working moms I know to borrow used pumps. If they do contain DEHP, is 
leaching more or less likely with prolonged use. I'm assuming that there are regulations, and that the pumps are not problematic.  Please let me know about this.  Thanks. Rachel

----- "Ted Greiner" wrote:


www.ewg.org/reports/bpaformula

Executive summary
  August 8 2007. Laboratory tests of canned infant formula conducted by the 
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and a certified commercial laboratory 
reveal that a plastics chemical called bisphenol A (BPA) leaches from metal 
can linings into formula at levels which, according to new EWG analyses, 
would expose some bottle-fed infants to BPA in excess of doses that caused 
serious adverse effects in animal tests. There are no government safety 
standards limiting the amount of BPA in infant formula.
  EWG's analyses of BPA levels in ready-to-eat and concentrated formula, 
paired with government data on infant formula consumption show:

   One of every 16 infants fed ready-to-eat canned formula would be exposed 
to BPA at doses exceeding those that altered testosterone levels, affected 
neurodevelopment, and caused other permanent harm to male and female 
reproductive systems.
   Infants fed concentrated formula mixed with water would also be exposed 
to potentially unsafe amounts of BPA, in excess of standard government 
safety margins. While water added to concentrated formula lowers BPA 
concentrations in the final mixture, our analyses still show that one of 
every 16 infants fed concentrated formula would be exposed to BPA at doses 
within a factor of 2 of harmful doses.
   At the highest BPA levels found in formula, 17 parts per billion (ppb), 
nearly two-thirds of all infants fed ready-to-eat formula would be exposed 
above doses that proved harmful in animal tests (Figure 1).
  These analyses, coupled with exposure estimates in other studies, 
demonstrate that bottle-fed infants likely face higher BPA exposures than 
any other segment of the population, and highlight the urgency of setting 
standards for this chemical to protect babies who are overexposed through 
canned formula.
  Figure 1. BPA has been found in infant formula at levels ranging up to 17 
parts per billion, a concentration at which nearly two-thirds of infants 
would exceed doses shown to harm test animals.
  Source: EWG analysis of BPA exposures based on government and commercial 
lab tests of BPA in formula, and formula consumption rates and body weights 
measured in government surveys. This graph reflects procedures described in 
the methodology section of this report, with the exception that exposure 
estimates for individual infants created in the exposure model were based on 
incremental, assumed BPA concentrations in formula, and grouped as a 
function of BPA concentration for purposes of graphical display. Estimated 
single-day exposures are compared against BPA dose of 2.4 ug/kg/d linked in 
lab studies to alterations in testosterone levels and referenced as "toxic 
dose" in figure above (see Section 3 of this report). Note that results 
shown above will underpredict infants exposed above even lower doses found 
harmful in animal studies, including a dose of 2.0 ug/kg/d linked to 
permanent damage of reproductive system from in utero exposures.
  Failures to protect infants from BPA risks. FDA last assessed the safety 
of BPA in infant formula in 1996, based on tests of 14 infant formula 
samples (Bailey 1996). Dozens of peer reviewed studies published since that 
time reveal adverse effects of BPA at exposures dramatically lower than 
those known at the time to be harmful, and, significantly lower than 
exposures for infants drinking BPA-contaminated formula.
  Yet despite scientists' dramatically altered understanding of low-dose BPA 
toxicity, FDA has not tested additional samples of infant formula for BPA, 
and has failed to reassess the safety of BPA-contaminated infant formula 
since its original assessment 11 years ago. FDA does not require infant 
formula manufacturers to test their products for BPA, and has not set 
standards or even guidelines for BPA contamination in formula.
  Instead, in 2006 the federal government launched a BPA health risk 
assessment under the National Institutes of Health's (NIH's) Center for the 
Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction (CERHR). From the outset the 
assessment process has been plagued by concerns over scientific credibility 
and conflicts of interest:

   The contractor in charge of the assessment both helped form the panel, 
which lacks BPA experts, and prepared the initial draft assessment for the 
panel's review. This contractor was subsequently fired by CERHR over 
concerns about potential conflicts of interest, but the panel was allowed to 
continue with its initial membership, working from the draft assessment 
prepared by the fired contractor.
   In external review comments submitted to the panel, BPA experts revealed 
that the CERHR assessment appears to contain nearly 300 errors of fact and 
interpretation; is biased, inconsistent, incomplete; and clearly fails to 
meet the most basic scientific standards. [see EWG's full review]
  What could have been the first opportunity in a decade to advance public 
health protections for this problematic chemical instead ended in CERHR 
issuing a final assessment on August 8, 2007 that fails to support stronger 
public health safeguards for bottle-fed infants, pregnant women, and other 
at-risk populations.
  BPA has been detected in thousands of people worldwide, including 93 
percent of 2,500 people in the United States. More than 100 peer-reviewed 
studies have found BPA to be toxic at low doses, some similar to those found 
in people, yet not a single public health agency has updated safety 
standards to reflect this low-dose toxicity.
  This country's toxics law, the Toxic Substances Control Act, fails to 
require that chemical companies prove thier products are safe before they 
are sold, even when these chemicals end up in people's bodies, as is the 
case for BPA. This law was passed in 1976, and 31 years later is the only 
major public health and environmental statute in this country that has never 
been updated. This panel certainly has not done their part to help fill the 
gaps in this broken system of public health protections.
  As a result of these policy gaps, BPA is now one of the most widely used 
industrial chemicals, is found at unsafe levels in people, is allowed in 
unlimited quantities in a broad range of consumer products including infant 
formula, and is entirely without safety standards. BPA provides irrefutable 
proof that our system of public health protections must be strengthened to 
protect children and others most vulnerable to chemical harm.
  Resources  Lab tests of canned food - BPA contamination in more than half 
of 97 name-brand canned foods: http://www.ewg.org/reports/bisphenola
  EWG comments to CERHR summarizing nearly 300 errors of fact and 
interpretation in BPA assessment identified by BPA experts: 
http://www.ewg.org/node/22333