Indy Star Newspaper
May 13, 2008

Purging plastics

Amid conflicting studies, some consumers try to protect their health by limiting exposure to chemicals

By Shari Rudavsky
shari.rudavsky@indystar.com

You won’t find plastic cups in the kitchen cabinets of Kelly Huff’s Northside home. Nor does she keep food in plastic storage containers; it’s glass for her leftovers. Her toddler daughter and infant son have no plastic toys. And when Huff drinks water, she chugs it from a reusable aluminum thermos.

“Why have them around if you don’t have to?” Huff, 30, asks about plastics.

Eradicating plastics from one’s life completely would require taking a large leap. Plastics comprise thousands of products in our daily lives.

Increasingly, however, people have begun to question just how safe plastics are, especially when it comes to storing the food and water we ingest. Others say that any plastic panic is unfounded, and that multiple studies have shown the material is perfectly safe.

In recent weeks, the anti-plastics camp has welcomed two reports — one from the Canadian government and a draft report from the National Institutes of Health’s National Toxicology Program — that acknowledge that a chemical commonly found in plastic may affect the health of fetuses and infants.

Studies suggest that the compound bisphenol A (BPA), which is found in reusable water bottles, the lining of canned goods and baby bottles, could cause neural behavioral changes and affect the mammary and prostate glands. In girls, it could cause earlier puberty. While reports showed no link between BPA and the health of adults, many believe it poses unknown danger.

“This chemical has no place in consumer products that we come in contact with, especially those that contain water or food,” says Michael Schade of the Center for Health Environment and Justice, an advocacy group in Virginia.

Another class of chemicals, the phthalates (the “ph” is silent) that are used in plastics, is also coming under scrutiny for its effects on human health.

Much of the research here focused on the health risks to animals in utero or very young children. Still, there’s no telling whether risks extend to adults, some caution.

“There aren’t a lot of studies done in adults with these,” says Dr. Anila Jacob, a senior scientist with the Environmental Working Group, which is advocating to remove BPA from the market. “That doesn’t mean we discount the possibility of adverse health effects in adults.”

What does science say?

But some say science has proved these chemicals are safe.

“We think that the products that we have do meet the safety requirements for their uses and based on the science, there isn’t a reason for consumers to be concerned,” says Steven Hentges, who manages the polycarbonate/BPA global group at the American Chemistry Council, which represents the leading chemical companies.

The Food and Drug Administration, which approves these materials for use in the United States, agrees. At the end of April, the agency released a statement saying it saw no reason to recommend that anyone discontinue using products that contain BPA.

The National Toxicology Program draft report found there was “neglible concern” that people who have been swigging from water bottles made with BPA should stop.

“There’s nothing in there to cause alarm or panic,” says Dr. Michael D. Shelby, director of the Program’s Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction, which produced the report.

The report concluded there was “some concern” — ranking approximately 3 on a 5-point scale — that the compound has an impact on the very young.

Others think it deserves more attention. A group of U.S. senators, including Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), introduced a bill last month proposing to ban BPA from infant and children’s products.

Companies, too, are taking note. Nalgene recently promised to phase out BPA from all of its water bottles. Target and Toys ‘R Us also have plans in place to phase out the sale of products with polyvinyl chloride, which contain phthalates.

This year, corporate shareholders filed a record 21 resolutions on toxic chemicals, about half of which involved polyvinyl chloride, according to the Investor Environmental Health Network.

“Investors and businesses are waking up to the fact that the risks caused by toxic chemicals . . . jeopardize a company’s bottom line,” Richard Liroff, the Network’s founder, says. “The increased pressure is paying off.”

Plastic alternatives that don’t rely on BPA or phthalates could be both more expensive and less safe than better-studied compounds, Hentges warns.

Concern over levels

What we do know, however, gives some people pause.

Almost 93 percent of all American adults have BPA residue in their urine, according to a 2007 study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Women had higher levels than men, and children’s levels were highest of all.

Those wary of plastics point to studies that suggest that a link might exist between BPA and breast and prostate cancer, early infertility, recurrent miscarriage and thyroid disease.

Research suggests that phthalates — used in many products including toys, floor tiles, cosmetic containers and shower curtains — may have myriad health effects. They have been linked to lower sperm counts, genital birth defects and abdominal obesity in men. Other studies suggest phthalates may have toxic kidney effects.

These studies, however, have mostly been done on animals, making it unclear how, if at all, results translate to humans. Conducting large-scale studies on humans on one chemical’s risk profile are very difficult, scientists note, since we are exposed to thousands of substances simultaneously.

“While a certain compound studied in a controlled environment at high levels may give you a toxic response, it does not necessarily indicate that at low levels in our environment we’re going to see that same response in humans,” says Gregory Knipp, an associate professor of industrial and physical pharmacy at Purdue University.

“The key thing we need to realize is that more research needs to be done.

“As this technology develops, we start to begin to understand more and we have to balance that ‘Chicken Little, the sky is falling’ response with reasonable risk assessments,” says Knipp.

Northeastside resident Diane Slomka figures it can’t hurt to err on the side of caution. After her younger child, now 3, was born, she began having doubts about the plastic materials in her home and kitchen.

She now uses stainless steel sippy cups and never stores food in plastic, including plastic bags. If she needs to freeze leftovers, she does so in Pyrex.

“You can read 100 different opinions on things, but if you store something in a Ziploc bag and eat it, you can taste it. That was enough to really convince me,” says Slomka, 38. “It’s a matter of limiting the exposure as best you can without completely making yourself crazy.”