Quoted Text

Drugstores should also stop selling cigarettes

Re April 3 article, “Health chief urges grocers to stop selling cigarettes — Industry leader warns of ‘slippery slope’”: I agree with the movement to get the big grocery stores to take tobacco products off their shelves. What I really think is that drugstores should remove tobacco products also. In my opinion, a store that sells products to cure or prevent illnesses should never sell a product that causes all the health-related problems associated with tobacco.
BERNARD WITKOWSKI

Quoted Text

Drugstores should also stop selling cigarettes

Re April 3 article, “Health chief urges grocers to stop selling cigarettes — Industry leader warns of ‘slippery slope’”: I agree with the movement to get the big grocery stores to take tobacco products off their shelves. What I really think is that drugstores should remove tobacco products also. In my opinion, a store that sells products to cure or prevent illnesses should never sell a product that causes all the health-related problems associated with tobacco.
BERNARD WITKOWSKI

Quoted Text

The last thing we need is for the government either federal or state to start regulating more of peoples lives when they can't even balance a budget.

Quoted Text

Limiting access to cigarettes is all about gov’t control

    Re the April 15 letter “Good policy to make cigarettes less accessible,” by New York State Health Commissioner Richard F. Daines, give me a break. First of all, he has to say something like that because he is the health commissioner. And second, why are nonsmokers trying to control smokers?
    [If] you’re going to take cigarettes out of every market, then take beer and wine out also. The stand against smokers is hypocritical. Daines should try focusing some of his energies on the alcoholics who are drinking and driving. They are the ones getting behind the wheel and killing innocent people or themselves.
    And, just like smoking, there are a ton of health problems with alcohol, like liver cancer, spleen, etc. But alcohol is promoted on television, in magazines, on billboards, etc. There are a lot of people and companies making millions of dollars on alcohol.
    I agree it’s not healthy to smoke and, yes, I’m for not smoking in certain places. But in our own homes and outside in fresh air? That is going too far. We are not sitting there smoking in your face for 45 minutes straight.
The government is setting itself up so that there will be a black market, just like in the 1920s and ’30s with liquor. Why? To control people? The people in government need to think about this the next time they are drinking their alcohol at dinner or lunch.
SUE MIZEJEWSKI
Niskayuna

Quoted Text

Time for serious regulation of tobacco

We live in a nation of regulations. Except when it comes to cigarettes and other tobacco products, that is. It’s astonishing, really. The Food and Drug Administration does not have the authority to regulate a pack of cigarettes. Nor does the Department of Health and Human Services. No department or agency in the federal government has that authority. The U.S. House of Representatives is looking to change that, and has taken a real step toward giving the Food and Drug Administration the authority it needs to have over cigarettes and other tobacco products.
This is a good law, long overdue. It deserves broad support.
--The Republican, Springfield, Mass.,

Quoted Text

Health Department will continue efforts to cut tobacco consumption
First published: Thursday, April 24, 2008

The state Health Department recently ran an advertisement in the Times Union suggesting that parents and other consumers call on all supermarkets to end sales of tobacco products, as many have already done. Your April 7 editorial "Smoke signals" makes the odd counterargument that because cigarettes are legal, supermarkets selling them should be sheltered from such criticism.
Supermarkets make many choices about what products to offer for sale in their communities. These decisions are based on a product's appropriateness for the community, consistency with the store's mission, and on daily interactions with customers. Our efforts to inform and energize the public regarding the inconsistency of tobacco retailing alongside sales of healthy food are an entirely appropriate addition to this dialogue.
     
As state health commissioner, I will continue to use every available tool to reduce tobacco consumption. The 25,600 smoking-caused deaths that occur every year in New York are a constant reminder of the grave health consequences associated with this deadly product. You also argue that in light of the state's campaign against tobacco sales, it is somehow hypocritical for the state to raise cigarette taxes to balance the budget. I strongly disagree.
The state spends $8.2 billion every year on treatment for tobacco-caused disease, including $5.4 billion in the Medicaid program alone. This is far in excess of the money that the cigarette excise tax will raise for state coffers in one year even after including the $265 million the increased tax will bring in this year. Is the state's use of taxes any more hypocritical than the Times Union's acceptance of state money to run our advertisements while, as in your editorial, decrying the content and purpose of those ads.
Nearly every proposed advance made against tobacco consumption over the last 40 years has been opposed by some flimsy argument. Restrictions in advertising, controls to prevent youth consumption, the clean indoor air movement and the recovery of tobacco-related health costs from Big Tobacco have each had to survive charges of nannyism, impracticality or hypocrisy. Looking back, is there any one of these measures that an informed public would choose to revoke? If not now, then at some future date, tobacco will not be sold by virtually all public spirited supermarkets. The important question then for the last stragglers to come on board will be, "Why did it take you so long?"
RICHARD F. DAINES, M.D. State Commissioner of Health Albany

Quoted Text

Tobacco one of many supermarket killers

    New York State Health Commissioner Dr. Richard F. Daines wrote that “tobacco is the only product sold in grocery stores, when used exactly as intended, that will kill customers and increase the number of those dying from devastating diseases such as cancer” [April 15 Gazette]. I respectfully disagree.
    There are probably thousands of items sold in supermarkets that, used as intended, shorten people’s lives. Much of the food sold in grocery stores is contaminated with pesticides and herbicides, tainted with artificial flavors and colors, and genetically modified; some is nanofied or irradiated.
    Large numbers of farm animals in the United States — sources of meat, cheese, eggs, butter, and milk — are raised in concentration camp-like conditions, fed growth hormones and dosed with antibiotics.
    Much of the food sold in supermarkets is packaged in plastics that leach dangerous chemicals into the food. These include phthalates and bisphenol A. Phthalates, a known human carcinogen, are added to polyvinyl chloride. Bisphenol A — hormone disrupter — is found in a variety of items, including baby bottles.
    Remember: What you don’t know can hurt you. More than 1,500 new chemicals are introduced in commerce each year in the United States. Few are tested for safety — they are simply let loose.
    We live in a rapidly changing world, where large corporations wield tremendous capacity to quickly saturate markets with new products and poisons. Greed trumps safety. Unfortunately, we can’t count on government to protect us. Most federal (and many state) politicians have been neutralized by large corporate campaign contributions. Regulatory agencies are far too weak to deal with the pollution onslaught.
    I encourage readers to carefully research the safety of both the food you purchase and the containers it is packaged in. Teach your loved ones to do the same.
    TOM ELLIS
    Albany

Quoted Text

Industry studies delay re-evaluation of plastics
Independent research warns of additive in baby bottles
BY LYNDSEY LAYTON The Washington Post

    WASHINGTON — Despite more than 100 published studies by government scientists and university laboratories that have raised health concerns about a chemical compound that is central to the multibillion-dollar plastics industry, the Food and Drug Administration has deemed it safe largely because of two studies, both funded by an industry trade group.
    The agency says it has relied on research backed by the American Plastics Council because it had input on its design, monitored its progress and reviewed the raw data.
    The compound, bisphenol A (BPA), has been linked to breast and prostate cancer, behavioral disorders and reproductive health problems in laboratory animals.
    As evidence mounts about the risks of using BPA in baby bottles and other products, some experts and industry critics contend that chemical manufacturers have exerted influence over federal regulators to keep a possibly unsafe product on the market.
    Congressional Democrats have begun investigating any industry influence in regulating BPA.
    “Tobacco figured this out, and essentially it’s the same model,” said David Michaels, who was a federal regulator in the Clinton administration. “If you fight the science, you’re able to postpone regulation and victim compensation, as well. As in this case, eventually the science becomes overwhelming. But if you can get five or 10 years of avoiding pollution control or production of chemicals, you’ve greatly increased your product.”
    Mitchell Cheeseman, deputy director of the FDA’s office of food additive safety, said the agency is not biased toward industry.
    “The fact is, it’s industry’s responsibility to demonstrate the safety of their products,” he said. “The fact that industry generated data to support the safety I don’t think is an unusual thing.”
    The FDA’s position on the compound was called into question earlier this month when a National Institutes of Health panel issued a draft report linking BPA to health concerns. Since then, Canadian regulators have banned BPA in baby products, and Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., has introduced a bill to prohibit some uses of the compound. Ten states, including California and Maryland, are weighing their own restrictions.
    U.S. manufacturers produce 7 billion pounds of BPA annually, and business worldwide has been growing about 4 percent a year, driven by rising demand in Asia. A U.S. government ban on BPA would affect thousands of businesses and perhaps billions of dollars in profit for its largest manufacturers.
DELAYING TACTICS
    As part of his investigation, Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, wants to examine the role played by the Weinberg Group, a Washington firm that employs scientists, lawyers and public relations specialists to defend products from legal and regulatory action. The firm has worked on Agent Orange, tobacco and Teflon, among other products linked to health hazards, and congressional investigators say it was hired by Sunoco, a BPA manufacturer.
    Dingell has asked the Weinberg Group for all records related to its work in connection with BPA, including studies it has funded and payments made to experts. He cited a letter written by a company vice president in 2003 as Weinberg managed opposition in a longrunning regulatory battle over a compound in Teflon. The strategy would be to discourage “governmental agencies, the plaintiffs’ bar and misguided environmental groups from pursuing this matter any further,” the letter said.
    In a statement, Dingell said, “The tactics apparently employed by the Weinberg Group raise serious questions about whether science is for sale at these consulting groups, and the effect this faulty science might have on the public health.”
    Matthew Weinberg, the firm’s chief executive, declined to be interviewed. But in a brief written statement, he said the company will cooperate with Dingell’s investigation.
    “The analyses we conduct are rigorous and adhere to established principles of scientific integrity,” the statement said. “We believe it is in the public interest for all scientific research to be subject to scrutiny and the views of all affected parties to be heard.”
    Scientists first flagged possible health risks of BPA more than a decade ago. From 1997 to 2005, 116 studies of the compound were published, many of them focused on its effects in low doses. Of those funded by government, 90 percent showed a health effect linked to BPA. None of the industry-funded studies found an effect; all of them said BPA is safe.
BOUGHT SCIENCE
    There is a clear bias in studies funded by industry, said Michaels, who now runs the Project on Scientific Knowledge and Public Policy at George Washington University and who wrote the book “Doubt is Their Product,” which details how various industries have used science to stave off regulation.
    “This is a great example of the funding effect,” he said. “It’s not so much because scientists are shaving the truth, but they ask questions in a way to give them the answers they want.”
    Sharon Kneiss, vice president of products divisions for the American Chemistry Council, said in a conference call with reporters two weeks ago that industry research is unassailable. “We make it a policy to supply government agencies with data, and we have done it in the case of BPA,” she said. “We supplied studies following the highest levels of quality in terms of their study. We stand behind the quality of the studies.”
    The FDA and the Environmental Protection Agency both regulate BPA. Because the compound is most readily absorbed through food and drink, the FDA plays a critical regulatory role because it approves the compound’s use in plastic food containers and bottles, tableware and in the plastic linings of canned foods.
    For much of the regulatory history of BPA, traditional toxicology was used to assess risk to people — researchers tried to find the threshold amount above which BPA would cause cancer, malformation or death.
    Sarah Vogel, who holds a master’s degree in public health and is writing a doctoral dissertation at Columbia University on the politics and scientific history of BPA, said that because practical use of the compound was at levels much lower than the amount deemed toxic, scientists assumed it was safe. “The idea was: Look, this stuff is at such low levels, it really couldn’t effect any harm,” she said.

Quoted Text

While Bisphenol A was first synthesized in 1891, the first evidence of its estrogenicity came from experiments in the 1930's feeding BPA to ovariectomised rats (Dodds and Lawson 1936, 193.    Some wildly popular water bottles are made of polycarbonate

Another compound invented during that era, diethylstilbestrol, turned out to be more powerful as an estrogen, so bisphenol A was shelved... until polymer chemists discovered that it could be polymerized to form polycarbonate plastic. Unfortunately, the ester bond that links BPA monomers to one another to form a polymer is not stable and hence the polymer decays with time, releasing BPA into materials with which it comes into contact, for example food or water.


Bisphenol A is now deeply imbedded in the products of modern consumer society, not just as the building block for polycarbonate plastic (from which it then leaches as the plastic ages) but also in the manufacture of epoxy resins and other plastics, including polysulfone, alkylphenolic, polyalylate, polyester-styrene, and certain polyester resins.

Its uses don't end with the making of plastic. Bisphenol A has been used as an inert ingredient in pesticides (although in the US this has apparently been halted), as a fungicide, antioxidant, flame retardant, rubber chemical, and polyvinyl chloride stabilizer.

These uses create a myriad of exposures for people. Bisphenol A-based polycarbonate is used as a plastic coating for children's teeth to prevent cavities, as a coating in metal cans to prevent the metal from contact with food contents, as the plastic in food containers, refrigerator shelving, baby bottles, water bottles, returnable containers for juice, milk and water, micro-wave ovenware and eating utensils.

Other exposures result from BPA's use in "films, sheets, and laminations; reinforced pipes; floorings; watermain filters; enamels and vanishes; adhesives; artificial teeth; nail polish; compact discs; electric insulators; and as parts of automobiles, certain machines, tools, electrical appliances, and office automation instruments" (Takahashi and Oishi 2000).

BPA contamination is also widespread in the environment. For example, BPA can be measured in rivers and estuaries at concentrations that range from under 5 to over 1900 nanograms/liter. Sediment loading can also be significant, with levels ranging from under 5 to over 100 µg/kg (ppb) BPA is quite persistent as under normal conditions in the environment it does not readily degrade (Rippen 1999).

What this all means is that most of your life you are within arm's length or closer to bisphenol A. No wonder the debate over its toxicity is so intense.



Some important recent studies of bisphenol A:

Experiments with rats demonstrate that low level exposure to bisphenol A during fetal growth causes breast cancer in adults. At all levels tested down to 2.5 parts per billion, BPA induced formation of aberrant cell growth patterns associated in rodents and people with breast cancer. Levels only 5 times higher than EPA's current safe level caused carcinoma in situ. Using these results to set safety standards would radically reduce use of BPA in plastics and resins. More...

In utero exposure to BPA causes long-term effects on mammary tissue development in rats, increasing risks to cancer, and also increases sensitivity to a chemical known to cause breast cancer. The study strengthens support for a link between increasing rates of breast cancer in recent decades and increasing exposure to estrogenic chemicals like BPA. It also indicates that human epidemiological studies that fail to incorporate developmental exposures can't be trusted to identify cancer-causing agents. More...

Perinatal exposure to extremely low levels of bisphenol A causes precancerous prostate lesions in rats. These lesions, called prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia, or PIN, are cancerous and are considered to be a precursor of metastatic prostate cancer in humans. One hundred percent of rats exposed perinatally and then, during adulthood, treated with estradiol and testosterone to create hormonal conditions analogous to thos of an ageing man, developed high-grade PIN. The effect appears to result from the failure in exposed animals of a gene to become hypermethylated as the rats aged. More...

Experiments with mice reveal that chronic adult exposure to bisphenol A causes insulin resistance. Insulin resistance in people leads to Type II diabetes and congestive heart failure, and is part of the modern epidemic of 'metabolic syndrome.' The exposure levels used were within the range that people experience regularly. More...

In a small prospective study, researchers in Japan report that bisphenol A levels are higher in women with a history of repeated spontaneous miscarriages. This research was based on proof that BPA causes meiotic aneuploidy in mice. Meiotic aneuploidy is the commonest cause of miscarriage in people. The researchers also followed the pregnancies of the women to completion, and found evidence of aneuploidy in several of the miscarried fetuses. More...

Bisphenol A and the birth control pharmaceutical ethinylestradiol cause adverse effects in prostate development in mice at levels to which millions of Americans are exposed each year. The results implicate these compounds in human prostate diseases, including prostate cancer. The research also shows the futility of predicting the developmental consequences of low-dose exposures based on high-dose experiments. More...

A flood of new information about bisphenol A revealing both widespread human exposure and effects at extremely low doses sparks a call for a new risk assessment of the ubiquitous compound. Bisphenol A, the basic building block of polycarbonate plastic, alters development of the reproductive tract, the immune system, increases prostate tumor proliferation, changes brain chemistry and structure and affects an array of behaviors, including hyperactivity. Of 11 studies of the compound's effects at low doses, none funded by industry reported impacts. In contrast, 94 out of 104 government-funded studies found effects. This summary includes audio files of an international teleconference about bisphenol A. More...

Several 'weakly' estrogenic compounds including bisphenol A and endosulfan are as powerful as estrogen at increasing calcium influx into cells and stimulating prolactin secretion. The effects are mediated by a cell membrane surface receptor instead of nuclear hormone receptors, the focus of most studies to date. Changes in calcium and prolactin occur at extremely low doses, well within the range of human exposures. Wozniak, AL, NN Bulayeva and CS Watson. 2005. Xenoestrogens at Picomolar to Nanomolar Concentrations Trigger Membrane Estrogen Receptor-alpha-Mediated Ca++ Fluxes and Prolactin Release in GH3/B6 Pituitary Tumor Cells. Environmental Health Perspectives, in press.

Bisphenol A at extremely low levels causes changes in brain structure and behavior in rats. The locus coeruleus is believed to be a key brain center for anxiety and fear. Normally this is larger in females than in males. Rats exposed to BPA at levels beneath the current 'safe' exposure level established by the US EPA show a reversal in sex dimorphism, with males' LC larger than females.' . Kubo, K, O Arai, M Omura, R Wantanabe, R Ogata, and S Aou. 2003. Low dose effects of bisphenol A on sexual differentiation of the brain and behavior in rats. Neuroscience Research 45: 345-356.

Exposures to 1/5th the level considered safe are sufficient to alter maternal behavior in mice, including reductions in time spent nursing, increases in time resting away from offspring, and increases in time spent out of the nest. Palanza, P, KL Howdeshell, S Parmigiani and FS vom Saal. 2002. Exposure to a low dose of bisphenol A during fetal life or in adulthood alters maternal behavior in mice. Environmental Health Perspectives 110 (suppl 3): 415-422.

An accident in the lab, followed by careful analysis and a series of experiments, reveals that bisphenol A causes aneuploidy in mice at low levels of exposure. Because aneuploidy in humans causes spontaneous miscarriages and some 10-20% of all birth defects, including Down Syndrome, this implicates bisphenol A in a broad range of human developmental errors. Hunt, PA, KE Koehler, M Susiarjo, CA Hodges, A Ilagan, RC Voigt, S Thomas, BF Thomas and TJ Hassold. 2003. Bisphenol A exposure causes meiotic aneuploidy in the female mouse. Current Biology 13: 546-553.

Experiments by researchers at the University of Missouri raise the possibility of widespread contamination of laboratory experiments by bisphenol A. Their results demonstrate that at room temperature significant amounts of this estrogenic substance leach into water from old polycarbonate animal cages. This inadvertent contamination could interfere with experiments designed to test the safety of estrogenic chemicals, and lead to false negatives and conflicting results. Howdeshell, KA, PH Peterman, BM Judy, JA Taylor, CE Orazio, RL Ruhlen, FS vom Saal, and WV Welshons 2003. Bisphenol A is released from used polycarbonate animal cages into water at room temperature. Environmental Health Perspectives doi:10.1289/ehp.5993.

An analysis of the biochemical mechanisms of endocrine disruption suggests why industry has been unable to replicate crucial low-dose impacts of bisphenol A on prostate development. Welshons, WV, KA Thayer, BM Judy, JA Taylor, EM Curran and FS vom Saal. 2003. Large effects from small exposures. I. Mechanisms for endocrine disrupting chemicals with estrogenic activity. Environmental Health Perspectives doi:10.1289/ehp.5494

Using new analytical methods, a team of German scientists measured bisphenol A in the blood of pregnant women, in umbilical blood at birth and in placental tissue. All samples examined contained BPA, at levels within the range shown to alter development. Thus widespread exposure to BPA at levels of concern is no longer a hypothetical issue. It is occurring. Schönfelder, G, W Wittfoht, H Hopp, CE Talsness, M Paul and I Chahoud. 2002. Parent Bisphenol A Accumulation in the Human Maternal-Fetal-Placental Unit. Environmental Health Perspectives 110:A703-A707.

At extremely low levels, BPA promotes fat cell (adipocyte) differentiation and accumulation of lipids in a cell culture line used as a model for adipocyte formation. These two steps, differentiation and accumulation, are crucial in the development of human obesity. Hence this result opens up a whole new chapter in efforts to understand the origins of the world-wide obesity epidemic. Masuno, H, T Kidani, K Sekiya, K Sakayama, T Shiosaka, H Yamamoto and K Honda. 2002. Bisphenol A in combination with insulin can accelerate the conversion of 3T3-L1 fibroblasts to adipocytes. Journal of Lipid Research 3:676-684.

In cell culture experiments, BPA at very low (nanomolar levels) stimulates androgen-independent proliferation of prostate cancer cells. This finding is especially important because when prostate tumors become androgen-independent they no longer respond to one of the key therapies for prostate cancer. Wetherill, YB, CE Petre, KR Monk, A Puga, and KE Knudsen. 2002. The Xenoestrogen Bisphenol A Induces Inappropriate Androgen Receptor Activation and Mitogenesis in Prostatic Adenocarcinoma Cells. Molecular Cancer Therapeutics 1: 515–524.

BPA causes changes in rat ventral prostate cells that appear similar to events that make nascent prostate tumors in humans more potent: Ramos, JG, J Varayoud, C Sonnenschein, AM Soto, M Muñoz de Toro and EH Luque. 2001. Prenatal Exposure to Low Doses of Bisphenol A Alters the Periductal Stroma and Glandular Cell Function in the Rat Ventral Prostate. Biology of Reproduction 65: 1271–1277.

BPA induces changes in mouse mammary tissue that resemble early stages mouse and human of breast cancer: Markey, CM, EH Luque, M Muñoz de Toro, C Sonnenschein and AM Soto. 2001. In Utero Exposure to Bisphenol A Alters the Development and Tissue Organization of the Mouse Mammary Gland. Biology of Reproduction 65: 1215–1223.

BPA lowers sperm count in adult rats even at extremely low levels: Sakaue, M, S Ohsako, R Ishimura, S Kurosawa, M Kurohmaru, Y Hayashi, Y Aoki, J Yonemoto and C Tohyama. 2001. Bisphenol-A Affects Spermatogenesis in the Adult Rat Even at a Low Dose. Journal of Occupational Health 43:185 -190.

BPA at extremely low levels creates superfemale snails. Oehlmann, J, U Schulte-Oehlmann, M Tillmann and B Markert. 2000. Effects of endocrine disruptors on Prosobranch snails (Mollusca: Gastropoda) in the laboratory. Part I: Bisphenol A and Octylphenol as xenoestrogens. Ecotoxicology 9:383-397.

BPA is rapidly transfered to the fetus after maternal uptake: Takahashi, O and S Oishi. 2000. Disposition of Orally Administered 2,2-Bis(4-hydroxyphenyl) propane (Bisphenol A) in Pregnant Rats and the Placental Transfer to Fetuses. Environmental Health Perspectives 108:931-935.

An independently funded, academic laboratory can verify controversial BPA results, even though industry can't: Gupta, Chhanda. 2000. Reproductive malformation of the male offspring following maternal exposure to estrogenic chemicals. Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine 224:61-68.

Metabolic differences between rats and humans probably mean that humans are more sensitive to BPA than are rats: Elsby, R, JL Maggs, J Ashby and BK Park. 2001. Comparison of the modulatory effects of human and rat liver microsomal metabolism on the estrogenicity of bisphenol A: implications for extrapolation to humans. Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics 297-103-113.

A confirmation of BPA low dose effects, and demonstration that the effects include impacts on estrous cyclicity and plasma LH levels: Rubin, BS, MK Murray, DA Damassa, JC King and AM Soto. 2001. Perinatal Exposure to Low Doses of Bisphenol A Affects Body Weight, Patterns of Estrous Cyclicity, and Plasma LH Levels. Environmental Health Perspectives 109: 675-680.

BPA speeds the pace of sexual development in mice, and causes mice to be obese: Howdeshell, K, AK Hotchkiss, KA Thayer, JG Vandenbergh and FS vom Saal. 1999. Plastic bisphenol A speeds growth and puberty. Nature 401: 762-764.