Bisphenol A (BPA): The time has come to ban this chemical

Bisphenol A (BPA) is living on borrowed time. And not just in the United States but now in Europe too where mounting consumer hostility and scientific concern over its safety have combined to push the chemical towards the point of no return.

Just a few months ago, it seemed the storm of anxiety surrounding BPA was a North American phenomenon, with Canada and a bevy of US states introducing bans on the substance used in polycarbonate bottles and epoxy food can linings.

Make sure your plastic containers do not contain BPA,
a chemical that mimics naturally occurring estrogen.

Meanwhile, the issue barely registered in the minds of consumers in Europe who seemed broadly content to accept assurances from food safety bodies that all was well with BPA. But the last few months have seen European opposition to BPA attain a momentum that threatens to steamroll anybody in its path – including those white-coated experts at the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).

But why?

Almost all food safety bodies across the globe have been resolute in their view that the substance poses no risk to human health at current exposure rates. Sticking to the science and steering clear of emotion-based rhetoric is the best way of attaining the Holy Grail of food safety, is the mantra from Washington DC to Parma and beyond. And the science around the safety of BPA was a fortress, they said

House of cards

The first crack in the seemingly impregnable edifice appeared in January with an acrobatic opinion from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) declaring the chemical to be safe while simultaneously calling for its use to be phased out in food packaging and the need for greater scrutiny of BPA-containing substances.

Weeks later, France talked of “warning signs” over BPA and the need for further investigation. Denmark went one step further last month by introducing a temporary ban on the substance in packaging for children aged 0-3 until its safety could be demonstrated.

The citadel of certainty surrounding the safety of BPA has threatened to become nothing more than a house of cards.

A difference in emphasis in US and European safety philosophies may also hasten BPA’s demise in food packaging on this side of the Atlantic. In the US, the burden of proof needed to ban a substance is weighted on showing that it poses a threat. In other words, it is innocent until proven guilty. This is exactly how it should be in the human justice system but more questionable when dealing with a potentially toxic chemical that could harm millions.

You can view a related video here: http://youtube.com/watch?v=NiND7qQJ3kk

By contrast, the precautionary principle that informs European food safety thinking allows for the exclusion of substances if they are suspected of causing harm – in other words they must prove their innocence. This approach is exactly why Denmark chose to ban BPA and why France has launched its own investigation into the chemical. It is significant that both agencies were at pains to stress the scientific basis for their decisions.

Last week, a UK newspaper ran numerous articles on the potential dangers of BPA showing it is now clearly on the radar of consumers. An international coalition of eight eminent scientists also said the weight of hard evidence justified a ban on the chemical.

Click here to read the full story:

Commentary

Bisphenol A (BPA) is a chemical used to make plastics hard. Exposure to BPA is believed to come from the linings of canned foods, especially acidic foods like soda and tomato sauce.

There is mounting evidence to suggest that ongoing exposure to BPA may be contributing to a numerous medical conditions, including prostate cancer, breast cancer, early puberty onset, alterations in gender-specific behavior, decreased sperm count, affects on fertility, affects on obesity and insulin resistance, behavioral effects including hyperactivity, increased aggressiveness, impaired learning and other changes in behavior.

BPA apparently mimics naturally occurring estrogen, a hormone that is part of the endocrine system, the body's finely tuned messaging service.

In 2004, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that 95% of Americans had BPA in their urine.

In January 2010, the FDA finally came to their senses and expressed their concerns about possible health risks from BPA. Their announcement stated that they had “some concerns about the potential effects of BPA on the brain, behavior and prostate gland of fetuses, infants and children” and would join other federal agencies in studying the chemical in both animals and humans. One wonders why it has taken the FDA so long to wake up and finally take some action. Despite the FDA’s concern, they have not banned the chemical’s use in plastics.

BPA is very often found in polycarbonate plastic food containers that should be marked “PC” or with the recycling number 7, so avoid such items. Plastics with the recycling label numbers 1, 2 and 4 do not contain BPA.

If you are a parent and feed your child infant formula, you should choose the powdered version if possible. Cans of infant formula are lined with an epoxy containing BPA, but the FDA found that the BPA only leaches from the linings into liquid formula and not the powdered variety.

Tests have shown that the highest levels of BPA are found in canned soups and pasta, but it has also been found in canned fruits, vegetables and beverages. You would be far better off buying frozen vegetables than anything in a can.

There is ample evidence to suggest that BPA should be banned. Check your canned goods. If the linings contain BPA, buy something else. If the label does not provide the information, ask the store manager if the plastic lining of the can contains BPA.

BPA is found in numerous household products, from drink containers (including baby bottles) and food packaging to the lining of canned goods. Your safest bet is to avoid canned goods and plastic containers (especially food containers) altogether.

You can view a related video here: http://youtube.com/watch?v=NiND7qQJ3kk

Compulsive Eating of Junk Food can be as Addictive as Cocaine and Heroin

Scripps Research Study Shows Compulsive Eating Shares Same Addictive Biochemical Mechanism with Cocaine, Heroin Abuse

The Research Provides New Clues to Obesity Epidemic

JUPITER, FL, March 23, 2010 –In a newly published study, scientists from The Scripps Research Institute have shown for the first time that the same molecular mechanisms that drive people into drug addiction are behind the compulsion to overeat, pushing people into obesity.

Junk food can be as addictive as cocaine or heroin.

The new study, conducted by Scripps Research Associate Professor Paul J. Kenny and graduate student Paul M. Johnson, was published March 28, 2010 in an advance online edition of the journal Nature Neuroscience.

View the video here: http://youtube.com/watch?v=AY-cA8V9GPo

The study's startling findings received widespread publicity after a preliminary abstract was presented at a Society for Neuroscience meeting in Chicago last October. Articles heralding the new discovery appeared in news publications around the world, focusing on the point obese patients have been making for years – that, like addiction to other substances, junk food binging is extremely difficult to stop.

The study goes significantly further than the abstract, however, demonstrating clearly that in rat models the development of obesity coincides with a progressively deteriorating chemical balance in reward brain circuitries. As these pleasure centers in the brain become less and less responsive, rats quickly develop compulsive overeating habits, consuming larger quantities of high-calorie, high-fat foods until they become obese. The very same changes occur in the brains of rats that over consume cocaine or heroin, and are thought to play an important role in the development of compulsive drug use.

Kenny, a scientist at Scripps Research's Florida campus, said that the study, which took nearly three years to complete, confirms the "addictive" properties of junk food.

Click here to read the full story.
 
Commentary
 
So who is to blame for the twin epidemics of obesity and diabetes (they are related)? The people who eat compulsively, parents who don’t know any better and feed their families processed food, or the manufacturers of our food supply?

Have you ever looked at an obese child and wondered why they are overweight?

In my opinion the problem starts at home, and this is where the battle needs to be fought.

Through ignorance or simple laziness, parents are feeding their children processed food as opposed to healthy, nutritious, home-cooked meals. Ninety percent of the money spent on food in the U.S. is spent on processed food, food that lacks fiber and nutrition. To make matters worse, this food is heavily laced with man-made toxins that ensure that you become addicted to junk food and crave more (you over eat because the chemicals in your food have disabled your brain from telling you to stop eating).

AND THIS IS THE REAL PROBLEM.

Make no mistake: the manufacturers of our food supply know precisely what they are doing. They are turning our children into food junkies, and they are doing it on purpose - all in the name of profit.

Parents need to become more proactive. They need to stop buying processed food and prevent their children from eating junk food. They need to lead by example. Fresh fruit and vegetables need to become the norm. Exercise and outdoor activities should become a way of life. The solution to the problem needs to be family-based.

Collectively, we need to vote with our wallets. Boycott anything containing high fructose corn syrup (the real reason behind the twin epidemics of obesity and diabetes in the US), aspartame, bisphenol A (BPA), sugar, sodium benzoate, monosodium glutamate (MSG), nitrates and nitrites. Better yet, don’t buy anything that has a label.

The government can help by banning food additives such as high fructose corn syrup, aspartame, MSG, etc.

Eating healthful, fresh foods combined with moderate exposure to the sun and daily exercise is the solution to optimum health and wellness - and the ultimate solution to obesity.

Vitamin D can Save the Global Economy Hundreds of Billions in Health Costs

Ensuring the German population gets adequate intakes of vitamin D could save the country about €37.5 billion in health care costs, according to a new review.

Writing in Molecular Nutrition & Food Research, Professor Armin Zittermann from Ruhr University Bochum states that up to 45 per cent of the German population could be vitamin D insufficient, with an additional 15 to 30 per cent deficient, thereby putting them at risk at a variety of health problems.

Moderate sun exposure is absolutely crucial to your
health. This is the way your skin produces
Vitamin D3, a powerful healing chemical.

In addition, current recommendations are not enough and need to be doubled at least, wrote Prof Zittermann, with daily intakes of 25 micrograms required. This would represent a significant increase from current recommendations, which range from 5 to 10 micrograms per day.

View a related video here: http://youtube.com/watch?v=DVjClX0o7Q8

“Adherence to present sun safety policy and dietary recommendations would definitively lead to vitamin D deficiency,” states Prof Zittermann. “Therefore, there is an urgent need to change current sun safety policy and dietary vitamin D recommendations.”

Vitamin D deficiency in adults is reported to precipitate or exacerbate osteopenia, osteoporosis, muscle weakness, fractures, common cancers, autoimmune diseases, infectious diseases and cardiovascular diseases. There is also some evidence that the vitamin may reduce the incidence of several types of cancer and type-1 diabetes.

The science supporting the muscle function of vitamin D, as well as the vitamin’s role in immune health, is sufficiently robust to have merited a positive opinion from the European Food Safety Authority’s (EFSA) Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies (NDA).

Despite such proclamations of support, many people across the world are not getting enough vitamin D. Prof Zitterman reviewed data from the German National Health Interview and Examination Survey (GNHIES), and the German National Health Interview and Examination Survey for Children and Adolescents (KiGGS), and concluded that between 40 and 45 per cent of the general German population is vitamin D insufficient, whiel an additional 15 to 30 per are vitamin D deficient.

Click here to read the full story:

Commentary

Many of us have been brainwashed into believing that exposure to the sun is bad for you. It’s true that chronic, excessive exposure to sunlight does increase the risk of skin cancer, but sensible, moderate sun exposure is absolutely crucial to your health because this is the way your skin produces Vitamin D3, one of the most powerful healing chemicals that your body can produce.

Although it has been labeled a vitamin, D3 is actually a very powerful steroid hormone that regulates over 2000 (of your 30,000) genes. This should illustrate to you just how important it is to your health.

It has been estimated that approximately one billion people worldwide have vitamin D deficiency or insufficiency. Dr. Michael Holick, who has been researching vitamin D deficiency for over 30 years, believes that vitamin D deficiency is epidemic throughout the entire United States, through all age groups.

The following statistics amplify Dr. Holick’s assertion:

• Over 40,000 Americans die annually from cancer caused by Vitamin D deficiency

• Research suggests that 85% of the U.S. population could be vitamin D deficient without knowing it

• 32% of doctors and medical school students are vitamin D deficient

• 42% of African-American women of childbearing age are deficient in vitamin D

• 48% of young girls (9-11 years old) are vitamin D deficient

• 76% of pregnant mothers are severely vitamin D deficient, causing a vitamin D deficiency in their unborn children (and this predisposes them to type 1 diabetes, arthritis, multiple sclerosis and schizophrenia later in life)

• 81% of children who had vitamin D deficient mothers were also Vitamin D deficient

How to Get Your Share of Vitamin D3

The best source of vitamin D3 is direct exposure to the sun (and it’s free). Dr. Holick recommends that you expose 6 to 10% of your body to the sun a couple of times a week and this should be sufficient to get all the vitamin D your body needs to function optimally. Other experts suggest daily sun exposure, from 10 to 20 minutes per day.

Cod liver oil is another good source of vitamin D3.

You can get some vitamin D from your diet, but it’s unlikely that you will get all you need. Oily fish like salmon, sardines, tuna and mackerel contains vitamin D, but you would have to eat salmon and mackerel 3 to 5 times a week in order to get your vitamin D requirement.

You can also use a vitamin supplement, but make sure that it is vitamin D3 and NOT D2. There are two forms of vitamin D that the human body can synthesize and use: D2 and D3 – the latter is a lot more powerful and effective.

Please Take Note

1. You should note that sunscreen blocks your skin’s ability to produce vitamin D. When you’re outside in the sun, do not apply any sunscreen for the first fifteen minutes. If you remain in the sun and wish to wear sunscreen, apply it only after 15 minutes exposure to the sun.

2. Recent research has revealed that it takes your body 48 hours to absorb the vitamin D produced by your skin. Until it is absorbed, the vitamin remains on the surface of the skin. Apparently the soaps and gels that we commonly use to wash ourselves can actually get rid of the vitamin D as well. After exposure to the sun, it may be a good idea to rinse off the entire body with warm water and only wash the “essential” areas until the vitamin is entirely absorbed.

3. One of cholesterol's many functions in the body is to act as a precursor to vitamin D. If you’re taking drugs such as Statins to lower the cholesterol in your blood, this will decrease your capacity to produce vitamin D3.

Click here to read more articles on healthy living.