Sometimes you wonder whether you’re living in a parallel universe.

Bottler of an idea: just ban the chemical.

Like that South Park episode where Cartman is nice all the time, or in Seinfeld when Elaine meets Bizarro Jerry.

Or when the Federal Health Minister – who’s also the mother of a small child – won’t ban a toxic chemical that’s making babies sick.

I had this crazy notion that Nicola Roxon was supposed to be responsible for public health; that maybe she’d be concerned as the mother of a four-year-old daughter.

But when new evidence emerged this week showing BPA (bisphenol-A) in food and drink containers – particularly baby bottles – contributes to breast cancer, sex hormone imbalances, heart disease, diabetes and problems in babies, Ms. Roxon played a game of public health handball.

First, she said it was the Therapeutic Goods Administration’s responsibility.

No, said the TGA, it’s an issue for the Federal Health Department.

The Department handballed it to Food Standards Australia New Zealand.

The problem is, FSANZ has no regulatory authority over baby bottles.

You’d think Nicola Roxon would know all this, considering the same thing happened 12 months ago when the United Firefighters Union raised the issue.

In its response to the union, the boss of FSANZ wrote, “the matter falls within the portfolio responsibility of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health, the Hon Jan McLucas, but she has asked me to reply on her behalf”.

Nice handball, Jan.

The reply itself contains the if-it-wasn’t-so-serious-it-would-be-funny statement that more chemicals leached from baby bottles “when they were cleaned under exaggerated conditions including the use of boiling water”.

Exaggerated conditions?

The use of boiling water is recommended as the ONLY way to properly clean baby bottles.

The government’s response follows the same pattern every time there’s a threat to public health. 

Deny, deny, deny until incontrovertible evidence emerges, usually in the form of millions of people dying prematurely.

In the first century AD, Greeks and Romans observed that slaves involved in the weaving of asbestos cloth were afflicted with a sickness of the lungs. It took until 1991 for Australia to ban asbestos-containing material.

A study in 1938 suggested a “negative correlation between smoking and lifespan”, but warnings were not put on packets until the 1970s.

The danger signs about BPA have been around just as long: In the 1930s, experiments on rats found the first evidence of “estrogenicity of bisphenol-A”.

This week, Breast Cancer UK urged the British Government to ban the chemical, saying there is now “clear and compelling scientific evidence that links even low level exposure to increased risk of breast cancer and other chronic conditions”.

The Canadian government has gone ahead with a ban, while US baby bottle manufacturers are removing BPA from their products.

The World Health Organisation is investigating as a matter of urgency.

Of course, this has prompted a backlash from the chemical industry, which late last year began a US$10m PR blitz attacking or discrediting those who criticise the use of the monomer.

The Society of the Plastics Industry uses the same lobby group as Big Tobacco.

You can read the full investigative report here.

Until BPA is banned and replaced with a “safe” chemical, consumer groups recommend that you avoid canned food and plastic bottles.

(And eat and drink what, exactly…?)

They say you shouldn’t put plastic containers in the microwave or dishwasher.

Oh – and you’re not supposed to let your water bottle heat up in the car or that, too, will leach nasty chemicals.

(There are some terrific metal bottles available, like the kids’ ones on www.cheeki.net.au, but others are lined with BPA.)

Here’s a better idea: Why doesn’t Australia’s Plastics and Chemicals Industries Association replace BPA with another chemical?

After all, the industry turns over more than 32 billion dollars a year. Perhaps it could use the money set aside for political donations?

In the meantime, Australia will become a dumping ground for toxic bottles, as companies like Toys-R-Us and Walmart in the US remove them from the shelves.

Isn’t it odd, this parallel universe, where whales matter more than babies, health ministers care not for our health, and lobby groups determine what poisons we put into our mouths?

Most commented

12 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Chris says:

      06:52am | 12/01/10

      Beacasue the Federal Government is full of twits. There , I said it.

      I have said it before and again now, it must be a chemical (maybe BPA??) in those chairs in Parliment that turns a resaonable person into a moronic twit that says stupid things to get re-elected.

    • Dan says:

      07:59am | 12/01/10

      After all the chemical scares and what-not coming out of China, we decided to buy AVENT baby bottles, made in England to be on the safe side, bigger fools us, as they also have BPA in them.
      Now it’s just another opportunity for profit, now you can ‘BPA free’ bottles from the Chemist, at a significant mark up in price of course.
      Also are they just going to take out the BPA or will they replace it with another chemical, that we don’t know anything about.
      Also while I’m on this train of thought, they say this stuff mimics estrogen, makes you wonder about all the feminine boys around with their handbags and make up, not to mention all fertility problems in western world. But as Tracy says what can we do? What are the alternatives?

    • DocBud says:

      08:18am | 12/01/10

      “But when new evidence emerged this week…” That’s it, no reference to where the research was conducted and by whom, no quote from the lead author. We are expected to take it on trust from Tracey that this evidence is compelling. Well I’m not so trusting so perhaps you could give us the reference to this new evidence, Tracey.

      “Deny, deny, deny until incontrovertible evidence emerges, usually in the form of millions of people dying prematurely.”

      Rational and well argued.

      The dismissed FSANZ reply includes the statement:

      “The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) recently completed a review of the scientific literature for BPA and determined a maximum daily ‘safe limit’ for BPA. They concluded that the estimated total daily intake of BPA by a bottle-fed baby would be less than 10% of the ‘safe level’ for babies, when the bottles were cleaned using normal domestic conditions, and about 20% of the ‘safe limit’, when the bottles were cleaned under exaggerated conditions including the use of boiling water or strong solvents. In adults, the estimated daily intake from canned foods and beverages would be about 5% of the ‘safe limit’.”

      Given the risk averse nature of the EU and the inclusion of the precautionary principle within regulations:

      http://www.fsai.ie/uploadedFiles/Legislation/Food_Legisation_Links/General_Principles_of_Food_Law/Reg178_2002.pdf

      accepting the EFSA risk assessment after a review seems reasonable to me until more compelling evidence is presented.

    • Eliza says:

      08:22am | 12/01/10

      A teensy bit hysterical there Tracey, but I do believe that BPA plastics need to be banned and am pretty ticked off (though not at all surprised) that Roxon’s trying to dodge it. More attention needs to be brought to the toxic effects of BPA that are being shown to occur.

    • cats says:

      09:48am | 12/01/10

      how about women start giving their babies real milk from where they are meant to get it? Or am i just being uncivilised and old-fashioned?

    • Realist says:

      10:21am | 12/01/10

      Tracey, I think above all you fail to notice that no bottles made in America or Australia use Bisphenol-a and it is indeed the latest bandwagon to jump upon saying that ‘product free of bisphenol-A’.  http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/educationalmaterial/factsheets/factsheets2009/bisphenolabpaandfood4218.cfm

      I do not see the point in using boiling water to clean baby bottles as Bacteria are able to withstand temperatures of 105 degrees celcius before the protein is sufficiently damaged to prevent replication.  Indeed, bacteria I have dealt with in the lab are capable of withstanding up to 110 degrees celcius.  Your boiling water could NEVER reach that temperature.  The best way to remove bacteria is detergents or saline solutions, any other method or chemical (short of gamma-irradiated ethanol wipes) would be considered detremental to your babies long term health exposure.  If the plastic does not reach 100 degrees in the first place it does not release the compound.  Another thing to note is that no polypropylene or polyethylene containers contain BPA, so you may have avoided them all together anyway, without knowing it.

    • Interloper says:

      12:21pm | 12/01/10

      Thanks, DocBud and Realist. I was afraid I was the only one wondering where the evidence was for this bit of scare mongering.

    • Dan says:

      01:54pm | 12/01/10

      Hey Realist I dunno what sort of lab you work in but I would suggest that boiling water will kill most of pathogenic bacteria as opposed to the thermophilic bacteria that you seem to be working with. You are also forgetting about parasites such as giardia which can survive in low levels in the water supply may be killed by boiling water or hot steam. This is why parents of infants sterilise their bottles. You also seem to be unaware that water placed in a bottle and placed in a microwave can become superheated and go beyond 100 degrees C

      Parents are indundated with so much advice and information it’s no wonder that many of them are left in a permanent state of panic.

      So I did a quick search and according to ‘Friends of the Earth’ and they reckon the best way to avoid BPA is to go for plastics with recycling code 1,2,4 & 5 and avoid those with 3, 6 & 7

    • iansand says:

      01:55pm | 12/01/10

      I hope she never discovers the dihydrogen monoxide cover up.  That is a real scandal.

    • Johanna says:

      03:53pm | 12/01/10

      As well as being a scaremonger (I agree with the comment above about the EU), Tracey is behind the times about cleaning baby bottles.

      The current advice is that there is no need to sterilise baby bottles (except when there is immunosuppression).  Just wash them in hot soapy water - like you do dishes - and rinse thoroughly.  Think about it.  How sterile is the human breast?  Or the baby’s bedding, or clothes?  Or the fingers that go in the mouth?  The only circumstances where routine sterilisation is warranted is when the washing water has bugs in it and is not fit to drink.

      BPA is the furphy du jour of those who must think that our increasing lifespan as a sign that we live in a poisonous world. 

      As Joe Jackson said:  “Everything gives you cancer….”

      Idiots.

    • Vin says:

      06:33pm | 12/01/10

      If you haven’t figured that roxon is the worst minister in australian politics (failed cataract policy, no healthcare policy that works, trying to make nurses into pseudo-doctors, no plan for the oversupply of new medical grads in less than 5 years) than you must have your head really deep in the sand. failure thy name is roxon.

    • The Original Realist says:

      01:36am | 13/01/10

      This article is a very good example of why it’s important to get a scientific education… so you aren’t fooled by such pathetic drivel!

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Paul Colgan

@stilgherrian said Australia

Paul Colgan

RT @TheEconomist: Google is coming under intense scrutiny from regulators http://t.co/4bfvNp5oyEhttp://t.co/NLV9yRSIKr

Paul Colgan

@mpesce make sure you let us know when you take the covers off it

Paul Colgan

RT @PSyvret: As if anyone needs reminding of the bigoted pond-scum out there, this arrived in my in-box this morning: http://t.co/Lfu5ntmq

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter