Posted by: Chloe Schwabe | July 12, 2010

California and New York ban BPA in baby bottles

baby bottleIn the last two weeks, two of the most populous states in the nation passed legislation to ban BPA. While they are both awaiting signatures from their governors, this is a huge step forward to protect children from bisphenol-a (BPA). BPA is linked to a myriad of health concerns is it effects when and how hormones are turned off and on in the body. It has been linked to early puberty in girls, type II diabetes, heart disease, and cancer.

The U.S. Senate may soon take up BPA as part of the food safety reform effort. California and New York join Connecticut, Washington, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Maryland in passing state bans. With so many states passing bans, the question becomes whether or not BPA might be banned de facto in the case that companies decide not to produce separate bottles. But federal legislation would certainly help to ensure that BPA is phased out once and for all in place of safer alternatives- not only in baby bottles but also in other food and drink containers that could harm children’s health.

As people of faith we are called to care for our bodies as temples of the holy spirit. We are also called to care for children and the most vulnerable. That is why people of faith across the country are acting boldly to ensure that BPA and other chemicals of concern are replaced in lieu of safer alternatives. Learn more about what you can do here. Learn more about BPA here.



  1. The coming tragedy in all of this is that BPA is the chemical name for only one chemical that functions and has the same side effects as the entire 200+ family of chemicals known to help in the molding of plastics. Manufacturers can now substitute an equally harmful chemical for BPA and market their product as BPA Free. I would suggest the we change our language to Estrogenic Free, Estrogenic Activity Free (EA Free) or Endocrine Disruptor Free.

    • It is super important that whatever they replace BPA with is the safest chemical out there. I agree with your characterization that the chemical should not be an endocrine disruptor (estrogenic or androgenic). It also shouldn’t be carcinogenic.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: