[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 10 (Tuesday, January 25, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S203-S204]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. REID (for Mrs. Feinstein (for herself, Mr. Schumer, Mr. 
        Kerry, Mr. Sanders, and Mr. Franken)):
  S. 136. A bill to establish requirements with respect to bisphenol A; 
to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the ``Ban 
Poisonous Additives Act of 2011,'' a bill that would ban the chemical 
Bisphenol A, known as BPA, from all children's feeding products. I 
thank my cosponsors Senators Schumer, Kerry, Sanders, and Franken for 
their support.
  I vowed in the last Congress not to give up, and this is why I am 
introducing a bill that bans the use of BPA in baby bottles, sippy 
cups, infant formula, and baby food containers: the products used to 
provide food and beverages to the most vulnerable.
  I have a deep, abiding concern regarding the presence of toxins and 
chemicals in the daily lives of Americans. BPA is an endocrine 
disruptor, which means that it interferes with the way hormones work in 
the body.
  The evidence against BPA is mounting, especially its harmful effects 
on babies and children who are still developing.
  I believe we have an obligation to safeguard babies and children from 
unnecessary exposure to this chemical that is linked to so many health 
problems.
  Over 200 scientific studies show that even at low doses, BPA is 
linked to serious health problems including: Cancer, Diabetes, Heart 
Disease, Early puberty, Behavioral problems, Obesity.
  This chemical is so widespread it has been found in 93 percent of 
Americans.
  Babies and children are particularly at risk to the exposure of BPA 
because when they are developing, any small change can cause dramatic 
consequences.
  It may not surprise you that the chemical industry continues to 
insist that BPA is not harmful. According to at least one study, there 
is reason to be skeptical about research coming from chemical 
companies.
  In 2006, the journal Environmental Research published an article 
comparing the results of government funded studies on BPA to BPA 
studies funded by industry.
  The difference is glaring.
  Ninety-two percent of the government funded studies found that 
exposure to BPA caused health problems.
  Overwhelmingly, government studies found harm. None of the industry 
funded studies identified health problems as a result of BPA exposure. 
Not one.
  Clearly, serious questions are raised about the validity of the 
chemical industry's studies. The results also illustrate why our 
nation's regulatory agencies should not and cannot solely rely on 
chemical companies to conduct research on their own products.
  The fact that so many adverse health effects are linked to this 
chemical, the fact that this chemical is so present in our bodies, and 
the fact that babies are more at risk from its harmful effects leads me 
to believe that there is no good reason to expose our children to BPA.
  This is why we are introducing legislation that protects all babies 
across the country, no matter which state they happen to live.
  This bill will ensure that parents no longer have to wonder whether 
products they buy for their babies and children will harm them now or 
later in life.
  This bill: Bans the use of BPA in baby bottles and sippy cups within 
6 months; Bans the use of BPA in baby food within 1 year; Bans the use 
of BPA in infant formula within 18 months; Requires that the FDA issue 
a revised safety assessment on BPA by December 1, 2012; and Includes a 
savings clause to allow states to enact their own legislation.
  This bill makes sense. It's a reasonable step forward to protecting 
our children's health.
  Major manufacturers are already phasing out BPA from their food and 
beverage products for children.
  Food and beverage products for children all have safe, alternative, 
BPA-free packaging available right now.
  Major baby food and formula manufacturers offer BPA-free alternatives 
including: Nestle's GOOD START, Similac powdered infant formula, 
Enfamil powdered infant formula, Nestle liquid formula, and Similac 
liquid formula.
  At least 14 manufacturers of baby bottles either offer some BPA-free 
alternatives or have completely banned its use. They are: Avent, Born 
Free, Disney First Years, Dr. Brown's, Evenflo, Gerber, Green to Grow, 
Klean Kanteen, Medala, Munchkin, Nuby Sippy Cups, Playtex, Think Baby, 
and Weil Baby.
  Many major retailers have taken action and sell BPA-free baby bottles 
and cups: CVS, Kmart, Kroger, Rite Aid, Safeway, Sears, Toys ``R'' Us 
and Babies ``R'' Us, Wal-Mart, Wegmans, and Whole Foods.
  Eight states have already enacted laws banning BPA from children's 
products: Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, 
Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin.
  Other countries have already moved forward to restrict this chemical. 
Canada declared BPA a toxic substance, and banned it from all baby 
bottles and sippy cups. Denmark and France have national bans on BPA in 
certain children's products.
  The European Commission banned BPA from baby bottles, protecting 
consumers in the European Union.
  Clearly, the problem has been recognized and steps are being taken by 
countries, states, companies, and retailers to remove this harmful 
chemical.
  Let me briefly explain what BPA is.
  BPA is a synthetic estrogen. As I stated previously, it is a hormone 
disruptor and interferes with how hormones work in the body. This 
chemical is used in thousands of consumer products to harden plastics, 
line tin cans, and make CDs. It is even used to coat airline tickets, 
grocery store receipts, and to make dental sealants.
  It is one of the most pervasive chemicals in modern life. And, as 
with so many other chemicals in consumer products, BPA has been added 
to our products without us knowing whether it was safe or not.
  Alternatives exist because there is growing concern about the harmful 
effects of BPA. The chemical industry continues to try to quiet 
criticism by reassuring consumers that BPA is safe.
  I don't buy it.
  As I previously stated, over 200 scientific studies show that 
exposure to BPA, particularly during prenatal development and early 
infancy, are linked to a wide range of adverse health effects in later 
life.
  Because of their smaller size and stage of development, babies and 
children are particularly at risk from the harmful health effects of 
BPA.
  These serious effects include: increased risk of breast and prostate 
cancer; genital abnormalities in males; infertility in men; sexual 
dysfunction; early puberty in girls; metabolic disorders such as 
insulin resistant Type 2 diabetes and obesity; and behavioral problems 
such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, ADHD.
  It continues to astound me how, even with this extensive list of 
potentially serious health effects, we continue to allow this chemical 
to be put in our products.
  Moreover, additional science continues to be released, confirming the 
potential for BPA to cause severe problems:
  Recently, the University of California, San Francisco published a 
small scale study finding that human exposure to BPA may compromise the 
quality of a woman's eggs retrieved for in vitro fertilization, IVF.
  A study of over 200 Chinese factory workers found evidence that high 
levels of BPA exposure to adversely affect sperm quality in humans.
  Researchers at the University of Nebraska Medical Center recently 
published a study concluding that BPA has biochemical properties 
similar to human carcinogens.
  I want to underscore the importance and the urgency of withdrawing 
BPA from these children's products.
  Well-known and respected organizations and Federal agencies also have 
expressed concern about BPA:
  The President's Cancer Panel Annual Report released in April 2010 
concluded that there is growing evidence of a link between BPA and 
several diseases, such as cancer.
  The Panel recommended using BPA-free containers to limit chemical 
exposure.
  A 2008 study by the American Medical Association suggested links 
between exposure to BPA and diabetes,

[[Page S204]]

heart disease and liver problems in humans.
  The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) linked 
BPA in high concentrations to cardiovascular disease, and Type II 
diabetes.
  Given these conclusions, it is critical we act now to protect the 
most vulnerable, our infants and toddlers from this chemical.
  Children receive no benefit by having a baby bottle or cup coated 
with BPA.
  In the last Congress, I vowed not to give up in my fight to ban BPA. 
After working hard for many months to reach an agreement with Senator 
Enzi on a more limited ban, I was sincerely disappointed that this 
agreement was blocked by the chemical industry from being included in 
the food safety bill.
  I want to reiterate the importance of this legislation. I strongly 
believe we need to take action on this.
  I don't think we can take a chance with our children's health.
  BPA has been linked to developmental disorders, cancer, 
cardiovascular complications, and diabetes by credible scientific 
bodies. The evidence that BPA is unacceptably dangerous is mounting. 
Yet it remains in thousands of household and food products.
  This is a reasonable, common sense bill.
  Now, the time comes again for this body to take a stand and move 
forward to protect the health of America's children.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting my legislation, the Ban 
Poisonous Additives Act of 2011.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues on this important issue.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 136

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Ban Poisonous Additives Act 
     of 2011''.

     SEC. 2. REQUIREMENTS WITH RESPECT TO BISPHENOL A.

       (a) Ban on Use of Bisphenol A in Food and Beverage 
     Containers for Children.--
       (1) Baby food; unfilled baby bottles and cups.--Section 402 
     of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 342) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(j)(1) If it is a food intended for children 3 years of 
     age or younger, the container of which (including the lining 
     of such container) is composed, in whole or in part, of 
     bisphenol A.
       ``(2) If it is a baby bottle or cup that is composed, in 
     whole or in part, of bisphenol A.''.
       (2) Definition.--Section 201 of the Federal Food, Drug, and 
     Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(rr) Baby Bottle or Cup.--For purposes of section 402(j), 
     the term `baby bottle or cup' means a bottle or cup that--
       ``(1) is intended to aid in the feeding or providing of 
     drink to children 3 years of age or younger; and
       ``(2) does not contain a food when such bottle or cup is 
     sold or distributed at retail.''.
       (3) Effective dates.--
       (A) Baby food.--Section 402(j)(1) of the Federal Food, 
     Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as added by paragraph (1), shall take 
     effect 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act.
       (B) Unfilled baby bottles and cups.--Section 402(j)(2) of 
     the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as added by 
     paragraph (1), shall take effect 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
       (b) Ban on Use of Bisphenol A in Infant Formula 
     Containers.--
       (1) In general.--Section 412(a) of the Federal Food, Drug, 
     and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 350a(a)) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (2), by striking ``, or'' and inserting 
     ``,'';
       (B) in paragraph (3), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``, or''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) the container of such infant formula (including the 
     lining of such container and, in the case of infant formula 
     powder, excluding packaging on the outside of the container 
     that does not come into contact with the infant formula 
     powder) is composed, in whole or in part, of bisphenol A.''.
       (2) Effective date.--The amendments made by paragraph (1) 
     shall take effect 18 months after the date of enactment of 
     this Act.
       (c) Regulation of Other Containers Composed of Bisphenol 
     A.--
       (1) Safety assessment of products composed of bpa.--Not 
     later than December 1, 2012, the Secretary of Health and 
     Human Services (referred to in this Act as the ``Secretary'') 
     shall issue a revised safety assessment for food containers 
     composed, in whole or in part, of bisphenol A, taking into 
     consideration different types of such food containers and the 
     use of such food containers with respect to different foods, 
     as appropriate.
       (2) Safety standard.--Through the safety assessment 
     described in paragraph (1), and taking into consideration the 
     requirements of section 409 of the Federal Food, Drug, and 
     Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 348) and section 170.3(i) of title 
     21, Code of Federal Regulations, the Secretary shall 
     determine whether there is a reasonable certainty that no 
     harm will result from aggregate exposure to bisphenol A 
     through food containers or other items composed, in whole or 
     in part, of bisphenol A, taking into consideration potential 
     adverse effects from low dose exposure, and the effects of 
     exposure on vulnerable populations, including pregnant women, 
     infants, children, the elderly, and populations with high 
     exposure to bisphenol A.
       (3) Application of safety standard to alternatives.--The 
     Secretary shall use the safety standard described under 
     paragraph (2) to evaluate the proposed uses of alternatives 
     to bisphenol A.
       (d) Savings Provision.--Nothing in this section shall 
     affect the right of a State, political subdivision of a 
     State, or Indian Tribe to adopt or enforce any regulation, 
     requirement, liability, or standard of performance that is 
     more stringent than a regulation, requirement, liability, or 
     standard of performance under this section or that--
       (1) applies to a product category not described in this 
     section; or
       (2) requires the provision of a warning of risk, illness, 
     or injury associated with the use of food containers 
     composed, in whole or in part, of bisphenol A.
       (e) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     ``container'' includes the lining of a container.
                                 ______