A closer look at EA in plastics

You can view the articles in their entirety on our site, but to give you an overview, the articles provided an in-depth look at what EA is and the implications it holds for chemicals that are accused of provoking it, an examination of the Eastman Chemical v. PlastiPure lawsuit and a look of how the science, and possible regulation, are still developing.

I came across the topic of EA in plastics when I worked on a feature article with our sister publication Packaging Digest about BPA in packaging. I talked with an employee from PlastiPure who casually mentioned in the interview that a large chemical company is suing their company due to claims PlastiPure made about EA coming from the company's line of resins and products.

Naturally, the source wasn't sure how much he could reveal so I did some digging on the Internet and came across court documents titled "Eastman Chemical Co. v. PlastiPure," which verified the nature of the suit was "Intellectual Property-Trademark."

From there, it seemed appropriate that a closer look at EA in plastics was warranted. While I'm still waiting for updates on the lawsuit, there's been some striking commentary that I thought I should point out in my blog.

First, if you type in 'BPA in plastics' in a Google news search, you'll be greeted with almost 5000 current news stories. But if you type in 'EA in plastics' in the same news search, it produces about 10 results.

If you think this is only because BPA is the chief concern, you are mistaken. Think about it, when it comes to BPA there is plenty of heated debate whether the chemical exerts adverse estrogenic effects.  But as I reported on last week, BPA could just be the tip of the iceberg. Many chemicals could have EA, which may be linked to higher rates of cancer, obesity, sexual dysfunction, diabetes and birth defects.

When I talked with the FDA and EPA, neither has come to a scientific conclusion yet. The EPA rep said in a striking quote to me, "The relationship of human diseases of the endocrine system and exposure to environmental contaminants is poorly understood and scientifically controversial. The science in this area is still developing, but EPA is engaged in collaborative research and will incorporate new information as it is validated."

Still, I couldn't help but wonder why the media and consumers focus so much on BPA, but we don't hear about EA in plastics.

PlastiPure CEO Mike Usey, however, believes EA in plastics is on the public's radar. He said general consumer awareness about EA started in 2011 when many consumer groups and the press started to cover the broader problems of endocrine disruption versus just individual chemicals such a BPA.

In 2011 scientists at CertiChem, Georgetown University, and the University of Texas, and PlastiPure published a paper on EA in plastic materials and commercial products in the peer-reviewed journal "Environmental Health Perspectives," that indicated a large majority of commercially available BPA-free plastic materials and products readily leach chemicals having EA.

"Eastman's suit against PlastiPure and CertiChem is further validation that consumers are interested in, and companies are seeing the potential for, a market to address a matter of significant public health consequence," he said.

There are hundreds of studies regarding the prolonged exposure to chemicals in plastics in childhood or adulthood that could impact reproduction and growth. Polymer scientist John Spevacek said he's only read a handful of these studies, but the ones that he has read make far more limited claims than what makes the headlines in the mainstream media.

For instance, he cites a report that states in the abstract, "By occupation, cashiers had the highest BPA concentrations."

Yet, on page 135 of the report, it states, "These results should be interpreted cautiously because estimates from cashiers were based on 17 women and were attenuated with adjustment for socioeconomic factors."

But the "cashiers have high BPA exposure" is what made it out to the public, he said.

"It takes time and effort to pick through a research article," he said. "I really don't know how the public is supposed to react to these reports when they become 'news.' I realize most research is filled with chemical and biochemical terms that most people don't understand, as well as endless statistical analyses, which leave even more people clueless, but somewhere in the article are sentences in plain English that most people can find, read and understand. It takes a certain amount of gumption, however, to get the point where someone will believe in themselves enough to attempt this."

Still, he sees a focus on BPA rather than just EA.

"BPA is making people more concerned about EA in general," Spevacek said. "As for its safety, I consider that BPA has been used for 50 years, which is a tremendously long time. Many other chemicals have been introduced and banned within that time period and yet BPA is still is around. Numerous government agencies in the U.S. and in Europe have studied the issues associated with it and have taken few steps toward banning it. Being exposed to BPA in large doses, such as in a factory with poor industrial health conditions, will assuredly lead to problems, but that is the case with all chemicals."

Let's not forget another topic of concern, companies trying to capitalize on a marketing opportunity. After all, one user sent the PlasticsToday twitter account this tweet, "More important questions; is 'BPA-free' becoming more of a marketing fad, rather than addressing the real reason?"

If I can borrow a quote from the EPA, there's no conclusion yet, one way or the other.