Mercury’s Out and BPA’s In? Or is it . . .

Got kids? A bun in the oven? Maybe you’re thinking about starting a family? Last week the FDA issued two reports that would make any parent or parent-to-be a little bit nervous. I’ll share the good, or somewhat good news first. On June 12, Lauran Neergaard of the Associated Press reported that silver dental fillings containing mercury may be unsafe for pregnant women and young children. According to the A.P. report, the news comes as a victory for anti-mercury activists.

Since attending the Green Our Vaccines Rally led by Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey in Washington, D.C., I have been thinking about dangerous vaccinations that are preserved with thimiserol, a mercury based preservative, and a potential cause of autism.

When I learned that the FDA issued the precautionary warning about silver dental fillings containing mercury, I immediately worried about pregnant women with such fillings, who unbeknownst to them, may unknowingly put their unborn child at risk. While the FDA is not recommending that women who plan to have children remove their silver fillings and replace them with a non-toxic substance, Dr. Tom McGuire of the Dental Wellness Institute calls upon potential mothers to take action; explaining the purposes of his Dental Wellness web-site, he writes: “I am writing this primarily for women who are planning to have children. My sincere hope is that it will stimulate those women to seriously consider having these toxic fillings safely removed prior to becoming pregnant.”

Dr. McGuire admits that there is no definitively known cause of autism, however, he points to the growing number of children exposed to mercury in multiple and various doses; for example, children born to mother’s with amalgam silver fillings are exposed to mercury at the moment of conception since mercury has been released from the filling into the mother’s system.  According to MAMA, or Moms Against Mercury Amalgams, explains the effects of mercury on a fetus and young infant:

“Mercury can cross the placenta and passes into breast milk. This situation is made worse by the fact that the fetus does not have an immune system to protect it. The amount released from the mothers fillings will vary based on many factors, such as how many fillings she has, how many and how often they are stimulated, and whether or not she has any removed or placed. “

Combining exposure to mercury while in the womb and nursing, a child who then receives a vaccination with the mercury based preservative thimiserol may begin to show symptoms of autism.

Dr. Amy Holmes of MAMA offers the following suggestions to pre-conception mothers or newly pregnant mothers who have silver amalgam fillings:

1) The first is to have your mercury amalgam fillings safely removed and replaced with a non-toxic material, as many days prior to conception as possible.

2) The second is to participate in a mercury detoxification program as soon as possible prior to becoming pregnant.

So, the good news is that the FDA actually agrees that silver amalgam fillings are unsafe for pregnant women and young children.  The bad news is that, well, so many women and children have already been exposed to unsafe doses of mercury.  Admittedly, “no scientific studies have gone back far enough to consider children’s first exposure to mercury,” as Dr. McGuire of the Dental Wellness Institute points out,  however, it is worthwhile to consider how many children and adults may have avoided autism had they not ever been exposed to mercury.

So now for the bad news from the FDA (and good news for plastic lobbyists); The FDA published the following on its web-site regarding Bisphenol-A:

“Based on our ongoing review, we believe there is a large body of evidence that indicates that FDA-regulated products containing BPA currently on the market are safe and that exposure levels to BPA from food contact materials, including for infants and children, are below those that may cause health effects.   However, we will continue to consider new research and information as they become available. “

An articled entitled “Why Journalism is Failing the Public on Risks from Plastic” and that rebuts the argument that Bisphenol-A may cause reproductive problems (like miscarriages), birth defects, and cancer, but sites a brief from the U.S. National Toxicology Program that indicates that there is cause for concern when it comes to BPA in plastic:

Although there is no direct evidence that exposure of people to bisphenol A adversely affects reproduction or development, studies with laboratory rodents show that exposure to high dose levels of bisphenol A during pregnancy and/or lactation can reduce survival, birth weight, and growth of offspring early in life, and delay the onset of puberty in males and females. Recognizing the lack of data on the effects of bisphenol A in humans and despite the limitations in the evidence for “low” dose effects in laboratory animals, the possibility that bisphenol A may impact human development cannot be dismissed.  More research is needed.

The “Why Journalism is Failing . . .” article emphasizes that “more research is needed,” however, let’s consider responses to the brief, which the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences directs us to (and is not included as part of the rebuttal).

A letter from the American Academy of Pediatrics directed at Dr. Barbara Shane at the NTP expresses concern over the U.S. National Toxicology Program’s conclusions; the AAP writes:

The AAP is deeply concerned, however, that the current scientific evidence is largely insufficient to draw accurate conclusions about the safety of exposure to BPA, particularly with respect to vulnerable populations including pregnant women, infants and children . . . it is important that the report not provide potentially false reassurance that there is “negligible concern” in these areas in the face of such large gaps in understanding. 

The AAP’s letter goes on from there, and are to be commended for their recommendation that NTP coordinate further research on Bisphenol A with the National Institutes of Health, Food and Drug Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency that addresses “the current shortcomings in BPA data and analysis.”

So, if we listen to the FDA, we can guzzle down water out of our polycarbonate bottles and microwave our BPA containers, because hey, there’s only, according to the NTP, a negligible risk that BPA is harming our reproductive systems and wreaking havoc on our children’s development.

But, if we listen to leading authorities like the American Academy of Pediatrics, the verdict on BPA is not in.  More research is needed.  But, c’mon, even Walmart is banning BPA.   Arggh.  It’s like banging my head into a wall.