Another victory for American consumers! On June 2, the state of California Senate voted to ban bisphenol A (BPA) from the packaging of baby food and beverage products. You remember BPA, right? It’s that carcinogenic, endocrine disruptor compound found to leach out from plastic bottles (including baby bottles!) and food packaging (including baby formula!).

Well, it seems that the Toxics-Free Babies and Toddlers Act (SB 797) of California will finally put an end to the use of this chemical in the manufacture of plastics and plastic-containing products. At least until the Act goes through the State Assembly. The legislation is also known as the Pavley Bill as it was introduced by Senator Fran Pavley.

The industry lobbyists did try their best to sway the Senate’s decision in their favor but it the end, the Senate members acted rationally based on the mounting scientific evidence that BPA is detrimental to our health. According to the Environmental Working Group (EWG), research studies have linked BPA exposure to the following diseases and health problems:

• Breast cancer

• Heart disease

• Birth defects

• Prostate cancer

• Infertility

• Premature puberty in girls

• Diabetes

• Obesity

California is the not the first state to ban BPA. Earlier this year, Minnesota, then Connecticut set the precedence. It is expected that more states will follow. This is despite the fact that the US FDA has declared the levels of BPA in the food and beverages are very low and considered to be harmless.

As Breast Cancer Fund Gretchen Lee Salter policy manager rightly said “…kids had to come first before the lobbyists.” Indeed, with the Pavley Bill, this is exactly what happened.

A bill (Senate Bill 1065/ House Bill 890) being pushed in Tennessee is requiring that all pregnant women be tested for alcohol and illegal drug use as part of their prenatal care.

While at first glance, the proposed law seems benevolent enough, it is a very controversial bill, with the question as to whose rights have precedence – the mother’s or the unborn fetus’?

Certainly, the bill pleases pro-life and die-hard Christian groups with its pro-fetus overtones. This is however, a slap in the face of pro-choice and pro-abortion groups. Check out some of the points brought up by Rachel Walden of Women’s Health News.

The bill goes on to list certain indications of substance abuse during pregnancy that warrant investigation of the mother. The list includes:

• Maternal history of alcohol or drug abuse
• No or incomplete prenatal care
• Pre-term labor
• Congenital defects
• Stillbirth

While the first on the list is certainly a valid ground for closer monitoring, the other points listed cannot be exclusively attributed to substance abuse. It certainly seems unfair that that preemies and babies with congenital anomalies be immediately labelled as crack babies and their mommies be subjected to tests and investigations.

And what happens when the mother tests positive for drug or alcohol abuse? Well, the attending physician should push for rehabilitation. And now here comes the controversial part: The doctor “shall report each woman who refuses to seek treatment for an alcohol-related or drug-related problem or who misses two (2) or more appointments to the department of children’s services.” What ever happened to the doctor-patient confidentiality here? There are some rather unclear and contradictory clauses about confidentiality provided that may be unsatisfactory to the reporting health care worker and the patient.

As a consolation, the test results cannot supposedly be used as evidence in any criminal proceedings. But it is not clear what are the consequences if doctor or patient or both refuse to cooperate.

I am all for protecting the unborn child from undue damage that alcohol, drugs, and smoking can cause. But does it justify coercion of the mother? Why should there be a competition between the fetus’ rights and the mother’s rights? Aren’t they a unit, a team, and should be treated as such? Aren’t there more proactive (and less coercive) ways of preventing substance abuse during pregnancy?

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) is strongly supporting the passage of the GEstational DIabetes Act (S. 907/H.R. 1544) or the GEDI Act for short and it is asking you to help out.

Gestational diabetes occurs in pregnant women who are not diabetics but whose blood sugar levels increase during pregnancy. According to the ADA, about 4% of all pregnant women get gestational diabetes. About 135,000 women are affected every year in the US alone.

When left untreated, the mother’s high glucose levels can lead to macrosomia – an overweight baby. Babies with macrosomia have higher risks for breathing problems and damage to the shoulders during delivery, as well as obesity and type 2 diabetes later in life.

The GEDI Act was introduced to the senate by Senator Hilary Clinton on September 20, 2006.

According to an update from the Office of Legislative Policy and Analysis:

The bill would require that CDC and NICHD, acting in consultation with NIDDK, expand research regarding gestational diabetes and obesity during pregnancy. The bill would also require CDC to establish a research advisory committee (which would include an NIH representative), to develop a “multisite, gestational diabetes research project within the diabetes program of the CDC to expand and enhance surveillance data and public health research on gestational diabetes.” Other provisions would require CDC to award demonstration grants to reduce the incidence of gestational diabetes, and to encourage screening for gestational diabetes through existing state-based diabetes programs. The bill has two cosponsors and was referred to the Senate HELP Committee.

It is hoped that with the passage of the GEDI Act, more resources available to fight this disease.

Please show your support by writing a message to your representative here.