|
The Northwest Food Processors Association has prepared the following fact sheet to clarify the best and most recent science on the safety of Bisphenol-A (BPA). State and federal policymakers should not pass measures that run counter to the FDA’s latest findings on the basis of conjecture or faulty science, nor should they preempt the FDA’s current 18-24 month additional review of BPA’s safety. BPA – The Basic FactsBisphenol-A, or BPA, is an important industrial chemical used in the resin lining of nearly all food and beverage cans. It is the principal building block of polycarbonate plastic and is used in a wide range of products, including clear plastic water bottles, clear plastic baby bottles and sippy cups, as well as other kitchen plastics such as measuring cups, microwavable cookware, drinkware and storage containers. Can liners made with BPA have been safely used for decades, and have been remarkably effective. They hold up under heat and other extreme conditions, while preserving freshness, taste and overall quality. In the more than thirty years since their advent, there has never been a case of food-borne illness that resulted from the failure of current metal packaging. Epoxy resins enable high temperature sterilization, eliminating the dangers of food contamination which can result in tragic consequences. Alternative technologies have not been proven safe over the entire shelf life of food products; their potential risks to food safety must be carefully considered. Environmental and Consumer Activists Target BPAIn recent years, concerns have been raised that human exposure to BPA through packaged food and liquids may cause health problems including cancer, heart disease, infertility, obesity, early puberty, asthma, autism, attention deficit disorder, allergies, hyperactivity and other behavioral issues. Science Supporting the Safety of BPAIn January 2010, the Food and Drug Administration reaffirmed the safety of BPA in all of its current uses. In addition to the FDA, no less than ten public health authorities around the world have recently evaluated the science regarding BPA and have determined that BPA is in fact safe for use in food contact products. The list is as follows: European Food Safety Authority (January 2007, July 2008, October 2008, September 2010) In its instructions to the public, the FDA stated that no changes should be made in food packaging or consumption, whether by industry or consumers, citing the importance of food safety and nutrition. Efforts to Ban BPAIn its January 2010 update, the FDA reaffirmed the safety of current low-levels of human exposure to BPA. In response to highly publicized claims based on new studies testing for subtle effects at low levels, the FDA also stated that it has “some concern” about potential effects of BPA on fetuses, infants, and young children. The phrase “some concern” is a technical term used by the FDA which means additional research needs to be conducted to clarify uncertainties about possible risks. The FDA Commissioner stated, “We have some concern meaning in part that we need to know more.” That research is expected to conclude by January 2012. Legislative efforts to ban or restrict BPA leap-frog far ahead of scientific consensus and run counter to the FDA’s specific instructions that no changes should be made in food packaging. The FDA stated explicitly that “the benefit of a stable source of good nutrition outweighs the potential risk from BPA.” No Silver Lining “Investigation”A report entitled No Silver Lining – An Investigation Into Bisphenol A in Canned Foods was issued in May 2010 by a coalition of consumer and environmental interest groups who have advocated for a ban on BPA. While the report is compelling in its presentation, the scientific conclusions of the study are deeply flawed. The study’s findings are inconsistent with those of all previous studies. As the report itself states, “no other study has found such a high level of BPA.” Yet despite the study’s implication that canned food poses a health risk as an endocrine disruptor, it fails to demonstrate endocrine disruption through reproducible oral studies. In other words, if the levels of BPA that the study finds were directly injected , they might indeed result in endocrine disruption, but BPA is absorbed in the human body much differently through oral ingestion. Repeated studies have shown that BPA does not accumulate in the bodies of adults or infants. Most recently, an August 2011 study conducted by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and FDA (and funded by EPA) reconfirmed very low human exposure to BPA through diet. The experts have consistently found that BPA is not accumulated in the body and is rapidly eliminated through urine. Recent Misapplications of the Precautionary PrincipleRecent BPA restrictions implemented by Canada and the EU are based on the “precautionary principle” which states that when there is reasonable suspicion of harm, a lack of scientific certainty or consensus must not be used to postpone preventative action. The principle is intended to be applied in the absence of reliable studies. Health Canada (Canada’s FDA) banned baby bottles with BPA as a “precautionary” step, even though the agency’s own science concluded the trace levels of BPA found did not pose a risk, even to infants. The agency stated at the time that it had, “concluded that the current dietary exposure to BPA through food packaging uses is not expected to pose a health risk to the general population, including newborns and infants.” The EU is currently implementing a similar ban even though the science conducted by its own health authorities has consistently demonstrated no health risk from BPA in its current uses. The WHO had issued a statement only a month prior to the EU’s action saying that restricting BPA would be premature due to a pronounced lack of supporting scientific evidence. BackgroundEstablished in 1914, NWFPA is a regional trade association representing the food processing industry in Idaho, Oregon, and Washington. NWFPA members comprise the third largest manufacturing employment sector in the Northwest and add over $20 billion of economic value to the region’s economy. |
