It is pretty simple math in the EHS field that there is a safe level and a threshold value to every compound that makes it toxic. In this case a complete ban on BPA in everything is a little risky until alternatives are given that are less toxic than BPA. In many cases (see MedPage below), BPA is used to protect products FROM other toxic compounds and poisons in food. IF the FDA and manufacturers are aware of that (and most are), then this issues is not as "cut and dry" as the most think. And trust me, it never is... Also understand that this has become a mainstream media story now, which makes nearly all reports drift away from "fact base" to "social story" and will continue to blur the line between qualitative known risks and potential risks on BPA.And PLEASE, before one of you get on a one side of this issue... consider the "sufficient evidence" we have on the carcinogenic, obesity and health risks of just soda, fast food and nearly every item in schools we are feeding our kids.
Before these big groups and individuals rally around one side of a problem they need to really wrap their heads around the big picture of what dose, toxicological risk and how we are influenced by them... i.e. Soda vs BPA I agree it is a problem to the environment and children as are various compounds in everyday food, plastics and medications children and our environment is bombarded with. But does its risk of using outweigh the risk of not using it to protect food? What do you think? - Haase Here are a few excerpts from the major news sources on it.
FDA decides not to ban BPA in food packaging
The agency says it will continue to study health effects of the widely used chemical an environmental group is highly critical. Although it rejected a petition by an environmental group to outlaw the compound in food and beverage containers, the agency did not close the door on future regulation. "This is not a final safety determination on BPA," FDA spokesman Douglas Karas said. "There is a commitment to doing a thorough evaluation of the risk of BPA." Scientists are still working to determine what effects BPA, which mimics estrogen in the body, has on human health once ingested.The FDA said the scientific evidence presented in the Natural Resources Defense Council's 2008 petition "was not sufficient to persuade" the agency to prohibit BPA in food packaging. Dosing methods in some research studies, for example, did not reflect how a person would ingest the chemical, the agency said. It also took issue with sample sizes, which it said were not large enough to provide confidence in results. "FDA is performing, monitoring and reviewing new studies and data as they become available, and depending on the results, any of these studies or data could influence FDA's assessment and future regulatory decisions about BPA," wrote David Dorsey, the agency's acting associate commissioner for policy and planning. Please read more from source a: LA Times
http://www.latimes.com/health/la-na-bpa-fda-20120331,0,1826637.story ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FDA 'Wrong' Not To Ban BPA, Health Advocates Say
"Ludicrous." "Bogus." "Illogical."
What did you except the "Huff Post" to say ;-)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/30/fda-bpa-nrdc-petition-_n_1392582.html -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------POLITICAL SCIENCE - NY Times
White House and the F.D.A. Often at Odds
Nancy-Ann DeParle, the whip-smart and sometimes caustic White House deputy chief of staff, picked up The Wall Street Journal one summer day in 2010 and got an unwelcome shock. The Food and Drug Administration was proposing as part of the new health care law to require that movie theaters post calorie counts for popcorn — and this was the first she had heard of it. In the F.D.A.’s view, the law called for moviegoers to know that many a buttery bucket of popcorn had more calories than two Big Macs, but Ms. DeParle, President Obama’s chief health adviser, thought the requirement was unnecessary and would probably be lampooned on Fox News as an especially silly example of the government intrusions that conservatives often mocked as the nanny state. Dr. Margaret A. Hamburg, the F.D.A. commissioner appointed by Mr. Obama, soon heard about the White House’s displeasure and called Ms. DeParle at home one evening, people with knowledge of the call confirmed. The women had a decidedly chilly conversation. Within days, the F.D.A., an agency charged with protecting public health, backed down and dropped the notion of calorie counts for foods served in movie theaters and on airplanes. Similar tussles have erupted between top administration officials and the F.D.A. over issues from the regulation of sunscreens and asthma inhalers to the enforcement of an agency decision on a drug to prevent premature births. Should makers of lotions that do not prevent skin cancer be prohibited from calling them sunscreens, as the F.D.A. advocated, or should the lotions just be labeled ineffective, as the White House insisted? Should regulators weigh the cost of a drug or only the drug’s efficacy and safety?
Please read more from GARDINER HARRIS at: NY Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/health/policy/white-house-and-fda-at-odds-on-regulatory-issues.html -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FDA Rejects BPA Ban By Kristina Fiore The FDA has denied a petition from the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) to ban the plasticizing agent bisphenol A (BPA) from food packaging, according to a press release from the environmental group.“We believe FDA made the wrong call,” Sarah Janssen, an NRDC scientist, said in a statement. “The agency has failed to protect our health and safety, in the face of scientific studies that continue to raise disturbing questions about the long-term effects of BPA exposures, especially in fetuses, babies, and young children.” In 2008, FDA initially dismissed concerns about BPA in consumer products, but subsequently took heat from congressional leaders and its own scientific board for the decision. Two year later, the agency reversed course and promised a major research effort to pin down any potential health risks.Some research has linked the chemical with cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and liver abnormalities, and on its website, the FDA says some studies have raised questions about its effects on the brain, behavior, and prostate gland in fetuses, infants, and young children. Still, the agency says the evidence generally supports the safety of current low levels of human exposure to BPA.FDA said it currently supports voluntary industry actions to stop producing BPA-containing baby bottles and minimize the presence of the plasticizer in food can linings. The American Chemistry Council, generally an advocate for industry, reiterated in a press statement its stance that BPA is safe."BPA is one of the most thoroughly tested chemicals used today and has a safety track record in food contact of over 40 years," said the Council's Steven G. Hentges, PhD. "The consensus of government agencies across the world, based on the science, is that BPA is safe for use in food-contact materials." Please read more from source a: MedPage Today
http://www.medpagetoday.com/PublicHealthPolicy/PublicHealth/31953