Bisphenol A (BPA) is living on borrowed time. And not just in the United States but now in Europe too where mounting consumer hostility and scientific concern over its safety have combined to push the chemical towards the point of no return.
Just a few months ago, it seemed the storm of anxiety surrounding BPA was a North American phenomenon, with Canada and a bevy of US states introducing bans on the substance used in polycarbonate bottles and epoxy food can linings.
Make sure your plastic containers do not contain BPA,
a chemical that mimics naturally occurring estrogen.
Meanwhile, the issue barely registered in the minds of consumers in Europe who seemed broadly content to accept assurances from food safety bodies that all was well with BPA. But the last few months have seen European opposition to BPA attain a momentum that threatens to steamroll anybody in its path – including those white-coated experts at the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).
But why?
Almost all food safety bodies across the globe have been resolute in their view that the substance poses no risk to human health at current exposure rates. Sticking to the science and steering clear of emotion-based rhetoric is the best way of attaining the Holy Grail of food safety, is the mantra from Washington DC to Parma and beyond. And the science around the safety of BPA was a fortress, they said
House of cards
The first crack in the seemingly impregnable edifice appeared in January with an acrobatic opinion from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) declaring the chemical to be safe while simultaneously calling for its use to be phased out in food packaging and the need for greater scrutiny of BPA-containing substances.
Weeks later, France talked of “warning signs” over BPA and the need for further investigation. Denmark went one step further last month by introducing a temporary ban on the substance in packaging for children aged 0-3 until its safety could be demonstrated.
The citadel of certainty surrounding the safety of BPA has threatened to become nothing more than a house of cards.
A difference in emphasis in US and European safety philosophies may also hasten BPA’s demise in food packaging on this side of the Atlantic. In the US, the burden of proof needed to ban a substance is weighted on showing that it poses a threat. In other words, it is innocent until proven guilty. This is exactly how it should be in the human justice system but more questionable when dealing with a potentially toxic chemical that could harm millions.
By contrast, the precautionary principle that informs European food safety thinking allows for the exclusion of substances if they are suspected of causing harm – in other words they must prove their innocence. This approach is exactly why Denmark chose to ban BPA and why France has launched its own investigation into the chemical. It is significant that both agencies were at pains to stress the scientific basis for their decisions.
Last week, a UK newspaper ran numerous articles on the potential dangers of BPA showing it is now clearly on the radar of consumers. An international coalition of eight eminent scientists also said the weight of hard evidence justified a ban on the chemical.
Click here to read the full story:
Commentary
Bisphenol A (BPA) is a chemical used to make plastics hard. Exposure to BPA is believed to come from the linings of canned foods, especially acidic foods like soda and tomato sauce.
There is mounting evidence to suggest that ongoing exposure to BPA may be contributing to a numerous medical conditions, including prostate cancer, breast cancer, early puberty onset, alterations in gender-specific behavior, decreased sperm count, affects on fertility, affects on obesity and insulin resistance, behavioral effects including hyperactivity, increased aggressiveness, impaired learning and other changes in behavior.
BPA apparently
mimics naturally occurring estrogen, a hormone that is part of the endocrine system, the body's finely tuned messaging service.
In 2004, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that
95% of Americans had BPA in their urine.
In January 2010, the FDA finally came to their senses and expressed their concerns about possible health risks from BPA. Their announcement stated that they had “some concerns about the potential effects of BPA on the brain, behavior and prostate gland of fetuses, infants and children” and would join other federal agencies in studying the chemical in both animals and humans. One wonders why it has taken the FDA so long to wake up and finally take some action. Despite the FDA’s concern, they have not banned the chemical’s use in plastics.
BPA is very often found in polycarbonate plastic food containers that should be marked “PC” or with the recycling number 7, so avoid such items. Plastics with the recycling label numbers 1, 2 and 4 do not contain BPA.
If you are a parent and feed your child infant formula, you should choose the powdered version if possible. Cans of infant formula are lined with an epoxy containing BPA, but the FDA found that the BPA only leaches from the linings into liquid formula and not the powdered variety.
Tests have shown that the highest levels of BPA are found in canned soups and pasta, but it has also been found in canned fruits, vegetables and beverages. You would be far better off buying frozen vegetables than anything in a can.
There is ample evidence to suggest that BPA should be banned. Check your canned goods. If the linings contain BPA, buy something else. If the label does not provide the information, ask the store manager if the plastic lining of the can contains BPA.
BPA is found in numerous household products, from drink containers (including baby bottles) and food packaging to the lining of canned goods.
Your safest bet is to avoid canned goods and plastic containers (especially food containers) altogether.
You can view a related video here: http://youtube.com/watch?v=NiND7qQJ3kk
