Bisphenol A in the Spotlight: FDA Refuses to Prohibit Use of BPA in Food Packaging

First synthesized by a Russian chemist in 1891 and deemed safe by the
Environmental Protection Agency in 1976 when grandfathered in along with
62,000 other chemicals under the Toxic Substances Control Act, bisphenol
A (BPA) was today confirmed for continued use in food packaging materials
by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). According to news sources, the
agency rejected the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) petition to
ban the chemical, finding that the scientific evidence cited in the petition
cannot be applied to humans, and the studies were too small or involved
injecting BPA into animals rather than ingested over time, which is how
human exposure occurs. See The New York Times, March 30, 2012.

Produced at an annual rate of more than 8 billion pounds worldwide, BPA
has been detected in the urine of nearly every adult and child tested in the
United States, and, while it is quickly “detoxified” by adults, the chemical’s
widespread use provides continuous exposures to low-level doses. It has been
incorporated since the 1940s and 1950s into plastics, such as baby bottles,
water bottles, and medical and dental devices, and as epoxy linings intended
to extend shelf life for foods and beverages sold in metal cans. The American
Enterprise Institute has estimated that the chemical lines nearly every one of
the 130 billion food and beverage cans made in the United States each year.
Jon Entine, “BPA: DOA?,” AEI, The Environmental Forum, October 27, 2010.

BPA has also been found in infant foods sold in glass jars, because it is used to
line the metal lids. Other sources of exposure include the thermal paper used
as point-of-sale receipts and recycled paper such as toilet paper, newspapers
and napkins. BPA has allegedly been shown to leach into foods and beverages
especially when the containers are heated or cleaned with harsh detergents,
or the foods stored in the containers are highly acidic.

Research on laboratory animals has purportedly indicated that the chemical is an endocrine disruptor that has been associated with abnormal weight gain, insulin resistance, prostate cancer, excessive mammary gland development, adverse neurological effects, breast cancer risk, fertility effects, heart disease, and diabetes. Among the earliest references to the scientific research in this Update is a breast cancer study reported in Issue 130. University of Missouri Professor Frederick vom Saal has been studying endocrine disruptors for some 20 years and has concluded that daily use of products containing BPA poses risks to human health even at low doses. A recent profile on vom Saal is summarized in Issue 425 of this Update.

According to the chemical industry, BPA is among the most widely studied chemicals in the world, and most international regulatory bodies that have conducted literature reviews have concluded that the chemical does not pose a threat to human health. One of those reviews created some controversy in 2007, because it was found that the contractor which conducted the review for the National Institutes of Health worked for BPA manufacturers. Despite official pronouncements that the chemical is safe, a number of countries, states and local municipalities have banned its use in baby bottles and sippy cups, and the industry began phasing out its use in infant formula cans in 2009.

The government has apparently sought independent researchers to conduct the latest studies on the substance. According to Justin Teeguarden, the lead author of an EPA-funded study on whether BPA gets into the blood, “for the adult human population exposed to even very high dietary levels, blood concentrations of the bioactive form of BPA throughout the day are below our ability to detect them, and orders of magnitude lower than those causing effects in rodents exposed to BPA.” See The Examiner.com, December 8, 2011. The study, titled “Twenty-four hour human urine and serum profiles of bisphenol a during high-dietary exposure,” Journal of Toxicological Sciences, January 2012, found that serum concentrations were “on average, 42 times lower than urine concentrations,” indicating that the body effectively metabolizes and eliminates the chemical. Teeguarden reiterated his findings during a March 30, National Public Radio interview.

Today’s FDA response to the NRDC’s 2008 petition seeking to prohibit the use
of BPA as a food additive was required under a December 2011 settlement
the agency reached in a lawsuit NRDC filed to force FDA to act on its petition.
FDA publicly asserted in 1999 that BPA was safe when used in baby bottles,
but, after indicating to Congress in 2008 that its safety assessment was based
on industry-funded research, the agency suggested in 2010 that parents take
steps to minimize their children’s exposure to BPA, expressing its concern
“about the potential effects of BPA on the brain, behavior, and prostate gland
in fetuses, infants, and young children.”

Meanwhile, the American Chemical Council (ACC) has asked FDA to prohibit the chemical’s use in polycarbonate bottles and sippy cups, contending that BPA is no longer being used in these products. Representative Edward Markey (D-Mass.) recently filed three petitions with FDA calling for a ban on the chemical’s use in canned products and reusable food and beverage packaging. He reportedly claimed that ACC’s rationale could be extended to these products. ACC responded by calling on the congressman to demonstrate that food and beverage packaging manufacturers have stopped using BPA, according to a news source. See Representative Ed Markey Press Release, March 19, 2012; FoodQualitynews.com, March 28, 2012.