OEHHA Advisory Board Votes Against Adding Bisphenol A to Prop. 65 List; Health Canada Clears BPA in Baby Food Packaging as Safe
According to news sources, the scientific advisory committee considering whether to place bisphenol A (BPA) on California’s Proposition 65 (Prop. 65) list of chemicals known to the state to cause reproductive effects has voted against the action, calling research on human health effects unclear. During the committee’s July 15, 2009, meeting, dozens of mothers, environmentalists and scientists reportedly provided testimony to the Developmental and Reproductive Toxicant Identification Committee of Cal/EPA’s Office of Environmental and Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), calling on the agency to list BPA so that warning labels would be added to foods alerting consumers to its presence.
The committee’s scientists apparently acknowledged the growing body of research linking BPA to fetal abnormalities in animals and noted that its decision could be revisited if future studies provide clearer evidence of human health effects. According to committee member Carl Keen, the scientists decided not to list environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) the first time it came up for a vote, but a month later the committee learned of a study with the evidence it needed to place ETS on the Prop. 65 list.
Reaction to the decision was swift; the Natural Resources Defense Council reportedly filed a petition immediately after the vote, asking OEHHA to reconsider listing BPA under Prop. 65’s “authoritative body” procedure. This mechanism allows the agency to list those chemicals already identified as carcinogens or reproductive toxicants by other agencies, in this case, the National Toxicology Program’s (NTP’s) Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction. OEHHA’s chief counsel was quoted as saying, “We’ll have to look at the petition, and then the NTP document to see if it’s sufficient for meeting our regulatory criteria for listing.”
A chemistry trade group representative responded to the committee’s vote by stating, “The Proposition 65 conclusion today that bisphenol A is not a reproductive or developmental toxicant is consistent with the consensus view of regulatory bodies around the world on the safety of bisphenol A.” He also reportedly said that animal lab tests do not prove that BPA has the same effects on humans. See The Los Angeles Times, July 15, 2009; FoodProductionDaily.com, July 16, 2009; Inside Cal/EPA, July 17, 2009.
In a related development, Health Canada has announced that BPA levels in food packaging pose no risk to consumers. The agency apparently tested baby food in glass jars with metal lids from six companies and found BPA levels ranging from 0.19 part per billion to 7.22 parts per billion, levels it considers well below the migration limit set by the European Union.
According to Health Canada’s report, “The current dietary exposure to BPA through food packaging is not expected to pose a health risk to the general population, including infants and young children.” While noting that “[t]he nutritional benefits of baby food products far outweigh any possible risk,” the agency cautioned, “[i]n view of uncertainties related to datasets on possible neurodevelopmental and behavioral effects that BPA may have in experimental animals, Health Canada’s Food Directorate has recommended that precaution be exerted on products consumed by the sensitive subset of the population, i.e. infants and newborns, by applying the ALARA (as low as reasonably achievable) principle to reduce their exposure to BPA through food packaging applications.”
