Scientists Claim New FDA Research on BPA Unnecessary and Poorly Designed
Led by a University of Massachusetts biology professor, more than 30 scientists have reportedly written to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to express concern about the agency’s plans to further study the health effects of bisphenol A (BPA), a plasticizer ubiquitous to food packaging that has apparently been subject to more than 900 studies. According to the researchers, many of whom
have participated on government BPA health-effects panels, “FDA’s plans to spend significant time and money on a very well researched chemical are disturbing.”
The agency has indicated that it will issue a new opinion on the chemical’s safety by November 30, 2009, and the scientists note that FDA plans to spend $7 million on new BPA research in the interim. Not only are they concerned about the quality of the planned research, which calls for BPA to be tested on a rat strain insensitive to BPA at low levels, the scientists are also “deeply troubled that the agency would
announce these research plans in light of its decision to release a reassessment of BPA by Nov. 30. This disconnect between research and reassessment raises concerns about whether the FDA is striving to resolve the critical public health issues raised by widespread exposure to BPA, or is avoiding making a decision because of the pending research, the results of which will not be available for review for many years.” See (Milwaukee) Journal Sentinel, October 12, 2009.
Meanwhile, the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment has apparently concluded that BPA is safe for use in baby bottles and should not be banned. According to a news source, the institute found, “[f]ollowing careful examination of all studies,” that “the normal use of polycarbonate bottles does not lead to a health risk from bisphenol A for infants and small children.” The institute also reportedly found “no indications of any carcinogenic effect” from the chemical, which it characterized as having “low acute toxicity.” The German risk assessment body contends that the substance is more rapidly metabolized and eliminated in humans than in lab animals, thus appearing to dismiss concerns about its purported estrogenic effects. See FoodNavigator-USA.com, October 9, 2009.
