The multidistrict litigation (MDL) court before which cases alleging a failure to disclose the possible harmful effects of plastic bottles containing bisphenol A (BPA) have been consolidated for pretrial proceedings has granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs’ discovery motion. In re: Bisphenol-A (BPA) Polycarbonate Plastic Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL No. 1967 (W.D. Mo., order entered May 26, 2010). The plaintiffs apparently sought to compel the disclosure of information relating to products other than plastic bottles, such as “plastic eating utensils, plastic plates and other food contact items,” and to non-health related information from more than five years before the lawsuit was filed. The court determined that it was too late to amend the complaint to include the manufacturers of the additional products, emphasizing that “this case was not intended to—and will not—become an all-encompassing ‘BPA case.’” The court also found that the burden on defendants of complying with these…
Tag Archives BPA
Health Canada’s Bureau of Chemical Safety has released a survey of bisphenol A (BPA) in canned foods that finds low rates of exposure and no risk to public health. Researchers apparently examined samples from 78 domestic and imported canned food products, including pastas, soups, tomato paste, tuna and vegetables. The results indicated that canned tuna products and condensed soups had “the highest BPA levels, in general,” while tomato paste had levels that were “considerably lower.” According to Health Canada, these findings “are consistent with those of past surveys and are not considered to represent a human health concern.” The agency, however, reiterated its commitment to working with the food packaging industry “to better identify the factors which may influence BPA migration to food, with a goal to limit human exposure to BPA to the greatest extent possible.” In a related development, Germany’s environmental agency, Umweltbundesamt (UBA), has advised manufacturers, importers and…
“Bisphenol A, commonly known as BPA, may be among the world’s most vilified chemicals,” opens this May 31, 2010, New Yorker article that positions the present-day furor in the long and often convoluted history of toxicology. According to author Jerome Groopman, scientists cannot agree whether BPA is a cautionary tale against overstating risks or understating them. He notes that in the past, regulators were sometimes quick to bar substances like cyclamates based on public fears that later proved unfounded, while overlooking the adverse health effects of contaminants such as lead—“for years thought to be safe in small doses.” Groopman ultimately blames the “inadequacy of the current regulatory system” for fomenting this “atmosphere of uncertainty.” Acknowledging “the potential pitfalls of epidemiological research,” he nevertheless criticizes Congress and the Environmental Protection Agency for failing thus far to overhaul the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 and other consumer protection laws to standardize…
A coalition of public interest organizations has issued a report, “No Silver Lining, An Investigation into Bisphenol A in Canned Foods,” that purportedly detected levels of the chemical in more than 90 percent of the cans from consumers’ shelves that were tested. While the highest levels of BPA, at 1,140 parts per billion (ppb), were apparently found in a can of green beans from a residential pantry in Wisconsin, average levels were 77.36 ppb. According to the report, a pregnant woman of average build consuming several canned food and beverage products in a single day could ingest as much as 138.19 µg of BPA, or 1.94 µg/kg body weight. Outlining the scientific research purportedly linking BPA exposure to a number of negative health impacts, including obesity, low sperm count, miscarriage, placental cell death, infertility, heart disease, and changes in brain development, the report contends that levels of just 1 or…
The Independent has reported on an escalating dispute in the scientific community over the safety of bisphenol A (BPA), tracing the brouhaha to a three-year study commissioned by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that found no evidence of BPA adversely affecting laboratory rats exposed to high doses of the ubiquitous plasticizer. In an April 13, 2010, article, science editor Steve Connor observes that Toxicological Sciences, which published the original work online in 2009, has become the battleground of choice for scientists arguing the merits of the research. Additional details about the EPA study appear in issue 327 of this Update. According to The Independent, University of Missouri-Columbia Professor Frederick vom Saal first attacked the results in a letter to the journal, claiming that EPA researchers “violated U.S. National Toxicology Program recommendations” by failing to establish “the sensitivity of the animal model to the class of chemical being tested.” This allegation,…
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently published an action plan to address concerns over bisphenol A (BPA), which has purportedly “caused reproductive and developmental effects in animal studies and may also affect the endocrine system.” Intended to strengthen the agency’s chemical management program, the plan focuses on the plasticizer’s environmental impact and proposes (i) adding BPA to the chemical concern list; (ii) gathering information on BPA concentrations in surface, ground and drinking water; (iii) requiring manufacturers to provide EPA with test data related to long-term effects on growth, reproduction and development in aquatic organisms and wildlife; (iv) using EPA’s Design for the Environment program to reduce unnecessary exposures and find acceptable substitutes; and (v) continuing to evaluate “the potential disproportionate impact on children and other sub-populations through exposure from non-food packaging uses.” In addition, EPA has pledged to work with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and other federal entities to…
Cal/EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has scheduled an April 20, 2010, public forum on its proposal to list bisphenol A (BPA) as a reproductive toxin under the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Prop. 65). The action was taken in response to a request for a public forum to present oral comments. OEHHA has also decided, in response to a request, to extend the written comment period on the proposal until May 13, 2010. Prop. 65 requires that businesses provide “clear and reasonable” warnings for exposures to listed chemicals before exposure and prohibits their discharge into drinking water sources. OEHHA has also announced that it will conduct an informal public workshop on April 14 to discuss proposed amendments to regulations that “set out the procedures and criteria for determining an exposure level where there would be no observable effect.” Under Prop. 65, warnings are…
Researchers at Yale School of Medicine have reportedly claimed in a new study that exposure to the food packaging chemical bisphenol A (BPA) during pregnancy can cause permanent abnormalities in the uterus of offspring, including altering their DNA. Jason G. Bromer, et al, “Bisphenol-A exposure in utero leads to epigenetic alterations in the developmental programming of uterine estrogen response,” Journal of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (March 2010). According to a March 8, 2010, Yale University press release, the study is the first to show that BPA exposure permanently affects sensitivity to estrogen. Using two groups of mice, one exposed to BPA as a fetus during pregnancy and another exposed to a placebo, researchers examined gene expression and the amount of DNA modification in the uterus. Results showed that the mice exposed to BPA as a fetus had an exaggerated response to estrogens as adults, long after the…
Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle (D) has signed a bill (S.B. 271) that bans bisphenol A (BPA) in baby bottles and sippy cups for children younger than age 3, joining Minnesota and Connecticut in prohibiting this use of a packaging chemical purportedly linked to developmental problems in young children. The Wisconsin bill, effective June 2010, prohibits the manufacture and sale at wholesale of baby bottles and sippy cups with BPA and requires such bottles and cups to be labeled free of BPA. Massachusetts, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Washington, and Washington, D.C., are also considering BPA legislation. Meanwhile, the Maryland Senate recently approved a similar bill (S.B. 213), which Governor Martin O’Malley (D) is reportedly expected to sign this spring. The bill, which would take effect in January 2012, would apply to “an empty bottle or cup to be filled with food or liquid that is designed…
Senator Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), who introduced legislation that would prohibit the use of bisphenol A (BPA) in children’s products, has written to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) administrator seeking an explanation for the agency’s decision to omit BPA from its December 2009 chemical action plan. In the March 2, 2010, letter, Schumer refers to scientific research purportedly identifying BPA risks “particularly to infants and children,” and the Food and Drug Administration’s recent decision to reverse its conclusion that the chemical is safe for all uses. Schumer also refers to a Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel article reporting that “the agency does not plan to formulate any new plan for regulating BPA for two years. If this is true, it is alarming. At a time when we should be speeding up steps to limit Americans’ exposure to this potentially hazardous chemical, such a decision would apply the brakes.” That article apparently took note of…
