Kentucky and Texas residents have filed a putative class action in federal court against SIGG Switzerland (USA), Inc. claiming that the company misrepresented that its aluminum reusable bottles were free of bisphenol A (BPA). Johnson v. SIGG Switzerland (USA), Inc., 09-669 (W.D. Ky., filed August 28, 2009). The complaint cites actions the company’s CEO took in recent years to counter claims that the bottle’s resin liner contained BPA, including issuing press releases asserting that the products had no BPA, while actually working to reformulate the liner to rid it of the chemical. Seeking to represent a nationwide class of consumers “who purchased SIGG bottles that contained BPA,” the named plaintiffs allege breach of contract, breach of express and implied warranties, and violation of the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act. They seek a class certification order; compensatory, punitive and statutory damages; restitution and disgorgement of profits; attorney’s fees and costs; prejudgment interest; and…
Tag Archives BPA
This article discusses a four-month Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel investigation into the initiatives allegedly undertaken by the plastics industry to forestall the proliferation of local, statewide and national restrictions on the use of bisphenol A (BPA) in food and beverage product packaging. According to the authors, “The industry has launched an unprecedented public relations blitz that uses many of the same tactics—and people—the tobacco industry used in its decades-long fight against regulation. This time, the industry’s arsenal includes state-of-the-art technology. Their modern-day Trojan horses: blogs, Facebook, Twitter, Wikipedia and YouTube.” The reporters apparently relied on IRS reports, disclosure forms and e-mails exchanged by lobbyists and government officials, in addition to the industry’s public relations documents and materials. They contend, “The documents offer a rare glimpse of the hardball politics of chemical regulation, where judgments about safety are made not necessarily on the merits of science but because of the clout of lobbyists working…
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has announced that it will decide by November 30, 2009, whether the chemical bisphenol A (BPA) is safe for use in food packaging. FDA Acting Deputy Commissioner and Chief Scientist Jesse Goodman has reportedly told the agency’s Science Board that a group of FDA scientists will conduct a new review of more than 100 studies on BPA and that the review will be assessed by a group of government scientists not affiliated with FDA. Commissioner Margaret Hamburg will review the science and recommendations, and then determine whether BPA is safe when used in food containers. Scientific evidence on whether the levels of BPA in products are harmful has been hotly disputed. Last year, FDA said the chemical was safe because the small amounts that leach from food containers do not threaten children or adults. But its Science Board rejected that decision, apparently claiming that…
The Massachusetts Department of Public Health has issued an advisory for bisphenol A (BPA), urging caretakers of children under two years old to avoid formula and breast milk storage products that contain the chemical. The health department has also advised pregnant and breastfeeding women to avoid using plastic food and beverage containers made with BPA, and to eat fresh or frozen products instead of canned foods that may have contact with BPA liners. In addition, state officials have recommended that all consumers (i) limit their exposure to transparent plastic containers with the recycling number 7 and the letters PC; (ii) avoid heating these containers “in microwave ovens, in water on the stovetop, or by adding boiling water into them”; (iii) wash containers “by hand with warm water and soap, instead of in dishwashers”; and (iv) replace worn or scratched polycarbonate plastic with stainless steel and glass containers. A pamphlet released…
The Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) Science Board has scheduled an August 17, 2009, public meeting to review the agency’s continuing assessment of the packaging chemical bisphenol A (BPA) in FDA-regulated products and discuss plans to increase research reviews at the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CSFAN). See Federal Register, July 28, 2009.
A trade group representing bottled water producers, distributors and suppliers has filed a lawsuit in federal court against Eco Canteen Inc., a stainless steel bottle manufacturer, “for engaging in a deliberate scare campaign to mislead and deceive the public” about the purported health and environmental risks associated with plastic bottle use. Int'l Bottled Water Ass'n v. Eco Canteen Inc., 09-299 (W.D.N.C., filed July 22, 2009). According to the International Bottled Water Association (IBWA), Eco Canteen has made several false and misleading claims about both single-serve and reusable plastic bottles that included likening these products to poison and linking them to breast and prostate cancer. This “viral” marketing campaign was allegedly designed “to be picked up and disseminated by third parties” despite IBWA’s repeated requests for corrective action. The complaint also notes that the defendant “purposefully matches images of single-serve recyclable plastic bottles with its claims relating to an organic compound…
The Developmental and Reproductive Toxicant Identification Committee of the California Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Environmental and Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has reportedly asked OEHHA to further investigate the potential developmental and reproductive health effects of the chemical bisphenol A (BPA). The committee voted against placing BPA on the state’s Proposition 65 list of chemicals known to the state to cause reproductive toxicity in a meeting held July 15, 2009. According to a July 23 notice, the committee now seeks information regarding (i) “possible increased susceptibility for developmental toxicity from bisphenol A in subpopulations, for example in those with poor nutritional status for certain nutrients such as folic acid”; (ii) “evidence that bisphenol A exposures in utero or pre-conception may lead to precancerous lesions and eventually cancers (e.g., breast and prostate)”; (iii) “evidence for bisphenol A-induced developmental- or reproductive-related neurobehavioral effects, as these endpoints are further studied”; (iv) “evidence for…
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)…
California EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has announced a July 15, 2009, meeting of its Science Advisory Board’s Developmental and Reproductive Toxicant Identification Committee. The committee, which will be discussing whether bisphenol A (BPA) “has been clearly shown, through scientifically valid testing according to generally accepted principles, to cause reproductive toxicity,” is charged with identifying chemicals for addition to the list of chemicals known to the state to cause reproductive toxicity under the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Prop. 65). BPA is used extensively in metal and plastic food and beverage packaging. Among those who have submitted comments for the committee’s consideration are consumer interest groups, the Environmental Working Group, Natural Resources Defense Council, Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), American Chemistry Council, and North American Metal Packaging Alliance. GMA contends that scientific evidence “does not ‘clearly show’ a causal link between BPA and developmental…
A recent study has reportedly claimed that exposure to bisphenol A (BPA) at levels currently considered safe for humans can allegedly cause “significant reproductive health effects” in rats. Heather B. Adewale, et al., “Neonatal bisphenol-A exposure alters rat reproductive development and ovarian morphology without impairing activation of gonadotropin releasing hormone neurons,” Biology of Reproduction, June 17, 2009. Researchers from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) and North Carolina State University reported that female rats experienced early onset puberty when given a BPA dose of 50 micrograms per kilogram of body weight (µg/kg) during the first four days of life, while those exposed to BPA levels of 50 milligrams per kilogram of body weight (mg/kg) “developed significant ovarian malformations and premature loss of their estrus cycle.” According to the lead researcher, “The 50 mg/kg level is important because it is equivalent to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s [EPA’s] ‘Lowest…
