WASHINGTON — The Food and Drug Administration has rejected a petition from environmentalists that would have banned the plastic-hardening chemical bisphenol-A from all food and drink packaging, including plastic bottles and canned food.
The agency said Friday that petitioners did not present compelling scientific evidence to justify new restrictions on the much-debated chemical, commonly known as BPA, though federal scientists continue to study the issue.
The Natural Resources Defense Council’s petition was the latest move by public safety advocates to prod regulators into taking action against the chemical, which is found in everything from CDs to canned food to dental sealants.
Maine had banned BPA in reusable beverage containers sold in the state starting Jan. 1, 2012. The Alliance for a Clean and Healthy Maine and Mainely Moms and Dads had announced plans in mid-February to petition the state Board of Environmental Protection to extend the ban to containers holding infant formula and baby or toddler food.
About 90 percent of Americans have traces of BPA in their bodies, mainly because it leaches out of food and beverage containers.
Some scientists believe exposure to BPA can harm the reproductive and nervous systems, particularly in babies and small children, potentially leading to cancer and other diseases. They point to results from dozens of BPA studies in rodents and other animals.
But FDA reiterated in its response that that those findings cannot be applied to humans. The agency said the studies cited by NRDC were often too small to be conclusive. In other cases they involved researchers injecting BPA into animals, whereas humans ingest the chemical through their diet over longer periods of time. The agency also said that humans metabolize and eliminate BPA much more quickly than rats and other lab animals.
“While evidence from some studies have raised questions as to whether BPA may be associated with a variety of health effects, there remain serious questions about these studies, particularly as they relate to humans,” the agency said in its response.
The Natural Resources Defense Council petitioned the FDA in 2008 to ban BPA as a food additive, including all uses in food or beverage packaging. Petitions on various safety issues are routinely filed by advocacy groups, companies and even individuals. When the FDA failed to respond within the required timeframe, the environmental group sued the agency. In December a federal judge ruled that the agency had to respond by the end of March.
The agency’s official position is that there is “some concern” about BPA’s effects on young children. The government is spending $30 million to conduct additional studies on the chemical’s impact on humans. Several federal studies published in the last two years suggest that even human embryos retain far less BPA than other animals.
Many companies have already responded to consumer demand by removing BPA from their products. In 2008, Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and Toys “R” Us said they began phasing out bottles, sippy cups and other children’s items containing BPA. By the end of 2009, the six leading makers of baby bottles in the U.S. went BPA-free. Earlier this month Campbell’s Soup said it would begin removing BPA from its most popular soups, though it did not set a time frame.
But the vast majority of canned goods in the U.S. are still sealed with resin that contains BPA to prevent contamination and spoiling. Canned food manufacturers have used the chemicals since the 1950s, and the practice is approved by the FDA. The chemical industry says BPA is the safest, most effective sealant.
Some manufacturers have begun switching to alternatives. Heinz reportedly uses BPA-free coatings for its Nurture baby formula cans, and ConAgra and General Mills say they have switched to alternative sealants for some canned tomatoes.
The federal government has been grappling with the safety of BPA for more than four years. The FDA revised its opinion on BPA in 2010 saying there is “some concern” about the chemical’s impact on the brain and reproductive system of infants, babies and young children. Previously the agency said the trace amounts of BPA that leach out of food containers are not dangerous.
While older children and adults quickly eliminate the chemical through their kidneys, newborns and infants can retain it for longer. Scientists pushing for a ban on the chemical argue that BPA mimics the effects of the hormone estrogen, interfering with growth.
BDN reporter Kevin Miller contributed to this report.
Then the FDA must require labels stating, “contains BPA.”
And who is the boss of the FDA? Wasnt the question here in Maine why ban something in this state that the federal government wont ban? Im all for the State of Maine making its own decisions above and beyond the guidelines of the feds. However I think its pretty funny that Obama’s FDA wont ban BPA. He must be in the pockets of corporations and evil industrialists just like LePage.
The President is not the “boss” of the FDA. Neither was Bush although he tried (through censorship of scientific findings by several agencies).
The US Government for all intensive purposes is a corporation that Barack Obama is the head of. That makes him the boss of everything related to the Federal Government.
Just found that “Official Samples” is promoting a wide variety of major brands by providing free samples. You’ll have to fill in your zip code to see if you can qualify to receive them. You can get all samples from one place. I think it is available for most of the zip codes and it worked for me.
Obviously the FDA is getting lots of money from these companies that still insist on using BPA in their products. It isn’t about whats safe for you or me!! It’s all about the buck. My recommendation is that YOU look out for yourself and children………….FDA isn’t about what’s safe to comsume anymore………it’s how much will YOU pay ME.
I had a big argument with someone awhile back about the FDA on another topic. Whoever it was will assure you that the FDA is not corrupt. Sleep easy
There’s tons of additives in our food far more dangerous than pink slime. Wake up people and demand unadulterated food.
Or go even further and buy/grow your own food locally from people you know and trust–and where you can see just how it is raised and processed. That’s speaking with your dollars.
Off subject, but there’s nothing unsafe about “pink slime”, probably safer due to the antibacterial properties of ammonia (as well as less fat).
BINGO !
BPA is a monomeric constituent of hard polycarbonate as well as an oligomeric (about a dozen polymer units) of epoxies used to line tin cans for food. The leability is higher for the epoxies but still is in the very low range. As stated, the lifetime of BPA in the body of older people at least is quite short, a couple of days. Also, recent research has shown that there are a variety of estrogen receptors in the body, with varying degrees of intgeraction and results of such with estrogens or estrogen mimics. In addition, studies are needed for competeition binding for estrogenic sites between estrogens and mimics, including sterols from soy (with a much higher exposure).
What was the original reason for the development of BPA? I have heard that it was first used to line tin cans to reduce the risk of botulism.
Estrogenic effects should be of great concern. It has always seemed odd to me that the field of endocrinology, for example, remains such a dark horse, at least in terms of public awareness.
I’m betting that mine is an erroneous comment, so should just thank you for providing more information.
Disclaimer on my previous post: I’m a retired scientist who has never worked for a company that produces BPA.
….
And what kind of canning jars do you use? How are they Sealed?
Maine legislators and policy makers had all this information when they nevertheless followed their fears and banned BPA.
Do we accept scientific consensus only when it aligns with our biases?