The “BPA-free” labels on sports water bottles and groceries don’t tell consumers the whole story about the toxic chemical bisphenol A. Variations of the chemical that still pose a health risk may be used instead, and a widespread number of products still contain BPA and don’t disclose it.
However, health experts and toxic chemical researchers in Maine are now calling for broader regulations on BPA after a new law in the European Union banned its use in any materials that come into contact with food for humans. The law was enacted in December after regulators there reviewed hundreds of research studies and concluded that, even in more minute amounts than previously thought, the chemical poses health risks to humans.
Regulations protecting consumers from BPA are sparse in Maine and elsewhere in the United States. Maine is one of only 13 states to ban BPA in baby bottles, sippy cups, baby food packaging and all reusable food and beverage containers in a law enacted in 2014. But Maine did not ban the chemical in the myriad of other products that people come in contact with daily, including some plastic food packaging, food container liners and cash register receipts. There aren’t any immediate plans to do so, regulators said.
The new law in Europe is causing health experts here to call on regulators to expand the ban on BPA, which is a basic component of some plastics.
“We are very much not free of BPA. You really have to change things on a regulatory level, mandate that less plastic be used,” said Gail Carlson, assistant professor of environmental studies and an expert on toxicology and environmental health at Colby College in Waterville. “That’s the only way a consumer can have any degree of confidence when they walk into a retail store that they are buying things that might be safe.”
While health experts are concerned, so far state and federal regulators have not responded to the European Union’s initiative. The Maine Department of Environmental Protection “does not have new information that would lead us to initiate additional legislation,” said its spokesperson David Madore. “Consumers concerned about unwanted chemical or microplastic exposure may consider avoiding the use of plastic in general.”
The federal government has made only a few recommendations to avoid the use of BPA in baby products, saying BPA at current levels is safe in foods and that manufacturers of baby products have stopped using it. But those recommendations are more than 10 years old, Carlson said, and a lot of scientific studies have been conducted in the interim linking BPA exposure to health issues, including that it could reduce the quality of semen. The chemical also may interfere with the human hormonal system, leading to reduced fertility, increased risk of pregnancy complications and early puberty in females. BPA also can affect fish and amphibians when it gets into waterways through plastic waste.
Carlson worries that the United States lags behind European Union regulations on BPA and the substitute chemicals, especially bisphenol S and bisphenol B used in food can linings. Both of those chemicals also disrupt the endocrine system. Most BPA has been phased out of baby food and other canned foods, but the substitutes that can cause equal harm were not fully vetted before being used, she said.
“If food and beverage cans are listed as ‘BPA-free’, that doesn’t mean they are bisphenol free,” Carlson said. “Food cans and linings are one of the major continuing exposures to BPA and its substitutes.”
She said consumers have no way, other than an exhaustive internet search, to know what is in a product because manufacturers do not have to list whether it is BPA-free. Even if a label says “BPA-free,” there is no information on what was substituted, she said.
Outraged moms
Mothers worried that the hormone-disrupting chemical was being fed to their babies engendered the swift response by manufacturers to get rid of it on their own accord over the past decade. The hard plastic formed by BPA meant unbreakable plastic bottles, but the chemicals in those bottles could leach into milk, especially when the bottle was heated, washed in hot water or left in the sun, said Michael Belliveau, director and founder of Bend the Curve, a nonprofit that is advocating for safer petrochemicals and sustainable plastics.
“Outraged moms across the world drove the success to get BPA out of baby bottles and sippy cups, whose makers were forced to reformulate them,” said Belliveau. “But getting BPA out of consumer products is not enough. You need to get it out of commerce completely.”
The chemical, invented in the 1890s in a lab and identified as an artificial estrogen in 1930. It was used widely by industry in the 1940s and 1950s as the building block for a hard plastic called polycarbonate that was used widely in sports drinking bottles, sippy cups and the ultra-thin linings that kept food from spoiling in metal cans. It took until the 2010s for Maine and federal lawmakers to act on scientific reports of its toxicity to humans and environmental pollution. Even then, then-Republican Gov. Paul LePage tried, unsuccessfully, to block the legislation in 2011, claiming the science didn’t yet back banning BPA and that “the worst case is some women may have little beards.”
BPA also continues to be detected in paint and other consumer goods used in houses, so it shows up in dust, said Laura Vandenberg, professor of environmental health sciences and an expert on endocrine disruptors at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. It also is in piping and epoxy resins used in plumbing, so it shows up in drinking water. And it is in sports and medical equipment, food production equipment, clothing, upholstery and toys, she said.
“It’s still very, very ubiquitous,” Vandenberg said. “I think a lot of people are overwhelmed by the idea that we have these chemicals in our lives and in our bodies. It shouldn’t be a thing that people are worried about.”
Like Carlson of UMaine, she said regulatory agencies should be handling it. Consumers can get even more confused by the substitute bisphenol chemicals that have similar health consequences.
“The movement away from BPA has not necessarily been protective of public health,” Vandenberg said. “People are still eating food that is in contact with plastics and other polymers. We need a functional regulatory system.”
What consumers can do
A lot of advances in removing BPA have come from producers phasing it out quietly without regulations pushing them to do so. But quietly also means there is scant information on food labels to help consumers know which products are safer, Carlson said. And BPA is only one chemical that could be in the plastic wrapped around their pepper or zucchini.
“I challenge people to go into a typical grocery store and try to buy food that isn’t in plastic. It’s almost impossible,” said Carlson.
One program that might help reduce the use of plastics and other packaging materials, said Carlson, is the takeback program approved by Maine regulators in December. It requires companies that make packaging to reimburse towns and cities for the cost of disposing of the plastic containers, food packaging, cardboard and other materials. The program is expected to be in operation by September 2027.
“There is evidence that producer takeback programs work,” Carlson said. “It’s one of many strategies we need to implement to reduce our exposure to plastics.”
Consumers worried about BPA exposure can buy food that is frozen or packaged in paper or glass rather than plastic or cans. They can buy more fresh foods. But not everyone can or is willing to change their lifestyle, said Vandenberg of UMass.
“Try to address the things that you can control, and make choices that fit those things,” she said. “That might mean that you don’t use plastics to store food in your refrigerator, and you never microwave plastics. That’s an easy place to start.”
Lori Valigra is an environment reporter for the BDN’s Maine Focus investigative team. Reach her at lvaligra@bangordailynews.com. Support for this reporting is provided by the Unity Foundation, a fund at the Maine Community Foundation, and donations by BDN readers.
Correction: An earlier version of this story misidentified the year in which BPA was recognized as an artificial estrogen. It was in 1930.