The FDA has yet to issue a definitive ruling on BPA’s risks, but are the products labeled BPA-free any safer?
Written By Jess Madden
If you’ve shopped for any plastic food containers or water bottles lately, chances are you’ve seen labels touting particular products as being “BPA-Free.” As a result of marketing campaigns by a number of manufacturers, most people have at least heard of BPA, the abbreviation for the chemical bisphenol-A, even if they aren’t quite sure what it is or why they should prefer products that don’t contain it.
For many, the first time they heard of BPA was in April 2008, when Walmart made headlines with their announcement that they would no longer carry baby bottles containing BPA. By October of that same year, the government of Canada had begun the process of declaring BPA a hazardous substance and many countries in the EU were considering banning the use of BPA in baby bottles.
So what is BPA and is it safe to use products that contain it? BPA is an epoxy resin used to make clear plastics stronger, lighter, and more resistant to heat and shattering. Bike helmets, airplanes, medical equipment, CDs and cell phones are just a few examples of products that use it. However, the main source of exposure comes from the lining of canned foods and beverages. The chemical leaches into the product being stored inside the can and is largely responsible for fact that 95 percent of Americans have detectable levels of BPA in their bodies.1 As to whether you should be concerned about this fact or feel safe using products that contain this chemical, the answer, unfortunately, is buried under mountains of conflicting research and reports generated by special interests on both sides.
The FDA is the regulatory body charged with monitoring the use of BPA in foods but only in the last year has the FDA adopted a stance on the chemical.
One of the biggest proponents of BPA is the American Chemistry Council (ACC), a trade association that represents manufacturers of chemicals like chlorine, phthalates, formaldehyde and BPA. In 2010, the group spent over $8 million lobbying members of Congress, giving nearly $300,000 in campaign contributions to candidates on both sides of the aisle2. There are only five companies in the United States that produce BPA, but its sales generate $6 billion in annual revenue.
According to it’s web site, americanchemistry.com, BPA is, “one of the most thoroughly tested chemicals used today, with a safety track record spanning 50 years.”3 The site extols the many virtues of BPA, noting that “BPA-based epoxy can linings protect the safety and integrity of canned foods and beverages.”3
However, this description stands in stark contrast to the one that appears on the web site for the Environmental Working Group (EWG), a non-profit group that “advocates on Capitol Hill for health-protective and subsidy-shifting policies.” Their description states that, “Trace BPA exposure has been shown to disrupt the endocrine system and trigger a wide variety of disorders, including chromosomal and reproductive system abnormalities, impaired brain and neurological functions, cancer, cardiovascular system damage, adult-onset diabetes, early puberty, obesity and resistance to chemotherapy.”4
So which group is correct? Is it one of the safest and most useful chemicals known to man or a cancer-causing endocrine disruptor?
The FDA is the regulatory body charged with monitoring the use of BPA in foods. While they acknowledge that, “Recent studies provide reason for some concern about the potential effects of BPA on the brain, behavior and prostate gland in fetuses, infants and young children,” they also claim, “substantial uncertainties with respect to the overall interpretation of these studies and their potential implications for human health effects of BPA exposure.”5 In other words, they’re just not sure.
Japan has been using BPA-free can liners since 2003 and subsequent studies have shown the blood levels of BPA in its citizens have decreased by as much as 50 percent.
It has only been in the last year that the FDA has adopted even this slightly concerned stance on the chemical. In 2009, an international consortium of industry, academic and government scientists took a closer look at the FDA’s claim that BPA was safe. Upon further review, it emerged that the FDA had based this assertion on just two studies, both of which were funded by the American Chemistry Council and were subsequently found to be filled with errors and inconsistencies.
The scientists concluded that the FDA needed to broaden the scope of studies they used in determining the safety of the chemical. There was certainly no shortage of studies available for the FDA to review. In fact, as early as 2005, over 150 studies on the low-dose effects of BPA had been published. Twelve of those studies were funded by the chemical industry and, not surprisingly, none showed any adverse effects. But of the 139 government-funded studies, 128 showed adverse effects ranging from breast and prostate cancer to reduced sperm count. And not only did the studies show BPA cause an increased risk of cancer, it also increased resistance to chemotherapy.1
“It is becoming undeniable that BPA is dangerous,” said Laura Vandenberg, a developmental biologist at Tufts University, one of 58 scientists who attended the conference in Germany. “The FDA’s standard for safety is reasonable certainty. It is no longer reasonable to say that BPA is safe.”
For now, the FDA contends that “BPA is not proven to harm children or adults.”5 The National Institute of Health has released $30 million in stimulus grants to study the health effects of BPA, which will hopefully result in a clear resolution to this issue. But in the mean time, China, Canada, Japan, the European Union, several U.S. states, the District of Columbia, and many local and national governments have already restricted some uses of BPA, primarily in children’s products. Sensing that the tide of consumer sentiment has already turned against the chemical, many food manufacturers and retailers are switching to non-BPA packaging. The Kroger Company, owner of the Kroger’s chain of supermarkets, has already announced that its store brands will soon be available in BPA-free cans. The Japanese canning industry has been using BPA-free can liners in their products since 2003. Today, virtually no BPA is detectable in their canned foods or drinks and subsequent studies have shown the blood levels of BPA in their citizens have decreased by as much as 50 percent.6
But before you reach for that “BPA-Free” product, consider this. No research has been conducted on the safety of any of the BPA alternatives so there’s no evidence that they’re safer than BPA. The current U.S. law regulating chemicals in commerce makes it possible for companies to use a chemical without having to disclose any information about its toxicity, leaving consumers as uninformed as regulators about the possible risks posed by these products, both to ourselves and our environment.
One of the most widely used BPA alternatives is Tritan copolyester, made by the Eastman Chemical Company. The company’s web site allows consumers to view the Material Safety Data Sheets for the compound, but they do not include any information on its toxicity and there have been no tests conducted to determine its possible environmental effects.7 However, the company does note that sales of the product quadrupled between March 2009 and March 2010.
It’s possible that Tritan copolyester is a completely safe alternative, but if the FDA’s track record on BPA is any indication, it may be decades before we know for sure.