|Bisphenol A Myths
Myth: An increasing number of state lawmakers believe bisphenol A is a risk; the federal government has not been upfront about the dangers.
Reality: Legislatures in some states and localities have pursued restrictions on bisphenol A (BPA). Legislatures are not scientific bodies, however, nor are they the regulatory review agencies charged with reviewing and understanding the scientific database on bisphenol A. Legislators in California, Maryland and Minnesota have defeated bills to ban products containing BPA, based in part on input from the federal government.
It is important to know that a number of governmental agencies have reviewed the science on bisphenol A and on the basis of that scientific review continue to confirm the safe use of bisphenol A in food contact applications.
This list includes the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which has adopted a view consistent with regulatory bodies worldwide, none of which have banned or restricted bisphenol A, polycarbonate plastic or epoxy resins, in particular for use of these materials in food contact or children's products.
Furthermore, the legislatures of California, Maryland and Minnesota have defeated recent bills that proposed bans on products containing bisphenol A. The proposals ignored the views of government and scientific bodies worldwide that, based on comprehensive reviews of the scientific evidence, bisphenol A is not a risk to human health. None of the bills became law.
The California bill would have prohibited the manufacture, sale or distribution in commerce of any toy or childcare article intended for use by a child under three years of age if that product contained any level of bisphenol A. The bill potentially would have banned an extraordinarily wide range of consumer products, many of which depend on the unique attributes of polycarbonate plastic and epoxy resins to enhance the health and safety of children. For example, life-saving medical devices (e.g., incubators, kidney dialyzers, blood oxygenators, and drug infusion units), sports safety equipment (e.g., bicycle helmets, visors), healthcare products (e.g., eyeglass lenses, dental sealants), shatter-resistant baby bottles, and canned foods and beverages all are beneficially used by or for children and might have been banned by this legislation.
Very similar bills in Maryland and Minnesota would have banned an equally wide range of important products.
In their written input to the California legislators on food contact uses of polycarbonate plastic and epoxy resins, the FDA stated, "based on all the evidence available to us at this time, FDA sees no reason to change its long-held position that current uses with food are safe" and "considering all the evidence...FDA sees no reason at this time to ban or otherwise restrict the uses now in practice."
Return to BPA Myths home