As first reported by Promo Marketing on January 25, California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) intends to add bisphenol A (BPA) to the Proposition 65 list of chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive harm. BPA has long been a source of controversy, and its status as a toxic substance remains up for debate with regulations varying widely between countries and even U.S. states. Pundits on both sides of the argument were quick to respond to Friday’s announcement.
Known as the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, Prop. 65 requires a publicly available warning be included on products containing one of the 800-plus listed substances. One of the recommended methods to indicate the possible toxicity to California users is through warning labels on product packaging or on the product itself. But according to Sarah Janssen, a senior scientist at the National Resource Defense Council, it’s unlikely that consumers will see such labels on their plastic bottles or aluminum cans.
“The proposed [maximum allowable dose level] for BPA is relatively high at 290 micrograms/day and is not likely to trigger any warning labels on canned food or beverages,” Janssen wrote in a blog post on Friday. If a product’s exposure risk is below the 290 micrograms threshold, it will not fall under the jurisdiction of Prop. 65 and the manufacturer will not need to make the information available to the public.
Janssen, who is in favor of a country-wide FDA ban on the substance, said OEHHA’s decision is “quite significant and makes official what parents have known for years—BPA is harmful and should be avoided.”
Not everyone was happy to hear the news come out of California. The American Chemistry Council, one of the most prominent opponents of BPA regulation, described the decision as “scientifically unjustified.” In a post on the council’s website, Steven G. Hentges, Ph.D. at the Polycarbonate/BPA Global Group of the American Chemistry Council, said, “The weight of scientific evidence does not support OEHHA’s intention to list BPA under Proposition 65 and this action sharply contrasts with the results of the earlier assessment conducted by California’s own scientific experts.”
“It is important for consumers and manufacturers to know that the consensus of major government agencies around the world, including the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Japanese National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology and the World Health Organization supports the safety of BPA in food contact materials and other consumer products,” Hentges continued. He added that the American Chemistry Council supports the maximum exposure level set by OEHHA as consistent with its own research.
BPA, which is commonly used as a plasticizer in items like polycarbonate bottles, made national headlines in 2012 when the FDA banned its use in children’s products like sippy cups and baby bottles. Many promotional products suppliers that manufacture sports bottles and drinkware have voluntarily phased out the chemical and now offer BPA-free plastics.
Prop. 65 only applies to products within California, but because any product shipped to the state is subject to the regulations, adding BPA to the list could have nationwide implications. Manufacturers who have not switched to BPA-free plastics would need to provide a warning label on any products that ship to California and exceed the recommended limit.
Although Friday’s announcement is a strong indication that BPA will face further scrutiny, its inclusion on the Prop. 65 list is not guaranteed. OEHHA has given concerned parties a 30-day window to submit comments on the proposal that could sway the agency’s final decision. A 45-day comment period was also announced for the 290 microgram maximum allowable dose level.
Regardless of what happens a month from now, opponents of BPA say the fight is far from over. “Despite these welcome announcements, we are still a long way from protecting the public from harmful BPA exposures,” Janssen said. “Until we can eliminate BPA from food packaging and ensure that any replacement chemicals are shown to be safe, the most vulnerable of all, a developing fetus, will not be protected from BPA exposures.”
More information on Prop. 65 and BPA are available on the OEHHA website.
