Does the FDA Love BPA?

The FDA has once again rejected the “PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE” when it comes to BPA (bisphenol-A).
In a nutshell, the precautionary principle represents a cautious regulatory attitude when there is a possible risk to the public health. Even if there isn’t perfect data or a scientific consensus that a compound causes toxicity, a precautionary approach requires the manufacturers or distributors of the product to prove it is NOT harmful. In other words, if there is a suspicion of risk, it would be wiser to err on the side of caution and prevent contact with a chemical rather than expose people to a potential, but as yet unproven, problem.
In its most recent action on BPA the FDA has decided “there is not compelling scientific evidence to justify new restrictions” on BPA in food packaging. In response to a petition by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) to ban BPA from food or beverage containers, the agency concluded: “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.”
At the same time the FDA says that the evidence of harm is not compelling, it stresses that research into the possible negative effects of BPA is “ongoing” and that the agency will issue another update down the road. In other words, the final word is not in, but let’s ignore the precautionary principle until there is better science one way or the other.
The senior scientist at the NRDC, Sarah Janssen, MD, PhD, responded, “The FDA is out-of-step with scientific and medical research. This illustrates the need for a major overhaul of how the government protects us against dangerous chemicals…BPA is a toxic chemical that has no place in our food supply. We believe FDA made the wrong call…The agency has failed to protect our health and safety–in the face of scientific studies that continue to raise disturbing questions about the long-term effects of BPA exposures, especially in fetuses, babies, and young children.”
We admit that the NRDC is not necessarily objective when it comes to BPA. After all, its petition and lawsuit forced the FDA’s hand. But here is a group most of us trust to make thoughtful assessments about such things: Consumers Union. Its spokesperson, Jean Halloran, reacted to the announcement: “We’re disappointed with the FDA’s decision because we think there’s ample scientific evidence about the health risks of BPA for the agency to take action now and ban it from food and drink packaging.”
That means that many, if not most, makers of canned foods and beverages will continue to use plastic resin containing BPA. As a result, nearly all of us are involuntary subjects in a giant uncontrolled experiment. We know that BPA from canned soup gets into the body, often in high levels.
If you would like to learn more about the BPA controversy you may wish to listen to our recent one-hour interview on the topic. You may also find our show, “Death By Rubber Duck,” relevant to this discussion.
We personally think that the precautionary principle makes sense. The Japanese have followed such an approach when it comes to BPA. Their food cans are not lined with BPA-containing resin. Until the final word is in, if it ever is, we think prudence is appropriate.
We would love to get your perspective on the FDA’s decision. Feel free to comment below.