Press Releases

The U. S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) today released its final report on the CLARITY Core Study, a landmark study on the safety of bisphenol A (BPA). The results of the study, which is the final part of a multi-year in-depth research program, strongly support the safety of BPA.

“The final report on the CLARITY Core Study strongly supports recent statements from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that BPA is safe at the very low levels to which people are typically exposed. The scope and magnitude of this study are unprecedented for BPA, and the results clearly show that BPA has very little potential to cause health effects, even when people are exposed to it throughout their lives,” said Steven G. Hentges, Ph.D., Polycarbonate/BPA Global Group of the American Chemistry Council (ACC).

The U.S. government today released its Draft Report with results from the largest study ever conducted on bisphenol A (BPA). The results of the study, which is the key part of a multi-year in-depth research program, strongly support the safety of BPA.

“The results of the CLARITY Core study once again demonstrate that BPA is safe at the very low levels to which people are typically exposed. This study is the largest study ever conducted on BPA, and the results indicate that BPA has very little potential to cause health effects even when people are exposed to it throughout their lives,” said Steven G. Hentges, Ph.D., Polycarbonate/BPA Global Group of the American Chemistry Council (ACC).

The following statement can be attributed to Steven G. Hentges, Ph.D., of the Polycarbonate/BPA Global Group of the American Chemistry Council. These comments address the decision by California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment’s (OEHHA) scientific panel, the Developmental and Reproductive Toxicant Identification Committee (DART-IC), to list bisphenol A (BPA) on Proposition 65.

“We strongly disagree with the DART-IC decision to list BPA under Proposition 65 as a female reproductive toxicant. The decision is not supported by the extensive scientific record presented to the committee and is completely contrary to explicit input provided by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). In April, FDA’s acting chief scientist submitted a letter to the DART-IC stating that the results of FDA’s own comprehensive research ‘do not support BPA as a reproductive toxicant.’

“In response to recent studies, which have suggested that BPA might be linked to effects such as heart disease, high blood pressure and other conditions, federal government scientists have been conducting in-depth studies on BPA.

“This comprehensive set of studies conducted by U.S. government researchers tells us a great deal more about the potential for BPA to cause health effects. For example, research funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and conducted by scientists at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the government’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, (Teeguarden et al.) found that, because of the way BPA is processed in the body, it is very unlikely that BPA could cause health effects at any realistic exposure level.

“Due to the use of unrealistic experimental conditions, much of the data presented in this new study has very limited relevance to the potential for human exposure to BPA from handling thermal receipt paper. Although downplayed in the publication, the most relevant data shows very little BPA exposure under conditions most representative of real-life contact with thermal receipt paper. “Notably, a recent study from the Finnish Institute of Occupational Health (Porras et al., 2014) found no significant exposure to BPA from handling receipt paper using real-life exposure scenarios. Included in the Finnish study were conditions representative of cashiers (i.e., repeated handling of receipts throughout a workday) and more intensive short-term handling considered to be beyond normal handling of paper receipts.

The American Chemistry Council (ACC) offers the following comments regarding the study published today by Health Canada, the first results from the Maternal-Infant Research on Environmental Chemicals (MIREC) study. The study, titled “Phthalate and bisphenol A exposure among pregnant women inCanada — Results from the MIREC study,” was published in the July issue of the scientific journal Environment International.  Quotes from the following may be attributed to Steven G. Hentges, Ph.D. of ACC’s Polycarbonate/BPA Global Group.

“With important new research results in hand, Health Canada once again reaffirmed its position on the safety of bisphenol A(BPA) in its press release today, stating ‘Based on the overall weight of evidence, Health Canada continues to conclude that dietary exposure to BPA through food packaging is not expected to pose a health risk to the general population, including newborns and young children.’

It’s no secret that bisphenol A (BPA) has been controversial for quite some time and has received intense scrutiny from scientists, government agencies, the media and environmental groups. Such scrutiny has resulted in demand from consumers for alternatives to products that contain BPA, and hasty efforts from some manufacturers to provide “BPA-Free” products. While the controversy surrounding BPA may be interesting and important, the controversy by itself does not provide an answer to the key question addressed in this article – Why replace BPA?

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulates the uses of BPA for food contact applications and polycarbonate is widely used in FDA-regulated medical devices. Since the agency seeks to provide the soundest basis for its regulatory decisions, FDA, in conjunction with the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP), designed a robust research program to answer key scientific questions about the safety of BPA.

“FDA’s authority to act on this petition is based solely on marketplace conditions. As stated in the petition, BPA is no longer used in infant formula packaging. We believe this action by FDA will bring clarity for consumers and will eliminate any lingering confusion about the presence of BPA in infant formula packaging. As noted by FDA, their action is not based on any finding or conclusion that packaging containing BPA is unsafe. Epoxy resins have been widely used for more than 30 years to line food and beverage cans, protect food quality and nutrition, and extend shelf life. Based on a long history of safe use, and FDA’s recent reaffirmation of BPA’s safety, epoxy resin food can linings continue to be the preferred choice for safe and effective food packaging.”

ACC’s response to a April 10 USA Today article about a new activist campaign to pull chemicals from consumer products. ACC notes that chemical companies go to great lengths to help Americans make informed decisions about the products they purchase, including undertaking extensive scientific analyses to evaluate the potential risks of chemical products. ACC also notes that chemical safety is overseen by six federal agencies under more than a dozen federal laws and regulations.