What are the BPA myths?
Because it has been used to make products for more than 50 years, BPA has been the subject of extensive scientific study and evaluation. However, certain allegations about BPA that lack a sound scientific basis continue to be made in the media, including:
Myth: BPA causes cancer.
Reality: Based on sound, robust scientific evidence, some government bodies around the world have concluded that BPA is not carcinogenic in humans. In 2008, a comprehensive European Union risk assessment reviewed all relevant scientific evidence and concluded that “BPA does not possess any significant carcinogenic potential.”
Myth: BPA accumulates in the human body.
Reality: Several studies on human volunteers have shown that the very small amount of BPA that may be ingested by a person during normal daily activities is efficiently converted to biologically inactive metabolites, which are eliminated from the human body within 24 hours. In contrast, similar studies on rodents, which are commonly used for toxicity studies, have demonstrated that rodents are much less efficient at eliminating BPA from the body.
Myth: A harmful amount of BPA gets into your food from storage in polycarbonate food containers.
Reality: Many studies have measured the amount of BPA that can migrate in tiny amounts into foods and beverages from polycarbonate containers. The measured amounts are minute, and well below safety standards set by government regulatory agencies around the world. In fact, a consumer would have to ingest more than 1,300 pounds of food and beverages in contact with polycarbonate plastic each day just to reach the safe intake level set by the European Food Safety Authority.
Extensive data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) shows that typical human exposure to BPA from all sources, including from food stored in polycarbonate containers and bottles, is approximately 1,000 times below the safe intake level recently set by the European Food Safety Authority. Government bodies around the world have concluded that these levels do not pose a risk to human health.
Myth: BPA exposure from sales receipts can pose health risks.
Reality: Some receipts made from thermal paper can contain low levels of bisphenol A (BPA). However, available data suggests that BPA is not readily absorbed through the skin. Biomonitoring data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control shows that exposure to BPA from all sources, which would include typical exposure from receipts, is extremely low. Exposure levels to BPA by the general U.S. population – from all sources – are quite low; they’re about 1,000 times below safe intake levels set by government bodies in Europe and the U.S.
In fact, a new study looking into this very concern, ‘Transfer of bisphenol A from thermal printer paper to the skin,’ (Biedermann, Tschudin & Grob, 2010) shows that while low levels of BPA can transfer from thermal paper to skin, those levels are well below government-set safe intake levels, even under the worst-case conditions included in the study.
Myth: Hundreds of studies have linked BPA to a large number of serious diseases.
Reality: BPA has been safely used for decades, and it has been the subject of many scientific studies. Research is ongoing. However, the issue is not the quantity of studies, but their quality and the scientific value they provide to consumers.
Studies are different, and are not of the same quality. Some are conducted according to internationally recognized standards that ensure methodological and statistical reliability and others are not. Government regulators have the responsibility of reviewing all studies and considering issues like study design and quality and whether the result of any particular study was repeated in other studies.
In the United States, the agency charged with this review for food contact applications is FDA. In January 2010, FDA stated that “studies employing standardized toxicity tests have thus far supported the safety of current low levels of human exposure to BPA” and did not take regulatory action.
Myth: Government agencies rely on industry-funded studies and ignore other science.
Reality: In August 2008, FDA released a draft safety assessment of BPA in food-contact products. The scientific review was far more comprehensive than is sometimes reported, and was not based on “only two industry studies.”
Government agencies have established procedures regarding how they review scientific studies. Once agencies establish these rules, they apply them objectively and consistently, regardless of what entity provides the funding, what lab conducts the research or which researcher oversees the study.
In its most recent review of BPA (announced in January 2010), HHS took into consideration studies of low-dose toxicity cited by the National Toxicology Program and the Science Board Subcommittee, as well as other such studies that had become available, and concluded that BPA “is not proven to harm children or adults…”
Myth: Government regulators are heavily influenced by industry lobbyists.
Reality: Government regulators have legal and policy requirements that govern how they regulate on matters of public health and the safety of consumer products. Government regulators are obligated to follow the science.
Any person or stakeholder group that wants to commission or submit high-quality scientific studies, or wants to engage in discussion about the data submitted, can do so.
Industry periodically meets with government regulators to openly discuss the science on BPA, as do others, such as non-governmental organizations. Government regulators gather input from a wide range of stakeholders through written comments, public meetings and individual stakeholder submissions. The entire process is transparent.
Myth: Government regulators routinely defer to industry officials and delay regulatory action to restrict BPA at the request of industry.
Reality: Agencies apply their established review rules to the regulatory process and that includes having staff review data from all stakeholders. In the world of product regulation, the makers of the products understandably have large amounts of information about their products, including scientific data.
Manufacturers submit this data to the agencies and frequently there are follow-on meetings to review and discuss the data. Other stakeholders have equal opportunity to submit data and discuss the science that has been submitted through this open, established public process.
Myth: An increasing number of state lawmakers believe BPA is a risk; the federal government has not been upfront about the dangers.
Reality: Legislatures in some states and localities have pursued restrictions on BPA. Legislatures are not scientific bodies, however, nor are they the regulatory review agencies charged with reviewing and understanding the scientific database on BPA.
It is important to know that a number of governmental agencies have reviewed the science on BPA and on the basis of that scientific review continue to confirm the safe use of BPA in food contract applications. This list includes FDA.