In February 2015, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) published a new opinion on the assessment of the health risks associated with Bisphenol A (BPA) in foods and from other, non-dietary sources and concluded:
Based on the current scientific evidence and given the current levels of consumer exposure, BPA through dietary exposure does not pose a health risk for any age group. This also applies to unborn children, infants and young adolescents. New data and more sophisticated methods have led the EFSA experts to significantly reduce the tolerable daily intake (TDI) for BPA – from 50 micrograms per kilogramme of bodyweight per day (µg/kg bw/day) to 4 µg/kg bw/day. In view of this new assessment, the highest estimates of the exposure derived from foods alone or in combination with other sources (diet, house dust, cosmetics and thermal paper) are 3 to 5 times below the new TDI value. Uncertainties regarding possible health effects of BPA on the mammary gland, the reproductive, metabolic and immune systems and in relation to neurobehavioural disorders have been analysed and taken into account in the calculation of the TDI. The TDI must be seen as a temporary value as long as the results of a long-term study on rats, a study which aims to eliminate those uncertainties, are still pending. The BfR welcomes the fact that extensive data from Europe was taken into account in the exposure calculation and, given the uncertainties of the overall BPA data situation, endorses the derivation of the new temporary TDI.
EFSA and BfR are just two of the scientific bodies who have listened to the science on BPA. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently reached a very similar conclusion on the safety of BPA. In response to the question “Is BPA safe?”, FDA answers with a single unambiguous word – “Yes.”
Learn more about BfR’s safety evaluation of BPA here or visit American Chemistry Council’s Chemistry Matters blog.
In July 2010, Germany’s Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) released a detailed review of two recent BPA studies and concluded:
“The results of the two studies do not substantiate the concerns for a specific toxic potential of bisphenol A adverse to neurological and behavioural development.” For the full report, click here.
- Regarding Ryan et al. (2009), BfR concluded: “The results revealed no adverse effects in the low-dose range on behaviour and the development of female rat offspring whose dams were treated with bisphenol A during gestation and lactation.”
- Regarding Stump et al. (2010), BfR concluded: “The results obtained with these testing conditions did not provide any indications of adverse effects on neurological and behavioural development in the offspring. The study comprised also testing of very low dosages. Dietary administration of bisphenol A did not reveal indications for so-called ‘low-dose effects.'”
German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR, Bundesinstitut für Risikobewertung) reported that low-dose BPA does not lead to health risk for infants and children:
In January 2010, BfR wrote, “Following careful examination of all studies, in particular the studies in the low dose range of bisphenol A, BfR comes to the conclusion in its scientific assessment that the normal use of polycarbonate bottles does not lead to a health risk from bisphenol A for infants and small children. BfR is not alone in this assessment. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the U.S. Food and Drugs Administration (FDA) share this opinion. Japan, which has conducted its own studies on bisphenol A, does not see any need for a ban either.”
BfR noted no negative health risks of giving babies BPA bottles: In January 2006, the BfR stated: “The BfR does not recognize any health risk for babies that are fed from baby bottles made of polycarbonate.”