FDA on BPA: What it means for the states

Imagine that you're the captain of the world's largest oil tanker. And you see danger ahead, and you need to turn that ship around as soon as possible, or at least steer the tanker to get it out of danger. No matter how quickly you would like to respond, it still will take a while for the ship to change course.

That is the situation that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) found itself in this week. The public has been awaiting a decision by the FDA on Bisphenol-A (BPA). Scientific studies have linked BPA to known health effects including impaired brain and reproductive development in unborn babies, miscarriage in pregnant women, diabetes, obesity and cancer.

Mothers want to know if the chemical is safe for their children, adults want to know if it's safe for their water bottles, and home cooks want to know if it's safe in their cans.

In 2008, the FDA said that BPA was safe for all uses. But Friday, the FDA reversed that position, stating that it agrees with the National Toxicology Program and:

"recent studies provide reason for some concern about the potential effects of BPA on the brain, behavior, and prostate gland of fetuses, infants and children."

The FDA also stated that further research is needed.

While most of the Safer States Coalition members celebrate the above statement as a victory, many also voiced frustration that the FDA did not make a move to ban BPA from any products, on any level.

"The agency has failed children and families by not putting in place specific regulatory measures, such as prohibiting the chemical’s use in consumer products," stated a press release from the Washington Toxics Organization.

An article in the Milwaukee Wisconsin Journal Sentinel cited several officials who say that the antiquated structure of the BPA does not allow for an all out ban on BPA -- saying it isn't nimble enough to ban it and deal with the public repercussions of such a ban.

Once again, it is clear that the states should continue on their paths of finding the safest way to handle BPA bans within their governments: encouraging alternatives when possible, and keeping BPA out of products which affect the most vulnerable populations: babies, children, and pregnant women.

An editorial in The Seattle Times today encouraging stricter laws in Washington state, saying "Washington lawmakers in 2008 acted to keep toys with toxic chemicals out of the hands of children. Apply the same good instincts to hazardous baby bottles, drinking cups and plastic tableware used by children."

A release by The Alliance for a Healthy Tomorrow reinforced the need for state laws in Massachusetts:

"More than ever, it's clear that Governor Deval Patrick and the Massachusetts Department of Public Health need to take action to regulate the sale of children's products, including infant formula cans, that contain BPA. FDA's announcement has confirmed that there is reason to act to protect health, but it will be years before FDA takes that action itself, if ever."

Further Reading:

Protect children from hazardous chemicals . The Seattle Times, 01/19/10.
FDA issues warning about BPA Exposure. CBS Morning News, 01/18/10.
FDA 'concerned' about BPA in baby products. Mother Nature Network, 01/18/10. 
FDA says it's unable to regulate BPA. Milwaukee-Wisconsin Journal Sentinel, 01/17/10. 
Pink washing the dangers of bottled water. Huffington Post, 01/17/10.
Bisphenol A: Should there be laws? Los Angeles Times, 01/16/10. 
FDA expresses 'some concern' over BPA. Alliance for a Healthy Tomorrow, 01/15/10. 
FDA says BPA is cause for concern, supports need for state action. WA Toxics, 01/15/10. 
FDA does about-face on exposure to BPA. Milwaukee-Wisconsin Journal Sentinel, 01/15/10.
FDA on BPA: Our hands are tied. Grist, 01/15/10. 
FDA concerned about substance in food packaging. New York Times, 01/15/10.