FDA Needs More Time for its Report on BPA

by Matt Shudtz

December 01, 2009

Yesterday came and went with no announcement from the FDA on the safety of BPA in food packaging. The agency had created a self-imposed November 30 deadline for releasing a new finding, and in the intervening months, a number of new studies on the health effects of BPA have been released and FDA has brought in an outside expert to head up the review. These developments have understandably slowed the review process.

The question before FDA is whether BPA is safe for its intended use in food contact applications -- the lining inside cans, for example. So Kaiser Permanente’s recent headline-grabbing study that showed an increased likelihood of erectile dysfunction and problems ejaculating among workers who were highly exposed to BPA in a Chinese plant might not be very useful in making that determination. But the many studies showing correlations between various exposures to BPA and other adverse health effects might be more important.

As Meg Kissinger reports in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, FDA’s review panel – now headed by Lynn Goldman of the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, a renowned expert on endocrine-disrupting chemicals – must make its safety determination amidst a whirlwind of other developments, including voluntary restrictions on certain uses of BPA by the chemical’s manufacturers, local laws banning BPA use in baby bottles, and petitions from public health NGOs for new product labels, warnings, and temporary bans on specific uses of BPA.

The intertwined policy developments and evolving science on BPA’s toxicology have created a difficult environment for FDA to communicate a clear statement to the public about the health concerns connected to BPA. But slow reactions to experts’ warnings on public health threats have plagued FDA in recent years (e.g., suicides linked to antidepressants, dangers posed by children’s use of over-the-counter cough and cold medicines). The BPA review presents an opportunity for FDA to show it can be on the leading edge for a change.

Given your strong coverage of BPA, I think you'll find EWG's new biomonitoring report interesting and relevant (released it 12/2/09). We tested the cord blood of 10 infants in racial and ethnic minority groups, and found a number of previously undetected chemicals, BPA among them. You can read the full report here: http://bit.ly/8pJLLs. Or (if you're like me and eternally short on time...) head straight for the 3-page Exec Summary, FAQ, or our Healthy Pregnancy Tips! Feel free to get in touch with me: lisa@ewg.org.
— Lisa Frack
We ask for your email address so that we may follow up with you, ask you to clarify your comment in some way, or perhaps alert you to someone else's response. Only the name you supply and your comment will be displayed on the site to the public. Our blog is a forum for the exchange of ideas, and we hope to foster intelligent, interesting and respectful discussion. We do not apply an ideological screen, however, we reserve the right to remove blog posts we deem inappropriate for any reason, but particularly for language that we deem to be in the nature of a personal attack or otherwise offensive. If we remove a comment you've posted, and you want to know why, ask us (info@progressivereform.org) and we will tell you. If you see a post you regard as offensive, please let us know.

Also from Matt Shudtz

Matthew Shudtz, J.D., is the Executive Director of the Center for Progressive Reform. He joined CPR in 2006 as policy analyst, after graduating law school with a certificate in environmental law.

The Center for Progressive Reform

2021 L St NW, #101-330
Washington, DC. 20036

© Center for Progressive Reform, 2015