Canned goods and plastic drinking bottles are just among the commonly used items that contain the chemical bisphenol-A, also known as BPA.
Soon, these BPA-containing products that are distributed in California might be required to have a label that discloses one of the harmful effects associated with the chemical: reproductive harm to women.
A decision made by a board of scientific experts on Thursday will have BPA included in the list of chemicals that can cause harm. The Developmental and Reproductive Toxicant Identification Committee (DART-IC) decided to add BPA to the Proposition 65 list, a move that contradicts the statements from scientists and the U.S. government that the chemical does not pose reproductive threats to humans.
Proposition 65 has set up a system through which chemicals that are found to cause reproductive or development problems need to be disclosed regardless if they are present in the construction of building, in consumer products and used in other means.
The move is the latest in a long-time dispute between the chemical industry, which claims that the substance is safe, and state experts.
Steven Hentges, from the Polycarbonate/BPA Global Group of the American Chemistry Council said that they strongly disagree with the decision to list the chemical as a female reproductive toxicant under Proposition 65.
"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," Hentges said in a statement. "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.'"
Center for Accountability in Science chief science officer Joseph Perrone similarly disagrees with the decision saying that the regulators just stir up unwanted fear about safe products.
The Natural Resources Defense Council, however, welcomed the decision describing it as a crucial step towards the protection of the health of the public.
Disclosure is not required for another year though, said California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment spokesman Sam Delson. A second state process would also have experts decide the level of chemical that can be considered harmful to the reproductive systems of women. A warming may not even be necessary if the amount of the chemical in bottles or cans is below the threshold.
Steven Depolo | Flickr
