In April, we lauded the FDA for ignoring chemophobic hype when the agency refused to ban the use of bisphenol A (BPA) in food packaging, cans, and other consumer products. Despite activist pressure including a lawsuit by the Natural Resources Defense Council the FDA stuck to its scientific guns and determined that BPA posed no health threats to consumers.
Imagine our disappointment, then, to learn that the FDA yesterday banned BPA from baby bottles and sippy cups a decision that runs counter to the scientific evidence demonstrating that products containing the chemical are safe for toddlers and adults alike. And though the FDA does acknowledge that there are no data showing that BPA is dangerous, it instituted the ban anyway in an attempt to acknowledge the facts on the ground: that manufacturers had almost entirely abandoned using the chemical in products for infants and children. Moreover, the petition to ban BPA in those products was supported, indeed promoted, by the American Chemistry Council the trade association speaking for the chemical industry.
Though we acknowledge the FDA s delicate position it was stuck between a regulatory rock and the hard place of public sentiment we were nevertheless disappointed by their decision to ignore science and appeal to the interests of industry and agenda-driven activists. Banning a chemical simply for the sake of public relations, says ACSH s Dr. Gilbert Ross, is not okay. Just like the agency cannot kowtow to groups like NRDC, it should not cave to pressure from chemical manufacturers either. Despite being often disappointed, we continue to hope that the FDA will always stick strictly to the science.
"I wonder what the BPA critics think would be a safer lining for cans, etc.?" asks ACSH's Dr. Ruth Kava. "No other compound has been as widely tested or used not even close.
