After what many concerned consumers, health and environmental advocates labeled a major victory, California must now remove BPA (bisphenol-A) from its list of chemicals known to cause reproductive issues.
Otherwise known as Proposition 65, California added BPA to its well-known list of items with health risks after scores of studies pointed to its risks. A 2008 report by the National Toxicology Program found exposure to BPA to be connected with developmental problems.
Filed in March by the American Chemistry Council on behalf of the industry, the suit alleged that not enough data exists to classify BPA as toxic to humans. “We do not believe there is a scientific basis for including BPA on the Proposition 65 list, and we look forward to our case being heard on the merits sometime this summer,” said Steven G. Hentges, head of ACC’s Polycarbonate/BPA Global Group.
Several countries including China, Canada and France have banned BPA because of the perceived risks, and the FDA ruled it must be removed from certain baby items including bottles and sippy cups.
BPA is a plastic polymer widely used in the food industry. It’s found in bottles and the lining of canned foods and drinks. It’s also found in register receipts and household items. An industry-led lawsuit challenged California’s Prop 65 designation.
Manufacturers including soup giant, Campbell’s, have begun replacing BPA in products in response to concerned consumers and pressure from advocacy groups. Both Pepsi and Coca-Cola have stated that not enough evidence exists to warrant removing BPA from soda cans.
Keep in touch with Jill on Twitter @jillettinger