State EPA plans to list BPA as harmful Environment

A chemical widely used in plastics and believed to harm fetuses and infants is on track to being declared a reproductive hazard in California, a state agency said Friday.

The move by an arm of the state's Environmental Protection Agency means the compound, bisphenol A, could soon be listed under Proposition 65. Manufacturers would ultimately be required to include warning labels on products with hazardous amounts of BPA.

"We think it's been a long time coming and we're happy that it's happening," said Sarah Janssen, a senior scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental advocacy group.

Since the 1960s, bisphenol A has been present in plastic bottles, the linings of canned food, dental sealants and receipts made of thermal paper.

A 30-day comment period, beginning immediately, must lapse before BPA becomes officially listed as a harmful chemical under Prop. 65. If it does, however, there won't necessarily be a flood of warning labels on canned goods and other products.

To merit a warning, a substance must exceed a predetermined level. But the amount of BPA found in the metal cans of food and beverages typically falls below the exposure level proposed by the state, 290 micrograms a day, Janssen said.

Little change at stores

"It helps to officially recognize BPA as a hazard," she said. "But what's it going to mean to somebody's shopping experience? Probably not much. You're probably not going to see a warning label for BPA on at least most consumer products. That doesn't necessarily mean they're safe."

Janssen said she did not know whether other traditionally BPA-laced items, such as register receipts, would qualify for warning labels.

On Friday, the state's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment cited findings that high doses of the chemical cause developmental toxicity in laboratory animals.

California has examined BPA before. A state panel of health experts considered declaring it a reproductive hazard in 2009, but ultimately said there wasn't enough scientific evidence to show it was harmful.

The move outraged health advocates, including the Natural Resources Defense Council, which petitioned the state to reconsider its position.

Report from 2008

This time, the state pointed to a 2008 report from the National Toxicology Program. In the report, the federal agency expressed concern about BPA's effects on development of the prostate gland and brain, and its behavioral effects in fetuses, infants and children.

Since then, a slew of new animal studies have suggested that BPA can harm the mammary glands, prostate tissue and brain. In addition to reproductive problems, multiple other studies have linked BPA to a predisposition to breast cancer, prostate cancer, behavioral changes, heart disease, diabetes and obesity.

But Steven Hentges of the American Chemistry Council, the chemical industry's main trade association, said, "The weight of scientific evidence does not support OEHHA's intention to list BPA under Prop. 65, and this action sharply contrasts with the results of the earlier assessment conducted by California's own scientific experts."

Maine extends ban

BPA has become increasingly controversial. Just last week, Maine extended its ban on infant formula and baby food containers with the chemical. Last year, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration banned BPA from baby bottles and children's drinking cups. Some states, including California, already had similar bans in place and many manufacturers had stopped using BPA in those products.

Even if a product is labeled "BPA-free," however, there's no guarantee it is safe to use. A study this month by the University of Texas linked low doses of a BPA alternative - bisphenol S - to estrogen disruption in animals.

Also Friday, a state panel voted to list two new carcinogens under Prop. 65: a textile dye and a chemical used in industrial processes. They join arsenic, formaldehyde, marijuana smoke and nearly 800 other hazardous chemicals that have been listed since 1986.