Toxic Plastics?

In 2008, Health Canada, the Canadian health service, issued a new report concluding that bisphenol A, or BPA, a chemical found in numerous plastic products was potentially toxic to humans, especially infants. It also took steps to ban certain baby bottles from the marketplace. Canada became the first country in the world to limit exposure to bisphenol A. The same month, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) decided to conduct further studies on bisphenol A. These events may mark a dramatic change in official categorization and treatment of the chemical after decades of scientific and public debate. It may also result in new litigation across the country.

A Look at BPA

Bisphenol A, or BPA, is an industrial chemical formed by an acidic reaction between acetone and phenol. It is a polycarbonate plastic that is easily molded, temperature resistant, impact resistant, and highly transparent ' although not scratch-resistant. These properties make it a top choice in the plastics world, including for use in injection molding and extrusions. It is also used in epoxy resins. Global production of this chemical was estimated to be three billion kilograms in 2003 alone, including approximately one billion kilograms in the United States.

Bisphenol A is found in a range of consumer products, including baby bottles, water bottles, food storage containers, plastic tableware, plastic toys, iPods and Mac computers, eyeglasses, CDs and DVDs, hockey helmets and other sports equipment, car headlights and bumpers. It is also used as a protective coating in metal food and beverage containers, including infant formula containers. Medical applications include dental sealants, blood oxygenators, incubators and respirators. Bisphenol A has been found in ground water, surface water, waste water, sewage and other open environments, despite rapid degradation in oxygenated environments, suggesting that the chemical is so widespread as to create a constant environmental presence. It is acutely toxic to aquatic organisms.

The concern presented by bisphenol A is not from direct contact, but from leaching. Bisphenol A may leach from food and beverage containers and other consumer products into the human body through ingestion or possibly other types of contact. For instance, babies drinking infant formula in baby bottles may be exposed to bisphenol A as it leaches into the formula from the original container, and as it leaches from the baby bottle into the formula as the baby is being fed. The chemical leaching may be promoted by hot liquids in the baby bottle, or by heating the baby bottle itself. Although dietary intake is the main source of exposure, other human exposures may arise from ambient air, drinking water, soil and dust.

Bisphenol A has been in the news for the past several years, ever since molecular biologist Patricia Hunt of Case Western Reserve University performed a study on mice. In that study, the control group mice cells showed a huge spike in chromosomal abnormalities, which were eventually traced to degrading plastic in their cages after the cages were cleaned and replaced with fresh material (Current Biology, April 2003). Frederick vom Saal at University of Missouri at Columbia performed extensive research on the chemical, and determined that low doses of exposure to the chemical during egg cell or fetal development or in early life can have profound impacts. Bisphenol A is considered by some scientists to be an endocrine disrupter, potentially interfering with human hormone functions including egg cell production, reproductive organ processes and fat cell development.

For the legal community, bisphenol A has already spawned litigation across the country. Cases are pending in at least seven states against manufacturers and retailers of plastic baby bottles and water bottles. A motion for centralization to the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation is pending. (MDL No. 1967, In re Bisphenol-A (BPA) Polycarbonate Plastic Products Liability Litigation, July 31, 2008 hearing).

The issue has also reached mass media. NBC's Today Show aired a consumer alert on April 9, 2008, warning against plastics and bisphenol A. On April 22, 2008, USA Today ran an editorial entitled “'Everywhere Chemical' Warrants More Scrutiny,” calling for more government study and intervention on bisphenol A.

There are at least three distinct perspectives on bisphenol A, from the government regulators, industry and consumer groups.

Government Perspectives

On Nov. 29, 2006, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) adopted an opinion on bisphenol A, finding that the No Observable Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL) for bisphenol A was 5,000 micrograms per kilogram of bodyweight per day. However, it increased the Tolerable Daily Intake from 10 micrograms per kilogram of bodyweight per day, adopted in 2003, to 50 'g/kg bw/day. The five-fold increase in the Tolerable Daily Intake was based on additional repeated-dose toxicity studies in rodents and new comparisons of toxicokinetics in primates and humans versus rodents. In other words, the EFSA obtained more data on toxicity and also obtained data suggesting that humans process more and retain less bisphenol A than rodents. The EFSA estimated that the conservative average bisphenol A dietary exposure for a three-month-old infant consuming formula in a bisphenol A bottle is 11 micrograms per kilogram of bodyweight per day. Infant exposure peaks at 13 'g/kg bw/day for a six-month-old infant consuming formula in a bisphenol A bottle and commercial food and beverages. An 18-month-old baby consuming two kilograms of commercial food and beverages is exposed to 5.3 'g/kg bw/day Bisphenol A, while an adult consuming three kilos of commercial food and beverages is exposed to 1.5 'g/kg bw/day. Based on the EFSA findings, infant exposure previously exceeded the Tolerable Daily Intake, but now reaches just 26% of the Tolerable Daily Intake.

The Health Canada's report found that bisphenol A was a danger to human life and health, specifically infants. The draft screening assessment stated that the chemical “causes concern for human fertility based on sufficient evidence of reproductive toxicity in experimental animals.” Additionally, the draft assessment stated that “[limited] studies provide evidence that exposure to bisphenol A during gestation and early postnatal life may be affecting neural development and some aspects of behaviour in rodents.” Human exposure estimates range from 0.08 to 4.30 'g/kg bw/day, including average newborn (0-1 month) exposure estimated at 0.50 'g/kg bw/day with a maximum exposure of 4.30, and infant (12-18-month-old) exposure estimated at 0.27 'g/kg bw/day with a maximum exposure of 1.75. Based on these exposure rates, Health Canada recommended that plastic baby bottles containing the chemical be removed from the marketplace and that infant caregivers cease using them. Health Canada also began working with the manufacturers of infant formula to eliminate the chemical from all formula containers. The review was conducted as part of Health Canada's 2006 Chemicals Management Plan, a priority review of approximately 200 chemicals and additional reviews on many more chemicals used in industrial and consumer applications. Bisphenol A was one of the first chemicals on which Health Canada took steps to limit human exposure.

The FDA formed a task force in April 2008 to study bisphenol A in all FDA-regulated products. This was done in response to the National Toxicology Program's (NTP) Draft Brief and Health Canada's draft screening assessment. The NTP, a part of the National Institutes of Health, issued a draft brief on April 14, 2008 (notably, at the same time the FDA established the new task force) declaring that “FDA-regulated products containing BPA currently on the market are safe and that exposure levels to BPA from food contact materials, including for infants and children, are below those that may cause health effects.” This conclusion was based on findings of the European Food Safety Authority Scientific Panel on Food Additives and the Japanese National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology. Most recently, in June 2008, the FDA set up a subcommittee of its Science Board to assess BPA. The subcommittee was to hold a public meeting, review the task force's report, and deliver its findings.

The NTP's Draft Brief, issued on April 14, 2008, found that bisphenol A may possibly affect human reproduction and early development, stating “[a]lthough there is no direct evidence that exposure of people to bisphenol A adversely affects reproduction or development, studies with laboratory rodents show that exposure to high dose levels of bisphenol A during pregnancy and/or lactation can reduce survival, birth weight and growth of offspring early in life, and delay the onset of puberty in males and females.” NTP went on to state, “[i]n addition to effects on survival and growth seen at high dose levels of bisphenol A, a variety of effects related to neural and behavior alterations, precancerous lesions in the prostate and mammary glands, altered prostate gland and urinary tract development, and early onset of puberty in females have been reported in laboratory rodents exposed during development to much lower doses of bisphenol A that are more similar to human exposures.” The NTP found that the limited human studies supported a finding of hormonal effects due to bisphenol A. It estimated human exposure to bisphenol A is 0.0008-1.5 'g/kg bw/day in adults, 0.043-14.7 'g/kg bw/day in toddlers and children up to 6 years old, 1.65-13 'g/kg bw/day in infants age 6-12 months, and 1-11 'g/kg bw/day in formula-fed infants age 0 to 6 months.

In 2004, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's biomonitoring study found that 95% of Americans had bisphenol A in their urine.

Industry Position

The plastics industry, specifically the Polycarbonate/BPA Global Group, consisting of the American Chemistry Council, PlasticsEurope and the Japan Chemical Industry Association, finds Bisphenol A perfectly safe for humans. The group's Web site (www.bisphenol-A.org) states:

For decades, polycarbonate plastic has been safely used to make baby bottles and reusable water bottles. The safety of these products has been supported by numerous science-based safety evaluations of bisphenol A that have been conducted by independent government and scientific bodies worldwide ' In spite of this strong scientific support, numerous myths, misinformation and scare stories about polycarbonate bottles continue to circulate.

This industry group points to several studies that support its position. First is the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' National Toxicology Program's 1982 study. This study, which involved feeding rats and mice a diet of various levels of the chemical, concluded that bisphenol A increased the incidence of leukemias, lymphomas, and interstitial-cell tumors of the testes, but not to a statistically significant level after adjusting for survival differences amongst the rodents and known high incidence rates of some of these conditions. The industry group's Web site does not cite the April 14, 2008 National Toxicology Program's Draft Brief (discussed above).

Another study cited is from the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis, and published in 2004 in Human and Ecological Risk Assessment. This study was a “study of studies” conducted before 2002 on low-dose exposure to bisphenol A, and concluded that “at this time, effects at very low oral doses have not been reliably established in multiple strains or species.” The study was based on bisphenol A exposures at well below the Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level of 50 mg/kg ' day established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Still another study cited is from Japan's National Institute of Health Sciences and published in 2002, in Reproductive Toxicology. This was another low-dose study, this time a two-generational study on reproductive systems, based on rat exposures of 0.2, 2, 20 and 200 ug/kg bw/day. The authors concluded that the only observable effects of bisphenol A exposure on rats at these levels were anogenital distance per cube root of body weight ratio changes in males and females. The changes, however, were not statistically significant.

The only pharmacokinetics study cited was sponsored and conducted by Dow Europe, Dow Chemical Company and Shell Chemical Company, and published in 2000, in Toxicological Sciences. Additionally, the industry cites two studies performed by GE Plastics supporting safety in human reproductive health.

Similarly, the American Plastics Council's Polycarbonate Business Unit points to industry-funded studies to support its position that bisphenol A is safe. The Council specifically cites a July 2002 study, funded by the Society of the Plastics Industry and published in Toxicological Science, which concluded that a three-generation, low dose rat study found no effect on reproduction or development.

The American Chemistry Council takes a different approach to supporting bisphenol A. On its Web site (www.factsonplastic.com), it responds to each news publication, study or government report relating to bisphenol A, and refutes all negative information about the chemical. The ACC's activity includes a letter response to the Today Show's consumer alert; blogs in response to USA Today's editorial; letters to the FDA, and a declaration that NTP's April 14, 2008 Draft Brief found “no serious or high level concerns for adverse effects of bisphenol A on human reproduction and development.”

Consumer Perspective

National Geographic's The Green Guide states, “If you consume canned soups, beans and soft drinks ' you also may be swallowing residues of a controversial chemical called bisphenol A (BPA) that can leak out of the can linings into your food ' Depending on whom you talk to, BPA is either perfectly safe or a dangerous health risk. The plastics industry says its harmless, but a growing number of scientists are concluding, from some animal tests, that exposure to BPA in the womb raises the risk of certain cancers, hampers fertility and could contribute to childhood behavioral problems such as hyperactivity.”

The Center for Health, Environment & Justice has an active campaign against bisphenol A, calling for an immediate moratorium on the use of bisphenol A in plastic baby bottles and other food and beverage containers. The group cites to Dr. vom Saal's findings to support its position.

The Environmental Working Group has actively opposed bisphenol A at the state and national level. The group's March 5, 2007 report found that “[o]f all foods tested, chicken soup, infant formula, and ravioli had BPA levels of highest concern. Just one to three servings of foods with these concentrations could expose a woman or child to BPA at levels that caused serious adverse effects in animal tests.”

Healthy Child Healthy World published a five-step program for healthy children. Step 5 recommended being wise with plastics. It stated “[s]ome petroleum-based plastics leach harmful chemicals into foods and drinks, especially when plastic comes in contact with oily or fatty foods, during heating or microwaving, as a result of harsh cleaners, and when exposed to excessive moisture.” The organization cited to studies linking bisphenol A and other plastics to harmful effects in children.

In addition to many consumer and health groups' recommendations to avoid bisphenol A, consumer product manufacturers are voluntarily eliminating the chemical from their products. Nalgene reusable water bottles and Camelbak water bags for backpacks are now being offered in bisphenol A-free versions. Glass baby bottles are now advertised as the preferred choice compared with bisphenol A plastic bottles. The marketplace is catching on to bisphenol A. In this respect, the state of the science may not matter if public and consumer opinion turns against the chemical.

Conclusion ' or Lack Thereof

Everyone agrees that humans are exposed to bisphenol A by consuming commercial food and beverages. However, the effects and risks of bisphenol A remain hotly disputed. Consumer groups and some governmental agencies regard the chemical as potentially toxic to at least some humans, particularly infants. Industry groups and other governmental agencies conclude that infants and adults are exposed to low levels of bisphenol A that do not pose a risk to human health. Most agree that more research is needed. Those concerned with human and reproductive health and development are waiting for a definitive answer. Meanwhile, more litigation is inevitable.

Heather J. Van Meter is an Associate in the Portland, OR, office of Williams Kastner PLLC. Her practice focuses on litigation with an emphasis on drug and medical device, product liability, and other complex cases. She has handled cases involving food and beverage products, medical devices, ladders, asbestos, tools, and construction products.

In 2008, Health Canada, the Canadian health service, issued a new report concluding that bisphenol A, or BPA, a chemical found in numerous plastic products was potentially toxic to humans, especially infants. It also took steps to ban certain baby bottles from the marketplace. Canada became the first country in the world to limit exposure to bisphenol A. The same month, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) decided to conduct further studies on bisphenol A. These events may mark a dramatic change in official categorization and treatment of the chemical after decades of scientific and public debate. It may also result in new litigation across the country.

A Look at BPA

Bisphenol A, or BPA, is an industrial chemical formed by an acidic reaction between acetone and phenol. It is a polycarbonate plastic that is easily molded, temperature resistant, impact resistant, and highly transparent ' although not scratch-resistant. These properties make it a top choice in the plastics world, including for use in injection molding and extrusions. It is also used in epoxy resins. Global production of this chemical was estimated to be three billion kilograms in 2003 alone, including approximately one billion kilograms in the United States.

Bisphenol A is found in a range of consumer products, including baby bottles, water bottles, food storage containers, plastic tableware, plastic toys, iPods and Mac computers, eyeglasses, CDs and DVDs, hockey helmets and other sports equipment, car headlights and bumpers. It is also used as a protective coating in metal food and beverage containers, including infant formula containers. Medical applications include dental sealants, blood oxygenators, incubators and respirators. Bisphenol A has been found in ground water, surface water, waste water, sewage and other open environments, despite rapid degradation in oxygenated environments, suggesting that the chemical is so widespread as to create a constant environmental presence. It is acutely toxic to aquatic organisms.

The concern presented by bisphenol A is not from direct contact, but from leaching. Bisphenol A may leach from food and beverage containers and other consumer products into the human body through ingestion or possibly other types of contact. For instance, babies drinking infant formula in baby bottles may be exposed to bisphenol A as it leaches into the formula from the original container, and as it leaches from the baby bottle into the formula as the baby is being fed. The chemical leaching may be promoted by hot liquids in the baby bottle, or by heating the baby bottle itself. Although dietary intake is the main source of exposure, other human exposures may arise from ambient air, drinking water, soil and dust.

Bisphenol A has been in the news for the past several years, ever since molecular biologist Patricia Hunt of Case Western Reserve University performed a study on mice. In that study, the control group mice cells showed a huge spike in chromosomal abnormalities, which were eventually traced to degrading plastic in their cages after the cages were cleaned and replaced with fresh material (Current Biology, April 2003). Frederick vom Saal at University of Missouri at Columbia performed extensive research on the chemical, and determined that low doses of exposure to the chemical during egg cell or fetal development or in early life can have profound impacts. Bisphenol A is considered by some scientists to be an endocrine disrupter, potentially interfering with human hormone functions including egg cell production, reproductive organ processes and fat cell development.

For the legal community, bisphenol A has already spawned litigation across the country. Cases are pending in at least seven states against manufacturers and retailers of plastic baby bottles and water bottles. A motion for centralization to the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation is pending. (MDL No. 1967, In re Bisphenol-A (BPA) Polycarbonate Plastic Products Liability Litigation, July 31, 2008 hearing).

The issue has also reached mass media. NBC's Today Show aired a consumer alert on April 9, 2008, warning against plastics and bisphenol A. On April 22, 2008, USA Today ran an editorial entitled “'Everywhere Chemical' Warrants More Scrutiny,” calling for more government study and intervention on bisphenol A.

There are at least three distinct perspectives on bisphenol A, from the government regulators, industry and consumer groups.

Government Perspectives

On Nov. 29, 2006, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) adopted an opinion on bisphenol A, finding that the No Observable Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL) for bisphenol A was 5,000 micrograms per kilogram of bodyweight per day. However, it increased the Tolerable Daily Intake from 10 micrograms per kilogram of bodyweight per day, adopted in 2003, to 50 'g/kg bw/day. The five-fold increase in the Tolerable Daily Intake was based on additional repeated-dose toxicity studies in rodents and new comparisons of toxicokinetics in primates and humans versus rodents. In other words, the EFSA obtained more data on toxicity and also obtained data suggesting that humans process more and retain less bisphenol A than rodents. The EFSA estimated that the conservative average bisphenol A dietary exposure for a three-month-old infant consuming formula in a bisphenol A bottle is 11 micrograms per kilogram of bodyweight per day. Infant exposure peaks at 13 'g/kg bw/day for a six-month-old infant consuming formula in a bisphenol A bottle and commercial food and beverages. An 18-month-old baby consuming two kilograms of commercial food and beverages is exposed to 5.3 'g/kg bw/day Bisphenol A, while an adult consuming three kilos of commercial food and beverages is exposed to 1.5 'g/kg bw/day. Based on the EFSA findings, infant exposure previously exceeded the Tolerable Daily Intake, but now reaches just 26% of the Tolerable Daily Intake.

The Health Canada's report found that bisphenol A was a danger to human life and health, specifically infants. The draft screening assessment stated that the chemical “causes concern for human fertility based on sufficient evidence of reproductive toxicity in experimental animals.” Additionally, the draft assessment stated that “[limited] studies provide evidence that exposure to bisphenol A during gestation and early postnatal life may be affecting neural development and some aspects of behaviour in rodents.” Human exposure estimates range from 0.08 to 4.30 'g/kg bw/day, including average newborn (0-1 month) exposure estimated at 0.50 'g/kg bw/day with a maximum exposure of 4.30, and infant (12-18-month-old) exposure estimated at 0.27 'g/kg bw/day with a maximum exposure of 1.75. Based on these exposure rates, Health Canada recommended that plastic baby bottles containing the chemical be removed from the marketplace and that infant caregivers cease using them. Health Canada also began working with the manufacturers of infant formula to eliminate the chemical from all formula containers. The review was conducted as part of Health Canada's 2006 Chemicals Management Plan, a priority review of approximately 200 chemicals and additional reviews on many more chemicals used in industrial and consumer applications. Bisphenol A was one of the first chemicals on which Health Canada took steps to limit human exposure.

The FDA formed a task force in April 2008 to study bisphenol A in all FDA-regulated products. This was done in response to the National Toxicology Program's (NTP) Draft Brief and Health Canada's draft screening assessment. The NTP, a part of the National Institutes of Health, issued a draft brief on April 14, 2008 (notably, at the same time the FDA established the new task force) declaring that “FDA-regulated products containing BPA currently on the market are safe and that exposure levels to BPA from food contact materials, including for infants and children, are below those that may cause health effects.” This conclusion was based on findings of the European Food Safety Authority Scientific Panel on Food Additives and the Japanese National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology. Most recently, in June 2008, the FDA set up a subcommittee of its Science Board to assess BPA. The subcommittee was to hold a public meeting, review the task force's report, and deliver its findings.

The NTP's Draft Brief, issued on April 14, 2008, found that bisphenol A may possibly affect human reproduction and early development, stating “[a]lthough there is no direct evidence that exposure of people to bisphenol A adversely affects reproduction or development, studies with laboratory rodents show that exposure to high dose levels of bisphenol A during pregnancy and/or lactation can reduce survival, birth weight and growth of offspring early in life, and delay the onset of puberty in males and females.” NTP went on to state, “[i]n addition to effects on survival and growth seen at high dose levels of bisphenol A, a variety of effects related to neural and behavior alterations, precancerous lesions in the prostate and mammary glands, altered prostate gland and urinary tract development, and early onset of puberty in females have been reported in laboratory rodents exposed during development to much lower doses of bisphenol A that are more similar to human exposures.” The NTP found that the limited human studies supported a finding of hormonal effects due to bisphenol A. It estimated human exposure to bisphenol A is 0.0008-1.5 'g/kg bw/day in adults, 0.043-14.7 'g/kg bw/day in toddlers and children up to 6 years old, 1.65-13 'g/kg bw/day in infants age 6-12 months, and 1-11 'g/kg bw/day in formula-fed infants age 0 to 6 months.

In 2004, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's biomonitoring study found that 95% of Americans had bisphenol A in their urine.

Industry Position

The plastics industry, specifically the Polycarbonate/BPA Global Group, consisting of the American Chemistry Council, PlasticsEurope and the Japan Chemical Industry Association, finds Bisphenol A perfectly safe for humans. The group's Web site (www.bisphenol-A.org) states:

For decades, polycarbonate plastic has been safely used to make baby bottles and reusable water bottles. The safety of these products has been supported by numerous science-based safety evaluations of bisphenol A that have been conducted by independent government and scientific bodies worldwide ' In spite of this strong scientific support, numerous myths, misinformation and scare stories about polycarbonate bottles continue to circulate.

This industry group points to several studies that support its position. First is the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' National Toxicology Program's 1982 study. This study, which involved feeding rats and mice a diet of various levels of the chemical, concluded that bisphenol A increased the incidence of leukemias, lymphomas, and interstitial-cell tumors of the testes, but not to a statistically significant level after adjusting for survival differences amongst the rodents and known high incidence rates of some of these conditions. The industry group's Web site does not cite the April 14, 2008 National Toxicology Program's Draft Brief (discussed above).

Another study cited is from the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis, and published in 2004 in Human and Ecological Risk Assessment. This study was a “study of studies” conducted before 2002 on low-dose exposure to bisphenol A, and concluded that “at this time, effects at very low oral doses have not been reliably established in multiple strains or species.” The study was based on bisphenol A exposures at well below the Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level of 50 mg/kg ' day established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Still another study cited is from Japan's National Institute of Health Sciences and published in 2002, in Reproductive Toxicology. This was another low-dose study, this time a two-generational study on reproductive systems, based on rat exposures of 0.2, 2, 20 and 200 ug/kg bw/day. The authors concluded that the only observable effects of bisphenol A exposure on rats at these levels were anogenital distance per cube root of body weight ratio changes in males and females. The changes, however, were not statistically significant.

The only pharmacokinetics study cited was sponsored and conducted by Dow Europe, Dow Chemical Company and Shell Chemical Company, and published in 2000, in Toxicological Sciences. Additionally, the industry cites two studies performed by GE Plastics supporting safety in human reproductive health.

Similarly, the American Plastics Council's Polycarbonate Business Unit points to industry-funded studies to support its position that bisphenol A is safe. The Council specifically cites a July 2002 study, funded by the Society of the Plastics Industry and published in Toxicological Science, which concluded that a three-generation, low dose rat study found no effect on reproduction or development.

The American Chemistry Council takes a different approach to supporting bisphenol A. On its Web site (www.factsonplastic.com), it responds to each news publication, study or government report relating to bisphenol A, and refutes all negative information about the chemical. The ACC's activity includes a letter response to the Today Show's consumer alert; blogs in response to USA Today's editorial; letters to the FDA, and a declaration that NTP's April 14, 2008 Draft Brief found “no serious or high level concerns for adverse effects of bisphenol A on human reproduction and development.”

Consumer Perspective

National Geographic's The Green Guide states, “If you consume canned soups, beans and soft drinks ' you also may be swallowing residues of a controversial chemical called bisphenol A (BPA) that can leak out of the can linings into your food ' Depending on whom you talk to, BPA is either perfectly safe or a dangerous health risk. The plastics industry says its harmless, but a growing number of scientists are concluding, from some animal tests, that exposure to BPA in the womb raises the risk of certain cancers, hampers fertility and could contribute to childhood behavioral problems such as hyperactivity.”

The Center for Health, Environment & Justice has an active campaign against bisphenol A, calling for an immediate moratorium on the use of bisphenol A in plastic baby bottles and other food and beverage containers. The group cites to Dr. vom Saal's findings to support its position.

The Environmental Working Group has actively opposed bisphenol A at the state and national level. The group's March 5, 2007 report found that “[o]f all foods tested, chicken soup, infant formula, and ravioli had BPA levels of highest concern. Just one to three servings of foods with these concentrations could expose a woman or child to BPA at levels that caused serious adverse effects in animal tests.”

Healthy Child Healthy World published a five-step program for healthy children. Step 5 recommended being wise with plastics. It stated “[s]ome petroleum-based plastics leach harmful chemicals into foods and drinks, especially when plastic comes in contact with oily or fatty foods, during heating or microwaving, as a result of harsh cleaners, and when exposed to excessive moisture.” The organization cited to studies linking bisphenol A and other plastics to harmful effects in children.

In addition to many consumer and health groups' recommendations to avoid bisphenol A, consumer product manufacturers are voluntarily eliminating the chemical from their products. Nalgene reusable water bottles and Camelbak water bags for backpacks are now being offered in bisphenol A-free versions. Glass baby bottles are now advertised as the preferred choice compared with bisphenol A plastic bottles. The marketplace is catching on to bisphenol A. In this respect, the state of the science may not matter if public and consumer opinion turns against the chemical.

Conclusion ' or Lack Thereof

Everyone agrees that humans are exposed to bisphenol A by consuming commercial food and beverages. However, the effects and risks of bisphenol A remain hotly disputed. Consumer groups and some governmental agencies regard the chemical as potentially toxic to at least some humans, particularly infants. Industry groups and other governmental agencies conclude that infants and adults are exposed to low levels of bisphenol A that do not pose a risk to human health. Most agree that more research is needed. Those concerned with human and reproductive health and development are waiting for a definitive answer. Meanwhile, more litigation is inevitable.

Heather J. Van Meter is an Associate in the Portland, OR, office of Williams Kastner PLLC. Her practice focuses on litigation with an emphasis on drug and medical device, product liability, and other complex cases. She has handled cases involving food and beverage products, medical devices, ladders, asbestos, tools, and construction products.