CA Panel Decides BPA not Toxic
In California this week, a science advisory panel declared in a unanimous ruling that BPA should not be listed as a female or male reproductive or developmental toxicant. The science advisory panel in this case is the Developmental and Reproductive Toxicant (DART) Identification Committee and their job is to advise regulators in the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) on what chemicals should be put on a list.
The list in question is called Proposition 65, which was established by the state’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986. Proposition 65 demands that the state publish a list of chemicals known to cause developmental and reproductive toxicity.
The list currently includes 775 chemicals and must be updated at least once a year.It requires businesses to notify Californians about significant amounts of chemicals in their products, in their homes, in their workplaces, and in their environment by labeling, posting signs, distributing notices, or publishing notices in a newspaper. The list also prohibits companies from knowingly discharging any of the chemicals on the list into sources of drinking water.
Scientists employed by the OEHHA actually made a strong case for listing BPA on Proposition 65 as a danger to human health, using dozens of studies that found BPA impairs normal development of male and female reproductive systems. However, the DART panel is made up of political appointees who do not necessarily have a research or science background. They have only voted to list one chemical over the past three years in Proposition 65 and their assessment of BPA focused only on harm during pregnancy, ignoring evidence of early life exposures, and even though they were instructed not to take into account the exposure level needed to cause harm, they did. Ironically, the California State Senate has already approved a ban on BPA and the state assembly is expected to vote on the bill this fall. In fact, more that 20 states and municipalities have or are considering restrictions on the use of BPA in children’s products and other food packaging marketed for children.
