The Oregonian is reporting that the state legislature has failed to enact a proposed ban on Bisphenol A (BPA), an industrial chemical present in many hard plastic bottles, including baby bottles and sippy cups. BPA is also found in many metal-based food and beverage cans. Recent studies indicate the chemical has an adverse effect on the brain, behavior, and prostate gland in fetuses, infants, and young children.
In a shift from its prior opinion that BPA is safe, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration now says that it is “taking reasonable steps to reduce human exposure to BPA in the food supply.” These steps include “supporting the industry’s actions to stop producing BPA-containing baby bottles and infant feeding cups for the U.S. market . . . .”
Half of the Oregon Senate, however, apparently concluded that such a step was unreasonable in this state. The Washington state legislature recently adopted a BPA ban with strong bipartisan majorities, joining an increasing number of states that have enacted laws banning BPA from baby and children’s products sold within their borders. Last year, for example, Connecticut and Minnesota banned BPA in food and drink containers intended for children 3 and younger. Chicago and Suffolk County, N.Y. passed similar laws. Canada has banned the chemical from baby bottles country wide.
Oregon’s senate, however, split 15-15. According to the Oregonian, opponents of the proposed ban feared that it “would be a first step toward banning BPA from the lining of canned products, which they said would hurt Oregon food processors because there aren’t adequate alternatives.”
The Oregon Environmental Council called the ban’s failure an example of “industry pressure [that] has triumphed over protecting the health of Oregon’s children.” There criticism appears well taken. Consumer demand has already compelled leading manufacturers to produce BPA-free products. Nalgene, for example, has explained that it will “transition our polycarbonate product line to Eastman Tritan™ copolyester. This product joins our family of bottles and containers made of various non-BPA materials such as HDPE, PP, LDPE and PET.” Other companies have similarly responded to consumer demand for BPA alternatives.
There would seem to be no reason to believe that Oregon companies could not find—or innovate—BPA-free packaging. The FDA appears to believe that eventual elimination of BPA is a reasonable precaution, and the agency has called for federal regulations allowing it to take greater control over BPA. FDA is reportedly working to facilitate the development of BPA alternatives for the linings of infant formula cans, and it has stated its support for efforts to replace BPA or minimize BPA levels in other food can linings.
Current BPA food contact uses were approved under federal food additive regulations issued more than 40 years ago. In failing to ban BPA from infant’s and children’s food containers sold in Oregon, the state legislature stumbled on what should have been an easy step forward.
If a defective or dangerous product has caused serious harm to you or loved ones, contact Portland personal injury lawyer and Oregon products liability attorney Dane Johnson. The Law Office of Dane E. Johnson offers a no-cost, no-obligation legal consultation. Call us toll free at (800) 714-3204, or use our online contact form.
Related Web Resources
Scott Learn, Oregon Senate Shoots Down Ban on BPA in Baby Bottles, Sippy Cups, Oregonian, Feb. 16, 2010.
Press Release, Oregon Environmental Council, Oregon Senate Rejects Bill to Ban Bisphenol A in Children’s Products (Feb. 16, 2010).
FDA, Update on Bisphenol A for Use in Food Contact Applications (Jan. 2010)
Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc., BPA and Nalgene
Comments on this entry are closed.