Contact: Kathryn St. John (202) 249-6513
WASHINGTON (April 12, 2013) – The American Chemistry Council (ACC) today announced it will continue to move forward with its law suit to overturn the state of California’s decision, announced late yesterday, to include BPA on its Proposition 65 list of reproductive toxicants.
“We strongly disagree with California's decision to move forward with listing BPA under Proposition 65 and we will continue with our legal efforts to overturn this action. The state’s decision to list BPA circumvents its own scientific process by permitting administrative staff to ignore a unanimous conclusion by the state’s own panel of scientific experts, which reviewed the same evidence and determined that BPA should not be listed under Proposition 65,” said Steven G. Hentges, Ph.D., of the American Chemistry Council’s (ACC) Polycarbonate/BPA Global Group. “Just two weeks ago, FDA's updated its scientific position stating that ‘BPA is safe at the very low levels that occur in some foods.’”
“The state is ignoring its own panel of scientific experts, which completely undermines the scientific review process that citizens and businesses have relied upon for many years. Respected California scientists, appointed by the governor, thoroughly reviewed the very report cited now by OEHHA, and unanimously concluded that it did not justify listing BPA. Because the regulatory and scientific process has been derailed, we will continue to pursue legal action,” said Hentges.
About Bisphenol A (BPA)
The consensus of major government agencies around the world, including the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, European Food Safety Authority, Japanese National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology and the World Health Organization supports the safety of BPA in food contact materials.
Plastics made with BPA contribute safety and convenience to our daily lives because of their durability, clarity and shatter-resistance. Can liners and food-storage containers made with BPA are essential components to helping protect the safety of packaged foods and preserving products from spoilage and contamination.
About the ACC Legal Suit
A Proposition 65 listing is not a determination about safety of a substance and as OEHHA states it “does not ban or restrict the use of any given chemical.” However, inclusion on the Proposition 65 list creates marketplace confusion and can result in beneficial chemicals, such as BPA, being unnecessary eliminated from products, affecting important performance and durability aspects, not based on science and providing no public health benefits.
Based on its own detailed evaluation, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment’s (OEHHA) scientific panel, the Developmental and Reproductive Toxicant Identification Committee (DART-IC), unanimously concluded in July 2009 that BPA does not satisfy the listing criteria for developmental toxicants under Proposition 65. The committee extensively reviewed a 2008 report on BPA from the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP), which is the sole document now cited by OEHHA to justify its decision to list BPA.
Additionally, the DART-IC conclusion is consistent with the views of more than 20 experts who have reviewed the science on BPA.
ACC filed a complaint seeking to stop the listing from moving forward in Sacramento County Superior Court. Among other things, the complaint asserts that OEHHA’s proposal conflicts with the reasoned judgment of the state’s scientific experts who were appointed by the governor, and that OEHHA’s conclusions that the 2008 NTP report supports a Proposition 65 listing misinterprets the report and is contrary to OEHHA’s own regulations.
Polycarbonate/BPA Global Group of ACC | Facts About BPA | Bisphenol-A.org