share

Court Order: BPA Must Be Removed from Proposition 65 List in California


Contact: Kathryn St. John (202) 249-6513  
Email: Kathryn_StJohn@americanchemistry.com

WASHINGTON (April 19, 2013)Today, California courts ordered the state Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) to immediately remove BPA from its Proposition 65 list. The preliminary injunction to halt the listing was effective immediately. The American Chemistry Council will continue to move forward with its lawsuit to halt the agency’s efforts to include BPA on the list.

“We do not believe there is a scientific basis for including BPA on the Proposition 65 list and we look forward to our case being heard on the merits sometime this summer,” said Steven G. Hentges, Ph.D., of the American Chemistry Council’s (ACC) Polycarbonate/BPA Global Group.

“Just three weeks ago FDA updated its scientific position on BPA stating that ‘BPA is safe at the very low levels that occur in some foods,’” Hentges said.

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

In March, ACC filed a complaint in Sacramento County Superior Court seeking to stop the Prop 65 listing, but on April 11, OEHHA moved forward and listed BPA.  The ruling today requires the state to immediately remove BPA from the list until there is a final determination on the ACC lawsuit, expected to be heard sometime this summer.

Among other things, ACC’s suit asserts that OEHHA’s proposal conflicts with the reasoned judgment of the state’s scientific experts who were appointed by the governor.  ACC asserts that when OEHHA moved forward through an administrative process to list BPA, its conclusions that the 2008 U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) report supports a Proposition 65 listing misinterprets the NTP report. OEHHA’s scientific panel, the Developmental and Reproductive Toxicant Identification Committee (DART-IC), had unanimously concluded in July 2009 that BPA does not satisfy the listing criteria for developmental toxicants under Proposition 65.  That scientific committee extensively reviewed the same 2008 NTP report, as well as other scientific evidence on BPA, and determined it should not be listed.  ACC’s suit questions OEHHA’s BPA listing based on the 2008 NTP report, which was rejected as sufficient for listing by its own scientific panel.

Additionally, the DART-IC scientific conclusion is consistent with the views of more than 20 experts who have reviewed the science on BPA.

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 Prop 65 list creates marketplace confusion and can result in beneficial chemicals, such as BPA, being unnecessarily eliminated from products, affecting important performance and durability aspects, not based on science and providing no public health benefits.

Polycarbonate/BPA Global Group of ACC | Facts About BPA | Bisphenol-A.org

From: 
Email:  
To: 
Email:  
Subject: 
Message: