View source

===United States===
====April 2008====
As of the release of NTP and Health Canada reports in April, 10 U.S. states, including [[California]],<ref>[http://www.legislature.ca.gov/cgi-bin/port-postquery?bill_number=sb_1713&sess=CUR&house=B&author=migden Bill List<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> [[Maryland]],<ref name="WaPo"/> [[Connecticut]]<ref name='courant'>{{Citation  | last = Weil  | first = William  | title = Debate In A Bottle | newspaper = Hartford Courant  | year = 2008  | date = April 23, 2008  | url = http://www.courant.com/features/lifestyle/green/hc-bottled.art0apr23,0,5170837.story  | format = {{Dead link|date=June 2008}} &ndash; <sup>[http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=author%3AWeil+intitle%3ADebate+In+A+Bottle&as_publication=&as_ylo=2008&as_yhi=2008&btnG=Search Scholar search]</sup>}}.</ref> and [[New Jersey]],<ref>{{Citation  | title = Momentum Builds to End BPA in Plastics  | newspaper = NewsInferno.com   | date = April 22, 2008 | url = http://www.newsinferno.com/archives/2955}}.</ref> already had legislation pending that would affect the use of BPA. In the wake of these reports, [[U.S. Senator]] [[Charles Schumer]] ([[Democratic Party (United States)|D]]–[[New York State|N.Y.]]) introduced legislation that would ban bisphenol A nationally from products for infants.<ref name="WaPo"/> In addition, the U.S. Congress is investigating the [[Weinberg Group]], a chemical industry consulting firm, for its role in downplaying the health effects of bisphenol A and other chemicals,<ref>[http://cspinet.org/integrity/watch/200802111.html#5 Congressional Probe Targets Consulting Group], ''Integrity in Science Watch'', [[Center for Science in the Public Interest]], 02/11/2008.</ref> and the [[Energy and Commerce Committee]] in the [[United States House of Representatives|House of Representatives]] is investigating the use of BPA in baby products as well as the FDA's approval of the chemical. In asking the FDA to reassess its approval of bisphenol A, committee chairman [[Bart Stupak]] ([[Democratic Party (United States)|D]]–[[Michigan|Mich.]]) said "We would expect the FDA to make decisions based on the best available science…Yet the FDA relied on only two industry-funded studies, while other respected authorities used all available data to reach vastly different conclusions." The FDA maintained that bisphenol A is safe and did not recommend that people avoid using products made from it. The [[Consumer Product Safety Commission]] agreed, and its deputy director stressed that use of bisphenol A based plastics has many practical benefits and that "a ban could result in less effective protection of children from head, eye, or bodily injury."<ref name=C&ENews/> FDA then announced it would set up a task force to address these concerns, and in August it released a draft finding<ref>[http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/08/briefing/2008-0038b1_01_02_FDA%20BPA%20Draft%20Assessment.pdf DRAFT ASSESSMENT OF BISPHENOL A FOR USE IN
FOOD CONTACT APPLICATIONS], US Food and Drug Administration, undated.</ref> concurring with its initial position that the chemical is safe. The agency will make its final decision after an advisory panel on the issues is convened in September.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/16/AR2008081600754.html|title=Health Highlights: Aug. 16, 2008|date=August 16, 2008|publisher=Washington Post|accessdate=2008-08-17}}</ref>

In response to these events, an [[American Chemistry Council]] (ACC)/BPA Global Group (an industry trade association) spokesman said, “The weight of scientific evidence, as assessed by Health Canada and other agencies around the world, provides reassurance that consumers can continue to safely use products made from bisphenol A."<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/04/18/ST2008041803545.html Canada bans BPA plastic from baby bottles], ''The Washington Post'', Apr. 19, 2008 .</ref> The ACC said that bisphenol A does not pose a risk to consumers and called on the [[Food and Drug Administration]] to review the chemical. The ACC also called the media coverage of the controversy "unnecessarily confusing and frightening the public."<ref name='courant'/> The [[Grocery Manufacturers Association]] also insisted that bisphenol A is safe, and argues that "Data purporting to demonstrate 'low' dose effects on the male reproductive system by BPA have not been successfully replicated and, therefore, are not credible to estimate human health risks and safety in light of the weight of a large body of evidence to the contrary."<ref>{{cite news   | title = Canada Could Ban Baby Bottles Containing Bisphenol A  | publisher = Environment News Service  | date = 2008-04-22  | url = http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2008/2008-04-22-05.asp  | accessdate = 2008-04-24 }}</ref> A spokesman for the [[tin can]] industry said that without lining cans with bisphenol A based resins, ''[[E. coli]]'' and botulism poisoning would be "rampant."<ref name=C&ENews/>

====September 2008====
In September, the NTP finalized their report on bisphenol A, finding "some concern" that infants were at risk from exposure to the chemical.<ref name=NTP08/> At the same time, the FDA reassured consumers that it was safe, but convened an outside panel of experts to review the issue. The [[Bisphenol_A#The_Lang_Study|Lang study]] was also released that month, and David Melzer, a co-author of the study, presented the results of the study before the FDA panel.<ref name="WaPoDos">{{cite news|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/09/16/ST2008091601215.html?sid=ST2008091601215&s_pos=list|title=Study Links Chemical BPA to Health Problems|last=Layton|first=Lindsey|date=September 16, 2008|publisher=Washington Post|pages=A03|accessdate=2008-09-17}}</ref>

The editorial accompanying the Lang study's publication in ''JAMA'' criticized the FDA's assessment of bisphenol A: "A fundamental problem is that the current ADI [acceptable daily intake] for BPA is based on experiments conducted in the early 1980s using outdated methods (only very high doses were tested) and insensitive assays. More recent findings from independent scientists were rejected by the FDA, apparently because those investigators did not follow the outdated testing guidelines for environmental chemicals, whereas studies using the outdated, insensitive assays (predominantly involving studies funded by the chemical industry) are given more weight in arriving at the conclusion that BPA is not harmful at current exposure levels."<ref name=JAMAVS/>

The [[Union of Concerned Scientists]] similarly criticized the agency saying, "We're concerned that the FDA is basing its conclusion on two studies while downplaying the results of hundreds of other studies...This appears to be a case of cherry-picking data with potentially high cost to human health."<ref name="WaPoDos"/> The chemical industry had earlier been criticized by Democrats and their allies.  David Michaels, who served in the [[Presidency of Bill Clinton|Clinton Administration]], told the ''Washington Post'' that "Tobacco figured this out, and essentially it's the same model … If you fight the science, you're able to postpone regulation and victim compensation, as well. As in this case, eventually the science becomes overwhelming. But if you can get five or 10 years of avoiding pollution control or production of chemicals, you've greatly increased your product."<ref name="WaPo"/> Diana Zuckerman, president of the National Research Center for Women and Families, also criticized the FDA stating "At the very least, the FDA should require a prominent warning on products made with BPA". <ref>Szabo, Liz. "[http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2008-09-16-bpa-fda_N.htm Scientists, FDA face off over safety of BPA in consumer plastics]". ''''USA Today'''. September 17, 2008. Retrieved October 29, 2008</ref>

In contrast, the American Chemistry Council, the manufacturing industry's lobby group, was skeptical of the latest study: "Due to inherent limitations in study design, this new study cannot support a conclusion that bisphenol A causes any disease...The weight of scientific evidence continues to support the conclusion of governments worldwide that bisphenol A is not a significant health concern at the trace levels present in some consumer products."<ref name="WaPoDos"/>