Pulling out all the stops, the anti-BPA activists are hot under the collar to do something, anything to keep BPA-health scares in the Hollywood spotlight. So, consistent with and possibly prodded by the activists’ agenda, once again OEHHA is operating out-of-sync with the scientific consensus of the U.S. federal government regulators at FDA and other government agencies across the globe. OEHHA has announced, yet again, that they are putting BPA on the agenda to be considered for listing on Proposition 65, despite past unanimous scientific conclusions that it should not be listed.
Let’s take a look at all the clear scientific conclusions on the safety of BPA just in the last few months: The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have both, recently, completed assessment concluding that BPA is safe for use in consumer products for people of all ages, including unborn children and infants. How could it be more clear?
In light of these conclusions from EFSA and the FDA, how does it make sense for the State of California again intends to evaluate whether BPA should be listed as a reproductive toxicant under Proposition 65?
New scientific data cited by OEHHA as the justification for a new evaluation has recently been reviewed by these prominent government bodies. For example, in January 2015 EFSA concluded that ‘BPA poses no health risk to consumers of any age group (including unborn children, infants and adolescents) at current exposure levels.’ Similarly, in November 2014 the FDA updated its assessment of BPA and concluded that ‘FDA’s current perspective, based on its most recent safety assessment, is that BPA is safe at the current levels occurring in foods.’
Yet, BPA continues to be the “cause célèbre” of anti-chemical activists and the sympathetic regulators in California.