Money talks and BPA walks. BPA is a six billion dollar a year business and well protected. BPA has it's own trade association and is a member of the American Chemical Association which goes to court when it can't achieve it's goals by lobbying. BPA first came into the public's conscious in 2006 and the trade groups have successfully managed to diminish regulatory concern with their own studies and arguments. Bay area residents were the subject of BPA testing a few years back. The conclusions of the study done by scientists and doctors at UCSF disputes the conclusions of the industry flacks. The industry claims that the amounts from packaging etc are so small that they don't do harm and are quickly expelled from the body. The flaw in the argument as demonstrated by the UCSF study show that people often have the same level at all times because of REPEATED exposure during a single day. The Food and Drug Adminstration's policy is not to judge whether something is safe for food packaging but to wait and see if it is unsafe while in use. The FDA did not take BPA as serious threat until a study showed it caused increased impotence. Fortunately in California we have proposition 65 and under it's law and operation, bpa was palced on the toxic list but wait . What regulation the American Chemical Association could not lobby away -- they clog up the courts and get implementation delayed. BPA was first considered by the OEHHA Science Advisory Board's Developmental and Reproductive Toxicant (DART) Identification Committee at its July 15, 2009 meeting [the synopsis of the meeting is available at http://oehha.ca.gov/prop65/public_meetings/dart071509synop.html]. The DART Identification Committee determined that, based upon the current available scientific information, BPA has not been clearly shown to cause reproductive toxicity and requested OEHHA staff to evaluate BPA further for committee discussions at future meetings. On July 15, 2009, OEHHA received a petition [available at http://oehha.ca.gov/prop65/pdf/NRDC_BPA100809.pdf] from the organization, Natural Resources Defense Council, to initiate the process of listing BPA as a reproductive toxicant via the "authoritative bodies" listing mechanism under Proposition 65. On February 12, 2010, OEHHA published the Notice Requesting Relevant Information for the chemical BPA to be considered as a candidate for the listing under the "authoritative bodies" listing mechanism [the public notice is available at http://oehha.ca.gov/prop65/CRNR_notices/admin_listing/requests_info/call.... On January 25, 2013, OEHHA published the Notice of Intent to List BPA as a chemical causing developmental toxicity based on the findings made by the National Toxicology Program (NTP-CERHR (2008)). On April 11, 2013, BPA was added to the Proposition 65 chemical list. On April 19, 2013, the Honorable Raymond M. Cadei issued a preliminary injunction requiring OEHHA to delist the chemical in American Chemistry Council v Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, et al., Sacramento County case number 34-2013-00140720, pending final resolution of the case. At the present time, the case is still argued at the court and OEHHA is still awaiting for the resolution of the case to decide whether to put BPA back on the list or to delist permanently until further new studies provide more convincing evidence to compel OEHHA to reconsider the listing of BPA in the future.
October 31, 2013