A month later, a study from the Harvard School of Public Health, published in the journal Pediatrics, linked exposure to BPA during pregnancy to hyperactive, depressive, and anxious behavior in young girls, finding that the higher the mothers' BPA levels, the more likely the girls were to exhibit behavior problems as toddlers. Meanwhile, several states, including California, moved forward with bans on the use of BPA in children's products. The American Chemistry Council, a trade group with members that use BPA, denounced the Harvard study as having "significant shortcomings" and drawing "conclusions of unknown relevance to public health," and called concern over BPA in children's products unnecessary, stating that BPA is rarely used in such products anymore. The statement seemed surprising given the lengths to which the group had gone to fight legislation on BPA in children's products in California and other states. Steven Hentges, of ACC's polycarbonate/BPA global group, told the New York Times that even though baby bottles and sippy cups no longer contain BPA, the trade group had good reason to oppose the California legislation as well as other state and federal initiatives banning BPA, saying that it should be the Food and Drug Administration, and its team of scientists, making regulatory decisions, not state legislators.
Now Hentges may be getting his wish. The FDA announced earlier this month its intention to reevaluate the safety of BPA in packaging, promising a decision on the matter by March 31, 2012. That announcement was prompted by a petition filed by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) back in 2008. In the meantime, French lawmakers voted in late February to uphold a ban on the use of BPA in all packaged foods. That law is likely to lead to E.U.-wide legislation on the matter, which would make it financially untenable for U.S. food manufacturers that sell into Europe to continue using BPA, irrespective of U.S. legislation.
To date, the FDA has maintained that BPA does not pose a health threat at the low levels at which it appears in canned and packaged foods. Several researchers and public health advocates, however, have argued that the average load a person consumes is far more than the levels set for any one product, and that the chemical has negative effects even at very low levels. Others argue that the FDA's average daily exposure estimates are way off. According to independent studies conducted by Consumer Reports in 2009, "Consumers eating just one serving of the canned vegetable soup we tested would get about double what the FDA now considers typical average dietary daily exposure." [Progresso, Campbell's, and Del Monte products had the highest BPA levels of the products tested.]
Anticipating not only a potential FDA change on BPA, but also continued consumer backlash, Campbell's announced today its plan to phase out the use of the chemical in its can linings. Although the company has not announced a specific timeline, or released any further details of its BPA-free commitment, at a February shareholders meeting, Campbell's Chief Financial Officer Craig Owens reported that the shift to BPA-free cans had already begun, and would not impose a significant cost to the company.
We believe that current can packaging is one of the safest options in the world; however, we recognize that there is some debate over the use of BPA," he said. "The trust that we have earned from our consumers for over 140 years is paramount to us and we have been monitoring and working on the issue for several years. Because of this, we have already started using alternatives to BPA in some of our soup packaging and we are working to phase out the use of BPA in the lining of all of our canned products. The cost of this effort is not expected to be material."
