California may require warnings on products containing chemical BPA

 Plastic drinking bottles, canned goods and other items containing the chemical bisphenol-A (BPA) distributed in California might soon be required to carry a label disclosing that the compound can cause reproductive harm to women.

Thursday’s decision by a board of scientific experts to include BPA on a list of chemicals known to cause harm is the latest in a years-long dispute between state experts and the chemical industry, which says the substance is safe.

The decision was welcomed by the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group, which called it “an important step forward in protecting public health.”

A non-profit organization generally supportive of industry positions said the decision highlights the “sheer ridiculousness” of California’s law requiring disclosure of chemical compounds known to cause harm.


“Regulators are just stirring up more needless fear about safe products,” said Joseph Perrone, chief science officer for the non-profit Center for Accountability in Science.

That voter-passed law, Proposition 65, set up a system under which chemicals found to cause developmental or reproductive impairment would have to be disclosed, whether they are in consumer products, used in the construction of buildings or used in other ways.

A chemical industry group sued the state in 2013, when experts tried to require disclosure of PBA as causing developmental harm. The state won that case, but the industry appealed, and the chemical remains off the list while the litigation continues, said Sam Delson, a spokesman for California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment.

The product is used in plastic drinking bottles and in the lining of some canned food containers, among other purposes.

Even with Thursday’s decision that BPA belongs on the state’s list of harmful chemicals, disclosure will not be required for another year, if at all, Delson said. That depends on a second state process, under which experts must decide at what level the chemical is harmful to women’s reproductive systems.

If the amount in bottles or cans falls below that threshold, a warning would not be required, he said.

Related Posts:
Iran’s expansion of uranium enrichment ‘a big step in the wrong direction’
Speaking About News

Iran’s expansion of uranium enrichment activities in defiance of key nuclear commitments is “a big step in the wrong direction,” Read more

State Legislature’s Should Restrict Access to Medicinal Marijuana During Pregnancy
Speaking About News

Ryan Neuhaus, As medicinal marijuana is becoming more popular across the United States, state legislators should note that using drugs Read more

News Anchor on Jeffrey Epstein: “I’ve Had the Story Tor Three Years… We Would Not Put it On the Air”
Speaking About News

ABC was less affected by the #MeToo movement than its other big three rivals, CBS and NBC. And yet, as Read more

Reagan, Kemp, and The Once and Future Politics
Speaking About News

Ralph Benko, Why does politics more and more resemble a rebel without a cause? Ronald Reagan and Jack Kemp were Read more

Send this to a friend