Regulators, industry and scientist hail EFSA bisphenol A opinion
The British Plastics Federation (BPF) said verdict from the food safety watchdog provided a solid endorsement of the chemical’s safety and clear authorisation for its continued use.
Prof Richard Sharpe, from the Medical Research Council Human Reproductive Sciences Unit at the University of Edinburgh, said the evaluation from the EFSA panel of experts that the TDI of 0.05mg/kg bodyweight should be maintained fitted in with his own view on the minimal risks posed by the substance.
The UK Food Standards Agency (FSA) said it welcomed the verdict from EFSA. The body said its position that exposure to BPA from food contact materials does not represent a risk to consumers remained unchanged.
‘Divorced from reality’
The BPF hailed the EFSA decision which also highlighted the “data currently available does not provide convincing evidence of neurobehavioural toxicity of BPA”.
“The Bisphenol A issue has become highly politicised in recent years and in some countries has become divorced from the reality and nature of its use,” said Philip Law, BPF director of public & industrial affairs. “The EFSA’s ruling on the safety of BPA provides a solid endorsement which should set consumers minds at ease.”
Oral exposure
Scotland-based scientist Prof Sharpe, who specializes in the link between lifestyle, nutritional and environmental factors and reproductive disorders, said he did not believe that any of the most recently published studies had produced any alarming data. On the contrary, he said several had simply reinforced previous findings that BPA effects are specific depending on the route of exposure.
The leading academic explained that the main route of human exposure to the chemical is oral and that studies measuring effect via this route had shown no effects.
“If humans were exposed mainly to BPA via their skin - or via injection - then maybe we might be more concerned, but we are not,” said the professor. “Our level of BPA exposure is simply too low to cause any effects. This has been a guiding principle in EFSA's decision.”
But he added that recent studies showing a significant association between present BPA exposure and a host of negative health effects, including cardiovascular, liver disease and sexual function, did leave an element of uncertainty that needed to be addressed – either to dispel the concerns or confirm them as meaningful.
But he said: “For certain, I see no role for estrogenic effects on BPA in human disease. If BPA should have any effects it must be via some non-hormonal mechanism”.
