California today is announcing its intent to declare bisphenol A a reproductive hazard.

Under a state law known as Prop. 65, warning signs would be required for consumer items that contain a certain high level of BPA. BPA is used to make polycarbonate plastic, and also is found in liners of food and beverage cans and some thermal receipts.

Scientists say BPA is an estrogen-like substance that can alter reproductive hormones. California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment said it based its decision to list BPA as a Prop. 65 chemical on a 2008 report by the National Toxicology Program.

 "Bisphenol A meets the criteria for listing as known to the State to cause reproductive toxicity (developmental endpoint) under Proposition 65, based on findings of NTP [the National Toxicology Program]," according to the state agency.

"OEHHA is relying on the NTP’s conclusion in the report that there is clear evidence of adverse developmental effects in laboratory animals at 'high' levels of exposure," according to the state's decision.

The decision was based on laboratory tests by scientists that have shown effects on the body weight and reproductive development of the pups of pregnant rats and mice exposed to high levels of BPA.

The state agency is proposing to set an acceptable level of exposure that is considered fairly high, 290 micrograms per day. As a result, Sarah Janssen of the Natural Resources Defense Council wrote on her blog that the decision “is not likely to trigger any warning labels on canned food or beverages.” The same is probably true for receipts and most other consumer products.

"However," she added, "a listing alone is quite significant and makes official what parents have known for years – BPA is harmful and should be avoided."

Plastics and chemical manufacturers say the compound, which has been used in polycarbonate plastic for 50 years, is safe at levels people are exposed to

The intent of the law, passed by voters in 1986, is to require manufacturers to warn consumers whenever a chemical is used that has been linked to cancer or reproductive effects. In some cases, companies decide to avoid using the compound rather than put up warning signs in stores or other public places.

BPA already has been banned from baby bottles, and removed from most hard-shell water bottles. It also has been replaced with another chemical in most thermal receipts, although that chemical, known as BPS, also has been linked to estrogen-like effects.

The state agency will accept public comments for one month before making a final decision listing BPA.

This article originally ran at Environmental Health News, a news source published by Environmental Health Sciences, a nonprofit media company.

2 Comments

1. 1. sault 01:32 PM 1/26/13

   Even this relatively weak regulation must have been hard to enact. The companies that profit from making BPA don't play around:
   
   "A four-month investigation by the Journal Sentinel reveals a highly calibrated campaign by plastics makers to fight federal regulation of BPA, downplay its risks and discredit anyone who characterizes the chemical as a health threat. The newspaper examined thousands of pages of Internal Revenue Service reports, disclosure forms and e-mails between government scientists and lobbyists as well as the industry's own public relations materials.
   
   The documents offer a rare glimpse at the hardball politics of chemical regulation, where judgments about safety are made not necessarily on the merits of science but because of the clout of lobbyists working the system.
   
   In May, the Journal Sentinel reported e-mails obtained from the FDA showed how federal regulators deferred in recent years to chemical industry lobbyists, allowing them effectively to write public policy on the chemical's safety.
   
   The newly discovered documents show agency scientists have relied on chemical industry lobbyists to help draft public safety standards on BPA for much longer, more than a decade."
   
   http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/54195297.html

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. 2. eco-steve 11:16 PM 1/28/13

   What about the effects of insecticides on sperm counts?

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this