23 Mar Using science as the guiding hand of food policy
There’s a week to go before the US FDA is beholden to a court-ordered March 31 deadline to respond to a petition asking that it immediately issue regulations banning bisphenol A in food contact applications. That the FDA would have to determine a significant policy matter based on a judicial deadline raises important issues, particularly whether a BPA ban along the lines sought in the petition carries a significant risk of dangerous and unintended consequences…. Insightful commentary from David Schmidt, president and CEO of the International Food Information Council in Washington, DC.
There is no shortage of issues swirling around the food industry, and one of the most debated topics involves the compound bisphenol A.
Known by its acronym BPA, it has been used for many decades in a wide array of industrial and consumer applications, ranging from hardened plastics to the epoxy safety lining of many food and beverage cans. In this use BPA has an unblemished record of improving the safety and extending the freshness of canned goods, and is supported by a large body of scientific research.
Today, BPA’s well established safety profile is coming under additional scrutiny by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which is working under a court-ordered March 31 deadline to respond to a petition asking that it immediately issue regulations banning BPA use involving food contact. The FDA may decide to fully accept the demands of this petition, reject them entirely, or recommend more limited restrictions.
The science confirming the safety of BPA in food packaging is very strong, yet some advocates find it somewhat unsettled. There are some studies that suggest harm in laboratory animals, but larger subsequent studies have failed to confirm any of these earlier findings of harm in lab animals, and there are no studies showing any harm in humans under normal consumer use.
BPA is so well studied that more than 5 000 research projects have been conducted, and a German study of the scientific literature concluded in 2011 that, “the available evidence indicates that BPA exposure represents no noteworthy risk to the health of the human population, including newborns and babies.”
Other research involving humans, including a 2011 FDA study, shows that for an overwhelming majority of people, BPA is not present in the bloodstream in measurable amounts, even among people who ate a diet including canned food protected with epoxy safety coatings. There is also additional government funded research underway which is not expected to be complete before the March 31 deadline.
That the FDA would have to determine a policy matter based on a judicial deadline raises important issues, particularly whether a BPA ban along the lines sought in the petition carries a significant risk of dangerous and unintended consequences. A BPA ban would necessarily demand a replacement even though science has found no harm from BPA in food applications.
While replacing BPA with a different compound might sound simple, it’s not. For now, there is no alternative to BPA that has been so thoroughly tested, and using a less-tested substance could needlessly increase the potential health risk to consumers.
Combine this risk factor with the fact that additional government research is currently underway, and the wisdom of a deadline-driven response from the FDA becomes more questionable.
Regulatory decisions are best made when the action reflects the best science. It is only through diligent research that risk and harm can be determined, quantified and, when necessary, regulated to reflect the public interest. As the deliberations on BPA and other issues continue, consumers want assurance that regulators will impartially rely on science to be the guiding hand of policy.
Source: Forbes