PlasticsEurope condemns German BPA precautions

Industry trade association PlasticsEurope has hit out at a report published earlier this month by the German Federal Ministry for the Environment (Umweltbundesamt) which recommends that producers and users of bisphenol-A (BPA) adopt alternatives as a precautionary measure.

The Umweltbundesamt report, ‘Bisphenol A: a chemical with adverse effects produced in large quantities’, was published on 9 June. According to PlasticsEurope, its recommendation that BPA producers and users switch to alternatives is a misinterpretation of the EU’s precautionary principle.

“The UBA [Umweltbundesamt] has correctly reported that leading international and national authorities regard the use of BPA-based materials as safe,” PlasticsEurope said in a statement released last week.

“The precautionary principle should only be applied if the insecurities in the assessment of a risk are large, for example, when scientific data is either unavailable or insufficient. However, BPA has an extensive scientific data base available, and experts can assess any risk associated with BPA comparably well.”



PlasticsEurope contends that, on that basis alone, there is no reason for the introduction of any further restrictions on the use of BPA.

“The UBA recommendation would replace a well characterised risk with an unpredictable risk. Providing the necessary scientific data to enable a comprehensive understanding of all relevant aspects of a chemical substance is one of the basic pillars in European safety assessment. This principle must also be applicable to all alternative substances and materials,” said PlasticsEurope.

“UBA do not appear to have investigated the availability of alternatives. Specifically there is no evidence provided that the UBA have meticulously examined the data base and safety of potential alternatives to BPA,” the trade body argues.

PlasticsEurope said that the Umweltbundesamt report “creates unnecessary anxiety for both the public and downstream users of BPA-based materials” as well as damaging the credibility of the existing regulatory assessment process and the authorities behind that process.

Meanwhile EFSA, which is charged with delivering scientific advice to the European Commission, has delayed its latest opinion on bisphenol-A to take on board the latest scientific findings.

Back in March this year, EFSA held a meeting with national experts on BPA from several EU Member States and members of its scientific Panel on food contact materials, enzymes, flavourings and processing aids (CEF Panel). At that meeting, EFSA outlined the CEF Panel’s draft opinion on BPA and called on national experts to submit any new evidence for consideration in its final opinion.

The CEF Panel was due to deliver that opinion at the end of last month (May) but this has now been put back to early July to allow it to consider additional data that has been published in recent months, as well as some of the scientific arguments behind decisions made by individual European governments.

“The opinion will include the review of the Stump study on the possible neurodevelopmental effects of BPA and the review of the scientific arguments provided by Denmark in support of the Danish government’s recent decision to ban the substance in food contact materials for infants,” EFSA said in a statement.

The Danish risk assessment and subsequent restrictions on exposure of children up the age of three to BPA was based mainly on the findings of the Stump study, according to EFSA.