Bisphenol A, a controversial chemical widely used in baby bottles and food and drink cans, could be seriously damaging our health, according to scientists. Katherine McGrow investigates why Australian regulators are so reluctant to act.

Bisphenol A can leach from plastic Baby Bottles. Image: brokinhrt2

Bisphenol A or BPA is used in the manufacture of many household items, most notably in clear plastic polycarbonate bottles (such as babies’ bottles) and in the epoxy lining of food and drink cans (see box). It is from these types of commonly used products that BPA can leach into our food and drink and enter our bodies.

Studies have shown that almost all of us are exposed to BPA. According to one US study, 93% of people tested had BPA in their urine. The highest levels were seen in children.

Leaching of BPA increases substantially when heat is applied. This is one of the reasons why BPA in babies’ bottles is of particular concern, as they are often heated and re-heated throughout each day. In addition to this, infants are known to be particularly vulnerable to chemical toxicity.

BPA is known as an “endocrine disrupting chemical”, which in basic terms means it messes with our hormones, with any number of possible effects. And to makes matters worse, it is just one of a number of these types of chemicals to which we are exposed on an almost continuous basis.

Now scientific evidence is suggesting that, even at low doses, BPA may be linked to an alarmingly diverse list of illnesses such as infertility, obesity, breast and prostate cancer, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, thyroid malfunction and attention deficit syndrome.

As the evidence stacks up, more and more countries are applying what is known as the “precautionary principle”, taking steps to prohibit the use of BPA in products such as baby bottles. Last year, for example, Health Canada announced it would be moving ahead with regulations to prohibit the advertisement, sale and importation of polycarbonate plastic baby bottles that contain BPA. “Our Government is acting to protect its most vulnerable citizens – newborns and infants,” said Minister of Health, the Honourable Leona Aglukkaq.

There are no restrictions on the use of BPA in plastics, tins or any other products in Australia, and no plans for any, even though it is categorised by the Australian Inventory of Chemical Substances as a chemical “hazardous” to health.

In Australia, the responsibility for regulating the use of BPA in products which come into contact with food or drink lies with Food Standards Australia and New Zealand (FSANZ).

Major sources of BPA exposure

From Friends of the Earth: Bisphenol A in plastics: does it make us sick? A consumer guide.

According to FSANZ, they did look into BPA when it became a “media issue”. But, says Lydia Buchtmann, FSANZ Communication Manager, “the weight of evidence at this stage shows it’s not a problem in the levels that are consumed”.

However, Associate Professor Peter Dingle, an environmental toxicologist at Murdoch University in Western Australia says FSANZ has no idea about the exposure of BPA in Australia. “They haven’t looked at it – how many water bottles people carry round, how much is in the urine, how much they consume, how much is in the lining of cans, how much is in the baby bottles – they haven’t looked at it.”

FSANZ has a reputation for erring on the side of industry. “FSANZ is a conservative body and tends to take the industry side in a large number of these battles,” says NSW Greens MP, Dr John Kaye, who is campaigning for restrictions on the use of BPA. “Rather than exercising the precautionary principle, it tends to be on the side of everything’s okay, until somebody really shows us not.”

“Our view is that the Australian authorities, particularly the Food Standards Australia and New Zealand (FSANZ), have been dragging their feet on what is actually a very important public health issue. They’re hanging back and waiting for other jurisdictions to move.”

“We feel that Australia should be taking a very serious look at [BPA] and on the basis of the precautionary principle we should ban it.”

Kaye says this is typical of Australia’s approach to chemicals regulation, that Australia has lagged behind the rest of the world in a number of areas. He quotes the use of controversial substances such as trans-fats, brightly-coloured food dyes, and endosulphan (a pesticide) – all of which have been banned in other countries but are still unregulated here.

In the case of BPA, FSANZ is aligning itself closely with the European Food Standards Authority, which has established a safety limit, under which they say consumption is safe.

Buchtmann explains, “Any chemical has a safety limit – even arsenic has a limit you can consume. It surprises people you actually consume arsenic every day in very low quantities in the water you drink or the food you eat but you cope with that perfectly safely.”

But Dr Rye Senjen, a chemicals campaigner from Friends of the Earth, says this sort of argument is part of the issue, that people are very wedded to the idea that the dose makes the poison.

“It’s reasonable to see why. But, with endocrine disrupters a very low dose can be much worse than a medium size dose. The endocrine system is a very, very finely balanced system and very low doses can disturb that system,” she says.

According to Dr Peter Dingle, animal studies show that endocrine disrupters at the parts per trillion level can cause significant changes in the developmental stages. He says it’s crazy for FSANZ to suggest they can define a safety level below which consumption is okay.

But Buchtmann says people are just suffering from chemophobia, and don’t really understand the science.
“I suppose that dose-response is a hard thing to get over to non-scientists – that you can consume low levels of things to no ill effect. We’ve looked at the low doses and there is a safety limit and it’s fine,” she says.

BPA is one of the world’s most widely used industrial chemicals, with around 3 million tonnes produced every year. And because of the ubiquitous nature of this chemical, many industry members from both the plastics, chemicals, and food and drinks industries, would stand to be heavily inconvenienced by a change in regulation on BPA.

Fortunately, they have powerful industry bodies such as PACIA (Plastics and Chemicals Industries Association), the AFGC (the Australian Food and Grocery Council) and the Australian Beverages Council, who pride themselves on their abilities to influence decision makers.

The inaugural PACIA “Interface” meeting held at Parliament House in Canberra in March last year “provided chief executives and senior managers within the PACIA membership with the opportunity to meet with and influence senior political and bureaucratic decision makers,” according to PACIA. Minister for Climate Change and Water, Penny Wong, was guest speaker and the meeting was attended by representatives from many different government departments including the Department of Environment, Water and Heritage, the Office of Health Protection in the Department of Health and Ageing, the Office of Chemical Safety and Environmental Health, and NICNAS – the National Industrial Chemicals Notifications and Assessment Scheme.

Major worldwide producers of BPA – such as Bayer, Dow Chemicals, BASF and Dupont – have membership of PACIA through their Australian offices.

PACIA refused to respond to questions about BPA beyond referring us to FSANZ.

The equivalent agency in the US, the Society for the Plastics Industry, which lobbies for companies that manufacture products containing BPA, is reportedly using many of the same PR strategies, and even the same PR companies, that the tobacco industry used in its fight against regulation.

Here, industry seems happy enough to hide behind the convenient decisions and judgments of FSANZ. Geoff Parker, Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Beverages Council said in a statement:
“At the moment the overwhelming scientific evidence is that BPA poses no significant health risk. It is important that credible, scientific evidence is used to assess whether BPA should or should not be used, as opposed to say, emotions.”

“Naturally if the Australian regulator of the Food Code changed their opinion, the industry would comply with whatever it (FSANZ) decided was appropriate. The beverage industry in Australia has a long and positive working relationship with FSANZ.”