Home / News and Recalls

BPA Now Banned By The EU

bpa-products-lawsuit

“Europe on Thursday banned baby bottles containing the chemical Bisphenol-A as of early next year over fears it may harm the health of children throughout the EU's half a billion population,” says Yahoo! News.

This is fantastic news for those of us who have lobbied against and 'preached' against BPA for a long time now. I wrote about BPA back in July, asking what else we have previously believed to be safe isn't, and then I was overjoyed last month when CCN reported on everyday chemicals that may be harming our children.

In September, the European Food Safety Administration reiterated their position, stating that “the data currently available do not provide convincing evidence of neurobehavioural toxicity of BPA.”

It is rather concerning that the FSA can't find the evidence it needs when organisations and governments everywhere else are taking aggressive action to remove BPA from baby and toddler equipment, but either way, I am really glad it's happened.

In October, Canada became the first country in the world to classify Bisphenol-A as a toxic substance, despite industry opposition. Australia has enacted a similar ban.

“Before the current announcement, France and Denmark were the only EU countries that had unilaterally imposed bans on baby bottles with the controversial substance. Danish authorities went a step further by extending the prohibition to all food products for children up to three years old” (AFP)”

In England it's hard to find baby bottles, toys and equipment that's not BPA free any more, which is a great thing too.

With the side effects of BPA including, but not limited to breast cancer, diabetes, various cancers, hyperactivity, miscarriage, low sperm counts and impaired female reproductive development, various syndromes and deformities and early onset of puberty, is it not worth considering that maybe the 'industry' might not want a mass of lawsuits for the 'mistakes' of the past.

Look, I guess there's a chance we're all wrong, maybe it's perfectly harmless, but if it's not, isn't it better that we find alternatives? Things that are more sustainable, have less potential side effects and are just as good, if not better, even if it costs us as the consumer a little more?

TOPICS:   News and Recalls

16 comments

  • Jessica
    I think this is a step in the right direction. However, there is BPA in other everyday products, like canned goods, so we are still exposed to it in everyday life.
    Reply ·
  • TheyreComingToGetYou
    Paranoid Scaremongerer.
    Reply ·
  • Luschka O.
    I know, but at least they're starting somewhere, so that's a good thing, right? I'm happy for them to start with things that keep my little girl safe.
    Reply ·
  • Luschka O.
    Ooooooh... original. Fortunately, the scientists gave it a little more thought. ;)
    Reply ·
  • parpparp
    "Fortunately, the scientists gave it a little more thought." But didn't you just say the FSA found no evidence of BPA causing any harm? So this is just paranoid scaremongering and the politicians are pandering to it.
    Reply ·
  • parpparp
    When you say "isn't it better that we find alternatives", how do you know that manufacturers, in their hurry to replace BPA in products due to pressure from the paranoid, won't accidentally switch to something that is actually more harmful? Unless you mean "isn't it better that we find better alternatives". Which is a banal tautology.
    Reply ·
  • Kev
    Oh dear, talk about scaremongering. some of you all should look up the side affects aspartame has, yet most of us happily drink it in 99.99999% of sugar free drinks and foods and are we trying to ban that too ? no. Wake up, were living in a world in that we really dont know what half we eat does to us.
    Reply ·
  • Luschka O.
    No, I said that the FSA did not have DATA that proved neurobehavioural toxicity. The press release also goes on to say that based on its LITERATURE REVIEW it does not consider the data as convincing evidence of effects on learning and memory. It mentions immune system diseases and susceptibility to breast cancer, and says that the studies have shortcomings - it doesn't tell us what those shortcomings are, nor does it say that the studies are inaccurate. (By the way, did you know that BPA was designed as a synthetic estrogen and that it is also used in such things as the filling in teeth, then you consider the massive rise in breast cancer in the past few decades and the fact that breast cancer is caused by the presence of high levels of estrogen, it is easy to jump to conclusions) It also says one of its panel members recommended that that the current TDI (tolerable daily intake) level should become a temporary TDI. The EFSA has set up a system for monitoring new studies on BPA and they say that they are willing to reconsider their stance in the future - which doesn't sound like they are 100% happy to call it safe.
    Reply ·
  • Luschka O.
    You are absolutely right. There is a danger that they could switch to something more harmful. And then the whole process will start over again. But that's no reason to just sit back and accept something that is potentially harmful, is it? Would we accept a defective car seat because there's a possibility of swapping to a MORE defective car seat? No.
    Reply ·
  • Luschka O.
    Oh man! I couldn't agree more! I have avoided aspartame since I was a teenager as it gave me TERRIBLE headaches - that and tartrazine and MSG - so I avoid all diet drinks, low fat yoghurt etc! And yes, we have dangerous chemicals pretty much anywhere. But is that a reason to just blindly blunder forward? What about forewarned is fore-armed and all that? Surely cutting out how and where we can can only be beneficial?
    Reply ·
  • Sam
    Ridiculous. Is this the unsupported science presented as fact blog? If you carry on like this you could be right up there with Gillian McKeith.
    Reply ·
  • parpparp
    "Would we accept a defective car seat because there’s a possibility of swapping to a MORE defective car seat?" But it hasn't been shown to be defective. In fact, as you say, they have checked the relevant literature and found no evidence. So it's been checked and there is no evidence that it's harmful. So with a choice between a known and an unknown, the logical option is the known. "The EFSA has set up a system for monitoring new studies on BPA and they say that they are willing to reconsider their stance in the future – which doesn’t sound like they are 100% happy to call it safe." It's impossible to prove a negative and no scientist worth his/her salt would ever say they are 100% certain about anything. New evidence is taken into account, that is the beauty of science. Whereas you have a pre-ordained opinion that BPA is bad. Maybe it is really bad, but before going mental we should have some evidence. (For the reasons why, see the MMR jab fiasco.) Also this could be just a sop to scaremongerers like you.
    Reply ·
  • Lynley O.
    I think though the key here is potentially harmful. Personally, I wouldn't want to jump from the devil I know, and can control to a certain extent to the devil I don't know and therefore can't control. There's some key questions I'd personally like answers to. How long has BPA been used? Is there a correlation between the time it has been used and a significant increase in health problems? Is it only potentially dangerous when the plastic is heated, so therefore wouldn't banning it from bottles and feeding be enough? What replaces BPA and what happens to that compound when it is heated? What are the side effects of the replacement compound? Good story Luschka, and a good discussion! Always good, and interesting, to have debate and discussion around controversial topics like this one.
    Reply ·
  • Matt
    They should go after products containing DHMO is far far more dangerous, erodes metals, is fatal Death due to accidental inhalation of DHMO, even in small quantities. Prolonged exposure to solid DHMO causes severe tissue damage. Its used as a industrial cleaner and yet is present in pretty much every childrens foodstuff. Really needs looking into.
    Reply ·
  • Jessica
    "Is it only potentially dangerous when the plastic is heated, so therefore wouldn’t banning it from bottles and feeding be enough?" I know that there is way more BPA in till receipts than in baby bottles, so be sure to keep those away from your babies. I know that sounds weird, but sometimes I will give my little guy paper or bits in my purse to play with.
    Reply ·
  • Lynley O.
    That is ... rather disturbing. How do you know that?
    Reply ·

What do you think?

Your comment

Recent Deals

Recent Features