Skip to: Content
Skip to: Site Navigation
Skip to: Search


Battle over the baby bottle: Should containers with bisphenol A be banned?

A number of states are moving to curtail the sale and use of bottles that have this chemical. But industry groups say BPA's risks are overblown.

By Michael B. FarrellStaff writer of The Christian Science Monitor / June 5, 2009



San Francisco

This week the California Senate passed a bill to outlaw the sale of sippy cups and baby bottles that contain bisphenol A, or BPA, adding momentum to a campaign against the chemical that's gaining support in statehouses across the US.

Skip to next paragraph

In recent weeks, Minnesota outlawed baby-food containers made with the chemical that some scientific studies suggest is a health hazard for young children as well as adults. Chicago decided to nix baby bottles made with BPA from city shelves, and a ban in Connecticut passed the legislature and awaits the governor's signature.

In total, some 55 bills in 20 states aim to curtail the use or sale of baby-food jars and cans of formula that contain BPA, which is widely used to harden plastic bottles, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Urged by consumer groups and a growing number of concerned parents, state lawmakers have taken on the cause with such gusto that the chemical industry and bottle and can manufacturers have been caught off guard, says Doug Farquhar of NCSL. "I don't think they anticipated this would be one of their bigger issues," he says.

And California is shaping up to be the key battleground state in this growing battle over the baby bottle.

As the legislation moves to the state Assembly, at least a dozen lobbyists representing such groups as the American Chemistry Council and baby-formula makers Enfamil and Similac are planning an aggressive fight.

"The case [against BPA] has grown more compelling, [and] when California does something, it tends to spread across the nation," says Mary Lynne Vellinga, spokeswoman for Democratic state Sen. Fran Pavley, who cosponsored the bill.

But industry groups say the claim that it's harmful to humans is overblown and unsubstantiated. The amount of BPA in consumer goods is so minuscule that it wouldn't pose any health risks, they say.

"These are old materials that have been around for 50 years or so," says Steve Hentges, executive director of the Polycarbonate/BPA Global Group of the American Chemistry Council, a trade group. "There truly is a global consensus that bisphenol A is not a human health concern.... There is no scientific basis for any of these bills."

The amount found in most Americans, he says, is "1,000 times below" what European regulators have determined as safe levels for BPA. "Exposure is not only extremely low, it is not even remotely close to the level of concern."

The European Food Safety Authority recently found that a study published last year in the Journal of the American Medical Association that connected BPA concentrations with medical problems in adults was too inconclusive to act on. Canada, however, has banned baby bottles made with BPA because of "the uncertainty raised in some studies related to the potential effects of low levels of bisphenol A."

Concerns about BPA got a fillip last month with a study by the Harvard School of Public Health that concluded BPA from clear polycarbonate water bottles leaches into the human body. After 77 Harvard students drank from polycarbonate bottles for a week, the concentration of BPA in their urine increased by 69 percent.

Permissions