The History of BPA and its Effects
For now, there are no restrictions on the use of BPA in products. The Food and Drug Administration does recommend taking "reasonable steps" to reduce human exposure to BPA in the food supply. The FDA has also expressed support for manufacturers who have stopped using BPA in products for babies and for companies working to develop alternatives to the BPA in canned foods.
Some 9 million tons of BPA are produced worldwide each year, used in a huge array of consumer products, largely plastics like food packaging and drinking cups. In human health studies, exposure to BPA has been correlated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, breast and prostate cancer, and hormone disruption. In pregnant women, BPA easily crosses the placenta, potentially damaging fetal growth, and increasing the risk of obesity and cancer. In animal studies, the chemical has been widely established as a toxin that, in high doses, interferes with signaling pathways for hormones like estrogens, androgens and progestins, causing a host of problems.
In light of these factors and in accordance with the FDA’s call for “reasonable steps” to reduce human exposure, we at Procedure Products have chosen to exercise caution and eliminate BPA in our syringes and discontinue our polycarbonate line of syringe products — all at no extra cost to our suppliers. These syringes provide the same glass-like feel and clarity of polycarbonate syringes — just without the BPA.
Join the Freedom movement today.
“1891
”
bisphenol A (BPA) is invented
“1930’s
”
First evidence of BPA toxicity. Scientists discover that BPA is an artificial estrogen. Similar to DES, which was linked to reproductive cancers in girls.
“1940’s and 1950’s
”
BPA used in hard plastic called polycarbonate, and to make epoxy resins used as linings for metal food cans and a variety of other products.
“Although BPA leaches out of plastic long after its manufacture, the material is used in consumer products with no requirement that companies prove it is safe.
”
“Explosion of BPA-based plastics to encompass products as wide-ranging as bicycle helmets, water coolers, and baby bottles.
”
“1976
”
First law to regulate industrial chemicals, fails to establish safety of BPA.
“Congress passes the Toxic Substances Control Act. BPA is “grandfathered” in, presumed safe by the Environmental Protection Agency with no evaluation of the evidence.
”
“1982
”
Government assessment of BPA toxicity holds no regulatory weight.
“1988
”
EPA’s safety standard for BPA is up to 25 times higher than harmful levels. Agency fails to update the standard to reflect the new information.
“March 13, 1996
”
First FDA assessment of Americans’ exposures to BPA issued. FDA estimates that through contaminated canned food, adults are exposed to 11 micrograms of BPA daily, while infants are exposed to 7 micrograms per day. This assessment will stand as FDA’s official position for many years even as the science on BPA toxicity expands exponentially.
“March 1997
”
Studies show BPA to be toxic at levels that are in people.
“Study finds that low level exposure to bisphenol A harms the prostate. The first of many studies from academic labs that will find harmful effects of BPA at levels of exposure far below the government’s BPA safety standards.
”
“November 1997
”
Government tests reveal BPA contamination in infant formula. FDA finds BPA contamination in 12 of 14 samples of canned infant formula, from BPA leaching out of the metal can linings.
“May 1999
”
BPA found to leach from baby bottles. Consumer Reports finds BPA leaching from baby bottles when heated, prompting renewed debate over the safety of babies’ exposures.
“FDA publicly asserts the safety of BPA for bottle-fed infants, ignoring emerging evidence of low-dose BPA toxicity.
”
“October 1999
”
Scientist from the University of Missouri report in the Journal Nature that exposure to BPA hastens puberty in female mice.
“2002
”
Study finds brain and behavioral effects from BPA exposure. Italian scientists expose mice to BPA during pregnancy and lactation. The offspring, once adults, exhibit fewer maternal behaviors. The authors attribute brain and behavioral changes to BPA exposure. The harmful dose, at 200 ug/kg/d, is 40 times lower than the study EPA used to set its 1993 safety standard.
“2003
”
BPA to be evaluated for risks to people. NIH hires an industry contractor to lead the assessment, Sciences International (SI).
“Industry consultant conducts initial BPA assessment, hand picks government advisory panel.
”
“December 2006
”
Report by industry consultant and advisory panel toes industry line - “BPA is safe.”
“2007
Industry influence on BPA science is revealed when agency discovers that the government’s BPA consultant works for BPA manufacturers.
”
“March 4, 2007
LA Times reports on conflicts of interest in government’s choice of BPA contractors.
Government suspends contract of industry consultant, but fails to throw out its work.
”
“March 5, 2007
”
First broad study of canned food shows widespread BPA contamination.
“August 2, 2007
”
Independent BPA experts complete an assessment raising concerns of BPA risks for people.
“August 8, 2007
”
Environmental Working Group (EWG) study shows many infants exposed to BPA contaminated in infant formula.
“November 26, 2007
”
BPA advisory panel issues its final report, minimizing BPA risks. Advisory panel expresses “some concern” about the neural and behavioral impacts of fetal exposure to low doses of BPA, but rejects the independent studies linking BPA exposure to breast and prostate cancer, obesity, and reproductive problems.
“December 5, 2007
”
EWG reports that every major U.S. infant formula maker uses BPA to line the metal portions of its formula cans.
“January 17 - February 5, 2008
Major Congressional investigation of FDA, infant formula manufacturers, and industry consultants.
In light of growing concerns over children’s exposures to BPA, the US House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce launches an investigation into the use of BPA in the lining of metal cans that contain infant formula
”
“January 29 to February 8, 2008
”
Infant formula companies reveal that they do not know how much BPA is in their formula.
“February 7, 2008
”
Study reveals BPA leaches from baby bottles.
“February 25, 2008
”
FDA responds to Congressional investigation, reveals that two industry studies sponsored by the American Plastics Council are the basis of its safety evaluation.
“April 4, 2008
”
Congress again demands that FDA reveal the basis of its assertions that BPA is safe.
“Spring 2008
”
Government finds BPA poses risks to humans. Wal-Mart and other retailers pull BPA products from shelves.
“April 2008
Congress calls on FDA to reassess its safety standards for BPA based on new concerns over health risks.
Health Canada announces that BPA will be deemed a “dangerous substance.”
Major manufacturers and retailers abandon BPA in plastics. Major BPA manufacturers including Playtex (which makes bottles and cups) and Nalgene announce a shift to BPA-free products.
Major retailers including Wal-Mart and Toys R Us announce they will quickly phase-out BPA-containing baby bottles.
”
“May 6, 2008
”
The House Energy and Commerce Committee writes infant formula makers to request that they remove BPA from formula packaging.
“Summer and Fall 2008
”
Industry fights CA effort to ban BPA from kids’ products and FDA poised to ignore dozens of laboratory studies and declare BPA exposures to baby “safe.”
“June - September 2008
”
California SB 1713 proposes to ban BPA in children’s products. State Sen. Carole Migden introduces a bill to ban BPA in bottles, sippy cups and formula cans. BPA makers pull out all the stops to protect a profitable chemical, with deceptive ads claiming incorrectly that the measure would affect all canned foods, actually only canned infant formula would have been included. The bill fails by 10 votes in the final days of the California legislative session.
“August 2008
”
FDA posts its draft risk assessment for BPA exposure in food packaging FDA’s assessment concludes that BPA exposures for adults and children are well below toxic doses.
“September 2008:
”
The National Toxicology Program (NTP) issues a final report expressing “some concern” about BPA’s “effects on development of the prostate gland and brain and for behavioral effects in fetuses, infants and children.”
The same day, the American Medical Association (JAMA) publishes a study linking everyday exposures in adults to heart disease, diabetes and markers of liver toxicity. The study calls into question FDA’s claim that adult exposures are 27,000 times lower than those found toxic to animals.
“October 2008
Major conflict of interest revealed The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports that FDA Science Board member Martin Philbert, received a $5 million donation from a medical device manufacturer the same month he was appointed to head the BPA subcommittee. Philbert did not disclose this donation to FDA
3 States demand BPA phase-out Attorneys General from Connecticut, New Jersey and Delaware urge 11 formula and baby bottle-makers to stop using BPA. The chemical has been shown to leach from bottles and formula cans into baby’s food subjecting them to at least 12 times more BPA than adults at a period of the greatest vulnerability to BPA’s harmful effects.
Canada restricts BPA in bottles and formula.
FDA’s Science Board unanimously approves its subcommittee recommendations. FDA’s Science Board voted to accept the BPA Subcommittee’s scathing review of FDA’s flawed safety assessment.”
“2009
”
Over 20 states introduce bills to reduce children’s exposure to BPA.
“March 2009
California bill introduced State senator Fran Pavley (D-Agoura Hills) introduces a bill prohibiting the manufacture and sale of any bottle, cup, liquid, food or beverage that contains BPA above 0.1 parts per billion.
Suffolk County, NY votes to ban BPA-based plastic bottles and cups.
Connecticut AG announces companies will stop making BPA bottles.”
“April 2009
”
Suffolk County NY bans BPA The action bans the sale of polycarbonate drink containers for kids age 3 and younger.
“May 2009
Minnesota BPA bill passes Minnesota’s bill bans the chemical from children’s drink containers with an effective date of 2010.
Harvard University published research showing that college students who drank water from polycarbonate sports bottles had 70% more of the chemical in their bodies than when they used stainless steel drink bottles. The study raises concerns for the intensity of exposure for bottle-fed babies who ingest all of their food from BPA-containing polycarbonate bottles
Chicago City Council passes ban on BPA-containing food or drink containers intended for children under 3.
BPA producers desperate attempt to reverse public opinion on their product unveiled ”
“June 2009
”
Connecticut bans BPA
Endocrine Society issues warning statement on hormone disruptors including BPA
Congress sets timeline for FDA action Representative Edward Markey (D-MA) adds language to the final version of the Food Safety and Enhancement Act requiring FDA to take action on BPA by December 31, 2009.
“July 2009
”
Major formula-maker Abbott announces that their Similac brand formula is 91% BPA-free, meaning that all Similac powder and ready-to-eat formula is repackaged with no BPA. The concentrated formulas are still sold in BPA-lined metal cans.
“August 2009
”
State of Massachusetts warns parents to avoid BPA in bottles and formula.
“November 2009
”
Consumer Reports reports BPA in canned foods.
“December 2009
”
EWG detects BPA in 9 of 10 newborns.
“January 2010
”
FDA joins other health agencies to express “some concern” over BPA safety. Supports industry’s actions to remove BPA from baby bottles, feeding cups, the lining of formula cans and other food cans, but does not provide any details or a timeframe for these voluntary actions.
Washington and Wisconsin State Senates Pass BPA ban in Children’s Products.
“February 11, 2010: California initiates listing BPA as a reproductive toxicant.
”
“Spring 2010:
”
BPA bills in play in 10 U.S. states and the District of Columbia.
“March 2010
”
Canada BPA ban takes effect
U.S. EPA issues plan to reduce environmental risks EPA will evaluate substitutes to BPA in thermal paper, a major source of environmental contamination, and assess risks to children from non-food sources of BPA.
“April 2010
”
General Mills plans BPA-free cans for Muir Glen Tomatoes.
Maryland Bans BPA in baby bottles
Vermont enacts BPA ban for baby food, formula and bottles
Sen. Feinstein aims to include BPA in the Food Safety Modernization Act.
“May 2010
”
Vermont enacts BPA ban for baby food, formula and bottles
Sen. Feinstein aims to include BPA in the Food Safety Modernization Act
“June 2010
”
Germany announces it will recommend specific risk reduction measures to the EU
“July 2010
”
Denmark temporarily bans baby bottles, sippy cups and packaging for baby food and “breast milk substitutes”.
Heinz foods removes BPA from cans sold in Australia, the UK and Ireland.
Two reports document high levels of BPA in thermal receipts
NY Gov. David A. Paterson signs bill banning BPA in bottles, sippy cups, pacifiers and drinking straws as of December 2010.
“December 2010
”
Massachusetts bans BPA in baby bottles .
“Spring 2011
”
International movement on BPA in baby bottles
The U.S. (EPA) also holds the position that BPA is not a health concern.
Andrew Wadge, the chief scientist of the United Kingdom’s Food Standards Agency, commented on a 2011 U.S. study that “corroborates other independent studies and adds to the evidence that BPA is rapidly absorbed, detoxified, and eliminated from humans – therefore is not a health concern.”
“2012
”
The United States’ Food and Drug Administration (FDA) banned the use of BPA in baby bottles. The agency maintains that current levels of exposures in adults is not a health risk.
“2015
”
The Endocrine Society said in that the results of ongoing laboratory research gave grounds for concern about the potential hazards of endocrine-disrupting chemicals – including BPA – in the environment, and that on the basis of the precautionary principle these substances should continue to be assessed and tightly regulated.
“2016
”
A review of the literature said that the potential harms caused by BPA were a topic of scientific debate and that further investigation was a priority because of the association between BPA exposure and adverse human health effects including reproductive and developmental effects and metabolic disease.
“2018
”
The FDA announced its analysis of the CLARITY-BPA program, a multimillion dollar project designed to establish a gold standard on the chemical’s health risks; the agency maintained that BPA is safe. Many scientists, including some of the CLARITY-BPA researchers themselves, have publicly disagreed with the FDA’s interpretation.
Sources: BPA from Invention to Phase-out (https://www.ewg.org/research/timeline-bpa-invention-phase-out)
History of BPA by Heather Caliendo, Packaging Digest (https://www.packagingdigest.com/food-safety/history-bpa)