NRDC: ‘FDA Fails to Protect Our Health and Safety’
FDA Allows BPA to Remain in Food Packaging
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) rejected a petition from the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) seeking to ban bisphenol A (BPA) from food packaging.
As a result, manufacturers could continue using the controversial chemical in certain food containers and packaging materials.
BPA has raised serious concerns among environmental advocates and public health researchers. Studies have investigated its potential links to cancer, obesity, reproductive disorders and developmental problems.
Moreover, BPA can interfere with the body’s hormonal system. Consequently, scientists have questioned whether long-term exposure could affect human health, particularly during early childhood development.
FDA Declines to Make Final Safety Determination
Although the FDA rejected NRDC’s petition, the agency stopped short of declaring BPA completely safe.
Instead, federal regulators said they would continue evaluating scientific research concerning BPA exposure and its potential health effects.
However, environmental advocates questioned why the agency would allow continued exposure while important scientific uncertainties remained.
Furthermore, critics argued that federal regulators should place greater emphasis on preventing chemical exposure before potential health problems emerge.
NRDC Scientist Criticizes FDA Decision
Dr. Sarah Janssen, then a senior scientist with NRDC’s public health program, strongly criticized the decision.
“BPA is a toxic chemical that has no place in our food supply. We believe FDA made the wrong call,” Janssen stated.
Additionally, Janssen argued that the agency had failed to adequately protect Americans from potential chemical hazards.
She emphasized the growing scientific questions surrounding BPA exposure. In particular, she highlighted concerns involving fetuses, infants and young children.
Moreover, Janssen questioned whether federal chemical safety regulations adequately reflected emerging scientific evidence.
NRDC argued that the decision demonstrated the need for major reforms in how the federal government evaluates potentially hazardous chemicals.
Why BPA Remains an Environmental Health Concern
BPA appears in certain plastics, protective coatings and food-can linings. Therefore, consumers may encounter the chemical through everyday food and beverage packaging.
Additionally, BPA can migrate from some packaging materials into food and drinks.
Scientists continue to investigate how exposure levels, timing and duration might influence health outcomes.
Meanwhile, manufacturers have developed alternative packaging materials. However, replacing BPA with another chemical does not automatically guarantee improved safety.
Consequently, independent testing and transparent chemical disclosure remain essential.
Conclusion: Consumers Deserve Safer Food Packaging
The FDA’s rejection of NRDC’s BPA petition exposed a fundamental disagreement over chemical safety and consumer protection.
While regulators called for continued scientific review, environmental advocates demanded stronger preventive action.
Furthermore, the controversy demonstrated why food packaging deserves the same scrutiny as the food itself.
Ultimately, protecting public health requires strong scientific research, transparent regulations and safer material choices.
The Green Living Guy believes sustainability must include the products and packaging Americans use every day. After all, a healthier planet starts with protecting the people living on it.
FDA Rejects NRDC Background:
BPA is a synthetic, hormone-disrupting chemical used in the linings of beer and soda cans, vegetable and soup cans and in other products such as reusable plastic water bottles.
NRDC in 2008 petitioned the FDA to eliminate BPA from all food packaging. When the agency failed to respond, NRDC sued in 2011, asking the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to compel the agency to respond. Later that year, the court issued a consent decree requiring FDA to make a final decision on NRDC’s petition by March 31, 2012.
FDA acknowledged in 2010 that it had “some concerns” about the chemical’s effects on the brain, behavior and prostate glands in fetuses, infants and young children. But the agency has only encouraged voluntary actions to reduce BPA exposure.
Since that time numerous studies have raised additional concerns about links between BPA and breast cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes and obesity.
Consumer Demand
Consumer demand for BPA-free products has already led to the withdrawal of baby bottles, “sippy cups’’ and infant formula containers containing the chemical from store shelves. Canada, the European Union, China, and at least five other countries as well as 11 U.S. states, all have prohibited the use of BPA in children’s products.
In addition, some U.S. canned food manufacturers are voluntarily removing BPA from can linings, but BPA remains legal to use in all food packaging.
NRDC will be evaluating next steps as staff attorneys and scientists review today’s decision thoroughly.
Sources
To read more about the latest in BPA science.
Learn more about NRDC’s Fix The FDA campaign here.
