There’s no proof that bisphenol A – a chemical widely used for decades in food containers – causes harm to children. But there is some evidence that it might, and that’s reason enough for the Legislature to curtail its use in Washington.
Twin bills introduced in the state Senate and House of Representatives would do that, though they need some tempering before final passage.
BPA has been used in small amounts for decades to harden baby bottles, strengthen plastic containers and line some metal cans. Most health agencies have considered it innocuous, but some new research has tentatively linked BPA to potential problems in children, including possible hormonal disruptions.
The words “tentatively,” “potential” and “possible” all apply here. The U.S. Department of Health & Human Services talks of “subtle effects” in laboratory animals and “some concern” among federal health officials. It has stepped up the research.
The Food and Drug Administration has heightened its scrutiny of the drug, but it is also choosing its words carefully. “If we thought it was unsafe, we would be taking strong regulatory action,” said the FDA’s chief deputy commissioner last week.
One reason for the caution is the high nutritional value of some liquid infant formulas sold in cans, which – according to the FDA – outweighs the potential risk of BPA exposure.
The precautionary principle argues for avoiding unproven risks if the potential danger is great enough. The principle applies here. If some scientific evidence suggests that a chemical might create lifelong problems in children, exposure to that chemical ought to be avoided unless the alternatives involve greater risk.
The proposed legislation addresses the latter issue by exempting metal cans. Otherwise, it would bar the use of BPA in any bottles or containers sold empty for the purpose of feeding children 3 or younger.
We part company with the sponsors on some of the details. They propose fines of $5,000 for the first violation and $10,000 for each subsequent violation for all manufacturers, wholesalers or retailers who knowingly sell such containers.
Given the uncertainty of the science at this point, it’s hard to justify fines of that magnitude for every retailer, small or large, who runs afoul of the regulation. That’s a heavy hammer to use on small-scale wholesalers as well. This is precisely the kind of overkill that leads to complaints that Washington is not business-friendly.
Even if focused chiefly on manufacturers, the ban itself would help persuade the industry that BPA and children’s food are not a good mix. BPA has already been eliminated in most baby bottles nationwide. Extending that trend won’t require busting mom-and-pop grocery stores.
JOIN THE DISCUSSION | Register here
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part — and abiding by these simple rules. A thorough explanation of rules of conduct can be found in our Terms of Service. If you have any questions, including why your comment may not be showing immediately after you submit it, be sure to visit the commenting FAQ.