Stores are already pulling containers with bisphenol A (BPA) off the shelves but the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is saying that those steps may not be necessary based on available scientific evidence.
In testimony before a Senate subcommittee, Norris Alderson, the FDA's associate commissioner for science, said that while the agency is reviewing safety concerns raised about BPA, "a large body of available evidence" suggests that it does not pose a health risk when used in food and beverage containers.
Sen. Charles Schumer (D - NY) accused the FDA of "looking the other way" on BPA. "Parents always err on the side of caution when it comes to their kids' health. We think that the law should do the same," he said.
A number of studies have found that animals exposed to BPA have suffered from a variety of health problems. Last month, the National Toxicology Program, part of the National Institutes of Health, expressed concern that BPA had the potential to cause neural and behavioral problems in fetuses and small children. BPA exposure has also been linked to the onset of early puberty and incidences of prostate and breast cancer.
As a precautionary measure, Canada banned the sale of baby bottles containing BPA. Retailers in that country began removing products with BPA from their shelves even before the government made an official announcement.
In the U.S., Toys 'R' Us and Wal-Mart have announced intentions to stop selling baby bottles and other items that contain BPA.
Discussion Questions: Do retailers need to "err on the side of caution" when it comes to products that may possibly be harmful to consumers even if there is no definitive scientific evidence to support those concerns? Should the financial impact of pulling "questionable" products from store shelves be left to fall entirely on suppliers or should retailers have to shoulder some of the burden?