May 15, 2008
FDA Says Baby Bottles with BPA are Safe
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?
Discussion Questions
Poll
BrainTrust
Recent Discussions
More Discussions
How Can Retailers Crack the Gen Z ‘Riddle’?
Gen Z is becoming an increasingly important consumer demographic, but an elusive one to map. How…Does Bath & Body Works’ Scented Holiday Campaign Pass the Sniff Test?
Bath & Body Works is kicking off a new campaign with scent being at the fore…Which Tech Will Solve In-Store Inventory Woes?
Three major tech lineups are looking to solve retail inventory problems. Which is most suited?
BPA has been pretty well smeared at this juncture so we’re not sure how much of a market there is for baby bottles made with the chemical. We’d think that retailers, even those who are inclined to go with the FDA’s assessment, would eventually be faced with a product that is taking up space and not generating sales. Those typically get delisted. The question is whether that happens sooner or later.
This is not the first BPA-related story we’ve covered on RetailWire. Back in April 2003 we ran a story and discussion, “Study Raises Safety Concerns for Plastic Containers.”
In short, it said: A study conducted by researchers at Case Western Reserve University, underwritten by the American Chemistry Council, linked BPA exposure to an increase in birth defects in mice.
At the time the research was made pubic, Fred vom Saal, an expert on the effects of toxins on reproduction at the University of Missouri told Reuters, “Bisphenol A is one of the most commonly used plastic materials in food containers, in beverage containers. This is a ubiquitous chemical…at least in the developed world. It is one of the top 50 chemicals in production. You don’t wait to prove that it does that in people before you take some regulatory action.”
You can check out the complete RetailWire story and discussion here.
Retailers rely on customers; the FDA relies on politicians. No wonder the former are being sensible and cautious. Full marks should be awarded, especially if they publicise their actions and the reason for them. And black marks for the FDA for, yet again, revealing their indifference and arrogance to people’s welfare.
This is a perfect example of fear run amok. There is no conclusive evidence that BPA is bad. However, there is nothing wrong with stores offering (or exclusively offering) BPA free products. This is akin to offering organic foods (although there is no evidence that preservatives or artificial colors or flavors will harm anyone, only anecdotal evidence).
By offering consumers a choice, retailers prove that they can respond to market demand and supply an alternative for those consumers who demand this. This is what consumer friendly (and smart) retailing is all about.
Given how well the FDA has screened potential hazards with our prescription medications (sarcasm intended here), I would be concerned about accepting their opinions on safety — particularly when it comes to my child. The actions of retailers and consumers clearly shows they are taking control of the situation as best they can, given the information available.
I have a 3 month old baby and this issue hit me personally. I’ve heard for years that it’s not a good idea to heat up plastics due to the potential leakage of harmful chemicals. When this news hit, we immediately went out and bought glass bottles to mitigate any risk.
In my mind, consumers need to be aware of potential dangers. If the evidence is not definitive, suppliers should not legally be required to pull off the shelves. But retailers should be very proactive in posting the potential dangers and let caveat emptor reign. Some may decide that it’s best to err on the side of caution, but it’s up to them. Considering that glass bottles are on a minimum 3-week back order in every store and website, I think consumers have spoken pretty clearly on the issue.
The question in my mind is whether incidences like this are starting to chip away at our trust with the FDA. Why are they not erring on the side of caution? Why do children have to be proven to be effected before they demand that questionable product be pulled? Personally, I wonder sometimes where there allegiances lie—people or big business.
Here in Canada, government legislation is proposing a total ban on BPA products. Perhaps the lobby groups up here aren’t as influential as in the US.
By the way, BPA is also used in a number of canned products in order to keep the inside of the can from corroding. But I guess the food industry has been able to keep that under wraps for the time being.
As for the retailers pulling stuff off the shelf, why wouldn’t they? If people are lined up to buy BPA free goods, then more power to any retailer able to satisfy that market.
Since substitutes are so easily available, why use BPA? Why does the world need something with any unnecessary risk? And speaking of unnecessary risk, why pay attention to assurances by the FDA? Isn’t the FDA an unnecessary risk? To cut U.S. government waste, why not outsource the FDA to Canada? They seem to do a better job. Or maybe Americans should require FDA commissioners to store their food and drinks in BPA containers.