Bisphenol A: EFSA launches full re-evaluation focussing on exposure and possible low dose effects

EFSA News Story:: The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has started work on its new risk assessment of bisphenol A (BPA), used in food contact materials

 focussing in particular on exposure of vulnerable groups. The new opinion will complement earlier scientific advice provided at the request of the European Commission. EFSA will review all the available data and scientific studies on dietary exposure published since its 2006 opinion on BPA and also take into consideration the contribution of non-dietary sources to overall exposure to BPA. Experts on EFSA’s Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids (CEF) will further evaluate uncertainties about the possible relevance to human health of some BPA-related effects observed in rodents at low dose levels. New findings from ongoing studies on low dose effects as well as on dietary and non-dietary exposure to BPA will be considered as they become available during 2012. EFSA is also convening a Colloquium of international experts to debate the most recent scientific evidence of low dose effects in toxicology and the challenges this poses for risk assessment.

At its February 2012 plenary meeting the CEF Panel proposed a co-ordinated work plan for the full re-evaluation of the human risks associated with exposure to BPA through the diet by May 2013. This initiative was taken in light of EFSA’s ongoing monitoring of scientific research on BPA and the CEF Panel’s further consideration of new scientific studies. Two multidisciplinary working groups of experts have been established to focus, respectively, on the hazard characterisation of BPA (concerning its toxicological effects) and on exposure to BPA (how and how much BPA is absorbed by the human body). To enhance EU-wide cooperation, experts from national authorities undertaking related scientific work on BPA have also been invited to contribute to the working groups.

LinkedIn discussion of FDA and EFSA positions and likely outcomes

Food Contact Material - BPA issues
E.C. is 27 countries and 1 market, whereas U.S.A. is 50 states and 1 country (1 market).
The French National Assembly has passed a bill that bans all food contact packaging containing Bisphenol A (BPA) from 2014. EFSA rejected the French bill.

The U.S. FDA agreed to rule on whether to ban BPA use in food and beverage packaging by March 31, 2012 in the District Court for the Southern district of New York (per Chicago Tribune December 7, 2011). Please take note that NRDC sued U.S. FDA in 2010 asking the court to require the agency to respond to 2008 NRDC filed a petition.

Questions:
- Do you think EFSA can ask the French National Assembly to nullify this bill?
- Do you think U.S. FDA can simply walk away ignoring this issue?
- What will happen if either one of them agrees to ban BPA use in food contact packaging .
2 months ago
Like CommentFollow Flag More
Randall Ehrsam likes this
11 comments

Follow Michael
Michael Watkins • In my view, FDA is comfortable with the safety of packaging using BPA based materials in contact with food and beverages. Proof of this is found on the FDA website:

“Studies employing standardized toxicity tests used globally for regulatory decision making thus far have supported the safety of current low levels of human exposure to BPA.”

“FDA is not recommending that families change the use of infant formula or foods, as the benefit of a stable source of good nutrition outweighs the potential risk from BPA exposure.”

The National Toxicology Program (NTP) Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction, part of the National Institutes of Health, completed a review of BPA in September 2008. Included in this review was the plethora of non-standardized toxicity studies. They use five different terms to describe its level of concern about the different effects of chemicals: negligible concern, minimal concern, some concern, concern, and serious concern. They expressed “some concern for effects on the brain, behavior, and prostate gland in fetuses, infants, and children at current human expo­sures to bisphenol A and “minimal concern for effects on the mammary gland and an earlier age for puberty for females in fetuses, infants, and children at current human exposures to bisphenol A” and “negligible concern” for other outcomes. According to FDA:

“Overall, the current literature cannot yet be fully inter­preted for biological or experimental consis­tency or for relevance to human health. Part of the difficulty for evaluating consistency lies in reconciling findings of different studies that use different experimental designs and different specific behavioral tests to measure the same dimension of behavior.”

Under pressure by NTP, FDA agreed to do additional testing. This testing is underway, and to date, no results have been found to support changing the current FDA position.

FDA has announced it will make a final ruling by March 31, 2012, on whether bisphenol A (BPA) should be banned from use in packaging for food and drinks.

In my view, BPA will not be banned by FDA. However, in the unlikely event that it is, we can close down can plants and ramp up production in glass jar and bottle plants.
2 months ago• Like1

Follow Nick (Wai-ho)
Nick (Wai-ho) Tang • Dear Michael

Please note that glass jar and bottle require a cap (metal or plastic). Metal cap (lug cap, PT cap or CT cap) requires coating of plate. Besides BPA, there are BADGE, BFDGE and NOGE to deal with too. On top of this complication, sealing compound has other critical areas to deal with too. They are all Food Contact Materials (In the U.S., it is named as Food Contact Substance).

We should not forget PET, PP.....containers with plastic cap. They are FCM or FCS. The 1935/2004/EC framework has complicated the issues vis-a-vis U.S. FDA GRAS.

Goosh...supplying and buying food packaging material used to be lot of fun. Not any more nowadays, food packaging people are to read and prepare a lot of documents and certification.
2 months ago• Like

Follow Michael
Michael Watkins • Closures for bottles and jars do not necessarily require epoxy coatings. So BPA, BADGE, etc. may be avoided by using jars and bottles. Of course, alternative materials used for closures can also cause chemicals to migrate into food or beverages, as well. Avoiding epoxy could simply trade one problem for another.

You bring up BADGE as well. I thought that the BADGE issue had been addressed several times. In 2004, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) reported that:

“…the Panel concluded that BADGE and its chlorohydrins (BADGE.2HCl, BADGE.HCl and BADGE.H2O.HCl) do not raise concern for carcinogenicity and genotoxicity in vivo, respectively.

On the basis of the available experimental data, a Tolerable Daily Intake (TDI) can be established for BADGE and its hydrolysis products. Considering the No-Observed-Adverse-Effect-Level (NOAEL) of 15 mg/kg b.w./day derived from the oral chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity study in the rat with BADGE, and applying an uncertainty factor of 100, a TDI of 0.15 mg/kg b.w. can be established for BADGE. As BADGE is rapidly and extensively metabolised in vivo into the corresponding mono- and bis-diol derivatives BADGE.H2O and BADGE.2H2O, the Panel includes these in the TDI.

For the BADGE chlorohydrins BADGE.2HCl, BADGE.HCl, BADGE.HCl.H2O, in view of the lack of genotoxicity in vivo, the Panel considers that the current restriction of 1 mg/kg of food remains appropriate.”

So I thought this issue had been resolved. Most current concern seems to be on BPA migrating into foods and beverages. I would be curious to know if you or others in this group see BADGE or BADGE derivatives (specifically alpha glycols and chlorohydrins) to be of significant concern anywhere now. Thanks.
2 months ago• Like1

Follow Pramod
Pramod Desai • Traditionally an epoxy phenolic lacquer topped with an organosol are used for lug cap interiors in order to provide chemical resistance to acidic pickles and to anchor the PVC plastisols. Each of the three - ep lacquer, organosol and plastisol or under cloud. Are there any established alternatives? I understand a non-PVC plastisol has been established but I do not know if it is in commercial use.
2 months ago• Like

Follow Nick (Wai-ho)
Nick (Wai-ho) Tang • Thank you for the detail information regarding BADGE matters relating to FCM. It is stated in Directive 1895/2005/EC. BFDGE and NOGE are banned while BADGE is still permissible to be used. This issue is resolved.

Coating of plates for lug cap manufacturing and can is very different. Depending on the pH
of the product packed in glass and the cap size used, the coating (FCM) varies from 1-coat system, 2-coats to as much as 3-coats. BADGE is still in used. BPA has not not the issue as almost all coating used do not carry BPA (as far as I know).

You Everybody should be concerned on OML 10 mg/dm2 of all FCM. All FCM manufacturers, particularly the FCM administrators, are required to track the EC directives on FCM/OML/SML matters and U.S. FDA announcement regarding FCS (Food Contact Substances) that relates to their FCM manufactures and continue to update and to follow the rules. We, the packaging veterans, should keep on highlighting the FCM matters to the new food processing and packaging in-comers, whether they are in the purchasing, manufacturing, sales and marketing – both buyer and seller side.

FCM is becoming part of the food when and after it is packed? Don’t you agree?
1 month ago• Like

Follow Nick (Wai-ho)
Nick (Wai-ho) Tang • Dear Pramod

Yes, there is. It is called "Pano Blue". It looks like a "ring-lined TPE" lug cap. Hope to see that it is "polyester" and the coating is also "polyester". Personally, I am glad that will come out in mass scale and will benfit the "Vacuum Packed in Glass" sector of food packaging and FCM.

I don't have enough information. Let us find together.
1 month ago• Like

Follow Pramod
Pramod Desai • Dear Wai-ho, Nick Tang thanks for the info. But are you referring to Pano caps which are distinct from Lug caps. Anyway, for low pH pickles, the base coat of an epoxy-phenolic lacquer will be a must. Or has a polyester replaced this EP family of lacquers for chemical resistance too? And what about pvc plastisols? Kindly advise.
1 month ago• Like

Follow Nick (Wai-ho)
Nick (Wai-ho) Tang • Pano makes lug caps too. Their latest award "Pano Blue" cap is a step version of lug cap possibly a 63 mm size. I don’t understand why blue colour. Believe this is polyester TPE on polyester coating (laminated). I have to find out. This is new and requires market experience.

Are you food packers packing mango chutney or are you supplying lug caps to food companies packing this product. This product, my experience, is very corrosive. If you are a lug cap producer, you may want to work with Hoba PPG and ask them for their 3-coat system. If you are WCEA India licensee , you know the spec already.

Please be careful when selecting plastisol - sealing compound:- ADC (Azodicarbonamide), Phthalate, 2-EHA, possibly ESBO (there is no concern yet).

Mango Chutney is an exporting item to Europe in millions of packages. Well, you and/or your customer may have to go through rounds of cap and package analysis by outside institute to certify non presence of the banned ingredients as well as passing the FCM (coating and plastisol) Overall Migration Limit test.
1 month ago• Like1

Follow Drs. Rogier
Drs. Rogier van Duin NPDP • Substitution of the epoxy-phenolic basecoat by a polyester based lacquer is possible nowadays. For this there are two obstacles, price of polyester is higher than epoxy and intercoat adhesion of the PVC organosol. We at Diostyl Coatings have several options.
1 month ago• Like2

Follow Nick (Wai-ho)
Nick (Wai-ho) Tang • Drs. Rogier

Are your options PVC? Almost most (or all) of the lug cap manufactrurers are into PVC, polyester system is not economical to change at the moment because of the economical scale of using. Personally, I don't see the immediate move from PVC into polyester. Nor it will within a near 2 years' time. It takesd longer than 2-3 years for the polyester system to gain market experience. This will allow PVC system to adjust and adopt into the complete complaince.

What is more important now is the OML for the FCM for lug cap (coating and plastisol "sealing compound") - 20 dm2/kg. Do you, at Diostyl Coatings, have these including plastisol "sealing compound"? Please let all the lug cap manufacturers in the world note your achievement. Orders willfly in quickly.
1 month ago• Like

Follow Nick (Wai-ho)
Nick (Wai-ho) Tang • There are, at least, two world renowned and reputable coating manufacturers that can supply BPA-free coating for food cans. Do it right the first time for this time and be the first one to take off while everybody is waiting EFSA or U.S. FDA decision.

EFSA advises against lower EU limit on BPA

ENDS Europe: "The tolerable daily intake (TDI) for controversial chemical bisphenol A (BPA) should not be lowered, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) said on Thursday. The agency also found no evidence of neurobehavioral toxicity in BPA."

EU agency delays opinion on BPA

Factiva: "The European Commission has expressed 'regret' that the EU's food safety watchdog has delayed its opinion on the safety of bisphenol A (BPA), a packaging substance feared to have toxicity effects on the food it comes into contact with.

Concerns have been raised in Denmark and elsewhere over the substance, which is used in the manufacture of polycarbonate plastics, often found in baby bottles, and in the linings of tin cans and other food containers.

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) was asked to draw up an opinion on the toxicity risks from BPA, and to set the relevant Tolerable Daily Intake (TDI) for exposure to the material.

The opinion was expected at this week's plenary meeting of EFSA's Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavorings and Processing Aids, but the scientists concluded that the sheer volume of contributions submitted to the BPA review require the final opinion to be postponed until September."

EFSA postpones BPA opinion until September

Chemical Watch: "The European Food Safety Authority’s (EFSA) Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids (CEF) has failed to reach an expected opinion on bisphenol A (BPA) at a plenary meeting this week due to insufficient time. It now expects to continue discussions through the summer via teleconferences and provide overall conclusions at an extraordinary plenary in September. There were areas where the panel managed to reach..."

Scientists slam EFSA over bisphenol A, call to curb exposure

foodproductiondaily: "Hundreds of studies providing “overwhelming scientific evidence” of the harm caused by bisphenol A (BPA) are being dismissed by regulatory agencies because they don’t conform with the outdated safety test guideline authorities insist on using."

This is the verdict delivered as part of a stinging attack on the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) by scores of scientists and non-governmental organisations as they called on the body to reduce human exposure to the chemical – particularly in vulnerable groups such as pregnant women and young children.

But EFSA rejected the allegations, saying the sole criteria it used to select studies on which to base its conclusions had always been the scientific quality of the research and its relevance to human health risks. The body told FoodProductionDaily.com that it “assesses the scientific merits of each study individually, regardless of how it is funded and whether or not it complies with established international guidelines”.

Exposure to BPA must be reduced, say scientists

Letter to EFSA: The Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL) has added its name to a letter to European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) calling for a reduction in human exposure to the synthetic chemical, Bisphenol A (BPA). (1)

The signatories, which include professors and scientists from US, France, Germany, Italy, Spain,

Switzerland and UK and more than 40 international and national health groups, welcome the fact that the current review is taking into account a large number of studies in its opinion on BPA due to be published in early July 2010.

The opinion from EFSA has been delayed to take into account "hundreds of studies" and the "most recent scientific literature", according to the EFSA website. (2) The Open Letter from scientists and NGOs says that "Only a tiny minority of studies have articulated that BPA exposure is safe… but it is these few flawed studies that EFSA previously relied on to declare BPA safe."

------------

The letter was published on Wednesday as EFSA is due to issue a new scientific opinion on the safety of BPA in food contact materials in early July. The European Commission asked the scientific body to assess the latest findings on the issue.

EFSA previously declared BPA safe. According to the letter's signatories, "only a tiny minority of studies have articulated that BPA exposure is completely safe, and many… have been criticised in academic commentaries…but it is these few flawed studies that EFSA previously relied on [to deliver its advice].

This seems to contradict preliminary findings published in early June by France's national institute for health and medical research (Inserm), which said it will take years before it can be proven that BPA has long term impacts on human reproduction.

The letter refers to several new studies raising risks of exposure relating to increased likelihood of, for example, developing diabetes and breast cancer. "Any objective and comprehensive review of the scientific literature will lead to the conclusion that action is necessary to reduce the levels of BPA exposure," the authors say.

An increasing number of countries are taking action to address such risks. In May, French MPs backed a temporary ban the use of BPA in baby feeding bottles. In June, the German environment agency issued guidance encouraging manufacturers, importers and users to use alternative substances.

In May, Swedish environment minister Andreas Carlgren said that, if the EU did not quickly ban the hormone disrupting substance bisphenol in baby bottles, Sweden would "precede with a national prohibition". US and Canadian regulators have already taken action to limit BPA exposure.

Denmark bans bisphenol A in food packaging for young children

Foodproductiondaily: "Denmark has introduced a temporary ban on bisphenol A (BPA) in all food contact materials for young children amid fears the chemical could inhibit brain development.

The Government decided to impose the ban for children aged 0-3 as a precautionary measure after its food safety experts raised concerns that low-level exposure to the substance may inhibit learning capacity.

From 1 July, 2010, it will be illegal to sell infant feeding bottles, feeding cups and packaging for baby food containing BPA. The Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries announced the three-month transition period to allow current stocks of children’s food packaging to be “marketed”."

Time for Europe to send bisphenol A into the sunset

Foodproductiondaily: "So where does this leave EFSA which has so far given no indication that it intends to depart from its long-held view over the safety of BPA? The body is a purely scientific one - detached from the political arena. But it is savvy enough to know there is a political dimension to all regulatory matters.

The international conference on BPA the body convened last month was undoubtedly a genuine attempt to consult with experts from across the region – but the meeting could also be viewed as a consensus-building exercise. Was it an acknowledgement that the agency may need all the support it can muster in the coming months as it publishes an update to its position on BPA?

The body is due to deliver that verdict in June. But whatever the agency decides, the substance may well have had its day if consumers decide the risks posed by BPA are too great. If EFSA reaffirms its faith in the substance, the plastics industry will urge opponents of the chemical to listen to and abide by the deliberations of the experts upon whose knowledge we ultimately rely.

But in the end the customer is always right and, if industry fails to listen to them, it risks winning the BPA battle but losing the war."

EFSA ::. Bisphenol A

EFSA ::. Bisphenol A: "On 15 October 2009, EFSA received a request from the European Commission to assess the relevance of a new study on possible neurodevelopmental effects of BPA and, if necessary, to update the existing TDI accordingly. The study in question was commissioned by the American Chemistry Council to address safety concerns raised by the Canadian government, which has introduced legislation to ban the use of polycarbonate in baby feeding bottles. EFSA aims to complete its evaluation by May 2010, in line with the deadline set by the Commission."

On 8 March 2010 EFSA received a further related request from the European Commission to also take into account in its risk assessment any other new scientific evidence that may be available and to liaise closely with EU Member States risk assessment bodies on this issue. On 26 March 2010 EFSA held a meeting with national experts on BPA from EU Member States, as well as members of EFSA’s scientific Panel on food contact materials, enzymes, flavourings and processing aids (CEF Panel) and representatives of the European Commission.

At the meeting with Member States, EFSA outlined the draft opinion on BPA which is currently being prepared by the CEF Panel, as well as the initial findings of its review of recent scientific literature in this area. Panel members and national experts stressed that all scientific information needs to be critically analysed to determine its relevance to the safety assessment of BPA in terms of human health. National experts were encouraged to submit any new evidence to EFSA, which will be considered when finalising the opinion. EFSA has also been in touch with other international risk assessment bodies working on BPA.

On 30 March 2010, EFSA received an urgent request from the European Commission to review scientific arguments supplied by Denmark in support of the government’s decision to ban the use of BPA in food contact materials for infants aged from 0 to 3 years. The Danish risk assessment was based mainly on the study by Stump looking at possible neurodevelopmental effects of BPA at a range of different dose levels. EFSA has responded to the Commission explaining that this study is the same as the one currently being evaluated by the CEF Panel.

EFSA aims to complete its current work on BPA by the end of May 2010. The CEF Panel will by then have had the opportunity to consider not just the Stump study, but also to more widely review the recent scientific literature and any further new evidence that may be submitted by Member States, as well as the already published risk assessments conducted in some countries. EFSA will then be in a position to give the European Commission an up-to-date overview on the safety of BPA.

Follow EFSA's lead on bisphenol A – Danish plastics body

Foodproductiondaily: "The Danish Plastics Federation (DPF) has voiced its opposition to its Government’s temporary ban on bisphenol A (BPA) in food contact materials for young children and urged Ministers to abide by EFSA’s forthcoming decision on the chemical."

On March 26 the Danish Government announced its decision to outlaw use of the substance for children aged 0-3 as a precautionary measure after food safety experts from the Danish Food Institute raised concerns that low-level exposure to the substance may inhibit learning capacity. The ban is due to come into force on 1 July.

But the plastics trade body has rejected using the “precautionary principle” as a basis for establishing the ban and pointed out that it was extremely difficult for non-scientists to assess the significance of research. Nevertheless it hailed the Government’s “objective handling of food safety issues” throughout the decision-making process.

The group called on authorities to reverse its decision on banning BPA-containing materials for children if the soon-to-be-delivered verdict from European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) gave the chemical the all clear.

“It is incredibly difficult for both industrialists and politicians to assess the researchers' findings and for that reason, we have strongly recommended to the parliament not to decide (on) a national ban or to work for an EU ban, without at least having knowledge of the additional assessment from the EFSA experts, as Denmark has asked for,” the DPF told FoodProductionDaily.com.

The body said that any substance shown to pose a health risk should be banned but added that regulation should be carried out “according to harmonised rules, both in Denmark and the EU”. It said it was waiting for the results of the risk assessment by the EFSA due to be completed by the end of May.

The DPF added that an EU-wide ban should be imposed if the Parma-based food safety watchdog reached the same conclusion as its Danish counterparts. But the body said it expected the Government to re-approve the use of polycarbonate in food contact materials for children if EFSA found that BPA did not pose a health risk at low doses.

EU advice on bisphenol A in food "remains valid"

ENDS Europe": "The current EU tolerable daily intake (TDI) of plastics intermediate bisphenol A in food provides 'a sufficient margin of safety for consumers', according to a new analysis published by European food safety authority Efsa on Wednesday.

The study considers new data on the chemical's impact on health, and concludes the TDI of 0.05 milligrams per kilogram of body weight 'remains valid' (EED 29/01/07)."

EFSA to convene bisphenol A summit

Foodproductiondaily: "A group of international experts are to be invited to a top level summit on bisphenol A (BPA) by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).

The food safety watchdog said it will outline its draft opinion on the chemical at the meeting with national specialists that is due to take place by early April. The venue has yet to be confirmed, an agency spokesman told FoodProductionDaily.com.

Specialists will be able to discuss EFSA’s on-going work on the substance and put forward any relevant national research “in support of the finalisation of EFSA's opinion”, said the body. Members of EFSA’s Advisory Forum have been asked to nominate these experts to take part in the assembly alongside members of the CEF Panel's working group on BPA.

EFSA said its assessment of BPA is currently being prepared by the food contacts panel. It is drawing up the opinion, which is expected to be adopted by May 2010, after a request from the European Commission last October to evaluate the relevance of a new study on possible neuro-developmental effects of BPA. Officials in Brussels also asked the food safety body to consider whether it was necessary to update the existing Tolerable Daily Intake (TDI)."

Germany backs bisphenol A in baby bottles

Foodproductiondaily: "Germany’s risk watchdog has become the latest official body to declare that bisphenol A (BPA) is safe for “normal” use in baby bottles and should not be banned.
The BfR, the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, said it arrived at its conclusions after a review of the available scientific studies on the issue.

“Following careful examination of all studies, in particular the studies in the low dose range of bisphenol A, BfR comes to the conclusion in its scientific assessment that the normal use of polycarbonate bottles does not lead to a health risk from bisphenol A for infants and small children,” said the body in a statement."

FSANZ gives all clear to Bisphenol A

Australian Food News: "The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) recently completed a review of the scientific literature for BPA and determined a maximum daily ‘safe limit’ for BPA. They concluded that the estimated total daily intake of BPA by a bottle-fed baby would be less than 10% of the ’safe level’ for babies, when the bottles were cleaned using normal domestic conditions, and about 20% of the ’safe limit’, when the bottles were cleaned under exaggerated conditions including the use of boiling water or strong solvents. In adults, the estimated daily intake from canned foods and beverages would be about 5% of the ’safe limit’. A draft review by the US Food and Drug Administration also allayed no major concerns regarding the use of the chemical."

FSANZ has since assessed the risk to infants from exposure to BPA and concurred with the conclusions reached by the US FDA and the EFSA that the levels of exposure are very low and do not pose a significant health risk.

The move by overseas manufacturers to stop using BPA in baby bottles is a voluntary action and not the result of a specific action by regulators. However, FSANZ reported they would support the use of alternatives to BPA in baby bottles, provided they are safe.

The food standards body will continue to examine reviews from regulatory agencies and papers in the peer-reviewed literature, as they become available and determine whether any further action is required.

Despite the findings of food standards bodies around the world there is a move to ban the chemical in the United States. The introduction of a new bill to the US Senate this week could ensure the chemical would no longer be able to be used in food and drink containers as critics continue to argue that it poses a danger.

EFSA Gives BPA All-Clear

EFSA:  22nd October EFSA published a statement on its review of BPA in the light of the JAMA paper making no change to TDI limits in the absence of a 'causal link' between BPA levels measured and the medical disoders described.

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) received a request on 29 September 2008 from the European Commission requesting an assessment of the implications to the hazard and risk assessment of bisphenol A (BPA) of a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) on 16 September (Lang et al.,2008), correlating urinary BPA concentrations to medical disorders in adults.

The former EFSA Panel on food additives, flavourings, processing aids and materials in contact with food (AFC) carried out a comprehensive risk assessment on bisphenol A (BPA) in 2006 and set a full Tolerable Daily Intake (TDI) of 0.05 mg/kg body weight (bw)/day. EFSA concluded that this single study does not provide sufficient proof for a causal link between exposure to BPA and the health conditions mentioned in the study, i.e. heart disease,diabetes and elevated liver-enzyme activities. 

Therefore, EFSA considers that there is no need to revise the TDI as derived by the AFC Panel in 2006.