BPA-Free, With Regrets
BY STEVE HENTGES | OCTOBER 17TH 2016 06:41 AM

Not that many years ago, many reusable food and beverage containers on themarket worldwide were made from polycarbonate plastic. Polycarbonate, which ismade from bisphenol A (BPA), is an almost ideal material for these products since
its clarity is comparable to glass, making it easy to see what’s inside, and it’svirtually shatter-proof – an important attribute for consumer products that could bedropped.
For years though, BPA has attracted considerable attention from scientists,environmental activists and the media. Now, as a result of that attention, few ofthese products are made from polycarbonate and a variety of alternative materials
are used instead.
What happened, and was it a good idea to abandon a high performing material witha safety track record spanning several decades? With the benefit of 20-20
hindsight, perhaps it’s not surprising that the safety of the alternative materials isnow being called into question.
Could it be that what seemed like a good idea at the time might have turned into a
regrettable substitution? And what can we learn from this experience that will help
to avoid the same issue for other materials and products in the future?
A Little History
Polycarbonate plastic was invented in the 1950s and its use has continued to growever since. Anywhere that a clear, durable and lightweight material is needed,polycarbonate is a good candidate and you’ll find it today in countless products that
we use every day. From bicycle helmets to components of life saving medical
devices, and eyeglass lenses to safety shields, polycarbonate makes our lives betterand safer.
The critical ingredient that is necessary to make polycarbonate is bisphenol
A (BPA), which has been the subject of extensive research – and more recently
controversy – about its safety for more than 15 years. Only trace levels of residualBPA, typically less than 50 parts per million, remain in polycarbonate plastic, and1/5

even smaller trace levels, typically in the range of 1 part per billion, can migrate
into a food or beverage in contact with polycarbonate under typical conditions ofuse.
In spite of repeated and consistent scientific safety assessments by governments,
starting in 2008 some legislatures in U.S. states and later elsewhere began to ban
polycarbonate baby bottles. None actually demonstrated that polycarbonate isunsafe, and some explicitly stated that their ban was based on the precautionary
principle. As a result, product manufacturers began moving away from using
polycarbonate in baby bottles, sippy cups and other products.
A Little Precaution Goes a Wrong Way
The general idea behind the precautionary principle is that precautionary measures
should be taken in response to perceived threats to human health or theenvironment even if full scientific certainty about the threat is not available. Theprinciple is sometimes described in a common sense way as “better safe thansorry.”
From a scientific perspective, applying the precautionary principle as a solution toconcerns about the safety of BPA seemed inappropriate. Never mind that theactual threat to human health was not supported by government experts; aprecautionary approach doesn’t provide a mechanism to address the safety of themost likely replacements.
Polycarbonate had to be replaced with something else, but what? Without knowing
what, how is it possible to know which is safe and which is sorry? Missing fromconsideration was the moral from one of Aesop’s Fables, which is to “look before
you leap.”
In a commentary published in 2010 by Judy LaKind and Linda Birnbaum, director of
the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, in the Journal of Exposure
Science and Environmental Epidemiology, the authors predicted that there mightcome a time when the safety of the replacements would be questioned:“There are too many examples of chemicals taken off the market only to bereplaced with chemicals that, in time, come to be considered ‘of concern’. We
may be at such a juncture with replacement chemicals for bisphenol A (BPA)

2/5and PFOS. BPA, used mainly in the production of polycarbonates, has beenmeasured in >90% of the general US population, prompting calls for bans,which have been enacted for certain uses in some parts of the United Statesand proposed in other countries. … Our literature search on some of thereplacement … chemicals revealed no exposure information. Years from now,
will we be seeing exposure studies describing certain BPA alternatives as
emerging chemicals of concern?”
That time has now come.
Will We Regret The Substitution?
The risk of leaping to an alternative chemical before you look is that you mightmake a regrettable substitution. Whether the polycarbonate baby bottle
replacements are regrettable may not be entirely known, but some researchers arestarting to ask the question.
Published very recently is a paper from a group of Belgian researchers titled“Evaluation of the potential health risks of substances migrating from polycarbonate
replacement baby bottles.” The 24 baby bottles included in the study were madefrom five different materials that are now being used as replacements forpolycarbonate bottles. The researchers evaluated 17 substances that were foundin an earlier study to migrate from one or more of the bottles into a solvent thatsimulated milk under real-life use conditions.
The evaluation was done with a conservative approach that reflected the frequentlack of adequate data for a thorough evaluation. An exposure range for each
substance was estimated from the level found to migrate under standard testconditions. In the absence of adequate toxicological data to evaluate safety,
assignment of a concern level for each baby bottle was based on a standard
approach known as threshold of toxicological concern, which is used by government
bodies such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the European Food
Safety Authority.
Of the 24 baby bottles examined, four were designated as “high concern” andanother 14 were designated as “concern.” While these findings reflect potential
risk from a conservative assessment rather than actual harm, they raise the3/5

question whether the precautionary principle was properly applied. In other words,
are the precautionary solutions safe, as intended, or sorry?
It’s Not Just About Baby Bottles
The case study raises some important questions. Replacement ofpolycarbonate baby bottles was largely the result of legislation
driven by consumer demand. Is that the best way to prioritize ouractions? Does moving from one product to another simply to
avoid controversy lead to improved safety? This might be less of
an issue if alternative materials were being considered only for products that do notplay an important role in protecting human health and safety. Unfortunately thoseare often the products where alternatives are most likely to be considered.
For example, alternatives to polycarbonate are under consideration for criticalcomponents of medical devices. Is this a good idea when polycarbonate has amulti-decade safety track record and baby bottles made from the likely alternative
material have been designated as a “concern” in the Belgian study? If your life
depended on it, which material would you choose?
Is BPA-Free Safe or Sorry?
If the baby bottle saga teaches us anything, it’s that we cannot assume that BPAFree means the same thing as safe. This is not only a scientific question, but amarketplace issue since consumers regularly see BPA-Free labels and may wellfactor the information into their buying decisions. Indeed, BPA-Free labels are now
found on materials like glass, which never contained BPA in the first place.
Recent psychology research examined what consumers understand when they seeBPA-Free labels and how consumer behavior is influenced. The researchers foundthat “the BPA-free label appears to mislead some people into thinking that ‘free’means ‘safer.’” As the researchers noted:“This is not a trivial issue. Consumer reaction to ‘BPA-free’ and similar labels
may in some cases cause people to make riskier decisions, decisions that feelsafer but actually expose them to agents which may ultimately be more
toxic. ‘BPA-free’ labels don’t make it easier for consumers to make reasoned
choices. They lead people to substitute unconscious assumptions about

4/5

safety and benefit for reasoned consideration of what is known or not known
about different chemicals and products. And that is truly a regrettable
substitution.”
Accordingly, the researchers note that “such labels are misleading and cause somepeople to accept a substitute chemical that they might otherwise reject.”
Is It Time To Free BPA?
In light of the demonstrated safety and efficacy of polycarbonate plastic in its many
product applications, and the questions now bubbling to the surface aboutalternatives, is it time to revisit the past and Free BPA? Unlike the goat in Aesop’s
Fable, we should look before we leap to avoid regrettable substitutions.

5/5