The heated debate over the possible health risks posed by bisphenol A (BPA) in polycarbonate products has crossed the Atlantic and reached European shores, even if most of the talk is still emanating from North America, where Canadian health authorities’ drive to ban or restrict BPA quickly emptied retailers’ shelves of PC plants in both Canada and the US last spring – see Plasteurope.com of 21.04.2008.

Yet another “thumbs up” on BPA by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA; www.fda.gov) in a report released earlier this month defends BPA as safe, while – as before – recommending further studies. However, the FDA’s report coincided with publication of two critical studies in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), linking the chemical to heart disease and diabetes. These was picked up by European environment and health pressure groups and thus found its way into the headlines of Europe’s popular press.

Authorities on several continents – in addition to the FDA, the European Food Safety Authority (www.efsa.eu.int) and Japan’s health ministry – also have given the chemical a “clean bill of health.” Nevertheless, given the sheer volume of text and the scientific nature of most of the reports as well as the fact that not all of the studies looked at the same aspects of exposure to BPA, these opinions may prove to be no match for flashy headlines and “fast-read” stories that boil down to “toss your PC baby bottles into the trash” and frighten already insecure consumers.

European plastics industry associations, which have good reason to be worried about the repercussions for their own business, are starting to wake up to the discussion and try to steer it onto a more rational level. The polycarbonate/bisphenol A working group within PlasticsEurope (Brussels / Belgium; www.plasticseurope.com) recently took issue with the conclusions of the studies published in JAMA, asserting that “the weight of the scientific evidence shows that there is no basis for health concerns over human exposure to BPA.”

In one of the JAMA-reported studies, conducted by “Leranth et al”, monkeys were injected subcutaneously with massive doses of BPA. Terming this route “irrelevant,” the association noted that subcutaneous injection bypasses the normal oral exposure. What’s more, it said, actual levels of the substance in the animals’ bodies could not be determined, as “only a few parameters were examined.” As to the “Lang” study in JAMA, which it said contained “design flaws,” PlasticsEurope pointed out that the authors themselves had warned of “significant liminations” that their research, in particular regarding urinary concentrations of BPA.

The flap over the important polycarbonate feedstock may benefit producers of other polymers, as bottle manufacturers rush to fill the needs of consumers scared away from PC. At least one European plastics group, Germany’s “Forum PET” www.forum-pet.de) has felt the need to point out that plastic water bottles used in that country are made of PET, rather than PC (although PC is certainly used to produce baby formula bottles and sport bottles, for example).

In North America, manufacturer “Fit &Fresh” has just launched a new filtered water bottle made of LDPE. Earlier this year, at the height of the Canadian BPA scare, US sports bottle producer Nalgene (Rochester, New York / USA; www.nalgene-outdoor.com) announced that it would sitch from PC to the new “Tritan” copolyester made by Eastman (Kingsport, Tennessee / USA; www.eastman.com).