After postponing a decision on banning Bis-phenol A (BPA) several times, the USFDA has come out at last with a tame declaration that existing data would be inadequate to justify any ban on this chemical which finds its way to foods through feeding bottles and other containers and packings. To add insult to injury, this agency has made a non-binding suggestion that children may not be exposed too much to BPA tainted foods till adequate scientific data emerge regarding its absolute safety.
"Reporting from Washington - The Food and Drug Administration said Friday that the safety of a controversial chemical found in some baby bottles, children's drinking cups and other food containers merited further study but did not warrant immediate restrictions on its use. The FDA, the Department of Health and Human Services and other health agencies have committed $30 million to studying the health effects of bisphenol A, or BPA, and expect results in 18 to 24 months. "We have some concern, meaning in part that we need to know more," FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg said in a conference call with reporters. In the meantime, the agency has issued guidance for limiting the exposure of children and babies. FDA Deputy Commissioner Joshua Sharfstein said that for the present, "the FDA does support the use of baby bottles with BPA."
What about the views from FDA on safety of BPA? "But because BPA was classified years ago as an indirect food additive, it is not subject to the kind of scrutiny that other chemicals are. Without critical data about BPA, it is impossible to regulate the chemical, officials said. BPA, first manufactured in 1891, was later developed as a plasticizer in the early 1960s. It was classified in 1963 as an indirect food additive and is listed among some 3,000 chemicals that are "generally regarded as safe." That designation exempts them from scrutiny. According to the FDA's regulations, a substance that is granted that status is not subject to FDA review. So, while the agency can broadcast its opinion that the chemical is not safe, it can't compel companies to provide certain information about the chemical".
What is baffling is that 90% of the processors who were using packing materials like Poly carbonates earlier have stopped using them voluntarily responding to consumer concern while the food safety agency is not unduly bothered about it. In a clear strategy to buy more time, obviously favoring the industry, a research project has been suggested, that too funded by the government! USA must be the most favorable place for business in this planet because of such "friendly" gestures from the government, even though it is at the cost of the citizen and the exchequer.
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com
No comments:
Post a Comment