BPA pronounced "toxic" by Canadian health officials

At the end of last week, with a deliberate lack of fanfare, the Canadian government formally declared that the plastic-additive bisphenol-A (BPA) is toxic to Canadians' health. This paves the way for public health officials to restrict its usage with regulations, rather than through legislative means that are slow, fraught with compromise, and often heavily influenced by industry lobbying.

Several studies have found BPA in the urine of various population groups, most alarmingly children. It has been linked with a potential increased risk of hormone related cancers in women, and sexual dysfunction in men. Mothers' exposure to BPA while pregnant appears to have health consequences for their children, and exposure to estrogen mimics such as BPA has been linked to early puberty in girls. With so many BPA-free options, it just doesn't seem worth the risk to continue using this non-essential additive.

Many plastics manufacturers have been responding in a socially responsible way to the growing evidence by producing BPA-free alternatives long before any prohibitions or formal government declarations arrived. The American Chemistry Council's polycarbonate and BPA group, however, admonished the Canadian health decision as one that is "contrary to the weight of worldwide scientific evidence, unwarranted and will unnecessarily confuse and alarm the public."

Authorities in Europe appear to be favoring the position of the chemical industry. Only a month ago the European Food Safety Authority concluded that current data "do not provide convincing evidence of neurobehavioral toxicity of BPA."

Is a precautionary approach warranted in this case? On the one hand mounting evidence suggests BPA is bad for health, its non-essential and has alternatives. And yet there's no slam-dunk evidence that's killing anyone fast. What's a responsible plastics manufacturer to do?