A few days ago the EU Food Safety Agency (EFSA) published a report where it ruled that Bisphenol A, also known as BPA, does not represent any health risk, although they admitted that "... apparently there is damage but, with the current evidence, it cannot be concluded that, with normal exposure levels to this compound, there are adverse effects ”.
From Sinplástico we want to point out several points that should be put on the table when evaluating this report:
- This report recognizes that there is an exposure to bisphenol A and that, therefore, the risk is evident and that it depends on where we put the safety threshold to consider it a danger to our health. Moreover, this same Agency has decided to lower, with a certain contradiction, more than 10 times the amount of this security threshold.
- We must not forget that the composition of many plastics is an industrial secret, so it is very daring to ensure that Bisphenol A does not pose health risks. In addition, this report does not point out the possible risks that exist when mixing BPA with the more than 100 problem substances that we can also find in plastics and that have been identified in a recent report by the Danish Environmental Protection Agency.
- The EFSA study also does not take into account the possible cumulative effect of this substance on the body over time.
- Plastics Europe, employers' association of European plastics manufacturers, have been quick to speak out and request the elimination of the restrictions imposed in France. For our part, we believe that this organization, before rejecting the precautionary principle followed by the French authorities, should work on its policy of transparency and the safety of the plastic materials that we use daily in contact with our food, cosmetics or hygiene products.
- This study attempts to contradict the hundreds of independent studies that support the danger of BPA. The latest, published in the journal Endocrinology, shows that exposure to bisphenol A during pregnancy puts the baby at risk of diabetes or heart disease. This same study affirms that this substance seriously damages the fertility of men.
In conclusion, at Sinplástico we believe that the precautionary principle should prevail and that any risk, however minimal, must be taken into account by the Agencies that ensure the protection of consumers.
We consider that the studies carried out have to cover the damages of all plastic additives and not of one in particular, because otherwise the results will always be biased and with a clear inclination in favor of the plastic lobby.