“In the 20 years that FDA has been reviewing and evaluating scientific literature on BPA, we have come to recognize some key points as important in our review of chemical compounds used in food and food packaging,” says Marianna Naum, PhD, a microbiologist who serves as FDA’s team lead for strategic communications.
For starters, analytical methodology matters, Dr. Naum emphasizes. “When evaluating the potential toxicological effects of a chemical compound, awareness of its current uses is important,” she notes. “It is necessary to be aware of and characterize the potential for inadvertent or unavoidable contamination when conducting toxicology studies. Carefully controlled sample collection and analysis methods, as well as use of radiolabeled material, may be necessary to gain a better understanding and characterization of potential contamination. Evaluating this potential for inadvertent exposure permits better characterization of the true internal doses and biological effects in test animals and can be useful in explaining unexpected results or uncertainties in previous reports.”
Continued monitoring of scientific literature is a second critical task relative to BPA, Dr. Naum mentions. “FDA Office of Food Additive Safety staff routinely monitor the scientific literature for new research that helps enhance our understanding of substances added to food or food packaging, and consider new data as we continue to ensure the safe use of these substances,” she relates, noting that a summary of FDA’s work relative to BPA is available on its BPA web page.
Impact of Inaccurate Information
“Essentially, I think we’ve learned that it’s hard to reverse public opinion with scientific facts after consumers have been given so much inaccurate information,” says Kay Cooksey, PhD, the Cryovac Endowed Chair in the Packaging Science Program at Clemson University. “Although we have always known this fact, with today’s social media and Internet sources sounding so convincing, the BPA situation became harder to overcome than almost any other packaging issue in the last 25 years, in my opinion. Given that we know the public will not always understand what is ‘safe,’ we learned that we should examine the materials we use in contact with food with the level of proof and explanation that goes beyond saying that the FDA or other government agencies allow us to use them.”
Dr. Cooksey says it’s necessary for food industry stakeholders to constantly examine if there is an alternative product for food packaging that won’t have as much concern as BPA from a safety point of view. “If we do, we should plan to scale the alternate up and pay for the cost difference before an issue arises,” she relates. “I know the industry has done this for years, but the BPA issue has just made the idea of having safer and possibly more expensive and less practical alternatives as an option, whereas in the past, we wouldn’t have considered looking at materials and processes that don’t have good machinability or reduce shelf life as an alternative.”
Of concern to Dr. Cooksey is that research proved epoxy-based can liners are safe at the consumption rates that fall well within the allowable limits, but any volume of data or history on the can liners that may be used as alternatives does not yet exist. “There are some materials we do know a lot about, such as polyester as a can liner, and we’re using materials from our distant past, namely oleoresins, but those are not compatible for all foods and processes, so in order to have a can liner that has all the functionality of the epoxy liners, we might be switching to a material that has different issues, some of which could be safety related,” she notes. “Regardless of this situation, the food packaging industry is making the change and doing it quickly. The industry will not do anything that is not safe for consumers, so they are doing it knowing other factors such as machinability or overall shelf life may be affected negatively.”
Leave a Reply