Notas de prensa

El Programa Nacional de Toxicología de los EE. UU. (NTP) publicó hoy su informe final sobre el estudio central de CLARITY, un estudio trascendental sobre la seguridad del bisfenol A (BPA). Los resultados del estudio, que es la parte final de un programa de investigación exhaustivo de varios años, apoyan ampliamente la seguridad del BPA.

“El informe final del estudio central de CLARITY apoya firmemente las declaraciones recientes de la Administración de Alimentos y Medicamentos (FDA) de EE. UU. mediante las cuales se afirma que el BPA es seguro en los niveles tan bajos a los que están expuestas las personas por lo general. El alcance y la magnitud de este estudio no tienen precedentes para el BPA, y los resultados indican claramente que es muy poco probable que el BPA provoque efectos sobre la salud, incluso en personas que están expuestas a él durante toda su vida”, afirma Steven G. Hentges, Ph.D., Polycarbonate/BPA Global Group del American Chemistry Council (ACC).

Hoy, el gobierno de EE. UU. publicó el proyecto de informe con los resultados del estudio de mayor escala alguna vez realizado sobre el bisfenol A (BPA). Los resultados del estudio, que es la parte clave de un programa de investigación exhaustivo de varios años, respaldan ampliamente la seguridad del BPA.

“Los resultados del estudio central de CLARITY una vez más demostraron que el BPA es seguro en los niveles tan bajos a los que suelen estar expuestas las personas. Es el estudio de mayor escala alguna vez realizado sobre el BPA y los resultados indican que es muy poco probable que el BPA provoque efectos sobre la salud, incluso en personas que están expuestas a él durante toda su vida”, afirma Steven G. Hentges, Ph.D., Polycarbonate/BPA Global Group del American Chemistry Council (ACC).

La siguiente afirmación puede atribuirse a Steven G. Hentges, Ph.D., del Polycarbonate/BPA Global Group del American Chemistry Council. Estos comentarios abordan la decisión del grupo científico de la Oficina de Evaluación de Riesgos de Salud Ambiental (OEHHA) de California, el Comité de Identificación de Tóxicos para el Desarrollo y la Reproducción (DART-IC) de incluir el bisfenol A (BPA) en la propuesta de ley 65.

“Estamos en total desacuerdo con la decisión del DART-IC de incluir al BPA en la propuesta de ley 65 como sustancia tóxica para el sistema reproductor femenino. La decisión no está apoyada por el extenso registro científico presentado al comité y está totalmente opuesta a los datos explícitos proporcionados por la Administración de Medicamentos y Alimentos (FDA) de los EE. UU.” In April, FDA’s acting chief scientist submitted a letter to the DART-IC stating that the results of FDA’s own comprehensive research ‘do not support BPA as a reproductive toxicant.’

“In response to recent studies, which have suggested that BPA might be linked to effects such as heart disease, high blood pressure and other conditions, federal government scientists have been conducting in-depth studies on BPA.

“This comprehensive set of studies conducted by U.S. government researchers tells us a great deal more about the potential for BPA to cause health effects. For example, research funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and conducted by scientists at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the government’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, (Teeguarden et al.) found that, because of the way BPA is processed in the body, it is very unlikely that BPA could cause health effects at any realistic exposure level.

“Due to the use of unrealistic experimental conditions, much of the data presented in this new study has very limited relevance to the potential for human exposure to BPA from handling thermal receipt paper. Although downplayed in the publication, the most relevant data shows very little BPA exposure under conditions most representative of real-life contact with thermal receipt paper. “Notably, a recent study from the Finnish Institute of Occupational Health (Porras et al., 2014) found no significant exposure to BPA from handling receipt paper using real-life exposure scenarios. Included in the Finnish study were conditions representative of cashiers (i.e., repeated handling of receipts throughout a workday) and more intensive short-term handling considered to be beyond normal handling of paper receipts.

The American Chemistry Council (ACC) offers the following comments regarding the study published today by Health Canada, the first results from the Maternal-Infant Research on Environmental Chemicals (MIREC) study. The study, titled “Phthalate and bisphenol A exposure among pregnant women inCanada — Results from the MIREC study,” was published in the July issue of the scientific journal Environment International.  Quotes from the following may be attributed to Steven G. Hentges, Ph.D. of ACC’s Polycarbonate/BPA Global Group.

“With important new research results in hand, Health Canada once again reaffirmed its position on the safety of bisphenol A(BPA) in its press release today, stating ‘Based on the overall weight of evidence, Health Canada continues to conclude that dietary exposure to BPA through food packaging is not expected to pose a health risk to the general population, including newborns and young children.’

No es ningún secreto que el bisfenol A (BPA) ha generado controversia desde hace ya bastante tiempo y ha sido objeto de inspecciones rigurosas por parte de científicos, organismos gubernamentales, medios de comunicación y grupos ambientalistas. Tal escrutinio resultó en la exigencia de los consumidores de alternativas para los productos que contienen BPA y los esfuerzos apresurados de algunos fabricantes para ofrecer productos “sin BPA”. Si bien, la controversia en torno al BPA puede resultar interesante e importante, la controversia en sí misma no brinda una respuesta a la pregunta clave tratada en este artículo: ¿Por qué debemos reemplazar al BPA?

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulates the uses of BPA for food contact applications and polycarbonate is widely used in FDA-regulated medical devices. Since the agency seeks to provide the soundest basis for its regulatory decisions, FDA, in conjunction with the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP), designed a robust research program to answer key scientific questions about the safety of BPA.

“FDA’s authority to act on this petition is based solely on marketplace conditions. As stated in the petition, BPA is no longer used in infant formula packaging. We believe this action by FDA will bring clarity for consumers and will eliminate any lingering confusion about the presence of BPA in infant formula packaging. As noted by FDA, their action is not based on any finding or conclusion that packaging containing BPA is unsafe. Epoxy resins have been widely used for more than 30 years to line food and beverage cans, protect food quality and nutrition, and extend shelf life. Based on a long history of safe use, and FDA’s recent reaffirmation of BPA’s safety, epoxy resin food can linings continue to be the preferred choice for safe and effective food packaging.”

ACC’s response to a April 10 USA Today article about a new activist campaign to pull chemicals from consumer products. ACC notes that chemical companies go to great lengths to help Americans make informed decisions about the products they purchase, including undertaking extensive scientific analyses to evaluate the potential risks of chemical products. ACC also notes that chemical safety is overseen by six federal agencies under more than a dozen federal laws and regulations.