On January 23, 2013 the trade association North American Metal Packaging Alliance (NAMPA) published a press release (pdf) claiming that the recent study estimating the public health cost of bisphenol A (BPA) misrepresents scientific evidence. The study estimated public health costs of the use of BPA in food packaging at $3 billion annually in the U.S. (previously reported on by the FPF). In its press release, NAMPA argues that BPA has lead to health cost savings, as no food borne illness from canned food was reported in the past 30 years in the U.S.. NAMPA’s argument does not distinguish between food cans in general and those coated with the contested BPA based epoxy resins. Further, NAMPA refers to the European Food Safety Authority’s (EFSA) draft scientific opinion on BPA published January 17, 2014 and previously reported on by the FPF. In the scientific opinion, EFSA states that “there is no convincing evidence that BPA is obesogenic” and that a “causal link between BPA exposure and cardiovascular effects in humans cannot be established”. Irrespectively, EFSA proposed to lower the tolerable daily intake (TDI) of BPA by a factor of 10.
Jeff Urbanchuk (January 24, 2014). “Contrary to the latest misleading article, BPA epoxy resins contribute to health cost savings by protecting consumers from food borne illness.” NAMPA (pdf).
FPF article "BPA health costs at $3 billion annually"
FPF article “EFSA publishes draft BPA opinion, part II”