According to these verified, leaked minutes, the industry met in Washington, DC on May 28th to discuss tactics to better sell the chemical to the public by, of all things, using a pregnant woman as a spokesperson instead of a scientist because, "A pregnant woman would be "the holy grail" to serve as a spokeswoman, the memo says. Attendees said they doubted they could find a scientist to serve as a spokesman for BPA."
Attending Companies were: Coca-Cola, Alcoa, Crown, North American Metal Packaging Alliance, Inc., Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), American Chemistry Council, and Del Monte.
From the LA Times, All eyes are going to be on California as they are going to have a state EPA hearing next month on the subject that will affect Prop 65 in which the Governor will have to publish a list annually of the chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity.
My thoughts are this issue has been poorly handled by all involved there are clearly studies that support the removal of this chemical from packaging or food contact as much as possible. The industries involved, are working hard to come up with alternative chemicals, but they won't be easy or cheap. Should the chemical be banned? Yes, until the science supports it's use in the future.
I'm reminded by the applied ceramic label (ACL) - Lead decoration issue that came up several years ago in the glass industry or the more recent lead in toys policies. Can BPA be compared to the dangers of lead to children? No, the science doesn't support that but guess what, the public doesn't understand or care about that.
This is going to have a great impact on packaging in the short future if California, New York and Connecticut place bans on the chemical and this is what these companies fear the most. This egg-on-your-face memo has not helped the industry or the issue and is only going to accelerate the legislated removal.
No comments:
Post a Comment