It was ten years ago, we did not worry the effects of bisphenol A on human health. But in recent years, scientific studies are endlessly to cause concern.
It is in 2011 that health authorities start to really become aware of the problem of bisphenol A, when the European Commission banned its use in the manufacture of polycarbonate baby bottles. The French Agency for Food (ANSES) has published on its side a report on the effects of bisphenol A. It concludes that the existence of effects of bisphenol A found in animals and suspected in humans, even low levels of exposure.
In animals, there exists a correlation between BPA and reproduction (known endocrine disruptor), mammary gland, metabolism, brain and behavior.
In humans, suspected effects on reproduction, metabolism and cardiovascular disease.
Anses then recommends its substitution in materials in contact with food to reduce the exposure of the population. Infants, young children, pregnant and lactating women are particularly affected.
In its April 2013 report, the Agency confirms the risks of BPA and reiterates its vis-à-vis the concerns of pregnant women. It points in particular the possible effects of in utero exposure on the mammary gland, such as breast cancer risk factor.
2014: the tolerable daily intake is downgraded.
It was not until January 2014, when it published a report reassessment of risks of bisphenol A on human health, the European Food Agency (EFSA) really takes seriously its health effects . It identifies the likely effects on the liver and kidneys as well as the mammary gland. It also evokes the uncertainties regarding reproductive, nervous, immune, metabolic, cardiovascular, cancers. And then recommends to lower the tolerable daily intake (TDI) of 0.05 mg / kg / day to 0,005 mg / kg / day. EFSA wants to be reassuring, however: consumer exposure is well below the temporary TDI. Yet environmental organizations accuse the European Agency not to the extent of the risks related to exposure to bisphenol A. Thus, the environmental health network (RES) is septic. It accuses him of relying on both the 2002 and 2008 studies, both conducted by the same author, belonging to a laboratory dependent on the chemical industry. Studies that according to the association fail to see the effects occurring with a low dose of bisphenol A and in particular endocrine disruptor character. André Cicolella, a toxicologist and chairman of RES recalls via a statement that “95% of 900 published studies on the toxicity of bisphenol A show positive results.” For the doctor, EFSA does not fulfill its role of protecting public health. “The very culture of the agency, its inability to adequately address issues of conflict of interest, methodological failures and his determination to minimize the philosophy of caution underlying European legislation since the 1990’s increasingly disqualify the EFSA, as was the case also in the aspartame’s record.