Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Litigation Blogs -> CalBizLit

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Litigation

: CalBizLit

Proposition 65 DART Committee To Consider Bisphenol A

By Bruce Nye

ADVERTISEMENTS

CalBizLit has mentioned here and here that there is currently a significant up-tick in the increase of chemicals listed either as carcinogens or reproductive toxicants under Proposition 65. However, there's a big one coming up at the meeting of the Developmental and Reproductive Toxicant ("DART") Identification Committee this coming Wednesday, July 15 in Oakland. The sole chemical up for consideration will be Bisphenol A, an industrial chemical used to make plastic resins. Bishphenol A is very common in all kinds of plastic containers, including baby bottles.

Industry and environmentalists have been at each others' throats over Bisphenol A for quite some time. You can get a small flavor of the battle here at Bisphenol-a.org (pretty clearly an industry-supported site, although I couldn't find anybody taking credit for it), the National Institutes for Health's National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences site on the subject here, and, on the slightly more up-in-arms side, the green perspective at Bisphenolafree.org and the calmly, thoughtfully named "OurStolenFuture.org" here.

OEHHA's write-up on Bisphenol A, downloadable here, is a thumping 300 pages or so long. CalBizLit read it (ok, scanned it), so you don't have to. Bottom line: this really shapes up as a classic precautionary principle vs. burden of proof kind of battle. OEHHA seems to ackknowledge that the epidemiology is pretty inconclusive, and that

[s]tudies reporting adverse reproductive effects of BPA and studies reporting no such effects are both numerous. Overall, studies that used sensitive methodologies to assess appropriate endpoints consistently reported developmental, female-reproductive and male-reproductive effects.

I think there are a number of toxicologists who would take issue with that final statement. Of course, just about all of the evidence is animal or in vitro evidence, and OEHHA also acknowledges that much of the science hasn't been replicated. Furthermore, the endpoints seem to be a smattering of possible male and female reproductive effects, many of which have been seen in rodents.

My guess is DART votes to list Bisphenol A. The impact will be huge, and probably nationwide: There's just not much of a market for plastic baby bottles that come with a warning about reproductive or developmental harm, so many Bisphenol A containers will likely disappear. That is, after a few years of bounty hunter enforcement litigation.

Full post as published by CalBizLit on July 13, 2009 (boomark / email).