|
|
NAMPA
News
Message from the Chairman
By John M. Rost, Ph.D.
The North American Metal Packaging
Alliance (NAMPA) will be very busy this year. Less than two months into the
New Year and already we are confronting legislation in well over a dozen
states and a handful of local governments, including Chicago and Annapolis.
While Congress seems to have its hands full with the stimulus package,
energy, and climate change, we expect soon a new round of measures in the
House and Senate seeking to limit bisphenol A (BPA) applications in some way.
This means that the solid advocacy
and communications infrastructure that
NAMPA
developed in 2008 will be put to good use in the weeks and months ahead.
NAMPA
has already testified in
Washington
State
,
Minnesota
,
Maryland
, and before the
Chicago
and
Annapolis
city councils and the Suffolk County, New York, Health and Human Services
Committee. We are working closely with our allied trade associations and the
individual advocacy teams of
NAMPA
member companies to ensure consistent and compelling delivery of our message.
So far, we have made solid progress and scored a few early victories.
NAMPA
’s participation in the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration (FDA) value chain meeting on January 30, 2009, was
well received and we continue to develop and work closely with FDA and others
in the value chain to ensure our message is communicated clearly and often.
Finally, thanks to all who
attended
NAMPA
’s first in-person meeting in
Washington
,
D.C.
on February 17, 2009. We had a productive session, and we really appreciate
the support and enthusiasm of our members.
2009 Communications Update -- “And the Hits Just Keep
Coming …”
By Stanton Communications, Inc.
Media hits, that is, and not of
the favorable kind. Following a relatively calm holiday period in terms of
media coverage related to BPA, the New Year arrived with an unfortunate
abundance of renewed interest and enthusiasm among reporters eager to report
on the continuing controversy surrounding the chemical.
In just the first four weeks of
2009, more than 150 articles have been published in various trade,
environmental, health, and consumer media. While the specific content of the
articles has varied, the underlying message is the same -- BPA found in
plastic products and metal cans is harmful to people and should be avoided or
eliminated. Before the holidays, this same perspective led to a significant
number of articles that focused on BPA-free alternatives as great gift ideas.
Now, with the holidays behind us, writers are again turning their attention
to the potential dangers posed by the presence of BPA, pointing to new
research as well as previously reported research studies like the Journal of
the American Medical Association (JAMA) study that cite new findings linking
exposure to BPA to myriad health impacts.
Here are just a few examples of
some of the most recent coverage. A January 25, 2009, article in the
Washington Post about a breast cancer database quoted a doctor who
specializes in the treatment of breast cancer as citing BPA as one of his top
three factors associated with the development of the disease. In the last
week of January, several publications, including the Detroit Free Press,
Modern Medicine, The Daily Green, and Living the Science, reported on the
findings from a new study conducted by the University of Rochester, and
published in Environmental Health Perspectives, which found that BPA stays in
the body longer than was previously thought, thereby, according to the study
authors, increasing the chance it may cause harm. Still other articles,
appearing in magazines and online sources such as BestLife, the InjuryBoard.com, and NaturalNews.com, focused on broad
generalizations about the dangers posed by exposure to BPA, and encouraged
consumers to avoid using plastic bottles or cans.
Among the most significant
articles that have appeared in the past month is one that appeared in Fast
Company magazine, a publication focused on businesses with an emphasis on
innovation and creativity in the business world. In the February 2009 issue,
Fast Company featured an article titled “The Real Story on BPA,” a lengthy
piece highly critical of the science used to justify continued use of the
chemical and the process by which the science is evaluated by our government.
The article raised serious questions about FDA’s review of BPA and slammed
industry’s role in the scientific review. While the article contained no new
information to support its position, it provided yet another high visibility
negative characterization of BPA and the chemical industry that now is being
used by state legislators around the country to justify the need for the
introduction of new bills aimed at banning BPA.
Clearly, this surge in media coverage on BPA is occurring
at a particularly critical time, given the reconvening of state legislatures
around the country. This underscores the need for swift and consistent
response to articles as they appear, to set the record straight on BPA,
specifically in relation to its critical usage in metal packaged food and
beverage products.
NAMPA
has spent considerable time and effort to develop a “rapid response” system
that allows the organization to identify unfavorable media coverage and
develop and deploy responses within a matter of days. Articles are reviewed
and assessed on a daily basis to identify those with direct relevance to
NAMPA
, and if deemed
appropriate, responses are prepared and disseminated within days of an
article’s initial publication. In addition,
NAMPA
has recently revised and updated its
messaging to ensure that the most compelling case can be made to support the
continued safe use of BPA in metal packaging.
NAMPA
is considering additional activities
in 2009 in response to the increased media coverage and intensifying state
legislative activity, including editorial board briefings, background
briefings, and continued use of rapid response letters.
FEDERAL ISSUES
FDA Reports Domestic Supply of Infant Formula Is Safe
On November 28, 2008, FDA reported the results of its ongoing
investigation of the levels of melamine and cyanuric acid. FDA stated that
its results “continue[] to show that the domestic supply of infant formula is
safe and that consumers can continue using
U.S.
manufactured infant
formulas.” FDA concluded that levels of melamine alone or cyanuric acid
alone, at or below one part per million (ppm) in infant formula, do not raise
public health concerns. FDA updated its interim risk assessment with this information. FDA
concluded: “Parents using infant formula should continue using
U.S.
manufactured infant formula. Switching away from using one of these infant
formulas to alternate diets or home-made formulas could result in infants not
receiving the complete nutrition required for proper growth and development.”
FDA Responds to Peer Review Report on Its Draft
Assessment of BPA
In its December 3, 2008, initial response to the FDA Science Board and its
BPA Subcommittee for their work in peer reviewing FDA’s Draft Assessment of
Bisphenol A for Use in Food Contact Applications (Draft Assessment), FDA noted that the Peer Review Report acknowledges several areas of
agreement with FDA’s Draft Assessment, including that the main focus should
be on infants and children due to the likelihood of both greater exposures
and greater susceptibility to potential health effects. The Peer Review
Report also agrees with FDA’s assessment that “available data indicate a need
for additional research to assess more clearly potential health effects of
BPA on certain other developmental endpoints, and agreed that the studies
proposed by FDA in the draft assessment would yield valuable information.”
The Peer Review Report also makes recommendations in three main areas:
exposure; health effects; and proposed research. In its initial response, FDA
states that it “has been pursuing, or is planning for, additional information
and analysis in these areas.” FDA will respond further to the Peer Review
Report in the future.
FDA and Health
Canada
Meet with
NAMPA
and Other Industry Stakeholders
On January 30, 2009, FDA and
Health
Canada
met with
NAMPA
and other industry
stakeholders to share information on BPA. FDA and Health
Canada
intended the meeting to
increase the participants’ understanding of what others are doing or are
planning to do. Meeting participants included members of the FDA Science
Board, and the outcome of the meeting was reported at the February 24, 2009,
meeting of the FDA Science Board. During the meeting, FDA discussed its plans
to convene a public meeting in late April or early May 2009 to obtain
feedback from stakeholders and the public on these ongoing activities. John
Rost made several presentations at the meeting, which were well received by
FDA and the Science Board representatives who attended the meeting.
The FDA Science Board meeting
convened on Tuesday, February 24, 2009. John Rost and Michelle Lancaster,
Stanton Communications, Inc., attended the meeting on
NAMPA
’s behalf.
The meeting was divided into two
sessions. The morning focused on broader agency structural issues as well as
an update on the salmonella contamination situation. The afternoon session
focused on more specific issues, including BPA. Acting FDA Commissioner, Dr.
Frank Torti, kicked off the morning session with an opening statement, with
the remainder of the early session devoted to salmonella and food
contamination issues.
Following a lunch break, the
afternoon session began with an hour devoted to public comment, covering BPA
as well as other issues. BPA-related comments were heard from the Physicians
Committee for Responsible Medicine, National Research Center for Women and
Families, Consumer Reports, and Environmental Working Group, all urging the
Science Board to take more aggressive action in its review of BPA. Most of the
public interest groups called on FDA to expand its stakeholder outreach
beyond industry to include other groups concerned about the issue and
conducting scientific work on their own.
Dr. Steve Hentges, American
Chemistry Council (ACC), presented a statement outlining ACC’s current BPA
research activities. There were no other public statements delivered from an
industry perspective. The comment period concluded with a statement by the
law firm of Hooper and Weiss that strongly encouraged individuals to join its
class action lawsuit against baby bottle manufacturers and others.
Dr. Mitchell Cheeseman,
FDA
Center
for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, provided an update on FDA’s actions
following the last Science Board meeting. He first reviewed the series of
comments and concerns outlined by the Board, and then focused his remarks on
three areas where progress has been made -- toxicology assessments update,
exposure assessment update, and ongoing activities. With regard to infant
formula, Dr. Cheeseman advised the Board that FDA is continuing its work on
updating exposure data from infant formula to build a more robust
understanding of formula consumption.
Finally, Dr. Cheeseman outlined ongoing activities that
include the code of practice collaboration with industry, discussions with
polycarbonate manufacturers regarding the future marketing activities, and
consultations with infant formula manufacturers regarding the use of
alternate packaging. Based on the Board’s comments, the industry code of
practice study was well received.
STATE ISSUES
California
Update on Proposition 65 Activities
We can expect to see renewed
action in 2009 on the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard
Assessment’s (OEHHA) consideration of listing BPA under Proposition 65. As
discussed in the last issue of NAMPA News, OEHHA’s Developmental and
Reproductive Toxicant Identification Committee (DARTIC) is slated to review
BPA for possible listing under Proposition 65 as a developmental/reproductive
toxicant. OEHHA requested comment and information on BPA last year, a request
to which
NAMPA
and other stakeholders responded.
In
NAMPA
’s
April 17, 2008, comments to OEHHA,
NAMPA
urged OEHHA to review the final report by the National Toxicology Program
(NTP) Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction (CERHR). The
CERHR document,
NAMPA
stated, provides a scientifically sound basis for assessing BPA’s potential
reproductive and developmental effects. Because the CERHR Panel Report is
balanced and authoritative,
NAMPA
recommended that it be used as the foundation for any assessment of these
issues that DARTIC performs.
Based on recent conversations with
others in
California
,
NAMPA
understands that BPA is not expected
to be before the DARTIC until June or July at the earliest. Since the Hazard
Identification Document (HID), in which OEHHA is required to explain its
assessment of BPA for Proposition 65 listing purposes, is expected to be
available for a 60-day comment period prior to the DARTIC meeting, it is
likely that the HID will not be available until April or May. While it
remains uncertain if OEHHA will accept
NAMPA
’s
recommendation to use the CERHR assessment as the basis of the HID, we
understand that OEHHA is seriously considering this option. This would mean
that instead of creating a separate HID assessment, the CERHR document
essentially would serve as the HID for BPA.
It will be important for entities
wishing to oppose listing BPA under Proposition 65 to provide a comprehensive
and scientifically compelling response to the HID.
NAMPA
continues to coordinate closely and
regularly with representatives from the Grocery Manufacturers Association and
ACC to ensure each organization’s advocacy is consistent, effective, and
efficient.
OEHHA Holds Open Conference Call for Proposition 65
Regulatory Update Project on Warnings for Exposures to Listed Chemicals in
Food
On January 28, 2009, OEHHA announced that it would hold an informal
conference call to discuss comments submitted on its draft framework for a
regulation concerning warnings for exposures to listed chemicals in foods.
Proposition 65 requires businesses to provide “clear and reasonable” warnings
for exposures to listed chemicals prior to exposure, and, according to OEHHA,
this requirement also applies to exposures to listed chemicals in foods.
OEHHA has received requests for more guidance concerning acceptable methods
for providing warnings to consumers at retail stores and that OEHHA clarify
the relative responsibilities of product manufacturers versus retailers.
OEHHA developed a draft framework for the regulation, which it presented at a
December 3, 2008, public workshop. During the February 18, 2009, conference
call, OEHHA discussed comments submitted on its draft framework and next
steps.
Washington
NAMPA
Testifies Before
Washington
Senate Committee Regarding BPA
Bill
Both the Washington House and
Senate are considering legislation that would ban BPA in food or drink
containers for children three and younger, including plastic baby bottles and
cans of infant formula. The proposed ban would begin on July 1, 2010, and
would prohibit the use of BPA in food and drink containers made for children
three and younger, including sippy cups, baby bottles, and cans of liquid
infant formula, and would also apply to the use of BPA in reusable drink
bottles. Under the bill, the Washington Department of Ecology would have
until July 2012 to find alternatives to BPA for food and drink containers
that are not already banned.
On February 4, 2009,
NAMPA
testified before the Senate Health and Long-Term Care Committee to discuss
the necessity of BPA in the manufacture of epoxy coatings, which are the most
effective way to protect food products. Metal cans ensure food safety by
enabling high temperature sterilization that eliminates the dangers of food
poisoning from microbial contaminants.
NAMPA
noted that the use of epoxy-based coatings has been determined to be safe by
numerous science-based regulatory agencies, including Health
Canada
, FDA, and the European Food Safety
Authority (EFSA), as well as national health agencies in the
United Kingdom
,
Germany
,
and
Japan
.
INTERNATIONAL ISSUES
EC Confirms Current BPA Limits Protect Consumers
On November 19, 2008, the European Commission (EC) responded to written questions submitted by
two European Parliament members concerning BPA. The questions asked whether
the EC was aware of the recent JAMA study showing that BPA may be associated
with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease and diabetes and if it had
any plans to ban the use of BPA or if BPA would be included in the list of
dangerous chemical substances issued by the European Chemicals Agency. The EC
responded that it was aware of the JAMA study and noted that the EFSA, EC,
and European Chemicals Bureau had all reviewed the safety of BPA, and none
recommended a ban. According to the EC, EFSA is not in the process of
re-evaluating BPA, but the EC has asked it to assess the relevance and
implications of the recently published studies.
NAMPA
Urges Environment
Canada
to Use All Available BPA
Data
NAMPA
submitted comments on December
17, 2008, to Environment Canada regarding its Proposed Risk Management
Approach and the findings reported in the Screening Assessment.
NAMPA
expressed its concerns regarding
Canada
’s proposals concerning
canned infant formula, other canned foods, and its use of studies that
support regulatory decision making. NAMPA expressed its support for efforts
to develop a “Code of Practice” aimed at reducing levels of BPA in canned
infant formula to the lowest reasonably achievable levels.
NAMPA
continues to support the development
and implementation of appropriate codes of practice to reduce, as reasonably
achievable, the levels of BPA in infant formula.
NAMPA
reviewed the findings of the world’s
regulatory bodies that have each concluded that the low level of BPA
migrating from metal packaged food is well below any level of concern and
stated its support for the findings.
NAMPA
urged
Canada
to use only studies that utilize Good Laboratory Practices criteria, and have
sufficient populations and data points to be statistically meaningful and
useful if they are to be used for risk assessment purposes.
UPCOMING MEETINGS
March 2009
LatinCan 2009 Conference, March 25-27, 2009, in
Cancun
,
Mexico
May 2009
International Metal Decorators Association 2009 Conference and Convention, May 20-22, 2009,
Bloomingdale
,
Illinois
June 2009
Society of the Plastics Industry
(SPI) Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Packaging Materials Committee 9th Biennial
International Symposium, June 11-12, 2009,
Baltimore
,
Maryland
International Plastics Showcase, June 22-26, 2009,
Chicago
,
Illinois
December 2009
Society of the Plastics Industry (SPI) Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Packaging Materials Committee Semi-Annual Meeting |
