NAMPA News

Volume 3, Issue 1 (February 1, 2010)
On January 15, 2010, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an interim update on its review of bisphenol A (BPA). FDA’s fundamental position regarding BPA is that FDA approved uses are safe and BPA has not been proven to be harmful to children or adults in these current approved uses. On the basis of some recent studies, however, FDA has modified its stance to reflect “some” concern, similar to the view expressed by the National Toxicology Program (NTP). As a result, FDA is seeking additional research to answer questions and clarify uncertainties about potential BPA risks. ..more..

Volume 2, Issue 4 (October 23, 2009)
We need metal packaging stakeholders to become more engaged in the media and the public discourse on bisphenol A (BPA) and its use in epoxy resins in metal packaging. In an effort to enable interested parties to join these discussions, we have started a new series of “How To” articles in the newsletter. The article below, “How to Write a Letter to the Editor,” is intended to guide efforts to respond to inaccurate or incomplete articles in local papers. Other similar articles will follow in future issues of NAMPA News providing practical advice on how to schedule a meeting with a legislator, how to write a letter to Congress, and other topics of interest as offered by our members. ..more..

Volume 2, Issue 3 (August 18, 2009)
When will science provide the last word on BPA, if ever? It’s an interesting question, especially now that there is yet another scientific review of BPA supporting its safety, this time by the California Developmental and Reproductive Toxicant Identification Committee (DARTIC). In mid-July, DARTIC’s independent panel of experts voted unanimously against listing BPA on Proposition 65, stating that the chemical is not a developmental or reproductive toxicant and does not pose a health risk to people. Still, this latest review did not quiet the critics of BPA and was dismissed by many who firmly believe BPA is dangerous, regardless of what trained scientific experts might say. The fact is that over the past few years, numerous independent expert panels from around the world have reviewed the science on BPA and consistently have reached the same conclusion. Separately and independently, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the European Food Safety Authority, the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, Health Canada, and Japan’s National Institute for Advanced Industrial Science and Technology, as well as food safety authorities in Australia and New Zealand, have considered the comprehensive body of knowledge regarding BPA, and all have affirmed its safe use in food and beverage application. ..more..

Volume 2, Issue 2 (May 22, 2009)
Generally speaking, we have seen three variations of BPA legislation recently proposed at the state and federal levels. These include:

  • Proposals to Ban the Use of BPA in Baby Bottles and Sippy Cups -- These proposals focus on solely containers that are sold empty but are intended to be filled with liquid food or beverage primarily for consumption from that container by children, usually three years or younger. Examples of this type of bill include the federal BPA-Free Kids Act of 2009, introduced by Senators Schumer (D-NY) and Feingold (D-WI) on March 31, 2009, and the New York Suffolk County legislation.
  • Proposals to Restrict the Use of BPA in Baby Bottles and Sippy Cups, and Packaging Containing Food or Beverage for Children -- These bills ban the use of BPA in baby bottles and sippy cups, as well as packaging containing food or beverage for children. These bills specifically do not apply to food and beverage containers designed or intended primarily for consumption by the general population. California SB 797 is an example of this type of bill.
  • Proposals That Restrict the Use of BPA in Baby Bottles and Sippy Cups and Any Other Food or Beverage Container -- These bills ban the use of BPA in reusable beverage containers (such as baby bottles) and any other food or beverage container, unless that container includes a warning label. Examples of this type of bill are the Feinstein Ban Poisonous Additive Act of 2009, introduced on March 13, 2009, by Senators Feinstein (D-CA) and Schumer and Representative Markey (D-MA), and Connecticut HB 6572.

..more..


Volume 2, Issue 1 (February 27, 2009)
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. ..more..

Volume 1, Issue 3 (November 15, 2008)
Over the past few years, we have discussed certain trends companies working within the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulated industries find troubling. These industries, including those represented by the North American Metal Packaging Alliance, Inc. (NAMPA) member companies, rely on the safety of products reviewed and approved by FDA, and believe FDA’s approval process should be respected. We all know that science is evolving, that there are few things in science that are certain, and that there are few things that should not be challenged. That said, it is troubling that certain third-party groups assert challenges to well-recognized FDA scientific practices and hasten to impugn FDA’s work before those challenges are fully and fairly considered and resolved. ..more..

Volume 1, Issue 2 (August 22, 2008)
Since the last issue of NAMPA News, the North American Metal Packaging Alliance, Inc. (NAMPA) has been deeply engaged in opposing Senate Bill (SB) 1713, California State Senator Carole Migden’s (D) bill intended to prohibit the use of bisphenol A (BPA) in food and beverage containers or other products designed or intended to contain liquids for consumption by infants and children. Our hard work paid off. On August 18, 2008, the bill failed to pass in the Assembly.. The Assembly agreed to allow reconsideration of the bill before August 31, 2008, the last day the Legislature will be voting on bills. On August 22, 2008, Senator Migden amended the bill and narrowed it considerably to exclude “any liquid, food, or beverage in a can or jar that contains” BPA. As of this writing, virtually all stakeholders remain firmly opposed to the amended bill. ...more...

Volume 1, Issue 1 (July 9, 2008)
It has been my privilege to serve as Chairman of the North American Metal Packaging Alliance, Inc. (NAMPA) since January of this year. In NAMPA’s continuing commitment to serve its members and achieve its goals, I am pleased to offer our members and friends this inaugural issue of NAMPA News. This publication is intended to provide succinct, timely, and focused news on NAMPA activities, solicit articles from members and others on topics of shared interest, and promote NAMPA’s core goals of fostering the use of sound science to address health, safety, and environmental issues pertinent to light metal packaging. As an organization, NAMPA has grown considerably since the beginning of the year, having started with 13 member entities, it now has 16, an increase of over 20 percent. This growth is a reflection of NAMPA’s sustained membership outreach, greatly enhanced federal and state legislative and regulatory interest in bisphenol A (BPA), the commensurate heightened concern with the prospect of scientifically unsound limitations on commercial applications of BPA-derived epoxy resin coatings, and heightened interest in getting involved in efforts to stop these irrational and unsound measures. NAMPA continues to respond aggressively to such measures and, as described in this edition of NAMPA News, has been extraordinarily successful and energetic in promoting NAMPA’s mission and goals. ... more ...