August 15, 2007
Kim
Carter
Encon
Dear Ms. Carter,
In response to your request Nan Ya Plastics
Corporation of America is supplying the following
information concerning bisphenol-A (BPA) in our AA48
resin.
We
do not add any bisphenol-A (BPA) to our process.
Additive concentration of bisphenol-A (BPA): 0.0
ppm
Nan
Ya Plastics Corporation of America's AA48 resin
complies with FDA
Title 21 of the code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
177.1630.
Should any further information be required please
feel free to contact me at:
Gary Hupp Nan Ya Technical Services
Phone: 843-389-6987
Cell: 843-687-5182
Email:
garyh@nalc.npcam.com
News Statement
For Immediate
Release
August 8, 2007
Contact: Tiffany Harrington (703)
741-5583
Email:
tiffany_harrington@americanchemistry.com
Sound
Science Prevails in Review of Bisphenol A
ARLINGTON, VA (August 8, 2007) –
The American Chemistry Council supports the findings
of an expert panel on bisphenol A. After a lengthy
and comprehensive scientific review, an expert panel
reported today that bisphenol A presents only
minimal concerns for human health. The review was
conducted according to the rigorous scientific
process of the National Toxicology Program’s Center
for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction (CERHR).
“The safety of our products is
our top priority,” stated Steven G. Hentges, Ph.D.,
of the American Chemistry Council’s Polycarbonate/BPA
Global Group. “The conclusions reported today
provide strong reassurance to consumers that they
are not at risk from use of products made from
bisphenol A. Most importantly, these conclusions
are from a very credible, highly qualified group of
independent scientists with no conflicts of
interest, operating in an open and transparent
review process” continued Dr. Hentges.
The expert panel found that
human exposure to bisphenol A is extremely low and
suggested additional research that might be helpful
to provide further support for their conclusions.
“With the safety of common
consumer products in mind, we strongly support
scientific research on the safety of bisphenol A and
have conducted extensive research ourselves for many
years,” stated Dr. Hentges. “We will carefully
review the panel’s suggestions and consider what we
can do to answer open scientific questions.”
The findings of the CERHR
evaluation are consistent with other recent
comprehensive evaluations of the safety of bisphenol
A in which government and scientific bodies
worldwide examined the same scientific information.
Most recently, the European Food Safety Authority
released a report on the safety of bisphenol A by a
panel of 21 independent scientific experts from
throughout the European Union. All of these
evaluations support the conclusion that bisphenol A
is not a risk to human health at the extremely low
levels to which consumers might be exposed.
Bisphenol A is used primarily to
make polycarbonate plastic and epoxy resins, both of
which are used in a wide range of common consumer
products. From baby bottles to bicycle helmets, and
eyeglass lenses to components of life-saving medical
devices, products made from polycarbonate plastic
have been safely used for 50 years and continue to
be safely used today. Epoxy resins, commonly used
as protective coatings, protect the safety and
integrity of canned foods and beverages when used to
coat metal cans.
Learn more about bisphenol A at
http://www.bisphenol-A.org.
The
American Chemistry Council (ACC) is committed to
improving environmental, health and safety
performance through Responsible Care®, common sense
advocacy, environmental research and product
testing. The business of chemistry is a $635 billion
enterprise and a key element of the U.S. economy. It
is one of the nation’s largest exporters, accounting
for ten cents of every dollar in exports. Chemistry
companies are among the largest investors in
research and development, with their products
improving the quality of life for all people through
essential advances in public health, clean drinking
water and new technologies.
Lawsuit Filed to
Overturn San Francisco Ban on Children’s Products
January 15, 2007
Update
What is the Lawsuit
About?
In June 2006, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors
and Mayor passed an ordinance that will prohibit the
manufacture, distribution or sale of toys and child
care products that are made with or contain
bisphenol A (BPA). The ordinance specifically
targets products intended for use by children under
three years of age. The ordinance also contains
similar provisions for children’s products that
contain certain phthalates.
Starting December 1, 2006, the ordinance bans the
following categories of products when they are “made
with or contain” BPA:
Toys – Articles “designed and made for the amusement of a child or for his
or her use in play.”
Child care articles
– Products “designed or intended by the manufacturer
to facilitate sleep, relaxation, or the feeding of
children or to help children with sucking or
teething.”
A lawsuit, filed on October 25, 2006, in San
Francisco County Superior Court, seeks to overturn
the ordinance on several legal grounds. In
addition, the lawsuit includes a request for a
preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement of the
ordinance while the merits of the lawsuit are
reviewed by the court.
What is the Status of
the Lawsuit?
The court set a hearing date of January 8, 2007 to
consider the request for preliminary injunction.
Subject to a court order, the ordinance cannot be
enforced until the court rules on that request.
On January 5, 2007, the San Francisco city
government proposed to substantially amend the
ordinance, most prominently including a repeal of
the ban on products containing BPA. The ban is
replaced by a provision that the city may further
amend the ordinance to reinstate a ban on products
containing BPA if the State of California does not
ban or significantly restrict such products by
January 1, 2008. In light of this new development,
the hearing on preliminary injunction has been
delayed pending action on the proposed amendments by
the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. Their
action is expected to occur in February-March 2007.
In the interim, enforcement of the ordinance
continues to be suspended.
Who Filed the Lawsuit?
The ordinance will
cause significant harm to a wide range of businesses
including manufacturers of BPA, polycarbonate
plastic and epoxy resins, manufacturers of
children’s toys and child care products, and
retailers in San Francisco, such as children’s
stores and grocery stores. The lawsuit was filed by
a broad coalition of organizations and companies:
·
Citikids Baby News Store - San Francisco’s largest
children’s department store;
·
California Retailers Association
- representing a broad base of California’s retail
companies;
·
California Grocers Association –
representing California’s food industry, including
national, statewide and independent retailers and
suppliers;
·
Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association -
representing the manufacturers of children’s
products including baby bottles and other feeding
products such as cups, plates, bowls and eating
utensils, teethers and pacifiers; and
·
American Chemistry Council - representing the
manufacturers of materials, including BPA, used to
make these products.
Why Was the
Lawsuit Filed?
The ordinance is both legally flawed and
scientifically unsound. Inappropriate legislation
of this type must be challenged to set the record
straight on the facts, allow businesses to continue
to contribute to the San Francisco Bay area economy,
and preserve consumer access to safe and reliable
products.
If allowed to go into effect on December 1, 2006,
the ordinance will have a significant and immediate
impact on businesses that manufacture, distribute
and sell children’s products in San Francisco. Many
children’s products with a long history of safe and
reliable use, such as shatter-resistant bottles and
food cans lined with protective resin coatings, are
scheduled to disappear from San Francisco store
shelves, ultimately impacting consumers who will be
denied access to these products.
What is the Legal
Basis for the Lawsuit?
The lawsuit is based on four primary legal grounds:
1.
The
ordinance conflicts directly with the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act, a key purpose of which is to
make available to consumers products that the Food
and Drug Administration (FDA) has found to be safe.
The ordinance prevents consumer access to products
made from polycarbonate plastic and epoxy resins
that have been expressly approved for use by FDA.
2.
The
State of California has adopted FDA’s regulations
for these products, thus precluding California
municipalities from establishing conflicting
regulations.
3.
The
ordinance conflicts directly with the California
Hazardous Substances Act, which grants the state,
not local jurisdictions, the authority to regulate
“hazardous substances” in consumer products such as
toys or other articles intended for use by children.
4.
The
ordinance is invalid because the San Francisco Board
of Supervisors failed to obtain the rigorous
economic analysis required by the voter-approved
Proposition I. Attracting and retaining business
and jobs is central to Proposition I, and the
required examination of such impact was not
conducted prior to enacting the ordinance.
Are Children’s
Products Made With BPA Safe?
The San Francisco ordinance does not have a sound
scientific basis. Children’s products made with BPA
are considered safe for use around the world. The
U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the EU Scientific
Committee on Food, the Japanese Ministry of the
Environment, and the Harvard Center for Risk
Analysis, among others, are unanimous in supporting
the continued use of safe and reliable products made
from BPA. The overwhelming consensus of these
scientific and government bodies worldwide is that
polycarbonate plastic and epoxy resins made with BPA
are safe for use in consumer products. As confirmed
by these bodies, trace levels of BPA in consumer
products are not a risk to human health, and after
exhaustive scientific assessments, BPA has not been
banned or restricted anywhere else in the world.
Dear Ms. Bradley:
The purpose of this letter is to outline the
regulatory status of LEXANSYMBOL
210 \f "Symbol" resins PK2870-21317, PK2870-111,
RL7517-21317 and FXE1514-OR8C004T,
with respect to the requirements of the United
States’ Food and Drug Administration (US FDA),
standard for food contact applications.
GE Plastics can advise that subject resin
complies with the applicable provisions of the US
Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, as amended, and the
implementing regulations promulgated by the Food and
Drug Administration (FDA), covering substances for
use as basic components of single and repeated use
in food contact surfaces.
Subject resin is
produced in compliance with the conditions
prescribed in Federal Food Additive Regulation 21
CFR 177.1580. There are no limitations as to
temperature or food types for the compliance of
subject resins.
GE Plastics employs only such adjuvants and minor
modifiers that are permitted as are permitted by
this regulation, or meet one or more of the
following criteria: (1) are generally recognized as
safe (GRAS), 21 CFR Part 182 and 184; (2) are used
in accordance with prior sanctions or approvals, 21
CFR Part 181; (3) are permitted by Regulation 21
CFR 178.2810 covering antioxidants and stabilizers
for polymers; (4) are permitted by Regulation 21 CFR
178.3297 covering colorants for polymers; and (5)
are not considered food additives by current FDA
protocol, 21 CFR 170.3.
The final formulated product complies with the
extractive limitations set forth in the previously
referenced Regulation 21 CFR 177.1580. I trust that
this information will adequately satisfy your
needs. If I can provide further assistance on this
or related matter, please contact via e-mail:
pius.thriveni@ge.com
Sincerely,
American Plastics Council Brochure about BPA.
PDF Here
Back To FAQ
PAGE |
