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, 2007Contact: 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 | 
