Det Økologiske Råd har svaret på den fælles EU-høring vedrørende Den Europæiske Fødevaresikkerhedsautoritet (EFSA) holdning til de potentielle sundhedsrisici ved bisphenol A (BPA) for forbrugerne. EFSA beskriver, at deres udtrykte holdning omfatter en revurdering af det tolerable daglige indtag (TDI) for BPA set i lyset af alle de tilgængelige videnskabelige studier der foreligger. Dette er EFSA’s første vurdering af de sundhedsmæssige risici for alle befolkningsgrupper - herunder fostre, spædbørn, småbørn og voksne - som følge af eksponering for BPA fra både kost (som er menneskers primære eksponeringskilde) og kilder der ikke stammer fra kosten.
Det Økologiske Råd har svaret på specifikke dele af vurderingen (http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/consultations/call/140117.pdf). Overordnet set er vi positive overfor at EFSA sænker værdien for tolerabelt dagligt indtag (TDI) til en tiendedel af den hidtidige værdi på baggrund af ”usikkerheder” der stadig skal afklares. Dog mangler der en klar beskrivelse af, hvordan udsættelsen for BPA skal håndteres i forhold til andre stoffer med lignende egenskaber. Kombinationseffekten er ligeledes stadig ikke inddraget i tilstrækkeligt omfang.
Høringen skulle besvares elektronisk. Herunder følger vores kommentarer på konkrete afsnit i vurderingen (se link ovenfor):
Line 6440: NMDRC should be included, since there is already a lot of scientific research that show that BPA can have this effect. The most important review that has gathered scientific studies showing NMDRC from BPA exposure is LN Vandenberg et al. Hormones and endocrine-disrupting chemicals: Low-dose effects and nonmonotonic dose responses from 2012. In this review alone, six and five studies are listed that show NMDRC from BPA exposure in vitro and in vivo, respectively.
Line 6703: The t-TDI should rather be lowered (instead of waiting to might lowering it depending on the results from long-term study), while pending the outcome of the long-term study in rats involving prenatal as well as postnatal exposure to BPA, currently being undertaken by NTP.
Line 6709: EFSA writes that the t-TDI of 5 µg/kg bw/day also is protective for the other endpoints, but there are other equally important areas that can further influence on the effects of exposure. Most importantly, the mixture effects are not taken into consideration at all, which could lead to a t-TDI that is still too high.
Line 6721: Again, we are missing that mixture effects are taken into account. Especially chemicals that are close to BPA in chemical structure (like bisphenol S) could possibly have an impact on the exposure dose, meaning that the t-TDI might should be lowered further.
Line 6737: Mixture effects should be included in the assessment.
Line 6748: In general, mixture effects should be considered in the opinion of BPA.
Line 6762: Reproductive and developmental effects are in this assessment on BPA considered less than ‘Likely’. Many studies indicate that BPA influence sexual development – especially when exposure occur at low doses (for a new study see: S Christiansen et al., Low-dose effects of bisphenol A on early sexual development in male and female rats, 2014). The less than likely conclusion should be reconsidered!
Line 6879: In a published review from 2013 (Rochester JR., Bisphenol A and human health: a review of the literature) it is written in the abstract: “There is growing evidence that bisphenol A (BPA) may adversely affect humans. BPA is an endocrine disruptor that has been shown to be harmful in laboratory animal studies. Until recently, there were relatively few epidemiological studies examining the relationship between BPA and health effects in humans. However, in the last year, the number of these studies has more than doubled. A comprehensive literature search found 91 studies linking BPA to human health; 53 published within the last year. This review outlines this body of literature, showing associations between BPA exposure and adverse perinatal, childhood, and adult health outcomes, including reproductive and developmental effects, metabolic disease, and other health effects. These studies encompass both prenatal and postnatal exposures, and include several study designs and population types. While it is difficult to make causal links with epidemiological studies, the growing human literature correlating environmental BPA exposure to adverse effects in humans, along with laboratory studies in many species including primates, provides increasing support that environmental BPA exposure can be harmful to humans, especially in regards to behavioral and other effects in children”. This should clearly be taken into account for the final EFSA opinion on BPA!