Issue 5/2017 - "BPA-free" ≠ safer

Over the years, many reused food containers have been made of
polycarbonate due to its inherent transparency and non-breakability.
In recent years, with the attention of the scientific community, the media and the public to bisphenol A (BPA), many alternatives have emerged, and some products have even been labeled as "BPA-free", but whether these seemingly "ideal" alternatives will stand the test of time is a topic worth paying attention to
.
Compared to polycarbonate, which has a track record of safe use for decades, "BPA-free" products do not mean safer!
"Yes" and "without" have no practical meaning
, and bisphenol A is an important chemical
.
For consumers, the possible BPA exposure comes from the migration of BPA at a product surface concentration of approximately 5 ppb (1ppm=1000ppb), which is well below the safety limits set by government agencies
.
Therefore, from a scientific point of view, it is not practical to judge only from "containing" and "not containing" BPA, but should pay attention to how much BPA migrates out and whether it poses a health risk
to the human body.

"Free" does not mean that
BPA and polycarbonate have been safe for decades, and scientists around the world have done thousands of related studies to explore the safety of
BPA.
The ongoing chronic toxicology study on BPA by the U.
S.
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the National Toxicology Program provides a strong answer to the question of whether BPA is correct and to explain the uncertainties
involved.
At present, some of the completed studies strongly support the safety of
BPA.

And for the seemingly ideal alternative, due to the lack of long-term safe use records and limited data to support safety assessment, is BPA alternatives really safer and more reliable?! In addition, "food contact applications" belong to the industry with very strict food safety regulations, and many "seemingly ideal substitutes" have prepared products such as feeding bottles, but there are fewer additives that allow substitutes to be used in the existing national standards, that is, specific final molded products (such as feeding bottles, etc.
) are likely to have obvious risks
of not meeting national food safety mandatory standards (such as GB9685-2016).

The label "BPA-free" will mislead the public into thinking that "no" means "safer", which is very wrong! This kind of labeling does not actually help consumers to make scientific choices about safety and health, and is even very likely to put consumers' safety and health in greater uncertainty and even risk
.