WASHINGTON, April 19 /PRNewswire/ -- The following is a statement from the
American Plastics Council:

    Consumer Reports has committed a serious error alleging dangers from the
use of polycarbonate plastic baby bottles, based on an apparent lack of
understanding of toxicology or safety and risk assessment.  Because of the
misleading and needlessly frightening statements made in the Consumer Reports
article, the American Plastics Council has requested that the publication
issue an immediate retraction.
    The weight of the scientific evidence clearly shows that polycarbonate is
safe in normal use. This conclusion is confirmed by the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration's long-standing acceptance of polycarbonate in food
applications and the product's safe use for over 35 years.
    We believe that Consumer Reports does not have adequate grounds to state
that bisphenol-A migrates from polycarbonate baby bottles in normal use at
levels of concern to children's health or to recommend that parents stop using
such bottles.  The substantial body of published research regarding bisphenol-
A and polycarbonate supports the safety of polycarbonate plastics in food
container use.
    Specifically with respect to their article, we have significant
reservations about the lack of detail about the manner in which the study was
conducted.  It appears that the study does not fairly reflect normal product
use or follow standard testing protocols to determine migration levels.  We
have requested, but have yet to receive, copies of all data, protocols and
computations supporting the article.
    Consumer Reports' reliance on Dr. Fred vom Saal's unreplicated study, as a
baseline for their conclusion, is similarly misplaced.  This study has no
known relevance to human health.  As stated by an expert committee of the U.K.
Department of Health,(1) "At present, we do not consider that it would be
justified to draw any conclusions about the health implications of human
exposure to bisphenol A based on these results."  In fact, several researchers
have attempted to reproduce Dr. vom Saal's findings without success, despite
involving larger numbers of test animals and increased statistical power.(2)
    The overwhelming weight of the scientific evidence available at this time,
therefore, casts serious doubt on Consumer Reports' reliance on Dr. vom Saal's
findings. And since Dr. vom Saal is neither a toxicologist nor a practitioner
of the established methodology of risk assessment recognized by U.S.
regulatory agencies, we question the validity or relevance of his personal
conclusions.
    In light of the record of polycarbonate's safety, we believe it is
irresponsible for Consumer Reports to draw the conclusions they have published
based solely on their own questionable research that has not been subject to
scientific peer review and on a single variant study that has neither been
replicated nor accepted by the scientific community or by government
regulators as a valid basis for establishing minimum safe exposure levels.

                                    ENDNOTES:

    1  Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the
       Environment, 1997, "Statement on Bisphenol A," Department of Health,
       London, United Kingdom, August 1997, 3 pages (Internet:
       http://www.open.gov.uk/doh/hef/bisphena.htm).

    2  Ashby, J., "Reproducibility of Endocrine Disruption Data," presented at
       the International Symposium on Environmental Endocrine Disruptors,
       Kyoto, Japan, December 1998;  J.M. Waechter, Jr., S.S. Dimond, W.J.
       Breslin, J.H. Butula, Cagen, S.Z., F.W. Jekat, R.L. Joiner, R.N.
       Shiotsuka, and G.E. Veenstra, "Evaluation of Reproductive Organ
       Development in CF-1 Mice After Prenatal Exposure to Bisphenol A,"
       presented at the Society of Toxicology annual meeting, New Orleans,
       Louisiana, USA, March 1999.

Link to this page: