David Naulls

It’s hard to know where to draw the line between too much protection of the consumer and not enough. This is particularly so for relatively new technologies or ones where the long-term effects won’t be known for generations.

Bisphenol A (used in baby bottles, the lining of tin cans and some drinking bottles, cups and mugs), plasticisers (used in cosmetics, PVC products, and lids for food products) and nanotechnology (cosmetics, food packaging, some foods) have all had increasing doubts raised about their safety.

These concerns are not just from overseas but also from researchers here. Professor Ian Shaw, a prominent toxicology researcher from Canterbury University, would like to see us be more proactive in limiting the use of Bisphenol A (BPA).

He has a point.

In the last few months the US Food and Drug Administration voiced its concerns “about the potential effects of BPA on the brain, behaviour and prostate gland in foetuses and young children”. It still thinks it’s safe in food packaging but is investigating how to reduce exposure to BPA and is planning more research into its effects.

The Canadian government has banned the sale of polycarbonate plastic babies’ bottles.

The European Food Safety Authority is convening a BPA summit to see whether it needs to revise its opinion on the safety of BPA and Tolerable Daily Intake limits that it has set. 

Regulatory authorities in Australia and New Zealand assure us they are closely monitoring the situation on BPA and that products containing it are still safe. We would like to see them take a more precautionary stance not just on BPA but also on plasticisers and nanotechnology. There’s too much scientific debate to feel sure we know how safe they are.

Other products are available for many of these uses that seem to pose fewer risks. Why not encourage their use?

We also want to see mandatory labelling of BPA, plasticisers and nanomaterials. Rather than safety authorities deciding for us, let’s inform the consumer and let them decide about whether they want to take the risk.

That’s what sporting bodies are letting their athletes do – the athletes are informed of the risk and then make their own decision about whether to play sport in dangerous parts of the world.

David Naulls
Editor
Consumer magazine

More from consumer.org.nz

• Concern over chemicals in plastic - our January 2009 news report looking at Bisphenol A
• Plasticisers - our April 2009 report
• Nanotechnology - our March 2010 report calling for better regulation

Got a question or comment on this topic? Share your views and experiences with other Consumer members...