January 15, 2013

Our View: State should get BPA out of baby food jars

Maine has been a leader in protecting children from chemical exposure and should continue.

Maine took an important step to protect children by phasing out the use of plastic baby bottles and sippy cups containing the chemical bisphenol-A. The Board of Environmental Protection should go a step further this week and vote to eliminate the chemical from baby food containers as well.

click image to enlarge

Lilijana Cvetkoska of Cape Elizabeth holds her infant daughter while leaving baby food on the desk of Gov. Paul LePage's receptionist on Jan. 9, as she and others show their support for a ban on BPA in baby food containers.

Andy Molloy/Kennebec Journal file photo

There is a strong body of evidence that BPA is harmful. The chemical, used in plastics, is unstable and leaches into liquids. A growing body of evidence links it to birth defects, learning disabilities, behavior problems, breast and prostate cancer, early puberty in girls and other health concerns.

Children are the most vulnerable, and it makes sense to remove BPA from products they are likely to use. Market forces are already phasing the chemical out of many products, but families should not have to become chemists in the grocery store. The state can help prevent lifelong health problems by extending the existing ban.

BPA was tested to be an estrogen replacement drug back in the 1930s. While it was not a success as a pharmaceutical product, it was proven to help plastic remain flexible, making a variety of consumer products possible. In addition to plastic baby bottles and sippy cups, BPA is used in the inner coating of cans and the plastic seal under metal jar lids. When baby food comes in those jars, the chances for exposure increase.

The BEP has the power under the Kid Safe Products Act to extend the existing ban, and it should not be cowed by the usual industry arguments.

Maine will not be alone. Two other states, Connecticut and Vermont, have already banned BPA in baby food packaging and others are likely to follow suit. There are already alternative packages on store shelves, so there is no chance that baby food customers will be without the products they need. Some manufacturers already use BPA-free jar lids. Extending this ban would not create an undue hardship on the companies that make and distribute baby food.

Some will argue this type of legislation is better handled on the national level, and the federal government has not used its authority to ban BPA in food packaging. That is more of an indictment of the dysfunctional federal government than it is a case of overreaching on the state level.

This has not been a controversial issue in Maine. Phasing out BPA has enjoyed bipartisan support here, and that should continue.

Were you interviewed for this story? If so, please fill out our accuracy form

Send question/comment to the editors

Further Discussion

Here at PressHerald.com we value our readers and are committed to growing our community by encouraging you to add to the discussion. To ensure conscientious dialogue we have implemented a strict no-bullying policy. To participate, you must follow our Terms of Use.

Questions about the article? Add them below and we’ll try to answer them or do a follow-up post as soon as we can. Technical problems? Email them to us with an exact description of the problem. Make sure to include:
  • Type of computer or mobile device your are using
  • Exact operating system and browser you are viewing the site on (TIP: You can easily determine your operating system here.)