The Food and Drug Administration recently announced a new assessment of the endocrine-disrupting chemical bisphenol-A, and it's a sharp turnaround from their previous claims. The agency has spent the last decade and a half propping up industry's insistence that there is nothing wrong with using BPA, and exposing our children to it, whenever and however they want. For those of us who have been arguing for the banning of BPA in children's products for years, it is a turning point.

The FDA's about-face

First, the big wins: In addition to confirming the National Toxicology Program's assessment of "some concern," the FDA is now advising consumers to avoid BPA when practical, and offering tips on how to do so.

For those of us who have been watching the FDA battle it out with activists for the past several years, hearing this practical and precautionary advice from the decade-long, head-in-the-sand defender of BPA is surreal, but not entirely unexpected. The Obama administration signaled that things would be different at the FDA, which has had haphazard or absent leadership for most of the past decade; its current head, commissioner Margaret Hamburg, is the first well-qualified commish since David Kessler's eight-year run in the 1990s.

The agency has also called for more research, and has the funding to make it happen. To wit:

At this interim stage, FDA shares the perspective of the National Toxicology Program that recent studies provide reason for some concern about the potential effects of BPA on the brain, behavior, and prostate gland of fetuses, infants and children. FDA also recognizes substantial uncertainties with respect to the overall interpretation of these studies and their potential implications for human health effects of BPA exposure. These uncertainties relate to issues such as the routes of exposure employed, the lack of consistency among some of the measured endpoints or results between studies, the relevance of some animal models to human health, differences in the metabolism (and detoxification) of and responses to BPA both at different ages and in different species, and limited or absent dose response information for some studies.

FDA is pursuing additional studies to address the uncertainties in the findings, seeking public input and input from other expert agencies, and supporting a shift to a more robust regulatory framework for oversight of BPA to be able to respond quickly, if necessary, to protect the public.

Those external agencies include the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Institutes of Health (which formed the National Toxicology Program that lent the first high-governmental imprimatur on what had previously been an effort by independent organizations, including ours), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The CPSC and EPA are likely to advocate aggressive regulation; what the CDC thinks about all this is anybody's guess, and depending on whether there is enough external pressure to make this discussion an open one, we may never find out.

The waiting game

But there is already a lot of research out there. Given the way the FDA has dragged its feet on this issue (repeatedly missing deadlines for this very reassessment, for starters) and the agency's past reliance on a reverse precautionary approach ("we don't know enough to regulate"), it's hard for advocates to see this as anything but stalling. The refusal to accept the overwhelming body of research indicating that BPA poses a threat to human - particularly fetal and children's - health gives their list of recommendations for avoiding BPA a whiff of the wolf in sheep's clothing. Is the FDA just stalling again? And if so, why?

It's all about the timing.

Industry-friendly regulation doesn't just mean failing to regulate when you can get away with it, and extends even beyond regulating as little or as poorly as possible when forced to do so. It also means making the process of promulgating regulations, however inevitable they might be, as "slow-tracked" as possible so that companies with poor investments (i.e. unsafe products) can comfortably shift operations and lose little or no money in the transition to a safer world. This is why traditional industry roadblocks - lobbying, PR, etc. - are never a wasted investment; the longer affected parties can draw out the process, the more the losers look like winners.

Note how the FDA structures its recommendations for avoiding BPA:

At this interim stage, FDA supports reasonable steps to reduce exposure of infants to BPA in the food supply. In addition, FDA will work with industry to support and evaluate manufacturing practices and alternative substances that could reduce exposure to other populations. ...

FDA is supporting the industry’s actions to stop producing BPA-containing bottles and infant feeding cups for the U.S. market. FDA understands that over the past year, the major manufacturers of these products have stopped selling new BPA-containing bottles and infant feeding cups for the U.S. market. Glass and polypropylene bottles and plastic disposable "bag" liners have long been alternatives to polycarbonate nursing bottles.

FDA is facilitating the development of alternatives to BPA for the linings of infant formula cans. FDA has already noted increased interest on the part of infant formula manufacturers to explore alternatives to BPA-containing can linings, and has received notifications for alternative packaging. The agency is supporting efforts to develop and use alternatives by (1) working with manufacturers regarding the regulatory status and safety of alternative liners; (2) giving technical assistance to those wishing to prepare applications for approval of alternatives; and (3) expeditiously reviewing any such new applications for alternatives. Because reliable can lining materials are a critical factor in ensuring the quality of heat processed liquid infant formula, safe replacement of such materials requires not only that they both be safe for food contact but also allow for processing that is fully functional in protecting the safety and quality of the infant formula itself.

The American Academy of Pediatrics and other health authorities recommend breastfeeding as the optimal nutrition for infants. Infant formula, including infant formula packaged in cans, is a safe and acceptable alternative that provides known nutritional benefits and prevents life-threatening nutritional deficiencies.

FDA is not recommending that families change the use of infant formula or foods, as the benefit of a stable source of good nutrition outweighs the potential risk of BPA exposure.

As for canned foods, the FDA says:

With respect to uses of BPA in packaging of food intended for other populations, FDA will support changes in food can linings and manufacturing to replace BPA or minimize BPA levels where the changes can be accomplished while still protecting food safety and quality. FDA will support efforts to develop alternatives for other can lining applications similar to those which are already being tested for liquid infant formula packaging. Reliable can lining materials are a critical factor in ensuring the quality of heat processed foods. Therefore, FDA will work to encourage and facilitate changes that minimize exposure to BPA and avoid other adverse impacts on food safety or quality.

How it went down, and how it will play out

The FDA staunchly refused to admit any hazard from infant and fetal exposure to BPA for years despite mounting evidence and independent assessments that it was a source of concern. In the past two years, the baby industrial complex has scrambled to remove BPA from baby bottles, to the extent that now only no-name imports, a few clueless design-oriented companies, and holdout Avent (with their Tempo disposable-liner system) produce bottles made with BPA-rich polycarbonate plastic. The canned products industry has only begun admitting, privately, that they are working on BPA-free cans, in the last year, but they don't have one yet. Now the FDA has come out to say that they believe parents should avoid polycarbonate plastic baby products but NOT canned or jarred food (baby food jars contain BPA in the coating on the lid). If it sounds to you like the FDA is simply working to protect those businesses that would lose business from BPA avoidance while advising consumers to avoid only those products for which all viable companies have alternatives on offer, you're hearing the same tune we are. And our discussions with industry representatives in the food packaging industry only confirm this timeline, making the FDA's current "stalling" very much par for the course.

Here's a prediction for you, extrapolated from carefully-worded conversations we have had on background with industry representatives who know what they're talking about.

Barring unforseen obstacles, the canning industry is roughly 12 months away from approval of food-grade coating for metal cans and jar lids that does not contain BPA. By "the industry" we mean multiple, competing brands will have coated cans and lids available for use by food companies within that period. Our guess is that we will see BPA-free cans for all types of foods, including high-acid foods, jarred infant foods, and beverage containers (soft drink cans) on store shelves by January 2012 at the latest. Look for the "BPA-free" labels to start popping up around that time.

That's right, the move that the North American Metal Packaging Alliance has described as technically impossible and planned to counter with a pregnant, BPA-friendly spokesmom, is one to two years away. You heard it here first.

In the meantime, our advice to consumers is to avoid canned tomatoes (Pomi tomatoes come in Tetra-Pak cardboard packaging that is BPA-free) and to buy canned beans from Eden Organic, which uses C-enamel coated cans that are free of BPA.

What we don't know is whether the new coatings the canning industry offers up will leach other endocrine-disrupting chemicals, or whether the canning companies will have the foresight to do biological testing to ensure they don't use the "next BPA" in their next-generation cans. If they haven't, you can rest assured that someone will as soon as the material is available.