EU, China sign safety agreement -more protection for consumers
EU, China sign safety agreement
17.11.2008
China and the EU have agreed to beef up safety measures in response to a wave of large-scale safety scares relating to Chinese products.
The centrepiece of the plan, signed today by Meglena Kuneva, the European commissioner for consumer affairs, and Wei Chuanzhong, a deputy minister responsible for product safety, are measures designed to make it easier to trace dangerous food and consumer products.
Some 50% of all products withdrawn from the EU market for safety reasons are of Chinese origin, and Chinese authorities are unable to trace the manufacturer of just under half of these dangerous goods, the European Commission said. Those figures indicate that the problems extend beyond the range of Chinese products – toys, pet food and toothpaste – pulled from European shelves in the “summer of recalls” in 2007. However, there is particular concern about toys, as around 85% of toys on the EU market are made in China. Since 2007, the Chinese authorities have stepped up safety measures, auditing exporters and, as a result, revoking the export licences of 701 companies. However, Kuneva said “it is clear we must do more”. The signing of the memorandum of understanding today signals that intention “at the highest political level”, she said, stressing that “we are strongly in favour of open and competitive markets, with all the benefits in terms of price and choice they bring for the consumer, but never at the expense of safety”. Under the agreement, China will be obliged to inform the Commission and the US authorities four times a year of its plans to improve its systems that trace dangerous goods back to the manufacturer. The Commission and China – together with US authorities – will also meet in 2009 to take stock of the progress made and set new political priorities to improve product safety, Kuneva said. There is no indication that these will become annual meetings. In another step agreed today, the Commission will allow the Chinese authorities immediate access to information contained in the Commission's Rapid Alert System for Feed and Food (RASFF) database on dangerous Chinese food products found in Europe. The intention is to make it easier for Chinese authorities to trace the source of contaminated products. Today's agreement has been given added urgency by the scandal of milk tainted with melamine, which officially left nearly 13,000 Chinese infants ill. Unofficial figures suggest the number was substantially higher. There are no known cases of melamine contamination affecting people in Europe, but traces of the plastic resin have been found in some products, including White Rabbit candy sold in the UK. In Slovakia, three to four times the legal limit of melamine was found in chocolate biscuits and snacks that had yet to be commercialised. In addition, in mid-October the Italian authorities seized one tonne of smuggled Chinese milk powder suspected to have been contaminated. Overall, figures from the Commission's Rapid Alert System for dangerous consumer products (RAPEX) – a classification that does not include food items – indicate that fewer products withdrawn from the market are now of untraceable origin. In 2006, the figure was 17%; in 2007, it fell to 10%. The day also produced a consensus, though no formal agreement between the Commission, China and the US, that there should be an international “convergence” of safety standards for products such as toys and electrical appliances, a view that chimes with a recent call from the European Parliament for strict international standards on product safety. Speaking at a safety conference held in Brussels today, Nancy Nord, the chairwoman of the US consumer-product safety commission, said that the need to meet many different standards in international markets posed a significant “challenge” for exporting countries such as China. Bisphenol A (BPA), the synthetic hormone used in baby bottles, toddler cups, water bottle and other recipients, has been a subject of controversy since “forever” or at least it seems so with so many scientific reports warning about its negative effects on babies’ health primarily and why not on adults’ health as well. In August, the Food and Drug Administration issued a report in which it declared bisphenol –A safe at current levels found in baby bottles and canned foods. The report was highly criticized by lawmakers and scientists because it relied mostly on industry-funded studies and contradicted over 100 studies suggesting BPA is harmful. Bisphenol-A has been under fire since April this year when a report by the National Toxicology Program said there was “some concern” about its risks in infants. Based on tests on animals the government-working group said bisphenol-A could cause changes in behaviour and the brain, and that it might reduce survival and birth weight in fetuses. The NTP’s report noted “some concern” for effects on the brain, prostate gland and on behaviour in fetuses, infants and children, “minimal concern” for reproductive effects in adults who work with bisphenol-A and “negligible concern” for fetal or neonatal death, birth defects, or reduced birth weight and growth in babies born to women exposed to bisphenol-A during pregnancy. The report concluded that “the possibility that BPA may affect human development cannot be dismissed.” Studies linked higher urinary levels of bisphenol-A to an increased risk of diabetes and heart disease. Higher BPA levels are also associated with abnormal concentrations of three liver enzymes, a team of British and American scientists found, a study published in September in the Journal of the American Medical Association revealed. Despite so many studies showing that bisphenol-A is harmful, the Food and Drug Administration in August concluded that the chemical is safe. But a panel of scientists. appointed by the agency’s Science Board to review its task force report, called the FDA’s conclusions on bisphenol-A inadequate and recommended that the agency abandon its earlier findings about the safety of the controversial chemical. The 17-page report will be released today on the FDA Web site. FDA spokeswoman Judy Leon said “FDA agrees that due to the uncertainties raised in some studies relating to the potential effects of low doses of bisphenol-A that additional research would be valuable.” The report will be discussed at a meeting of the FDA’s science board Friday, but what exactly it will mean for consumers was not immediately clear. “The panel was very clear, but we don’t know if the FDA is going to listen. If they do, it could be a couple of years before they do anything. The FDA’s assessment should have been done right the first time. Now it’s going to have to be redone,” said consumer activist Diana Zuckerman, president of the National Research Center for Women & Families. By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR WASHINGTON (AP) — BPA — a chemical used in food containers — is so widespread that most people have traces of it in their bodies. But health officials can’t decide if that’s a problem, or something we all can live with. Bisphenol A is useful for hardening plastics to make all sorts of consumer products, from CDs to baby bottles. And the canning industry uses it for coatings that prevent leaks and bacterial contamination in metal food containers. Some scientists are concerned that BPA could be harmful, since it mimics some of the effects of a powerful hormone, estrogen. Infants may be particularly vulnerable because their bodies are developing and cannot eliminate the chemical as quickly. Earlier this year, the Food and Drug Administration issued a scientific assessment that BPA is safe and asked independent scientists to review its conclusion. That report — made public Tuesday — found that the FDA's science was badly flawed. The FDA did not consider all the evidence and its margin of safety for human exposure to BPA could be off by a factor of ten times or more, the outside scientists said. While the experts sort out the issue, what are the options for worried consumers? Here are some questions and answers: Q: It sounds like BPA is everywhere, how can people avoid it? A: "Get to know your plastics," says Urvashi Rangan, a senior scientist with Consumers Union, which publishes Consumer Reports. Avoid polycarbonate plastic containers, those imprinted with the recycling number "7" and the letters "PC." Don't microwave foods in these containers. Don't use polycarbonate plastic baby bottles. Consider powdered infant formula instead of liquid formula in cans. Cut down on canned foods. "If you the consumer want to take matters into your own hands while the science is being sorted out here, those are the things you can do that will directly reduce your level of exposure to BPA," said Rangan. One thing mothers should not do is stop giving their infants proper nutrition because of fears about BPA, says acting Surgeon General Steven Galson. "While the best source of nutrition for babies is the mother's breast milk, infant formula remains the recommended alternative when breast milk is not an option," he said. Q: Wait a minute, aren't some people overreacting here? Has anybody died from BPA? A: No direct cause-and-effect relationship has been established to show that exposure to small amounts of BPA harms people. But many scientific studies have raised that possibility, and some government scientists believe it should not be dismissed lightly. Chemical exposures that cause harm over a long time are hard to detect. The National Toxicology Program conducted its own BPA assessment earlier this year, and differed with the FDA. The toxicology program found "some concern" for BPA effects on the brain, behavior and prostate gland in fetuses, infants and children at current exposure levels. "Some concern" is right in the middle of the toxicologists' five-level scale for ranking the possible harmful effects of chemicals. The independent panel that reviewed the FDA's assessment said the agency needs to go back and take a second look at several studies it earlier dismissed. Q: What's going to happen now? A: On Friday, the FDA's Science Board will meet to discuss the controversy in public. It was a subcommittee of the Science Board that issued the report criticizing FDA's safety analysis. But FDA officials say it could take two to five years to complete additional research and reach a final conclusion. If scientific evidence against BPA mounts and U.S. regulators don't act, Congress may try to restrict some uses for the chemical. "If FDA continues to dismiss independent scientific evaluations of BPA, correcting the issue legislatively is an option," said Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., chairwoman of a committee with jurisdiction over the FDA budget. Q: What would be the downside of just banning BPA altogether? A: The canning industry thinks there would be unintended consequences. The chemical is used to make epoxy resins that coat and seal the inside of cans. That prevents leaks and keeps bacteria from contaminating the foods inside. "Although we are looking for alternatives, they are not readily available, and there is no 'drop-in' replacement for these uses," said John Rost, chairman of the North American Metal Packaging Alliance, a trade group. "Quick changes that have not been evaluated could impact the real safety issue: food poisoning." Short of a ban on all BPA in food containers, Canada has banned it in baby bottles as a precaution. * Scientific advisers report to the FDA: http://tinyurl.com/5mfmm7
Converging safety standards
Congress questions FDA on safety of BPA in baby bottles and food containers.
Is BPA (Bisphenol A) safe?
On the Net:
Translator
