Photo: pexels.com
Although the chemical bisphenol A is recognized as an endocrine disruptor and data on its reproductive toxicity are available, there are several arguments against its immediate ban on food packaging, including the loss of competitiveness of Latvian companies, possible EU sanctions. , as well as the possibility to replace them with other harmful substances. This is stated by the Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) in an information report reviewed by the government on Tuesday.
The report has been prepared taking into account the more than 10,000 signatures collected by the initiative portal “manabalss.lv” regarding the prohibition of food packaging containing bisphenol A.
The Saeima, considering this initiative, instructed the Cabinet of Ministers to prepare a report to Parliament by 1 October on the impact of chemicals in food packaging on public health and the environment, as well as the impact of bisphenol A-containing food packaging on competitiveness and EU and national legislation on bisphenol A in the field of packaging use.
The MoA report points out that banning the substance could significantly affect the competitiveness of Latvian companies – it is not possible to immediately change material production technologies and production equipment in the production cycle of companies, therefore a reasonable transition period is required.
The Ministry of Agriculture also explains that a total immediate ban on bisphenol A in the production and use of materials in Latvia at the national level would mean a violation of a regulation of the European Commission (EC), ie EU member states can impose their national regulations only on materials not regulated at EU level. In the opinion of the Ministry of Agriculture, such a violation would create the possibility of punitive sanctions on the part of the EC against the State of Latvia.
According to the Ministry of Agriculture, there are also several other chemically very similar bisphenol compounds, such as bisphenol S, bisphenol F, which can possibly replace bisphenol A in materials.
This means that a ban on bisphenol A could lead to its replacement by a structurally similar other equally dangerous compound, which does not eliminate the potential risk to human health and is only an apparent solution.
Account should also be taken of the fact that companies’ production equipment is often purchased with the co-financing of EU funds, which in turn means that this equipment must be used in the production process until the obligations are fully fulfilled.
The Ministry notes that both the protection of human health and the competitiveness of enterprises would be enhanced by raising public awareness of the health effects of bisphenol A in favor of bisphenol A-free materials and encouraging producers to gradually adapt to market demand under normal market conditions without artificial barriers.
In its turn, the Ministry of Agriculture names human biomonitoring – the determination of the concentration of chemical substances in the human body – as the main tool for the protection of public health in order to assess the actual level of exposure to hazardous chemicals.
Although there is currently no co-financing from the state budget for the implementation of research related to biomonitoring in Latvia, it should be envisaged in the future.
–
