BPA ban on food packaging
The Bisphenol A (BPA) ban on food packaging is welcome, but does it go far enough? David Burrows looks at the evidence.
A long-awaited ban on BPA
In December, the European Commission adopted a ban on the use of Bisphenol A (BPA) in food contact materials. The ban means that the endocrine-disrupting chemical will not be allowed in products that come into contact with food or drink.
We’re talking about the coating on metal cans, reusable plastic drink bottles, water distribution coolers and other kitchenware.
Campaigning groups are delighted that the risks from this chemical migrating from packaging to our food and drink are being further restricted.
“People’s health will be more protected from this known endocrine-disrupting chemical, which has also been classified as toxic for reproduction,” says Sandra Jen, programme lead for health and chemicals at HEAL, the Health and Environmental Alliance.
It is “much overdue”, she says, adding that BPA (and other bisphenols) “have been linked to breast cancer, infertility, early puberty, diabetes and obesity”, as well as “neurological disorders in children”.
This is a substance that has been under intense regulatory scrutiny for a number of years, with its use in infant bottles banned more than a decade ago, explains Marie Escorneboueu from the European public policy team at law firm Squire Patton Boggs. This is therefore the latest “important reduction” of its use in food contact materials (FCMs), she adds.
EFSA’s damning assessment
The ban comes as little surprise since EFSA, the European Food Safety Authority, concluded in 2023 that dietary exposure to BPA is a health concern for consumers across all age groups.
In an extensive assessment of the scientific evidence, and after input from a public consultation, EFSA’s experts identified “potentially harmful health effects on the immune system”. They reviewed over 800 new studies published since 2013 and were able to address key uncertainties about BPA’s toxicity.
“Our scientists have examined the safety of BPA in great detail over the years since our first full risk assessment of the substance in 2006,” said Dr Claude Lambré, chair of EFSA’s panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes and Processing Aids. “In the studies, we observed an increase in the percentage of a type of white blood cell, called T helper, in the spleen. They play a key role in our cellular immune mechanisms, and an increase of this kind could lead to allergic lung inflammation and autoimmune disorders.”
The research led to a significant reduction in the tolerable daily intake (TDI) for BPA to just 0.2 nanograms per kg of body weight per day — that’s 0.2 billionths of a gram. This is 20,000 times lower than the temporary TDI set in 2015. Many people with average or high BPA exposure now exceed this limit, indicating a health concern.
The new EU-wide ban includes a phase-out period of 18–36 months.
The ban means BPA will no longer be allowed in food contact products. However, some products will have a derogation until stocks are exhausted. There is also a long road ahead to find safe and effective alternatives.
BPA is used to make polycarbonate, a highly durable, heat-resistant plastic found in reusable food containers, bottles and kitchenware. It’s also used in epoxy-based coatings inside cans and beverage tanks, helping prevent metallic taste and extend shelf life.
Canned drinks under scrutiny
A study published in the *Journal of Hazardous Materials* in March 2024 found higher bisphenol levels in canned beverages than in glass or plastic ones from the same brands. Researchers detected two structural isomers of BPA in 19 beverages — “the first detection in foodstuffs”, they said. They calculated that BPA exposure from drinking 364 mL of canned beverages per day could exceed the new safety guideline by up to 2000 times.
“These findings suggest that BPA exposure poses a potential health hazard for individuals who regularly consume non-alcoholic beverages packaged in aluminium or tin cans, particularly young children,” the researchers wrote.
The impact of the ban won’t be immediate. Although some industries lobbied against it, campaigners argue manufacturers have had ample time to adapt — BPA was banned from baby bottles back in 2011. Several countries, including Sweden, Denmark and Belgium, already ban BPA in FCMs for young children. France introduced a comprehensive BPA ban on all food packaging in 2015, including packaging for export.
Other bisphenols in the spotlight
The big question now is whether manufacturers will just replace BPA with other harmful bisphenols.
Campaigners are encouraged that the new EU rules are dynamic — newly classified bisphenols will be automatically included in the ban. This is a first for food contact materials regulation.
“The ban covers BPA and other bisphenols (if they are proved hazardous) and derivatives of BPA,” explains Dorota Napierska, policy officer at Zero Waste Europe.
Still, campaigners and scientists would prefer a stricter, precautionary approach to bisphenols as a group. A European Chemicals Agency report suggests at least 34 bisphenols may need to be restricted due to hormonal and reproductive effects.
“The work on substitution started more than a decade ago,” says HEAL’s Sandra Jen. But as BPA has been phased out, it’s often been replaced by structurally similar alternatives like BPS, BPF, BPAF and BPZ. “Many of these appear to have similar toxicity,” Jen adds. “We need a precautionary approach that regulates bisphenols as an entire group.”
A 2024 study in *Environment International* found substantial evidence that BPA alternatives may also harm the environment. “BPA is found in all environmental compartments,” said the researchers, led by Ondrej Adamovsky of Masaryk University, Czech Republic. As BPA restrictions grow, its alternatives are likely to dominate — and they may not be safer.
Jane Muncke, managing director and chief scientist at the Food Packaging Forum, recently reminded consumers of the hidden contents of food and drink cans.
“These coatings prevent reactions between the metal and the food, but they have also been raising questions about their safety due to chemical migration,” she said in a 2025 post.
Most epoxy coatings are BPA-based, but that’s changing. Only BPS and 2,2-bis(4-hydroxyphenyl)-4-methylpentane are currently covered by the new ban — though the latter is not thought to be used in food packaging. BPF and BPAF will also be banned, having been identified as substances of very high concern under REACH.
More extensive action needed?
Should the ban go further? Muncke thinks so. The Food Packaging Forum’s FCCmigex database has logged 253 detections of BPA in food contact material extracts or migrates. That includes 140 from plastics, 60 from metals, 44 from paper and board, and a few from other materials. Another 177 records involve bisphenols other than BPA.
It’s not just plastics we should worry about — paper and board might be even less regulated. As Napierska notes, the EU sets migration limits for bisphenols in plastics, but not in paper and cardboard.
Hundreds of chemicals have been found in recycled paper and cardboard food packaging. One study by consumer magazine Ökotest tested pizza boxes and found BPA and BPS in most samples. Only one — from Pizza Hut — tested negative. A simulation with the 10 boxes found BPA in the pizzas, with one dose exceeding EFSA’s guideline by around 45,000%. “That leaves you speechless,” the magazine said.
Paper packaging is popular as a plastic alternative, but “not tested in the same way as other materials”, says Dan Coppins, a packaging technologist at Pack-Man Consulting.
“Everything that is destined for food contact should be tested,” he says. The long-running BPA saga suggests we should be worried about what else we might find.
