Advertisement

May 20, 2013

State Legislatures Continue Their Attack on Banning the Use of Bisphenol A (BPA) in Baby Bottles and Containers

Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

A handful of states, counties and even a major city have already passed laws banning the use of Bisphenol A (BPA) in children’s baby bottles and beverage containers. State legislatures across the country are pursuing similar efforts. The existing and proposed legislation banning BPA certainly has the potential for inviting litigation against the chemical and bottler makers, as well as against the bottle distributors and retailers.

BPA is a chemical used to strengthen and harden plastic. It also serves to prevent corrosion and food contamination on the inside of metal containers. One of the most common uses of BPA is found in the manufacture of baby bottles and baby formula cans. Although the potential health effects from exposure to BPA are still in dispute from a scientific standpoint, proponents of the ban argue that the BPA chemical can have adverse reproductive and developmental effects, especially in newborns and infants, and even at low doses. It is suggested that BPA exposure occurs when the baby bottle is heated in the microwave, hot liquids are poured into the bottle, or when the bottle or container becomes aged, scratched or damaged.

We will continue to monitor any significant developments on this issue as they may occur. To date, the following jurisdictions have banned BPA in children’s bottles and beverage containers:

Jurisdiction

Regulation

Scope

Requirement

Effective Date

Albany County, NY

BPA – County Law

Beverage containers for children under 3-years-old

Prohibited

2009

Schenectady County, NY

BPA – County Law

Beverage containers for children under 3-years-old

Prohibited

Jan. 1, 2010

Suffolk County, NY

BPA – Toxin Free Toddler & Babies Act

Beverage containers for children under 3-years-old

Prohibited

2009

Chicago, IL

BPA-Free Kids Ordinance Section 7-28-637 Ch. 7-8, Municipal Code of Chicago

Containers- Empty bottle or cup to be filled with food or liquid for children under 3-years-old

Prohibited

Jan. 31, 2010

Minnesota

BPA - Ch. 40 (SF 247, Session 2009-2010)

Empty bottle or cup to be filled with food or liquid for children under 3-years-old

Prohibited (Manufacturer & Wholesaler)

-----------------

Prohibited (Retailer)

Jan. 1, 2010

--------------

Jan. 1, 2011

Connecticut

BPA – Public Act 09-103 (HB 6527)

Reusable food or beverage container

------------------

Plastic container, jar or can that contains infant formula or baby food

------------------

Sell or distribute existing inventory of infant formula of baby food containers, jars or cans as of Oct. 1, 2011, provided such items were purchased or acquired prior to Oct. 1, 2011

 

Prohibited

-----------------

 

Prohibited

-----------------

Prohibited

Oct. 1. 2011

 

 

-----------------

 

Oct. 1, 2011

-----------------

Oct. 1, 2012

 

In addition, in the past year, legislation has been introduced in 21 states attempting to ban the manufacture, sale and use of BPA in baby bottles and children’s beverage containers.

The following states have seen the most recent legislative activity on BPA:

Jurisdiction

Regulation

Scope

Requirement

Status

Oregon

Senate Bill 1032

Empty bottle or cup to be filled with food or liquid for children under 3-years-old

Prohibited

On Feb. 19, 2010, Senate rejected bill by a 15 to 15 vote

Wisconsin

Senate Bill 271 (attached)*

Empty bottle or cup to be filled with food or liquid for children 5-years-old and younger

Prohibited

On Jan. 26, 2010, Senate unanimously approved bill; effective date if passed: 90th day after publication

Washington

SSB 6248 (attached)*

Empty bottle or cup to be filled with food or liquid for children under 3-years-old

Prohibited

Bill is expected to be signed by Gov. Christine Gregoire – effective date if passed: July 1, 2011

Vermont

H. 551 & S. 247 (An Act Relating to Bisphenol A) (attached)*

Empty bottle or cup to be filled with food or liquid for children 2-years-old and younger

Prohibited

House bill introduced on Jan. 22. 2010; Senate bill introduced on Jan. 5, 2010 – effective date if passed: July 1, 2012

*(To view the attached bills from Washington, Wisconsin and Vermont, click on Download PDF )

We anticipate that more states across the country will continue to pass legislation banning the use of BPA in children’s beverage bottles and containers. We also predict the possibility that lawsuits will follow in the future against the chemical and bottle companies involved in BPA production and distribution, especially if the science on the potential health effects becomes more developed and undisputed.

For further information, please contact Craig T. Liljestrand or your regular attorney.  

© 2013 Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

About the Author

Craig Liljestrand has extensive experience in the areas of toxic tort, products liability and environmental litigation. He is recognized for his litigation and trial skills in the areas of asbestos, silica, welding fumes, lead paint and occupational disease claims. His client base is expansive, and includes Fortune 500 companies in which he has successfully defended various industrial product and equipment manufacturers, contractors and premises owners in numerous toxic tort/environmental cases throughout the country. Mr. Liljestrand also is the regional counsel for a major industrial...

312-704-3647

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.