It’s tough to defend a recommendation favoring continued use of a harmful product in baby food packaging. And yet, that’s what the Maine Department of Environmental Protection, and the LePage administration, are doing in their recommendation in favor of allowing continued use of bisphenol-A (BPA) in such packaging. BPA, used for decades in food packaging, is used as a coating on metal cans and jar lids to prevent corrosion and keep bacteria out. It’s also been found to leach into food and cause hormone disruption, brain development issues and other health problems.

The recommendation to allow its continued use in baby and toddler food packaging was made to the Board of Environmental Protection as it considers the proposed ban Thursday. The issue was brought up via petition by the Alliance for a Clean and Healthy Maine, representing hundreds of concerned parents.

Banning BPA in baby and toddler food packaging would not be a huge leap for the State of Maine. In 2010, the Kids Safe Products Act was passed and noted BPA as a priority chemical, banning it from baby bottles and sippy cups. At the time, alternatives to BPA for food packaging had not been evaluated for safety, according to Steven Taylor of the Environmental Health Strategy Center, so the ban did not extend to food packaging. Fast forward two years and the research has been done: The DEP met in December to discuss a report it had commissioned from Tech Law, Inc., which stated that polyethylene is a viable, inexpensive alternative to BPA. Yet there’s still opposition to extending the ban.

Why, if this chemical is unfit for baby bottles and sippy cups, is it OK for use in food packaging for babies and toddlers? It’s a puzzling conclusion for the DEP to have reached, and it just doesn’t seem right.

In the DEP’s recommendation letter to the BEP, the department recognizes that the Food and Drug Administration has confirmed that BPA can leach into food products from the packaging, although exposure levels are very low. The department has two main reasons for denying the expansion of the BPA ban: Economic concerns for manufacturers and retailers; and, in the case of the toddler foods, enforcement difficulty due to a poor description.

The first concern, we feel, is not valid, as 97 percent of the infant formula market has already removed BPA, as of 2011, according to the DEP. The recommendation notes that there is little data about how changing to a different type of packaging will affect costs, and that other food containers are less time-proven than glass jars. If most manufacturers have already switched over, however, and baby food prices have not spiked through the roof, it’s clear that making the change is not going to put anyone out of business.

The “toddler food” definition concern is an important point, however, as the description as submitted through the petition is vague enough to overstep its bounds into everyday canned foods. Toddler food is not a well-defined category, and we agree with the DEP that it needs to be better specified, or the provision will be impossible to enforce.

The answer to this issue, however, is to improve the definition, not to allow the continued use of BPA in food that is, in fact, geared specifically to toddlers.

Parents shouldn’t have to worry about whether or not the food they purchase for their child is safe. That’s the job of the federal government and the Food and Drug Administration, in most cases. And where they do not go far enough, as in the case of BPA, it is the job of the state. It seems so simple: BPA has been found to be a hormone disrupter with links to maladies such as obesity, diabetes, heart disease and problems with brain development.

A governor who is so interested in business and the future solvency of our state, should know that it doesn’t serve anyone well to have Maine children growing up with even the possibility of a predisposition to these diseases. It means more money spent on special education and health care, and less productivity in the working world. That’s not good for business.

He’s already come off as flippant about the negative health effects of BPA, with his “some women may have little beards” comment in 2011, as if that would be its worst possible side effect. We hope he takes the issue more seriously this time and realizes that having harmful chemicals in children’s foods is not conducive to his long-term goals for our state.

We urge the board to move toward the healthy decision for children during its workshop Thursday, with its final decision due by Jan. 25. No small businesses are going to shut down nor will jobs be lost because BPA can no longer be used in baby food packaging. Most baby food is made by national distributors, such as Gerber, and the majority of them have already phased out this chemical because they’ve seen the science and don’t want the bad word-of-mouth that will come from angry parents if they continue to use it.

Science must take the lead in our policy decisions. The evidence of BPA’s negative effect on young, developing bodies is not disputed. The Maine Medical Association and the Maine Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics have signed on to advocate expansion of the ban for a reason.

If the chemical industry is too strong at the national level, at least we can do something here in Maine to keep our children safe. Connecticut and Vermont have banned BPA in baby food packaging, and it’s time for Maine to step up as a leader in food safety for the most vulnerable, too.

Ӣ Ӣ Ӣ

Today’s editorial was written by Managing Editor Kristen Schulze Muszynski on behalf of the Journal Tribune Editorial Board. Questions? Comments? Contact Kristen by calling 282-1535, Ext. 322, or via email at kristenm@journaltribune.com.