The US FDA denied a petition on March 31 seeking to ban bisphenol-A, commonly known as BPA, from food and beverage packaging, but the agency said it continues to support research examining the safety of the chemical.

In a 12-page letter, David H Dorsey, FDA acting associate commissioner for policy and planning, wrote that the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), which had petitioned the agency to change its regulations on use of the chemical, had not provided sufficient scientific evidence to change the current regulations.

BPA has been used for decades in a broad range of food and beverage containers, in plastic bottles, the linings of cans and on cash register receipts. It can disrupt the endocrine system, so health officials — not to mention environmentalists — are concerned that it may cause reproductive problems, diabetes and other health problems.

Concerns about the chemical's effects on health have already led some corporations to stop using BPA in bottles, sippy cups and other products for children.

FDA said that while it was denying a petition by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) to ban BPA, on the basis that it did not provide sufficient scientific evidence, the agency is continuing to study the issue with the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.

"I cannot stress enough that this is not a final safety determination on BPA," said FDA spokesman, Douglas Karas. "This is a decision on the NRDC petition. The FDA denied the NRDC petition because it did not have the scientific data needed for the FDA to change current regulations, which allows the use of BPA in food packaging."

NRDC scientist Sara Janssen expressed disappointment in the agency's decision: "BPA is a toxic chemical that has no place in our food supply. We believe FDA made the wrong call," she said. "The agency has failed to protect our health and safety ­- in the face of scientific studies that continue to raise disturbing questions about the long-term effects of BPA exposures, especially in fetuses, babies and young children."

The FDA and NIEHS are in the middle of a $30 million research initiative attempting to shed light on BPA safety. The agency said it was working on finishing another updated safety review based on the new studies.

So far, FDA's research has found that human infants' exposure to BPA is between 84 and 92 percent less than previously estimated and that the level of BPA from food that could be passed on by pregnant rodents to their unborn offspring is "so low it could not be measured."

"Researchers fed pregnant rodents 100 to 1,000 times more BPA than people are exposed to through food, and could not detect the active form of BPA in the fetus eight hours after the mother's exposure," said FDA in a brief overview of the latest research.

"People of all ages process and rid their bodies of BPA faster than the rodents used as test animals do."

The FDA had until Saturday to respond to a petition filed by NRDC, according to a court order issued in December 2011. The group petitioned FDA three years ago, requesting that BPA be prohibited in food packaging. The NRDC cited human health concerns, and eventually filed suit to force the agency to respond.

Jeff Stier, director of the Risk Analysis Division at the National Center for Public Policy Research, a conservative think tank, said he believes FDA did the right thing by denying the petition.

"The risk-averse FDA would not have left a product on the market if it were dangerous, as NRDC has been claiming," said Stier in a statement. "At this point, this issue should be laid to rest. The federal government has spent tens of millions of dollars investing in research on BPA, already one of the most well-studied chemicals on earth, and the FDA has squandered its limited resources on multiple safety assessments, including the one litigated by NRDC."

Linda S Birnbaum, director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences of the National Institutes of Health, said that her "concerns have not been alleviated by the research that has gone on in the last couple of years" and that her agency is continuing to fund further studies.

But, she said, a lot of questions about BPA remain, including the extent of the problems it may pose. And she cautioned that regulators wouldn't want to ban BPA until they were sure that whatever replaced it wouldn't be worse.

In its letter to NRDC, the FDA said it appreciated the group's concern about BPA and added that it takes that concern seriously.

"FDA has determined, as a matter of science and regulatory policy, that the best course of action at this time is to continue our review and study of emerging data on BPA," read the letter. "FDA is performing, monitoring, and reviewing new studies and data as they become available, and depending on the results, any of these studies or data could influence FDA's assessment and future regulatory decisions about BPA."

Many companies, including the Campbell Soup Company, have already discontinued or begun phasing out the use of BPA in their packaging and products.

Comment from Bob Messenger, foremost US food industry observer and commentator, editor of The Morning Cup:

'Destructive Duo' together again! First, alar. Now, BPA

I don't mean to sound like a creep towards those who rant on about BPA. But, personally speaking, I have never looked at these people in the same way after the now-infamous and long ago alar scare. Remember that one? A false accusation drummed-up by the likes of CBS' 60 Minutes ended up costing the apple industry more than $100 million.

Guess who was behind the alar lie? The leftist activist group Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Fenton Communications, who skillfully used the media (i.e., 60 Minutes) and Hollywood mouthpieces like actress Meryl Streep, to damn near ruin the apple industry. And it was all a lie from the get-go. Even former surgeon general C. Everett Koop, himself an activist, said "the truth is that Alar never did pose a health hazard.”

So guess who is behind the scare campaign to bring down BPA? That's right, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and the same notorious PR gang at Fenton Communications. So you'll pardon me if I don't get all choked up because FDA refused to ban BPA. Maybe it also remembers the shoddy work of NRDC/Fenton in conjuring up the phony alar scare. I sure do.