Anger as EU rejects calls to ban baby bottles made with chemical linked to breast cancer and fertility

The European Food Safety Authority(EFSA) has angered campaigners by rejecting a raft of research highlighting health risks caused by Bisphenol A(BPA).

In April, the Canadian government banned the sale of baby bottles containing the chemical, leading some stores in the US to take them off shelves.

Some baby bottles contain the chemical Bisphenol A(BPA) which has been linked to early puberty, breast cancer and miscarriage

At the same time, the National Childbirth Trust in the UK called on manufacturers to put warning labels on the bottles.

However, EFSA has decided that the dose of BPA consumed by a baby using a bottle is so low that it does not pose any health risk.

Concerns about the effect of the chemical were raised after changes to the bodies of rats were identified in trials. However, EFSA says the human body reacts differently.

EFSA said: 'People are exposed to BPA which may be present in food through its use in certain food contact materials such as baby bottles and cans.'

It said its expert panel has concluded that 'after exposure to BPA the human body rapidly metabolises and eliminates the substance. This represents an important metabolic difference compared with rats'.

The EFSA experts said that they felt there was no need to call for a ban on change the advice given to parents.

However, the watchdog said it would continue to monitor any new science on the chemical.

Friends of Earth condemned the ruling saying there are more than 180 studies showing the adverse effects of low dose exposure of BPA.

It said the chemical has proven links to infertility and breast and prostate cancer, to thyroid malfunction, attention deficit disorder and recurrent miscarriage.

One recent study even suggested a link to obesity.

Chemical campaigner at Friends of the Earth Europe, David Azoulay, said: EFSA has again ignored overwhelming scientific evidence.

'A panel which lacks the necessary expertise and impartiality is saying it knows better than specialists on the substance who are calling for a precautionary approach.

'This decision leaves consumers at risk and again highlights the grave flaws of European health and safety assessments for food and chemicals in contact with food, and the need for a complete review of this system.'