Numerous prior posts have dealt with the controversy over BPA. Besides the numerous animal and other non-human studies, prior posts have noted that the primary route of exposure appears to be thermal cash register receipts, not merely the plastic water bottles, can liners, and medical tubing that until the link with receipts was found were assumed to be the route of exposure.
Prior posts also noted that litigation had been filed attacking the basis for the proposed listing. [An overview of Prop. 65 and the various listing mechanisms can be found at http://www.rmkb.com/index.cfm/publications/publication-details/?pkid=253. A review of a major flaw in the Prop. 65, the failure to have a standard by which to measure exposure, can be found at http://www.rmkb.com/index.cfm/publications/publication-details/?pkid=965.]
On April 11, 2013, the Office of Health Hazard Assessment ("OEHHA") listed BPA as a developmental toxicant. What this means is that after one year a warning will be required on products that expose consumers to more than 1/1000 of the "no effects" level of BPA. What is interesting is that OEHHA only cites to the can liners and water bottles as a route of exposure, which seems rather limited.
One can anticipate a most interesting trial on the issue of using the authoritative body mechanism in this matter when the language from the authoritative body seems qualified in such a manner that the listing would not be supported by this mechanism.
OEHHA also lists those studies cited by National Toxicology Program to support its conclusion about the nature of BPA. Those studies can be found listed at http://oehha.ca.gov/prop65/CRNR_notices/admin_listing/intent_to_list/NOILABpkg42BPA