The National Toxicology Program (NTP) published a draft report suggesting that bisphenol A (BPA) is probably safe, according to this Newsweek article. The results are based on animal studies with exposure levels that are comparable to human exposures. The report is the first from a larger research effort which is not expected to yield final conclusions until August 2019.
At Praedicat, we closely follow the BPA literature because BPA has many attributes that make it a great candidate for the “next asbestos.” It has a huge industrial footprint that ranges from baby bottles to sales receipts. It has a mature scientific literature investigating multiple bodily injury endpoints. The health effects being investigated are injuries like breast cancer with potentially large plaintiff populations. The literature is not yet strong enough to support litigation in U.S. courts, but with this study as an example, new findings are emerging frequently. Indeed, almost daily!
How does an insurer stay on top of a fast-moving risk like BPA? At Praedicat, we track the science at the level of the literature. No one study is going to decide whether BPA is harmful, but it is very important for an insurer to track the direction of the literature. For BPA, we have been finding that there is a shift in the direction of the literature. We are finding that there are relatively more studies being published with findings that do not support the harm hypotheses. The latest release of our quantitative risk model showed a drop in the “tail risk” for BPA. In other words, the chance of a very large litigation over BPA seems to be falling.
What does this mean for underwriting strategies? Our recommendation remains the same: Write the risk but manage the total exposures. This is our recommendation for most emerging and evolving risks. Ultimately, you can’t predict the next asbestos since there are too many candidates. However, you can make sure you aren’t over-exposed to any of the top candidates. BPA might not be as high up the list as it used to be, but it is still on the list.
The statement was interpreted by many to mean that the report shows BPA is “probably safe,” “ unlikely to be harmful,” or may not be “much of a threat.”