London image

London

Founded in 2012, Signature Litigation has grown into one of London’s pre-eminent specialist dispute resolution practices. From the outset, we set out to do things differently: a conflict-free, disputes-only platform designed to give clients the undivided focus and strategic agility that complex, high-stakes matters demand.

FIND OUT MORE
Gibraltar image

Gibraltar

Established in 2017, Signature Litigation's Gibraltar office was founded to address growing demand for specialist expertise in commercial litigation and private wealth disputes on the Rock.

FIND OUT MORE
Paris image

Paris

Signature Litigation AARPI houses one of France’s most enviable product liability practices, with the team also handling commercial and corporate litigation, insurance and reinsurance, toxic tort and ESG, civil fraud and asset tracing, international arbitration, administrative and public law.

FIND OUT MORE
Frankfurt image

Frankfurt

Frankfurt has emerged as one of Europe's foremost financial and commercial centres and, increasingly, as a bridge between European and Asian markets. With that growth comes an increasing demand for sophisticated dispute resolution. Signature Litigation established its Frankfurt office to meet this need, bringing our conflict-free, disputes-only platform to the German market.

FIND OUT MORE

Sylvie Gallage-Alwis comments on the EU’s decision to ban bisphenol-A (BPA) and other bisphenols in ENDS Europe

7 March 2025

"My view is that BPAs have been extensively used in food material products mainly because they are heat resistant thanks to their chemical structure. BPA molecules require a significant amount of heat to break. They are known for their thermal stability, especially when the BPA is polymerized. For example, polycarbonate can withstand temperatures up to about 120°C (248°F) without significant degradation. Other properties of BPAs that explain why they are used are their durability and the fact that epoxy resins containing BPA provide excellent barrier properties, helping to protect food from moisture and oxygen, which can lead to spoilage."

"The restrictions that the EU is imposing will have numerous consequences on manufacturers. The first one will be to identify suitable alternatives which match or exceed the mechanical, thermal and barrier properties of current BPA-containing materials. To complexify the situation, the alternatives should also be compatible with the existing manufacturing processes and equipment. Changing the whole manufacturing process has a real cost impact that manufacturers will want to reduce as much as possible as they will already have to invest heavily in research and development. They will nonetheless be unable to escape the need to find suitable alternatives as manufacturers who do not will face reputation damage as consumers become more aware of potential health risks.

"As part of their research and development efforts, manufacturers will have to find a way to carry out relevant long-term testing and gather data that will reassure consumers. Indeed, even if consumers want BPAs to be prohibited, they will want to be reassured about the alternatives they will be exposed to. Ensuring that new materials meet regulatory requirements will be key but this will require extensive documentation, certification processes, third-party testing, etc. Again, cost will be a main issue for manufacturers.

"One can also imagine that given that alternatives will be limited (at least at first), supply chain disruptions may occur as the number of suppliers will be limited. To gain market share and avoid too much cost, manufacturers will have to anticipate this.""France is often considered one of the most advanced European member states in terms of banning BPA in food contact materials. As such, French law no. 2012-1442 of 24 December 2012 banned the use of BPA in all food containers as of 1 January 2015. The Law 2010-729 of 30 June 2010 had already banned BPAs in baby bottles. This being said, the French Constitutional Council ruled that the suspension of the manufacture in France and the export from France do not affect the marketing of these products in other countries. In other words, manufacturers established in France could manufacture food materials containing BPAs but only to export them out of France. This was decided to avoid a too harsh impact on said manufacturers and not make them anti-competitive. It will be interesting to see how manufacturers established in France will transition while fighting against bans before. Sweden, Belgium and Denmark have also already banned BPAs in some food-contact materials for children and some products for children. They will have to extend such bans.

"The change in the EU legal landscape overall will therefore create real challenges for all manufacturers doing business in the EU Member States. However, they have necessarily anticipated this change as studies on negative health effects of BPAs have been published for a while and some countries have already banned BPAs (even if, for most, in some products only). The Regulation provides for transition periods (single-use final food contact articles and repeat-use final food contact articles with BPA will be allowed to be placed on the market until 20 July 2026, with some exceptions for some specific categories of products until 20 January 2028). Also note that stocks of single use food contact articles containing BPA manufactured before 20 January 2025 and placed on the market until 20 July 2026 or 20 January 2028 can still be filled with food and sealed for one after their transitional periods (20 July 2027 or 20 January 2029). My view is therefore that manufacturers will have time to get ready even if this will necessarily come with significant cost and adjustment in their processes and supply-chain organization. It is also to be expected that national regulators will understand that changes take time and cooperate with manufacturers rather than sanctioning them as soon as they can."