As a result of these different measures, there is increasing interest in alternatives to or substitutes for BPA. These alternatives can inadvertently have health effects similar to or different to those of BPA. RIVM carried out research into this aspect on the instructions of the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport and the Netherlands Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority (NVWA), which resulted in a review identifying the alternatives that are expected to become available. In addition, a number of alternatives were studied, for which relevant data is available on their harmfulness. RIVM also looked at what information is available on leaching of the alternative substance from products (see articles: 'A prioritization strategy for functional alternatives to bisphenol A in food contact materials' and 'Substitution of bisphenol A: a review of the carcinogenicity, reproductive toxicity, and endocrine disruption potential of alternative substances' .) Exposure is higher from an alternative substance that leaches from the product to a significant degree compared to an alternative that leaches from the product very little or not at all.

The study shows that too little data is available for most substitutes with regard to harmfulness and the leaching of these alternatives from the product. As a result, it remains partially unknown for the time being whether alternatives to BPA can be used safely. However, we now know that some bisphenols – such as bisphenols F, S and AF – have similar health effects to BPA. As a consequence, the ban on BPA in food contact materials also applies to these other bisphenols.