Study says public health at stake from BPA exposure

Plastics News "An examination of more than 80 published human biomonitoring studies has concluded that the general population is exposed to bisphenol A and is at risk from internal exposure to unconjugated, or biologically active, BPA."

“The biomonitoring data indicate that human exposures are higher than have been suggested from the toxicokinetic studies,” said the report, released online the evening of March 24. Toxicokinetic studies look at the change in concentration, over time, of a chemical or a metabolite in blood/plasma or other tissue.

“These [biomonitoring] studies overwhelmingly detect BPA in individuals including adults, adolescents and children. The health of the public is at stake,” said the report from a team of global researchers led by Dr. Laura Vanderberg of Tufts University. “Because of the significant data showing human exposures to unconjugated BPA and animal data indicating increased susceptibility to disease at levels found in humans, we recommend that the precautionary principle be followed until further data on exposure of fetuses and children to BPA become available.”

“It is likely that fetuses and children are particularly vulnerable to BPA exposures and, at the same time, are exposed to higher levels of unconjugated BPA,” said the report, which was published in the Journal of Environmental Health Perspectives.

However, Steve Hentges, executive director of the polycarbonate/BPA global group of the American Chemistry Council in Arlington, Va., disputed those conclusions.

“The opinions of the authors are quite inconsistent with the views of expert scientific and government bodies that have also reviewed these biomonitoring studies,” Hentges said. Eleven safety agencies around the world, including the European Food Safety Agency, have said that BPA is OK for use in food contact applications.

Hentges said the opinions expressed by the authors do not appear to be on analysis that is contained in the studies, but rather just their opinions. “There was some deception in what they described and they were selective in what they reported,” Hentges said.

German bisphenol A finding called an "absurdity"

The Canmaker: "Toxicological studies by the EFSA have shown that the tolerable daily intake (TDI) of bisphenol A is 0.05 milligrammes per kilogramme of body weight per day.

David Smith, technical manager of the MPMA said: 'Taking this figure as a base, and the highest migration figure in the BUND study [3.9 microgrammes/litre of product], then a consumer with a 60 kg bodyweight would need to consume more than 1,500 50cl cans per day of that product for life to reach the TDI. This is clearly an absurdity."

Canned Food Cancer

Harmfukadditives.com: "Bisphenol A Toxic Plastics Chemical in Canned Food - EWG recently tested the levels of a toxic chemical called BPA bishphenol A in canned foods For example, recent studies show that prenatal exposure to BPA causes breast cancer in

Canned foods found to contain dangerously high level of - Canned foods found to contain dangerously high level of toxic chemical bisphenol-A BPA and the less processed, packaging food you eat, the lower your risk will be for cancer"

Canned Food Alert: Why Relying on Conventional Wisdom Can Damage Your Bone Health

Oromoindex: "But the sad truth is that, as is the case with many “official” conclusions potentially affecting mammoth industry cartels, everyone would be better off without these guidelines. In the absence of what most consider a trustworthy source, people would rely on their own research and use third-party independent sources to obtain information and get to the bottom of a health issue."

And the BPA saga is yet one more example of the public’s blind trust in government agency opinions: according to Consumer Reports, the EPA’s “safe” level for Bisphenol A is based on outdated experiments from 30 years ago. And their guidelines have not changed since, in spite of a multitude of more recent laboratory studies.

UK Environment Agency - Bisphenol A

Environment Agency - Bisphenol A: "The primary sources of environmental release of bisphenol A are expected to be effluents and emissions from its manufacturing facilities and facilities which manufacture epoxy, polycarbonate, and polysulfone resins. The most probable routes of human exposure to bisphenol A are inhalation and dermal contact of workers involved in the manufacture, use, transport or packaging of this compound or use of epoxy powder paints. Trace amounts of bisphenol A can enter the food chain through resin coatings used in food packaging, such as food and drink cans coated with epoxy resin lacquers. A closely related compound bisphenol-GMA is a common component of dental sealants and composites that are polymerised in the mouth by photolysis. Small amounts of bisphenol A has been found to leach from such sealants both before and after polymerisation in vitro."

Md. to be fifth state with BPA ban

Plastics News: "The number of state bans on the use of bisphenol A in food and drink containers for children has officially risen to four, with Maryland poised to become the fifth state to enact a BPA ban.

Washington Gov. Chris Gregorie signed into law March 19 a ban on the use of BPA in both baby bottles and sports bottles that the state legislature had approved in mid-February.

The Washington ban goes into effect July 1, 2011 for bottles and containers intended for children 3 and younger, and July 1, 2012 for sports bottles.

Wisconsin, Connecticut, Minnesota and the city of Chicago and Suffolk County in New York also have enacted bans on BPA, but the Connecticut ban does not go into effect until Oct. 1, 2011. The Connecticut ban will also apply to infant formula cans and reusable food/beverage containers.

The Wisconsin ban, passed in February and signed into law earlier this month, goes into effect in June. It applies only to baby bottles and sippy cups used by children 3 years and younger.

The pending Maryland ban, passed unanimously by both sides of the legislature, is awaiting the signature of Gov. Martin O’Malley. The Maryland ban would go into effect Jan. 1, 2012, and apply to all bottles and cups intended for children under age 4.

In addition, state legislators in Illinois are scheduled to vote this month on a proposed BPA ban."

Alternatives to BPA containers not easy for U.S. foodmakers to find

washingtonpost.com: "But foodmakers say they aren't waiting for legislation or regulation.

'It doesn't matter what FDA says. If consumers decide they don't want BPA, you don't want it to be in a can that consumers don't want to buy,' said one source at a major U.S. food company who spoke on the condition of anonymity. Major food companies declined to talk publicly about their efforts to find a replacement for BPA linings. 'We don't have a safe, effective alternative, and that's an unhappy place to be,' the source said. 'No one wants to talk about that.'

Heinz, for instance, says it has switched to BPA-free cans for some products but will not identify them or say what substitute it is using. General Mills, which owns the Progresso and Muir Glen lines of canned products, said it is testing BPA-free cans but would not elaborate. 'We are optimistic that safe and viable alternatives will be identified in time,' said Thomas Forsythe, a company spokesman."

BPA Craziness

CENtral Science: "The fact is that the evidence linking BPA with adverse health effects is weak. Many studies have been carried out, and the results have been contradictory. This is why FDA has acted cautiously with regard to BPA and why the chemical and food-packaging industries resist stringent regulation of it. FDA announced earlier this year that it has “some concern” about the potential health effects of BPA in infants and children, but also said that more research is needed to fully assess the safety of the chemical (C&EN, Jan. 25, page 8). Market pressure, however, has effectively removed BPA from products such as baby bottles, so that’s no longer an issue."

Nevertheless, the drumbeat against BPA continues. Once suspicion of any kind has been leveled against the safety of a chemical, watch out. No amount of contrary evidence will ever convince some chemophobic environmentalists that use of the chemical should continue. Ban it. Period. It’s no wonder the chemical industry shudders at the mere mention of the precautionary principle.

A front-page story in the Feb. 23 Washington Post, “Replacing BPA in Cans Gives Foodmakers Fits,” carries on in that tradition. Despite the fact that it calls BPA a “synthetic estrogen,” which it isn’t (BPA exhibits weak estrogenic activity, but it is not related to estrogen structurally), the story is, for the most part, factually accurate. Its underlying premise, however, is that exposure to BPA is dangerous. Running throughout the story is the assumption that BPA should be removed from all food containers. A sidebar on the jump page is titled “How to reduce BPA exposure.”

No one has shown that adults exposed to BPA at the levels that leach from food container liners suffer any harm. Potential replacements for BPA don’t work as well and very likely will pose risks of their own. BPA and the polycarbonate plastics and epoxy resins that are made from it are useful chemicals that are getting a bum rap from people who don’t know what they are talking about.

Can Conundrum - We are moving away from cans

Can Conundrum: "Major food makers are not moving quickly to adopt non-BPA linings, complains Green Century Capital Management, an advisory firm for environmentally responsible investing. In a survey it conducted of 20 packaged-food companies, 11 reported that they are “exploring alternatives” to BPA, but none presented clear plans or time frames for phasing it out."

“We’ve been working with some companies that are talking with suppliers and increasing pressure on can manufacturers to find a solution feasible for all can linings,” says Emily Stone, shareholder advocate at Green Century. “We understand it is a supply-chain issue, but the can has the food company’s brand name on it, and that’s a risk.”

One company that did not receive the survey is Goya Foods, a food processor and distributor of Hispanic foods. In an e-mailed response to a C&EN query, Senior Vice President Joseph F. Perez wrote, “Yes, we are working with the coatings industry, Valspar among others, as well as can-making companies, for example, Silgan Containers, for alternative coating options.” Neither Valspar nor Silgan responded to requests for comment.

The quest for a BPA substitute has sent many firms to the consulting firm Packaging & Technology Integrated Solutions. “They all want the magic packaging material,” says PTIS senior scientist Aaron Brody. “We haven’t found it yet.” Brody suggests looking to Japan, where canned-goods makers voluntarily reduced BPA starting in 1998. Many switched to polyethylene terephthalate (PET) polyester linings like those made by Toyo Seikan. Another option might be polypropylene-lined cans, Brody suggests.

But even these choices may not be enough. “The adhesive used to adhere polyester to the can may contain BPA, though it wouldn’t migrate easily,” Brody says. Between polyester and polypropylene, polyester resists corrosion better, he says, and both stand up to high temperatures. The likely impact of using either one as a can liner would be much higher costs, Brody offers.

Ironically, in recent years the most popular innovations in shelf-stable food packaging include polypropylene “cans” as well as pouches made of layered PET films. Rather than line metal cans with the polymers, food makers may just opt out of cans altogether. “We are moving away from cans—there hasn’t been any growth in the past 20 years or so. But polypropylene containers are growing,” Brody reports.

Still, grocery stores will continue to stock food in metal cans for years to come, so the search for an alternative liner will continue, predicts Green Century’s Stone. “Just like with the sports bottle industry, where brands such as Nalgene and Camelback are trying to one-up each other on BPA-free designations,” she says, “canned food companies that move quickly will find themselves winning in the consumer arena.”

Packaging and drinks industry dismiss calls to ban bisphenol A

Foodproduction daily: "Minute levels of bisphenol A detected in drink cans pose no health risk to consumers, said beverage companies and a leading industry body as they rejected calls from an environmental group to ban the chemical.

The Metal Packaging Manufacturers Association (MPMA) said the report by BUND, the German arm of Friends of the Earth, actually underlined the safety of the packaging as consumers would have to drink thousands of cans every day to exceed the established tolerable daily intake (TDI) level for BPA. Drinks giants such as Coca-Cola and Red Bull also stressed that their containers and beverages were safe.

The industry response came after BUND released the results of tests showing BPA was found in both the epoxy linings of cans, as well some drinks, made by the likes of Coca-Cola, Red Bull and Nestle. After analysing 11 drinks, BPA levels per tin ranged from 0.3 micrograms (ug) to 8.3ug. Traces of the substance were found in five drinks up to a level of 3.9ug per litre, said the group.

BUND acknowledged the levels were not harmful in themselves but nevertheless called for a ban on the chemical as consumption of canned drinks would add to consumers’ cumulative exposure to BPA."

European Study Suggests Bottle-Fed Infants Most at Risk for Bisphenol A Ingestion, But Exposure levels Well below 'Safe Limits'

USNewswire: "Swiss researchers examining exposure pathways for a common chemical used in plastic containers and linings of cans find infants have the highest estimated levels of Bisphenol A (BPA), with exposures falling with rising age. While estimated levels are well below the Tolerable Daily Intake (TDI) set by European authorities, the findings are important in that BPA is thought to impact human development and is classified as an endocrine disrupting chemical, potentially putting developing infants at risk, as well as fetuses if pregnant mothers are exposed.

The Swiss study examines 17 different sources of potential exposure across nine age/gender groups in the German/Swiss/Austrian population and found the most potentially exposed group is bottle-fed infants from 0-6 months of age. This group had estimated mean dose rates of nearly 0.8 micrograms per kilogram body weight per day, well below the TDI. However 'it is of the same order of magnitude as recently reported concentrations that caused low-dose health effects in rodents,' according to the authors."

Chemical In A Can: Segment from Canadian TV

Chemical In A Can: Segment from the Canadian television series 16:9: (Sixteen By Nine) exploring the use of BPA or Bisphenol A, in the lining of food product cans and plastic containers. Air date: Sept.06, 2009

YouTube Video

'Watchdog' advocates for BPA

JSOnline: "Statistical Assessment Service, a major player in the public relations campaign to discredit concerns about bisphenol A, claims to be an independent media watchdog.

But a review of its finances and its Web site shows that STATS is funded by public policy organizations that promote deregulation. The Journal Sentinel found documents that show that its parent organization, the Center for Media and Public Affairs, was paid in the 1990s by Philip Morris, the tobacco company, to pick apart stories critical of smoking."

Mass. to consider a limited BPA ban; Baby products with chemical could be affected

Mass Sierra Club Newsd: "Governor Deval Patrick has asked state health officials to look into placing a limited ban on bisphenol A, a chemical found in food and drink containers that the state last summer warned parents of young children to avoid.

“We are taking this action as a precaution to protect vulnerable children in the light of evidence about potential dangers of BPA,’’ Patrick said in a statement yesterday.

BPA is used in a wide variety of products, including certain plastic bottles, children’s sipping cups, and the lining of canned food containers. Children and adults can ingest tiny amounts of the chemical when they drink or eat from the containers, and studies of laboratory animals have suggested BPA could cause developmental problems for children if they are exposed to small quantities early in life.

The governor directed the state Department of Public Health to prepare draft regulations for the May meeting of the Public Health Council, but he did not specify which BPA-containing products to consider banning.

“Between now and May we will be looking at the different possibilities for the regulation,’’ DPH Commissioner John Auerbach said in an interview. “The governor had indicated to us that we should be certain that we include baby bottles and sippy cups.’’"

Washington Becomes 5th State to Ban BPA

infoZine News: "Governor Christine Gregoire will sign the bill Friday.

Under the new law, plastic containers made with BPA that are designed to hold food or beverages for children under three years old such as sippy cups and baby bottles may not be manufactured, sold, or distributed in Washington. A House amendment was added to the bill to include plastic sports bottles. It is scheduled to take effect July 1, 2011, and will also include sports bottles as of July 1,"

BPA is still legal in food packaging such as the BPA linings used for canned foods and beverages, including baby formula, baby food jar lids and home canning lids.