BPA and Food: We Can Fix This

The debate about controversial plastic chemical bisphenol A (BPA), a synthetic estrogen, is heating up, with warring camps hurling data like flaming darts. Sometime later this month, the federal Food and Drug Administration is expected to announce its plans for evaluating and possibly restricting contamination of BPA in infant formula and other canned and plastic-packaged food and drink.

For those of you who like to follow every gnarly twist, we've posted an updater on environmental health developments on Environmental Working Group's Kid-Safe online news site.

Too busy? Here's a speedread.

Bisphenol A, whose family tree traces back to the petrochemical benzene, is an industrial chemical integral to the manufacture of polycarbonate plastic and epoxy resin.

These materials are ubiquitous. If you look around and don't see anything made with polycarbonate or epoxy resin, chances are you're living in a beaver den.

BPA-based synthetics are light and extraordinary tough, which is why they're valued. Personally, to tick off few random, unscientifically chosen examples, I'm totally fine with them in:

• Athletic helmets. They don't prevent every blow, but they help.
• Hockey arena "glass". Without it, second-row seats wouldn't be so awesome.
• CDs and DVDs. If they could only stop them from scratching.
• HIgh performance epoxy coatings. Bonus: check out my dream car.
• Eyeglasses. Light, safer polycarb keeps my glasses lenses from looking like bottle bottoms.
• Sailboat repairs.

I could go on. Cell phone and computer cases. Aerospace. Headlights.

The thing is, we don''t eat off our headlights.

Scientists who study the endocrine system, brain, reproductive system and several other important systems are convinced that BPA is a problem, a big one, when it shows up in food and beverage bottles, cans and other things that come in contact with food. For reasons known best to polymer chemists, both synthetics are chemically unstable, which means that BPA migrates out of them, particularly when they're heated or subjected to acids or caustics. That's why federal investigators have found traces of BPA in 93 percent of Americans over age six, and many other researchers have found trace BPA contamination in pregnant women, newborns, wildlife and the environment.

Because of the burgeoning political and regulatory battles over BPA in food packaging, makers of polycarbonate baby bottles are switching to non-BPA plastic, following the lead of some major sports water bottles. But other water and drink bottlers are still using polycarbonate bottles (signified by the number 7). And then there are the food canners, who insist they don't have a good substitute for epoxy resin can lining.

Here's my list of seven things that need to be BPA-free, fast:

• Canned infant formula. Come on, people.
• Canned chicken noodle soup. Critical for the next cold and flu season.
• Coca-Cola. As a Georgian, I believe it heals hangovers and other ailments that don't yield to chicken soup.
• Sports bottles. Hydration is key. Thanks to Nalgene and Camelbak for dumping BPA. And SIGG, belatedly.
• The Potomac River.
• Amniotic fluid and umbilical cord blood. Really.
• Beer.

What's on your dump-BPA list?

 

Comments

[Elaine Shannon - Huffpost Blogger]

Dear Roy, We'd like to see a lot more testing of all materials proposed as "safe" substitutes for BPA. That's why EWG is supporting policy changes that would place the burden on manufacturers to test products that leach chemicals into the food supply before they're introduced into the workplace, instead of waiting for government regulators to determine these chemicals are bioactive, even in trace amounts. We all know how long the regulatory process takes, even for materials such as asbestos, known to be dangerous ever since the Victorian era.
Thanks for commenting, Elaine

[RMankovitz]

Hi Elaine:

I strongly support EWG and their efforts to promote positive change. As a research scientist and lawyer, I do have two major concerns related to toxins in the food chain.

The first is the ease with which industry can hide the ball, using fabricated­-evidence-­based studies to show lack of harm. They have honed this process to a fine art, and peer-review now seems to be available to the highest bidder.

The second concern is even more problematic. I have spent two decades researching in the field of toxicology, and have published books on the subject, including "Nature's Detox Plan." From that research, it is my opinion that the state of medical research in determining what is a toxin and what effects it may have on the body, is quite pathetic. Particularly in the areas of heavy metals, halogens, and organics, we have no way to measure total body burden of most of these toxins, we do not know with any degree of accuracy where they accumulate or their cellular effects, and in some cases we have yet to find ways to measure micro amounts.

For the above reasons, in my books on nature-designed eating plans, I suggest that readers opt for glass or uncolored ceramic as the material of choice for all food containers, until science catches up.

[Elaine Shannon - Huffpost Blogger]

Thanks for reading. We'd all like to know a lot more about the effects of plastics and other synthetics making their way into the food supply. Unfortunately, current law places the burden on the government and the consumer to show they're unsafe, not the maker to show they're safe.

[RMankovitz]

BPA is certainly not the only toxin to be found in food packaging. The aseptic Tetra Pak (juice in a box) uses a polyethylene liner that has been shown to leach chemicals that may be more toxic than BPA. How about DMP, DEP, DiBP, DBP, and DEHP, some of which are known estrogen disruptors.

Very recent studies of plain mineral water stored in a Tetra Pak showed significant leaching of toxins from the liner into the food. The analysis of data demonstrated that the estrogenic contamination of mineral water bottled in Tetra Pak is significantly higher compared to that of water bottled in glass. One can only imagine the results if acidic contents such as wine or tomato products were tested. See:

http://www.defendingwaterinmaine.org/PET_Estrogen.pdf

My point is that "BPA-free" is no guarantee that the replacement is any less toxic.

An interesting analogy can be seen in some of the composite resins that are being used to replace toxic mercury amalgam tooth fillings. Most of these replacement resins are loaded with BPA!

Then there are PET water bottles that leach antimony, having a toxic profile similar to arsenic.

Stainless steel containers leach hexavalent chromium, a known carcinogen. See:

http://www.icdachromium.com/pdf/publications/crfile1sep96.htm .

Proposed solutions to these problems, as part of a nature-based approach to illness prevention, can be found in "The Wellness Project."

Roy Mankovitz, Director
http://www.MontecitoWellness.com