Should tomatoes that were grown without pesticides still be considered "organic" if they'd been steeping in BPA? And come to think of it, when was the last time you saw mention of any ingredient for any package of the food you eat?
Nobody knows just how much of a risk toxins in our food really pose. But we're exposed to dozens, if not hundreds, of chemicals, and the effects of some multiple exposures may be more than the sum of their parts.
The good news is that several states have taken the lead and banned BPA. California has just followed suit this week with legislation requiring the elimination of BPA in baby bottles and sippy cups made or sold after July 1, 2013.
Is the oil you're sautéing with "all-natural" or is it tainted by GMOs? Is that sea bass you're eating sustainable or has it been over-fished nearly to extinction? Even if you read the labels, you might not know.
Harmless alternatives to BPA in baby bottles and sippy cups are in demand. With the signing of this bill, California can signal that big chemical company money cannot trump the health of babies and toddlers.
And, most recently, I found out that because it coats the inside of cans -- even those that contain baby formula -- the stuff can sneak into our food, too. (So much for mom's "homemade" black bean soup.)
When BPA was first introduced in the late 1950s, maybe we didn't question the chemicals use in products that we ingest and touch, including the everyday cashier's receipt. But what is the excuse today, fifty years later?
European Food Safety Authority's repeated lack of transparency and a recent report showing the business interests of senior EFSA officials suggests that in its current form EFSA is not that organization.