BPA and Phthalates. I swear I could blog continually about new tests showing the dangers of these two chemicals. So this week, a report called  No Silver Lining, was released reviewing a study conducted by The National Workgroup for Safe Markets, a coalition of U.S. public health- and environmental health-focused non-governmental organizations. The study reported on the presence of BPA in canned foods, and the results were reviewed by research scientists in cellular biology from Tufts University Medical School and a professor of environmental health and chemicals policy from the University of Lowell School of Health & Environment.

The methodology for this study was carefully planned. According to the report:

“We enlisted 20 people from 19 U.S. states and Ontario, Canada to donate 50 food and beverage containers from their home pantry shelves and local groceries. Cans were collected from Alaska, California, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and Ontario, Canada.

In most cases, two cans per location were submitted: one can from a home pantry or kitchen cupboard, and a matching or similar product purchased from a chain grocery store specifically for this project. The double sampling allowed us to investigate the possible correlation between the amount of BPA in the canned food and the age of canned products.

We selected a wide variety of products, including fish, fruits, vegetables, beans, soups, tomato products, sodas, and milks, which are common ingredients and meal options for a wide range of North American consumers.”

So basically they took all of these cans of food and had them sent to an independent testing lab. Here’s where it get icky. Of the 50 cans of food that they tested, 46 were found to have detectable levels of BPA. Yep – 46 of 50. A whopping 93%.  And what I found to be disturbing was the fact that  they discovered that BPA levels in canned food cannot be predicted by the price of the product, the quality, or relative nutrition value of the product, or where it was purchased. So that means more expensive, organic canned products purchased at Whole Foods were just as likely to have BPA as cheaper, lower quality products purchased at a discount store.

Why all the fuss? Well here’s the thing. BPA has been shown (despite what chemical companies want you to think) to have an impact on health that has been documented in numerous studies. On the EWG.org website, you can see a complete chart of these studies. The cumulative impact of eating foods that are packaged in BPA-lined cans can add up quickly in a day – which is especially worrisome for pregnant women, particularly during their first trimester.  No Silver Lining shows an example of a hypothetical diet for a woman in her 20’s. According to the study, “these hypothetical diets show that a pregnant woman may be exposed to potentially harmful levels of BPA that have been shown to alter fetal development in laboratory animals.” Oh. Not good.

And you know what? Canned foods is only ONE way we are exposed to BPA – it’s in many other products as well. Polycarbonate water bottles (unless they say BPA-free), plastic baby bottles and sippy cups (again, unless they say BPA free) and even those big 5 gallon water coolers at your office. BPA was found in the urine of 93% of adults tested in the US by the CDC, and it has been found in the cord blood of newborn babies by the Environmental Working Group BEFORE they have even been exposed to the “real world”. Yikes.

Some states are working to ban BPA in baby products (currently Massachusetts is developing legistlation). But it needs to go further. There are alternatives that are notably safer for can linings. These are outlined in the report as well. So why should we stop at baby bottles – shouldn’t it be banned in all food/beverage products? And shouldn’t it be happening in all states? Seriously. What ARE we waiting for?

The people at GetYubo.com sent me a very cool Yubo lunchbox to check out. I was intrigued by the lunchbox when I read about it online. It can be customized with different faceplates (you can even have your child’s drawing or photo used for a faceplate). Plus, it is made of recyclable plastic (very nice!) that’s anti-microbial and it’s BPA free. Even more handy, is that it comes with its own food containers that are BPA-free, and a perfectly-shaped-for-the-lunchbox, flat (yea!) ice pack. And not only that, they are giving a lunchbox away for FREE in celebration of Earth Day. (see Yubo Giveaway posting for details)

When I received the lunchbox, I immediately loved it. It’s adorable, bright and is incredibly easy to clean up. I find that the “soft” cooler-bag type lunchboxes get kinda stinky and icky after awhile and they are so hard to get clean. This lunchbox comes completely apart and you can wash each section (personally, even though it’s BPA-free and they say it’s dishwasher safe, I would still wash it by hand).

It really is a very clever design, and I’m impressed with the concept. As with so many cool products out there, this was designed by a mom and dad, Cyndi and Paul Pedrazzi, who were getting tired of the endless plastic baggies they used for their two daughter’s lunches each day. Not to mention the foul odors that accumulate in the typical lunch boxes. So they literally approached an award-winning design company, Whipsaw, in Silicon Valley (they also designed LeapFrog’s LeapPad). And they have gotten tons of press coverage – check out all of chatter on the Press page of their website.

I will say, there were a few things that I think could be improved:

• The design is really best for smaller children – maybe 5 and under? My 7 year old thought it was very cool but said he wouldn’t bring it to school. He does think it would be fun for bringing snacks on short trips.
• On the same note, the food containers are too small for bigger kids. My boys have to bring a snack and a lunch to school each day and these containers wouldn’t fit all the food they need. There also isn’t a place for a sports bottle or other reusable water bottle for drinks.
• The food containers are very cute and I love that  they are BPA free, but I did think that the tops seemed a little loose and they were a little leaky for liquidy foods (like yogurt). That said, I do appreciate the fact that the lids come off easily. My boys complain about some of the containers where the lids are so hard to pull off. So I’m on both sides of that one, I guess!

But definitely check this site out for your little ones. Perfect for “lunch bunch” at preschool or lunches for daycare. The kids will love picking out the faceplate. And who knows, maybe someday they’ll have a bigger version for bigger kids!

Of course they’re not going to come right out and say that the current lining of their cans is bad, but major food manufacturers are getting the message that consumers don’t want BPA leeching into their food and so they are slowly and quietly testing out alternatives that hopefully will soon become the norm.

It’s not easy to find cans that don’t have BPA linings in them. Pretty much all cans (soda, food, baby formula etc) have linings that are laden with the chemical BPA (or Bisphenol A). For those of you who haven’t heard, BPA has been linked to a whole host of issues including cancer and reproductive issues. The FDA announced last month that they have reversed their previous position that BPA was “safe” and now have requested further studies to determine the real impact of this chemical that is used in so many things.

But according to an article in the Washington Post this week , a number of major manufacturers are investigating alternatives and new can liners. Of course, it is not going to be an easy – or a cheap – fix. The reason that the can linings have been so ubiquitous is that they are excellent at protecting food from spoiling  and protecting consumers from food borne illness. Of course, we are only now beginning to see the toll it is taking on health in other ways.

The new liners that are being tested are not foolproof – nor are they cheap. Food touted to be packed in “BPA Free” cans are still showing levels of BPA after being tested by the Consumers Union. Why? Maybe some of the products used in the production of the end product were already contaminated by the cans they came from (think canned tomatoes used in a tomato sauce) – or perhaps they are getting exposed at some point during the production. The Washington Post article details a couple of companies that area trying to do the right thing but are getting frustrated along the way with continued BPA presence in their food. But at least they are trying!

So while it may be awhile before our food sources are all BPA-free, it is good to know that there are finally steps being taken to get the process moving forward.

In the news last week was an announcement from the FDA that they acknowledge that the chemical bisphenol A (or BPA) causes “some concern” and they are going to investigate it further. According to an article in the Boston Globe, while the FDA did say that there is not yet any evidence to further regulate the use of BPA , the Department of Health and Human Services did suggest that people throw away scratched plastic cups and baby bottles with BPA to avoid the ingestion of small amounts of the chemical that can seep out into drinks. It looks like the governmental agencies are showing potential to give this the attention it deserves.

The Health and Human Services has a great posting on their website at :http://www.hhs.gov/safety/bpa/. They give some good explanations of what is being investigated further, and they also list other helpful suggestions – in addition to the one above – to avoid exposing your children to BPA. One interesting fact is that powdered infant formula is generally free of BPA, it’s the liquid version that can be contaminated.

The only tip they offer that I disagree with is the one that says it is generally OK for infants to suck on soft plastic toys. They may be safe from BPA but they are often packed with phthalates (a whole different concern) – so always find out as much as you can about the safety of plastic toys before you allow your infant to suck on them. Wish I’d know about all of this before I had kids. Ugh. It’s scary to think about all that they may have been exposed to!

I know – I’m on my soapbox again. But seriously, this BPA thing is getting bigger and bigger. This week, the results of a study of the impact of BPA exposure on humans was released. And the results are not good.

In case you aren’t familiar with BPA – or bisphenol A – it is a chemical compound that is a synthetic estrogen. It is found in all kinds of products including neoprene water bottles and other #7 plastics, as well as the plastic lining in canned foods. It is so prevalent that it has been found in the urine of 93% of the US population. And it’s something I have blogged about many times in the past.

Well, the chemical companies have been hiding behind the idea that there hasn’t been any proof that BPA is harmful to humans (only animals). So according to today’s Washington Post, researchers in China did a study of “634 male workers at four factories in China who were exposed to elevated levels of BPA. They followed the men over five years and compared their sexual health with that of male workers in other Chinese factories where BPA was not present.”

Guess what? There was a clear link between the men exposed to BPA and erectile dysfunction as well as other issues. The Post article stated: “The men handling BPA were four times as likely to suffer from erectile dysfunction and seven times as likely to have difficulty with ejaculation.” Uh oh. The most troubling finding was that the thing is that the men started having issues within months of starting to work at these factories. It was not something that needed years to build up.

So here’s my 2 cents, despite the fact that there have been numerous other studies showing the dangers of BPA exposure, this one – with its connection to “ED”, will get the most attention… But regardless, it’s time for this issue to get some serious attention. BPA needs to be banned. Period. Banning it in baby bottles and formula cans is a start but we need to just ban it across the board.

Meantime, continue to avoid #7 plastics unless it is clearly labeled as “bpa free” – and also try to minimize your use of canned foods.

If you want to learn more, check my other posts about bisphenol A.

Huh. I just read this blog entry from BlogHer about BPA in Sigg water bottles. Depressing. Yep – it seems that any of their uber-cool “eco” (and very expensive, I might add) water bottles that were produced before August 2008 have been leaching BPA. Apparently, they never claimed to be “BPA free” but they always said that BPA didn’t leach into the water. Come to find out, they weren’t being truthful. Not only that, they somewhat sneakily replaced the liner they were using in August of 2008 with one that really is BPA free – trying to fly under the radar.

So here’s the scoop – if you have a Sigg water bottle from before August 2008, you might want to consider using it as a vase instead. To get more details on the difference between the two liners – the old “bad” one and the new, BPA- and phthalate-free one – check out the BlogHer blog posting for pictures that show the difference between the two liners so you can see which one you have.

To be safe, always choose an unlined stainless steel bottle, a water bottle that states it is 100% BPA-free or even an HDPE #2 plastic bottle (not ideal, but not bad). And don’t forget, try to avoid the individual bottles of water (like Dasani, Poland Springs etc) if at all possible. Save those for times when you are in a bind and don’t have access to a refillable bottle. (see related post on how bottled water sales have declined – yea!!)

In a recent report by Environmental Health Perspectives, there is new evidence that bisphenol-A (BPA) is found in infants’ blood at 11x the levels that it is found in adults. BPA is “a high-protein industrial chemical that has been used for decades to make polycarbonate plastics and epoxy linings for food cans. In recent years, concerns have been raised about the chemical’s ability to mimic estrogen and to cause developmental problems and precancerous growths in laboratory animals.”

Due to the fact that infants are unable to process the chemical in their system as efficiently as adults, compounded by the fact that infants are exposed to the chemical through plastic bottles and formula from plastic-lined cans, infants are more likely to have more of the chemical in their bodies. We’re talking infants here – 3 months old. We’re talking ELEVEN TIMES the level of adults in these tiny bodies.

At what point is the FDA going to step in and do what should be done – what has been done in Canada and many other countries? This chemical MUST be banned! Forget the lobbying from the plastics industry and the chemical companies. We are only going to see the effects of this more and more in upcoming years. Something needs to be done.

As you may have started to hear in the news, there’s a lot of talk about BPA – a chemical that can leach into our food products through can liners and #7 plastics. For all of us who fed our children in plastic bottles and sippy cups, this news is pretty disturbing.

Taken from the EWG blog:
In April of 2008, the National Toxicology Program raised concerns that exposure to BPA during pregnancy and childhood could impact the developing breast and prostate, hasten puberty, and affect behavior in American children. UGGHHHHHHH.

So now you’re probably saying, “I give up”, right? What more can I do? It seems like everything I eat, drink, put on my skin etc. has dangers! Well, actually yes – kinda. But my theory is – do what you can. Reduce risk and exposure where you can. I’m not suggesting that people stop eating canned food entirely or don’t ever drink out of a bottle made from #7 plastic (which, mind you INCLUDES the big 5 gallon jugs of Poland Springs or whatever brand of water used at water coolers in offices all over the country!). But – don’t do it if you don’t have to. I now walk down the hall at my consulting job to get the filtered water, passing by the Poland Springs cooler. I threw out our Nalgene water bottles and went back to the (cheaper!) #2 plastic, squeeze-type sports bottles. Both of those are pretty easy changes – and make me feel a little better.

Now, if I had infants that needed bottles? That might be more challenging. But as I’ve read recently, the glass bottles are not nearly as scary as you might think. One person said in the 2 years she used them, it only broke once – when it fell onto a ceramic floor.

Anyway – for more great information, I found the Boston Globe had a Q&A article about BPA this week and there’s also the link to their actual phone call Q&A, and there’s also the EWG blog cheatsheet and other links from there. I also noticed that there was a Boston Globe article today that stated that John Kerry and 5 other senators are pushing for legislation to ban BPA from children’s products. I’ll have to keep tabs on that one!