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!

Today two friends forwarded me this link from an Op-Ed columnist in the NYT (thanks Melissa and David!). It’s right up my alley – and I thought it would be good to share.

Nicholas Kristoff’s column poses the very interesting questions: “What if breast cancer in the United States has less to do with insurance or mammograms and more to do with contaminants in our water or air — or in certain plastic containers in our kitchens? What if the surge in asthma and childhood leukemia reflect, in part, the poisons we impose upon ourselves?”

Giving the health care system an overhaul does sound like a good time to deeply evaluate our society’s exposure to chemicals and investigate all possible connections to health issues that are nearing epidemic levels – like breast cancer, asthma and food allergies, to name only a few. It’s time we give these issues the attention they deserve, and that we stop succumbing to the pressures of the incredibly powerful and even more dangerous chemical companies.

Wow – great news! The EPA has recognized that there are some major issues with our current system of regulating chemicals that can pose threats to people and the environment. The top ranking environmental administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson, stated that the existing antiquated regulatory system (which was put into place in 1976) is “cumbersome” and “time consuming”. She expects that a new chemical law will be promoted in Congress in coming months.

In a speech on September 29th in San Francisco, Jackson stated that the 1976 law has “been proven an inadequate tool for providing the protection against chemical risks that the public rightfully expects.”

She gave a great background and history of chemicals in the US, saying “After World War II, the chemical industry in this country grew by leaps and bounds, earning the US an enviable reputation for innovation but also making chemicals pervasive in our lives. Everything from our cars, to the cell phones we all have in our pockets are constructed with plastics and chemical additives. The technological revolution that my two sons take for granted has done more than change the way we interact with each other – it’s made chemicals ubiquitous in our economy and products – as well as our environment and our bodies.”

“A child born in America today will grow up exposed to more chemicals than a child from any other generation in our history. A 2005 study found 287 different chemicals in the cord blood of 10 newborn babies – chemicals from pesticides, fast food packaging, coal and gasoline emissions, and trash incineration. They were found in children in their most vulnerable stage. Our kids are getting steady infusions of industrial chemicals before we even give them solid food. Now, some chemicals may be risk-free at the levels we are seeing. I repeat: some chemical may be risk-free. But as more and more chemicals are found in our bodies and the environment, the public is understandably anxious and confused.”

Jackson stated clearly that there is no incentive for the manufacturers of chemicals to supply any new safety data, just any data that may already exist. She said that “today, advances in toxicology and analytical chemistry are revealing new pathways of exposure. There are subtle and troubling effects of chemicals on hormone systems, human reproduction, intellectual development and cognition. Every few weeks, we read about new potential threats: Bisphenol A, or BPA – a chemical that can affect brain development and has been linked to obesity and cancer – is in baby bottles; phthalate esters – which have been said to affect reproductive development – are in our medical devices; we see lead in toys; dioxins in fish; and the list goes on.”

Jackson concluded by saying that she will give Congress clear Administrative principals to help guide them in developing a new law that will address the current inadequecies. She also stated that she plans to address key chemicals in the near term – including Bisphenol A (BPA) and phthalates.

To read her complete speech, go to the transcript at the EPA website.

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!!)

The Green Blog in the Boston Globe posted on Monday that the Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal “is investigating whether industry officials are using ‘fear tactics, political manipulation, and misleading marketing’ to fight regulation of the chemical, which is used in hundreds of everyday products, from baby bottles to canned food.” Connecticut is a leader in the fight against BPA, having recently passed a ban on the use of BPA in plastics used by children and babies.

A couple of weeks back, I posted about the meeting of corporate minds when industry leaders met to determine a PR campaign that suggests that BPA is not as dangerous as it really is. Blumenthal wrote a letter to the companies that were involved – including DelMonte and Coca Cola – asking for details about the meeting and the notes that have been circulating.

I hope other states, including Massachusetts, follow Connecticut’s lead and start banning the use of BPAs.

In an email from the Environmental Working Group (www.ewg.org), they revealed some disturbing minutes from a recent industry meeting where big brands were working together to set a communication/media strategy to defend the “benefits” of BPA.

Take a look at this selection of the minutes from the EWG site. The companies represented include: Coca Cola, Del Monte and the North American Metal Packaging Alliance. They say things like -

• “Overall, the committee seemed disorganized, and its members frustrated. Lack of direction from the committee and these associations could continue to allow other associations and environmental groups to push BPA out. “

• “Attendees suggested using fear tactics (e.g. “Do you want to have access to baby food anymore?”) as well as giving control back to consumers (e.g. you have a choice between the more expensive product that is frozen or fresh or foods packaged in cans) as ways to dissuade people from choosing BPA-free packaging.”
• “The committee wants to focus on quality instead of quantity in disseminating messages (e.g. a young kid or pregnant mother providing a positive quote about BPA, a testimonial from an outside expert, providing positive video, advice from third party experts, and relevant messaging on the GMA website).”

Pretty icky, right? So after they have time to do some research to fine-tune the exact message, you will start to see more “positive” spins on BPA. But don’t be fooled – there’s not much good you can get from BPA. It’s just bad.

How much more proof do we need to show conclusively that Bisphenol A is a major concern and needs to be banned? A new study was just released by the Journal of Environmental Health Perspectives. The study was conducted by members of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (part of the Centers for Disease Control), Harvard School of Public Health and Harvard Medical School (although the study clearly notes that the results “do not necessarily represent the views of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.”)

This study tested the BPA levels in the urine of 77 people after a week of consuming most of their cold beverages in polycarbonate bottles. For those of you who are not familiar with polycarbonate, it is the plastic that is typically labeled with #7 – such as Nalgene bottles and the big plastic bottles used for water coolers.

The bad news? The results showed that BPA levels rose 66% after just one week of drinking from the bottles. They state that “regular consumption of cold beverages from polycarbonate bottles is associated with substantial increase in urinary BPA concentrations irrespective of exposure to BPA from other sources.” Yipes.

So definitely throw out your polycarbonate bottles if you haven’t already. Use glass or stainless steel (watch for plastic liners too that can leach BPA) – or even #2 sports bottles if you have to use plastic.