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?

Celebrate the planet with yubo’s Mother Earth Photo Contest. In honor of Earth Day, yubo is holding a contest asking eco-conscious kids to submit their favorite/best “Mother Earth” photos. yubo will collect photo submissions and choose a winner based on the guidelines below. yubo will then create faceplates from the winning photos and offer them for sale as Mother Earth faceplate designs (as seen below). Net profits from the sale of the Mother Earth faceplates will go to the Earth Day Network. Each entrant will receive $10 off a yubo purchase and the winner will receive $50!

Who: Entrants must be under the age of 11 in order to qualify to win.

What: Photos will be judged based on originality, creativity, photo composition and how well the pictures answer the question: ‘What does Earth Day mean to you?’.

When: Deadline for entry is 4/16/10. The winner will be chosen and announced on 4/22/10, the 40^th anniversary of Earth Day.

How: Each entrant MUST submit 2 corresponding original photos (MUST be taken by person entering contest). Become a yubo Facebook Fan and upload the 2 images to the yubo Facebook Fan Page.

Good luck!!

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!

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!

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.

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.

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!!)

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.

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.