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?