Alternatives to BPA leaching food storage containers

Greater Goods, a cool eco-friendly store in Washington, D.C. sells practical BPA-free alternatives to the traditional plastic storage container (http://www.greatergoods.com/store/housewares/cooking/cat_52.html).

Their inventory of environmentally-friendly products also include items such as replaceable heads for an eco-friendly toothbrush, bamboo pot scrapers and even composting toilets. And they ship!

Check them out at www.greatergoods.com

EU to rule on BPA's by May

If the EU, which can cooperate on very little, can tackle this and reach consensus in months, why is it going to take the United States until NEXT YEAR to figure out whether BPA's are even an issue?

Check out this article posted today on Food Safety News:


EU To Hold BPA Summit
BY ALEXA NEMETH | FEB 15, 2010

Food safety watch dog, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), is inviting a group of national experts from EU Member states to a top level summit on bisphenol A (BPA).

BPA is an industrial chemical used to make polycarbonate plastic resins, epoxy resins, and other chemicals. BPA is often found in polycarbonate baby bottles and epoxy linings of food cans. Many studies have linked the chemical to an assortment of serious health problems such as heart disease, diabetes, and birth disorders.

In early April, the EFSA will outline its opinion on the chemical at the meeting with national specialists present. EFSA's assessment of BPA is currently being prepared by its scientific panel on food contact materials (CEF Panel). The opinion drawn up by the food contacts panel is expected to be adopted by May 2010.

Last October the European Commission requested the evaluation of the relevance of a new study suggesting possible neurodevelopmental effects of BPA. Concerns regarding the updating of the existing Tolerable Daily Intake (TDI) were brought to light by several officials.

Specialists invited to the summit will be able to speak on behalf of EFSA's continuous work on the chemical and will be able to bring forward any national research in support of EFSA's opinion. These experts will be nominated by EFSA's Advisory Forum and will be working closely with CEF Panel's BPA group.

Last month the US Food and Drug Administration reported along with the National Toxicology Program, they "have some concern about the potential effects of BPA on the brain, behavior, and prostate gland in fetuses, infants, and young children". The FDA also addressed the steps they are taking to reduce human exposure to this chemical including the stopping of the manufacturing of baby bottles containing BPA.


Source: Food safety news/http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2010/02/eu-to-hold-bpa-summit/

Does Aseptic packaging contain BPA's?

After complaining that to her that I could no longer eat my favorite comfort food--canned Tomato soup --my mother suggested I try the Organic Roasted Red Pepper and Tomato soup she and my Dad buy at Costco. And to assure me that it was safe, she even did a little research of her own. Here is the response she received from the company about their packaging, which looked like it could have been lined with a material containing BPA:


--- On Mon, 2/15/10, Consumer Affairs Coordinator wrote:

From: Consumer Affairs Coordinator
Subject: Pacific Natural Foods - Aseptic Packaging
Date: Monday, February 15, 2010, 1:59 PM


Dear XXXXX,

Thank you for sending us an email. As it should be, the concern for food packaging and recycling is a rising one. Pacific Natural Foods uses what is called aseptic packaging. These cartons have multiple layers to provide safety and freshness. The majority of the package is 70% paper, which is harvested from renewably managed forests. Twenty-four percent (24%) of the package is a low-density food-grade polyethylene plastic, which does not leach Bisphenol-A. This is a number four (#4) plastic. This paper and polyethylene coats a tiny amount (6%) of aluminum, which never comes into contact with your food. This packaging is safe and one of the most recommended on the market.

The aseptic packages are recyclable through a process called hydra pulping. Most recycling communities recommend putting the cartons into the paper portion of your recycling bins. Depending on the facility, we are unable to decipher how much of the carton is actually recycled, but every portion of this packaging is intended to be fully reusable. It may be necessary for you to contact your recycling and refuse company to inquire if they are equipped to recycle the aseptic cartons. We encourage you to use the following website for informative purposes:www.aseptic.org

We hope this explanation is thorough and informative. If you have additional questions or comments please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Kindly,

Cyndee Olsen

Consumer Services Coordinator
Pacific Foods of Oregon
Ph. (503) 692-9666
Fx. (503) 692-9610
www.pacificfoods.com


Please consider the environment before printing this email.
Pacific Natural Foods does not share information.

One step forward, two steps back

Last week, I decided to try my hand at making hummus without relying on canned Goya chickpeas. My usual method (borrowed from my sister, who is the real cook here) involved rinsing the canned beans and boiling them until they started falling apart. This makes the hummus really smooth, but requires you to babysit the beans for at least a couple of hours since you have to repeatedly add more water to the pan.

Given the amount of work required for the canned beans, I assumed the dry ones would be a real nuisance. To my surprise, they weren't. I could have soaked them overnight, but instead, I decided to just boil them for a few hours and see how I did. The result was virtually the same. My real challenge came when I discovered that my tahini had separated...Still, I threw it all into our VitaMix blender, whipped it until it was smooth, added some roasted red peppers from a glass jar (thank you very much), spooned the hummus into a glass bowl and back into the jars I bought the peppers in and called it done.

But as I was washing out the hard plastic blender pitcher, I realized it probably was made out of BPA, too.

A little googling revealed that it was.

So much for that!

PS. The good news is that VitaMix, acknowledging the issue with BPA's, now sells a BPA-free upgrade to their traditional blender. You can check it out here--

http://www.vitamix.com/household/products/super5000/5200faq.asp

http://www.vitamix.com/household/infocenter/5200Release101907.asp

News story about BPA

This local news story by Fox News New York does a particularly good job of warning consumers about the dangers of BPA.

After shopping for some common canned goods in a New York-area supermarket, the reporters sent the products to a BPA expert at the University of Missouri for testing. The researchers emptied the cans, rinsed them out and filled them with pure water. A day later, the level of BPA in the water was dangerously high. They also point out that when water infused with BPA is added to a petrie dish with breast cancer cells in it, the cells multiply rapidly. Check it out below:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3_cYZKksvI

There's Nothing New Under the Sun

So in my wandering on the Web today, I found another blogger who-- Guess what? -- has been recording the process of eliminating plastic from her life. And she's done a good job at it. So good, in fact, that I've decided to up my game and use her site as an example of what could be...I also thought you might like to see what she's been up to and review some of the research she's compiled.

You can check her out at http://fakeplasticfish.com/2009/01/bisphenol-aka-bpa-what-is-it-where-is/

The lead story on the blog today is a wonderful fact sheet about BPA's.

Enjoy.

Step One: Separating the Good from the Bad

Now, I'm sure experts would probably say that there are no "good plastics" but for the purposes of trying to incorporate my BPA-reduced lifestyle into the context of the real world, I've decided to start by minimizing my exposure to the kinds of plastics that likely contain polycarbonate.

Here's a quick run-down of the different categories and which ones you should try to avoid:

ALWAYS AVOID

Plastic #3

This one's a really, really bad one. Otherwise known as PVC or Polyvinyl chloride, #3 is a potentially carcinogenic, non-recyclable material that will sit in landfills forever leaching chemical into the air, water and soil. Flip over your shampoo bottle, your mouthwash or salad dressing container and check for PVC. And then throw it away.

Plastic #6

Expanded Polystyrene Foam, aka 'styrofoam take out containers'. While it may be easy to avoid ordering takeout in #6, it might be harder to avoid buying a CD or DVD, which likely contains it, or in saying "No, thank you" to the plastic take out coffee cup, which I noticed this week falls within this dangerous category.

Plastic #7

According to the Environmental Working Group, polycarbonate plastic food containers often are marked on the bottom with the letters "PC" recycling label #7. Although not all #7 labeled products are polycarbonate this is a reasonable guideline for a category of plastics to avoid.

Metal Cans

Perhaps the most dangerous category of packaging to avoid is metal cans (including soda cans), which almost always contain BPA's. Even many metal water bottles marketed as an alternative to plastic Nalgene bottles are lined with a plastic coating that contains BPA.

Check out this nice write up Treehugger.com did on the risk of BPA's in canned food:

According to the FDA, 17% of the American diet comes out of cans, and many of those have an epoxy liner made with Bisphenol A, a chemical which can mimic human estrogen and which is linked to breast cancer and early puberty in women. While the leaching of BPA from Nalgene water bottles and other polycarbonate bottles is a concern, the danger from canned food may be greater. The Environmental Working Group tested canned food bought across America and found BPA in more than half of them, at levels they call "200 times the government's traditional safe level of exposure for industrial chemicals." There are no standards for BPA; it is allowed to be put in anything, and billions of pounds are produced each year. (They also had a good graphic, which you can see here: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/04/bpa-danger-from-cans.php)


'SAFER' CHOICES

#5

Polyproplene, or #5 is a somewhat safer choice. A lighter-weight plastic resin commonly used in dairy and deli packaging, some companies have chosen this lighter plastic because it has a lower environmental impact to produce and transport.

An article I found on www.thegoodhuman.com explains that companies such as Stonyfield Farm, use #5 containers because a one-quart container made from #5 uses 30 percent less plastic than a #2 cup. And since it takes less material to make a thinner container, the article states, it reduces the amount of resin that needs to be manufactured. Stonyfield estimates that the use of #5 over #2 prevents the manufacture and disposal of more than 100 tons of plastic per year.

#1,#2, #4

Polyethylene Terephthalate (PETE) #1, high density polyethylene (HDPE) #2, and #4 are supposedly safe. I'll do some more poking into this category and get back to you with more information on what the experts say.

Outrage

I wonder if however-many-years ago, people across America looked at the pack of cigarettes sitting on their table and said, "Wait a sec--you're telling me these things can kill me?" I always thought that consumers had to be willingly ignorant to not know about the dangers and health risks posed by smoking, but in light of the recent news about BPA's, I'm beginning to think that I, too, have been duped. And worse, that the government has been the one distributing the blinders. It turns out that Bisphenol-A (BPA), a common chemical found in many hard plastics, might actually be the cause of many of the diseases that Americans increasingly suffer from -- including Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome, the one that I have dealt with since early adolescence. The Food and Drug Administration has vowed to conduct further research into this chemical before banning it outright, but I'm putting my money on this stuff is toxic and I don't want it around. Starting today, I am going to document my research into the chemical, its possible side-effects, my inquiries into what the FDA knew and when they knew it, and what efforts I am making to avoid it. The trouble is, this stuff is everywhere. So while I may never rid my life of this toxin completely, my hope is to cleanse my system enough to achieve better health and peace of mind. This web site is my hope that you will join me on my journey to a BPA-free life.

BPA's may permanently alter body chemistry

According to the Environmental Working Group, studies demonstrating BPA toxicity to humans at current levels of exposure Health problems associated with BPA exposures in people include the following:

Cardiovascular disease - A study published in January 2010 links BPA exposures in Americans to heart disease (Melzer 2010). The work, by a team from the Peninsula Medical School and the University of Exeter, includes 1,493 American adults enrolled in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) National Health and Nutrition Examination Study (NHANES). The researchers examined the newest NHANES data from 2005-06 and also pooled it with 2003-04 NHANES data. They confirm their previous findings in 2008 that associated BPA exposures and heart disease from participants in the 2003-04 study (Lang 2008).

Aggression – In a study of 249 children, researchers at the University of North Carolina found an association between prenatal BPA exposure and aggressive behavior in 2-year-olds, especially among girls (Braun 2009).

Polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) – Scientists at the University of Tokyo studied 47 women with reproductive disorders and 26 healthy women and found that those with polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) had higher serum levels of BPA relative to women with normal ovarian function, and that there were positive correlations between BPA concentrations and sex hormones (testosterone and androgen) (Takeuchi 2004). This confirmed their earlier study of 16 women with PCOS (Takeuchi 2002).

Recurrent miscarriages – Researchers found higher serum BPA levels among 45 women with a history of recurrent miscarriages than among women with normal pregnancies (Sugiura- Ogasawara 2005).

Damage to male reproductive system – Two studies of workers with BPA exposures similar to those measured in Americans (Calafat 2008) find associations with damage to the male reproductive system. A study of 42 men with occupational exposure to epoxy resins found that they had decreased secretion of follicle stimulating hormone when compared with men without occupational exposure to epoxy resins (Hanaoka et al. 2002). Another study of 25 Japanese shipyard workers found BPA-exposed painters had lower testosterone concentrations and higher luteinizing hormone (Cha 2008).

Diabetes – In 2008, scientists from the Peninsula Medical School and the University of Exeter examined BPA levels measured more than 14,000 adults participating in the CDC NHANES study from 2003-04. They found that people with higher BPA levels were more than twice as likely to report a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes than individuals with the lowest 25% of BPA exposure (Lang 2008).

References
Braun JM, Yolton K, Dietrich KN, Hornung R, Ye X, Calafat AM, Lanphear BP. 2009. Prenatal Bisphenol A Exposure and Early Childhood Behavior. Environ Health Perspect. 117(12): 1945–1952. (doi: 10.1289/ehp.0900979)
Calafat AM, Ye XY, Wong LY, Reidy JA, Needham LL. 2008. Exposure of the US population to bisphenol A and 4-tertiary-octylphenol: 2003-2004. Environ Health Perspect. 116(1): 39-44.
Cha BS, Koh SB, Park JH, Eom A, Lee KM, Choi HS. 2008. Influence of occupational exposure to bisphenol A on the sex hormones of male epoxy resin painters. Molec Cell Toxicol. 4(3): 230-234.
Hanaoka T, Kawamura N, et al. 2002. Urinary bisphenol A and plasma hormone concentrations in male workers exposed to bisphenol A diglycidyl ether and mixed organic solvents. Occup Environ Med. 59(9): 625-8.
Lang IA, Galloway TS, Scarlett A, Henley WE, Depledge M, Wallace R,
Melzer D. 2008. Association of Urinary Bisphenol A Concentration With Medical Disorders and Laboratory Abnormalities in Adults. JAMA. 300(11): 1303-1310. (doi:10.1001/jama.300.11.1303).
Melzer D, Rice NE, Lewis C, Henley WE, Gallowa TS. 2010. Association of Urinary Bisphenol A Concentration with Heart Disease: Evidence from NHANES 2003/06. PLoS 5(1): e8673. http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0008673
Sugiura-Ogasawara M, Ozaki Y, Sonta S, Makino T, Suzumori K. 2005. Exposure to bisphenol A is associated with recurrent miscarriage. Hum Reprod. 20(8): 2325-9.
Takeuchi T, Tsutsumi O. 2002. Serum bisphenol a concentrations showed gender differences, possibly linked to androgen levels. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 291(1): 76-8.
Takeuchi T, Tsutsumi O, Ikezuki Y, Takai Y, Taketani Y. 2004. Positive relationship between androgen and the endocrine disruptor, bisphenol A, in normal women and women with ovarian dysfunction. Endocr J 51(2): 165-9.
###

NY Times Article: January 16, 2010

January 16, 2010
F.D.A. Concerned About Substance in Food Packaging

By DENISE GRADY
In a shift of position, the Food and Drug Administration is expressing concerns about possible health risks from bisphenol-A, or BPA, a widely used component of plastic bottles and food packaging that it declared safe in 2008.

The agency said Friday that it had “some concern about the potential effects of BPA on the brain, behavior and prostate gland of fetuses, infants and children,” and would join other federal health agencies in studying the chemical in both animals and humans.

The action is another example of the drug agency under the Obama administration becoming far more aggressive in taking hard looks at what it sees as threats to public health. In recent months, the agency has stepped up its oversight of food safety and has promised to tighten approval standards for medical devices.

Concerns about BPA are based on studies that have found harmful effects in animals, and on the recognition that the chemical seeps into food and baby formula, and that nearly everyone is exposed to it, starting in the womb.

But health officials said there was no proof that BPA was dangerous to humans.

“If we thought it was unsafe, we would be taking strong regulatory action,” said Dr. Joshua Sharfstein, the principal deputy commissioner of the drug agency, at a news briefing.

Nonetheless, health officials suggested a number of things people could do to limit their exposure to BPA, like throwing away scratched or worn bottles or cups made with BPA (it can leak from the scratches), not putting very hot liquids into cups or bottles with BPA and checking the labels on containers to make sure they are microwave safe. The drug agency also recommended that mothers breastfeed their infants for at least 12 months; liquid formula contains traces of BPA.

BPA has been used since the 1960s to make hard plastic bottles, sippy cups for toddlers and the linings of food and beverage cans, including the cans used to hold infant formula and soda. Until recently, it was used in baby bottles, but major manufacturers are now making bottles without it. Plastic items containing BPA are generally marked with a 7 on the bottom for recycling purposes.

The chemical can leach into food, and a study of more than 2,000 people found that more than 90 percent of them had BPA in their urine. Traces have also been found in breast milk, the blood of pregnant women and umbilical cord blood.

Reports of potential health effects have made BPA notorious, especially among parents, and led to widespread shunning of products thought to contain the chemical. Canada, Chicago and Suffolk County, N.Y., have banned BPA from children’s products.

The government will spend $30 million on BPA research in humans and animals, to take place over 18 to 24 months, health officials said at a news briefing on Friday.

Dr. Linda Birnbaum, director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, said the research would involve potential effects on behavior, obesity, diabetes, reproductive disorders, cancer, asthma, heart disease and effects that could be carried from one generation to the next.

Activists on both sides of the passionately debated issue said they were disappointed in the government’s action. The American Chemical Council, which represents companies that make and use BPA, issued a statement saying BPA was safe, praising the health agencies as confirming that there was no proof of harm to people by it, but also saying, “We are disappointed that some of the recommendations are likely to worry consumers and are not well founded.”

Diana Zuckerman, president of the National Research Center for Women and Families, said the F.D.A. had not gone far enough, because its recommendations put the responsibility on families and not on companies making products containing BPA. In addition, Ms. Zuckerman said, the focus on safety should not be limited to children, because studies have linked the chemicals to heart and liver disease and other problems in adults.

Government evaluations of BPA have had a contentious history. The drug agency wrote a draft report calling it safe in 2008. But shortly after that, the National Toxicology Program, part of the National Institutes of Health, said BPA was cause for “some concern,” citing the same issues that the drug agency is now agreeing to: potential effects on the brain, behavior and prostate in fetuses, infants and children.

Then the drug agency asked an independent panel of scientific advisers to review its draft report, and the panel gave it a scathing review. It accused the F.D.A. of ignoring important evidence and giving consumers a false sense of security about the chemical. The drug agency promised to reconsider BPA, and the announcement on Friday fulfilled that pledge.

“We are for the first time saying we believe there is some concern about the substance’s safety, and we’ve closed the gap between N.I.H. and F.D.A.,” Dr. Sharfstein of the F.D.A. said in an interview.

Dr. Sharfstein said the drug agency had become more receptive to new techniques of studying the safety of chemicals. Old methods involved giving test animals large doses and looking for clear evidence of effects like illness, tumors or organ damage. Newer methods involve studying small doses — similar to human exposures — and looking for more subtle effects, like changes in behavior or biochemistry. Results can be harder to interpret and may demand more study.

Dr. Sharfstein said the drug agency was also re-evaluating the way it regulates BPA. The substance is now classified as a food additive, a category that requires a cumbersome and time-consuming process to make regulatory changes. Dr. Sharfstein said he hoped its status could be changed to “food contact substance,” which would give the F.D.A. more regulatory power and let it act more quickly if it needed to do so.

Gardiner Harris contributed reporting from Washington.

Correction: January 17, 2010

An earlier version of this article included a photo of Nalgene water bottles, which no longer contain BPA.