Atomic News Review

Article from consumerreports.org

-
Consumer Reports recently tested a variety of canned foods to determine whether they contain Bisphenol A (BPA), a chemical used in the epoxy resin linings of most food and beverage cans.

 We found that even samples of canned food we tested from manufacturers who aim to reduce consumers’ BPA exposure by using non-epoxy based can linings had measurable amounts of the chemical.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration currently is reassessing what it considers a safe level of exposure to BPA, which some studies show is linked with increased risks of certain cancers, diabetes, reproductive abnormalities, and heart disease. Federal guidelines currently put the daily upper limit of exposure at 50 micrograms of BPA per kilogram of body weight. But that level is based on experiments done in the 1980s rather than hundreds of more recent animal and laboratory studies indicating that serious health risks could result from much lower doses of BPA.

Mounting scientific evidence of the chemical’s health risks prompted Eden Foods President and Chairman Michael Potter more than a decade ago to search for BPA-free cans for the canned foods produced by his Ann Arbor, Mich.-based natural foods company. In an interview with Consumer Reports, he explained that he eventually negotiated a deal with Ball Corp.—famous for its glass jars—to manufacture BPA-free cans starting in 1999 for Eden’s bean products, including chili. The inner coating of those cans is an oleo-based material originally known as “corn enamel,” which was commonly used in food can linings prior to the 1960s. That’s when epoxy resins took over the market because they helped extend shelf life without affecting flavor, according to Scott McCarty, spokesman for Ball Corp.

-

-

Potter says that finding a supplier of cans that weren’t lined with BPA-containing epoxy resin was a difficult and frustrating process. “I made hundreds of calls to can manufacturers trying to find out what was in their can linings and I always ended up talking to an attorney in the Beltway who informed me to my amazement that it was a trade secret and I had no right to know,” says Potter.

The Ball Corp. eventually agreed to produce custom runs of cans with oleo-based C-enamel linings for Eden. It’s also doing research to develop BPA-free can coatings that could work for more acidic foods such as fruit, which Eden now markets in glass containers. “It’s costing me 14 percent more for these BPA-free cans, but I said I have to do this because not only do I eat canned foods, but so do my kids and grandkids,” Potter says.

Even so, the samples of Eden Baked Beans in our tests were found to contain an average of one part per billion of BPA. That’s far below many other food products we tested, which ranged up to a high of 191 ppb for a single sample. The fact that the Eden Baked Beans we tested still had any measurable amounts of BPA—even though our tests confirmed the cans did not have epoxy-based linings—suggests that food can have multiple sources of exposure.

BPA is now one of the highest-volume chemicals in the world, with more than 100 tons released into the atmosphere per year. Various studies have found BPA in dust and water samples from around the world. This unavoidable environmental exposure makes it all the more important to eliminate the use of BPA in can linings and all materials that come in contact with food. Consumers Union is calling upon manufacturers and government regulators to do just that.

BPA may affect sexual function in adult men, study finds

While the Food and Drug Administration continues to review the safety of the chemical Bisphenol A (BPA), a new epidemiological study finds for the first time that the ubiquitous substance may well have a serious impact on male sexual function in adults who are exposed to substantial amounts. The men affected worked in factories that manufactured BPA-containing materials and were exposed to relatively high levels of BPA.

Lower levels of BPA exposure are also a concern, and our latest tests found the chemical in just about every canned food we looked at. In that recent investigation, we found that consumers eating just one serving of the canned vegetable soup we tested would get about double what the FDA now considers typical average dietary daily exposure–though that is still far less than the occupational exposures that were noted in factory workers.

BPA is a chemical that can mimic estrogen, and it has been used for years in clear plastic bottles and food-can liners. Some studies have linked exposure to BPA with reproductive abnormalities and a heightened risk of breast and prostate cancers, diabetes, and heart disease. Use of the chemical has been restricted in Canada and some U.S. states and municipalities because of potential health effects. An FDA scientific advisory panel weighed in a year ago that the agency’s rationale for setting safety standards for BPA was inadequate. A congressional subcommittee determined earlier this year that the FDA relied too heavily on industry sponsored studies.

This latest study—funded by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, and published in the journal Human Reproduction—found that workers in China who were exposed to significant amounts of BPA were about four times more likely to report reduced sexual desire, difficulty having an erection, and reduced satisfaction with their sex lives than unexposed workers. They were seven times more likely to have difficulty ejaculating. And the researchers found these effects were dose-related, so those with greater exposure were at higher risk.

Because the workers at the BPA facilities were exposed to relatively high doses of BPA, the researchers note that, “the findings from this study probably do not apply to populations that are exposed to low levels of BPA.” Still, the study is the first piece of evidence that BPA exposure may have a negative impact on human male sexual health, they say, and that finding “increases the need to examine the health effects of BPA in both occupationally and environmentally exposed populations.”

We agree, and we hope the FDA seriously reconsiders its safety levels for BPA while such research is conducted. Consumers Union believes that the use of BPA in all materials that come in contact with food should be eliminated. In the meantime, if you want to lower your exposure to BPA, here are a few simple steps:

• Choose fresh food whenever possible.
• Consider alternatives to canned food, beverages, juices, and infant formula.
• Use glass containers when heating food in microwave ovens.

—Kevin McCarthy, associate editor

 For more on reducing your family’s exposure to BPA and other harmful chemicals, see Plastic Worries. And you can keep up with news about BPA here, and at our Safety blog.

Industry reacts to Consumer Reports’ BPA report

 Consumer Reports’ recent article on the presence of Bisphenol A in canned food drew widespread interest after it was published this past week. It also quickly drew critical comments from industry groups representing companies that manufacture or use BPA, a chemical whose safety is currently being reassessed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

The groups took exception to some parts of the report that found nearly all of the 19 name-brand canned foods we tested contained this chemical, which is used in the linings of most food and beverage cans. They did not dispute the test findings of the BPA levels we measured in canned food. Rather, the discussion focused on our risk assessment of the effects of BPA, which was based on the scientific literature that has become available over the past 20 years.
 
Here’s a sampling of those reactions, along with a more detailed discussion of some of the research involved in the debate:
             
1. The American Chemistry Council issued a press release contending that our experts’ recommendations, which include calling for a ban on the use of BPA in all materials that come in contact with food, is “inconsistent with the conclusions of expert regulatory bodies worldwide, all of which have confirmed that BPA exposure levels are low and well within safety standards.”

That is exactly the issue. As our story makes clear, food safety experts at Consumers Union believe federal regulatory guidelines—which are the same as those set by the European Food Safety Authority—are outdated and fail to adequately protect consumers. The FDA’s own scientific advisory board also concluded that the agency’s assessment of BPA’s safety is inadequate. Hundreds of scientific studies have shown harm in animal studies from extremely low levels of BPA—levels that are ten to twenty thousand times lower than what the FDA considered as the basis of its safety assessment in 1988. And even some human studies show a link between elevated BPA levels and harmful effects such as diabetes and cardiovascular risk. Our test results show that consumers may be exposed to potentially harmful levels of BPA that could be reached through a few or multiple servings of the canned foods we tested.
2. The North American Metal Packaging Alliance released a similar public statement.  It cited a recently published study funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which the can industry trade group says provides “strong new scientific evidence” that exposure to BPA at levels found in our test results is safe.

It is not surprising that the authors did not find effects from BPA because this study used a specific type of rat (Long-Evans) that has been previously shown to be insensitive or unresponsive to low-dose exposures to BPA and even typical birth-control dosages of synthetic estrogen, which was used as a control in the experiment. The insensitivity to both was confirmed again in this study. In other, more estrogenic-sensitive lab animals, BPA has been shown to cause adverse effects at BPA dose levels used in this study.
 
3. A blog posted by Trevor Butterworth, online editor of Statistical Assessment Service (STATS), questioned the scientific evidence used in our risk assessments. STATS says it is a non-profit, non-partisan  organization that acts as “a resource for journalists and policy makers on major scientific issues and controversies.” In his blog, Butterworth claimed that studies we cited as evidence of harm from BPA at low doses are irrelevant because they involved exposing lab animals to BPA via injection rather than orally.

In studies using adult lab animals, injecting BPA results in levels that are similar or slightly higher than those seen after the chemicals are administered orally, making those studies relevant. And a comprehensive study of the metabolism of BPA in newborn lab animals showed that there was no difference in the levels of free BPA based on the route of administration (oral versus injection). This suggests that for newborns, who are especially vulnerable to BPA’s health risks, the route of exposure matters even less than in adults.

It’s not the first time Butterworth has come to the defense of the BPA industry.  Earlier this year he also harshly criticized a prize-winning series of articles about BPA’s health risks by reporters at the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.  The Milwaukee newspaper recently published a follow-up story describing a public relations blitz  by the BPA industry that “uses many of the same tactics—and people—the tobacco industry used in its decades-long fight against regulation.” 

The story includes a graph mapping a web of potential conflicts of interest in the battle over BPA and noted that STATS is affiliated with the Center for Media and Public Affairs, “a group which was paid by the tobacco industry to monitor news stories about the dangers of tobacco.” Tobacco lobbyists had a keen interest in the government’s assessment of BPA because of concerns that a ban on the chemical would affect cigarette filters and plastic packaging, according to the newspaper account.

Consumer Reports examined STATS’  tax returns for  2005 through 2007, which confirm that relationship,  with the 2007 return stating that salary costs for STATS are shared with the Center for Media and Public Affairs. Other documents Consumer Reports has examined show STATS also has received funding from ExxonMobil, a major producer of benzene, one of the components used to manufacture BPA. ExxonMobil also makes a plastic food packaging film containing BPA.

The influence of industry over decisions about BPA’s safety and regulation is also detailed in a fascinating new report “The Politics of Plastics: The Making and Unmaking of Bisphenol A ‘Safety’”, published this week in the American Journal of Public Health.

Tracing the chemical’s history from its commercialization starting in the 1950s by producers such as General Electric, Shell Chemical, Dow Chemicals and Union Carbide through the present, the report notes that even though the government still adheres to a 20-year-old safety standard, some retailers and even BPA producers such as Sunoco now are responding to mounting concerns about the chemical’s safety. Six baby bottle manufacturers have announced that they are removing BPA from their products and Sunoco is asking its business customers to provide written confirmation that the BPA it sells them will not be used in food containers intended for children under the age of three. 
—Andrea Rock, Senior Editor
—Urvashi Rangan, PhD., Technical Policy Director, Consumers Union

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/index.htm