skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Photo courtesy: Srinath TV/CC BY 2.0
An experiment in Sweden shows eating canned food clearly and drastically raises levels of bisphenol-A (BPA), though not higher than currently recommended safe levels.
Four Swedish reporters faced a savory (or unsavory) assignment: eat nothing but canned food for two days. The intrepid journalists enjoyed meals like canned beans and bacon or a tin of sardines for breakfast, served on plastic plates and accompanied by microwaved coffee in a plastic mug.
For lunch they could have tuna salad assembled from ingredients that all originated in cans, or canned ravioli, washed down with beer from a can, and followed by canned fruit served on top of ice cream made from tinned evaporated milk. Yum.
Svenska Dagbladet, the daily Swedish newspaper that orchestrated this experiment, to see how canned food affects BPA levels, counseled the journalists to follow their normal eating routines in the days leading up to the experiment, though on the final day before the 48 hours of canned food they attempted to eat "BPA-free."
The experiment, though not considered scientifically valid, was designed with the help of researchers from Lund University.
After the two-day experiment, the newspaper team sent urine samples from the four reporters to Lund's lab. The results, showing pre- and post-urinalysis, shocked the team.
All four of the experiment subjects had markedly increased levels of bisphenol A in their urine. The shocking part was that the levels (calculated as nanograms per milliliter) rose between 2,800 and 4,600 percent from the two days of eating nothing but canned.
Even with that huge rise, however, the reporters' BPA still fell below what the Swedish government estimates to be safe levels. Though the reporters basically stuffed themselves with bisphenol-A-laden foods, they didn't manage to raise levels over the government's standard of 50 micrograms per kilo of bodyweight daily.
In Sweden and elsewhere, safe levels of BPA, an estrogen-like chemical widely used in plastic products, are still being debated. The Swedes have (since April this year) outlawed the use of BPA in food packaging for children under three. The Environmental Working Group lists ten studies showing BPA is harmful at current levels.
But the US Food and Drug Administration has denied a recent petition from the Natural Resources Defense Council to have BPA outlawed from food packaging. The FDA's conclusion: “scientific evidence at this time does not suggest that the very low levels of human exposure to BPA through the diet are unsafe.”
While the debate rages, if the Swedish experiment or an earlier one Lloyd reported on, by Canadian journalists, leaves you feeling conflicted about BPA exposure, here's a list of some companies that have phased BPA from some canned goods.
In addition, you can look to recycling codes on other plastic packaging to help you stay away from BPA. If the code is 3 or 7, BPA could be present. Don't put hot or boiling food in plastic with BPA present, and discard scratched plastic food containers, as BPA may more easily leach from these.
A customer picks a can of Coca-Cola Zero from a shelf in a supermarket in Caracas. Coca-Cola pulled its no-calorie Coke Zero from shelves in Venezuela Thursday on Health Ministry orders, as the local bottler insisted it was safe to drink. Photo:Juan Barreto/AFP
As my readers know, I have just finished blog on the conspiracy between Coca-Cola and other major food distributors to stall the removal of Bisphenol A (BPA) from containers food products are packaged in. I also detailed the health problems that BPA can and does cause in human beings. While the next story does not state which “harmful ingredient” is being referred to, my guess is Venezuela objects to either the BPA or the aspartame used to sweeten it.
Today, Coca-Cola started pulling its no-calorie Coke Zero from shelves in Venezuela on Health Ministry orders. Coca-Cola still insists that their product is safe to drink; but, Health Minister Jesus Mantilla disagrees.
"This product must be taken off the market to safeguard Venezuelans' health" as it has "an ingredient that can be harmful to people," Mantilla said according to the state news agency ABN.
Zero has been sold in Venezuela for only a few months. This order means that Coke Zero will be removed from all businesses nationwide. Venezuela is led by President Hugo Chavez, an outspoken critic of the US and market economics.
Coke and its local bottler Femsa "declare that Coca-Cola Zero has no ingredient that could be harmful to human health." Coke and Femsa gave this statement to local media today.
Coca-Cola said the sugarless soft drink met all standards in Venezuela; but, still suspended production of Zero pending a government investigation of its ingredients.
We should all follow Venezuela lead and ban the product until all harmful ingredients have been removed. Then, if the public desires, Coca-Cola and other harmful products can be allowed back on the market.
Photo courtesy of Source.
As some of us are aware, there was a huge controversy about using plastic baby bottles (as well as any hard plastic bottles – water bottles, etc) due to the presence of BPA. BPA (bisphenol A) has been in the spotlight recently because of its mimicry of the female hormone estrogen which is believed to have a potential to cause developmental problems.
Health Canada has found traces of BPA in all of the canned soft drinks it surveyed. This should not be too surprising as BPA is a key component in the epoxy liner of canned food and drink; but, Health Canada is quick to assure us that the amounts are so extremely small they fall well below the safe consumption level.
The results were "not conducive to any human health concern" and "extremely reassuring," says Samuel Godefroy, director of the Bureau of Chemical Safety which falls under the food doctorate umbrella at Health Canada.
The statement seems a little self-serving since it followed reports in The Globe and Mail as well as on CTV News leading to BPA being put on Canada’s toxic substance list as a result of those tests.
Not surprisingly, in the soft drink category, the highest levels of BPA were found in energy drinks.
Canada was the first country to declare BPA toxic and ban its use in baby bottles. This was done as a result of grave concerns that infants might be overexposed to traces of the synthetic sex hormone leaching from the bottles and infant formula cans. (Let me sneak in a plug for breast-feeding. The breast is best!)
Back to business.
Health Canada says adults, pregnant women and older children need not worry about BPA. Besides being used in the epoxy liner in cans, it is also widely used in food packaging.
The survey was based on a representative sample of the soft drinks sold in Canada. BPA was found BPA in 96 per cent of the 72 cans tested. The average level was around .5 ppb.
NDP health critic, Judy Wasylycia-Leis, says that Health Canada’s exposure standard “could be based on an outdated notion of what’s a safe level.” You keep objecting Judy, at one time Thalidomide was considered a safe drug.
One experiment conducted in 2005 at Tufts University School of Medicine found adverse effects. Rodents exposed to BPA during fetal development and early life experienced a doubling of mammary-duct growth. They were using a dose 1,000 times lower than the government’s standards.
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis says it makes no sense to protect babies from BPA in the baby bottles; but, not protect the pregnant mothers from it in other consumer products. She has called on government to ban the chemical from food and beverage containers. Thank Ms. Wasylycia-Leis if it so moves you.
Dr. Godefroy defended the safety limit as among the most stringent in the world.
Photo courtesy: Srinath TV/CC BY 2.0
Posts
