First, let me say that I’m never been gaga over Sigg. I own no Sigg bottles. In fact, I’m not big on carrying water bottles around. I generally drink lots of water at home (in glasses and mugs). Hanging out at a cafe, I use their tableware. Working out at a gym, I drink from water fountains. The only time I “need” a water bottle is when traveling, hiking, or otherwise in the boonies. So, I’ve always found Sigg bottles catchy and cute, but rather expensive and not a necessary purchase.

In October, I was astounded at the outcry over Sigg’s revelation that their pre-2008 liner contained a trace amount of bisphenol A (BPA). Tests have proven that the old liners do not leach, but Sigg created a new liner to avoid any hint of contamination.

If Sigg claimed that their bottles were BPA-free, that was misleading. They should have been 100% clear. But, come on. Aren’t there bigger threats?

Why not go after investment banks, oil conglomerates, or big pharma? What about the multinational companies that manufacture in China, source of tainted pet food, infant formula, and construction materials? Shouldn’t we be concerned that Sarah Palin’s forthcoming memoir is a runaway bestseller?

As for health scandals, how come no one’s complaining about the BPA in canned goods? Shouldn’t we, like Mayor Bloomberg, go ballistic about trans fats, neatly hidden in popular supermarket crackers and cookies? And have you ever calculated the number of calories and fat in Starbucks monstrosities and movie popcorn? Why slam Sigg and then eat a tub of movie popcorn?

Sigg is such a minor offender. But it’s an easy target. And it somehow offended the green/eco types who so ardently championed the stylish Swiss-made aluminum bottle over its predecessor, the economical, everyman Nalgene.

I found out about the scandal from a close friend with a three-year-old I’ll call T. Mommy exchanged T’s old bottle (white with farm animals) for a new one (lavender with underwater flora, chosen with remarkable decisiveness by T). Okay. Stick to the safe side with kids.

Initially I was wary of the liner. I offered to exchange my boyfriend’s Sigg bottle for him, figuring that he (being a guy) would forgo the replacement offer. Me? Returns, exchanges, and customer complaints are among my specialties. But, the more I thought about it, the more I realized there was nothing really wrong with the bottle.

It was barely used. It was not leaching BPA. And, by returning it to Sigg, it would end up as junk. Aluminum is recyclable but not biodegradable, although it does decompose very slowly (think 500 years for an aluminum can). Siggs are advertised as recyclable, but are they really? My city’s curbside recycling program doesn’t take them. I pictured a gargantuan mountain of discarded Siggs, once desirable, now junk.

My boyfriend’s Sigg avoided the ax.

Yes, it does strike fear into a man’s heart to read about erectile dysfunction caused by an environmental contaminant, but Men, it’s true.  Sad way to find out about it:  men who worked in a factory with BPA contaminants.  It didn’t take long for the BPA exposure to cause erectile dysfunction either, just a few months.  And while these men had higher levels of BPA exposure in China than men in the U.S., it happened fast and it was serious, so lower levels might just take a year to cause wilting while higher levels affect performance within a month or two:

The men handling BPA were four times as likely to suffer from erectile dysfunction and seven times as likely to have difficulty with ejaculation, said De-Kun Li, a scientist at the Kaiser Foundation Research Institute

The workers studied did not have to spend years in the factory to develop problems – sexual dysfunction began in new workers after just months on the job, Li said.

Problems with ejaculation coupled with erectile dysfunction?  What man wants to take that kind of risk? Heck, what woman would want her man to take that risk?

Related articles by Zemanta

• BPA Linked to Sexual Dysfunction in Men (abcnews.go.com)
• Study links bisphenol A, sexual dysfunction (cbc.ca)
• Sex and BPA Don’t Mix, Say Researchers (health.usnews.com)
• Workplace BPA exposure increases risk of male sexual dysfunction (scienceblog.com)
• Say Bye to BPA (takepart.com)
• BPA in male workers linked to sex problems (ctv.ca)
• Water bottles and BPA (medicineandtechnology.com)

From the December issue of Consumer Reports magazine: “The chemical Bisphenol A, which has been used for years in clear plastic bottles and food-can liners, has been restricted in Canada and some U.S. states and municipalities because of potential health effects. The Food and Drug Administration will soon decide what it considers a safe level of exposure to Bisphenol A (BPA), which some studies have linked to reproductive abnormalities and a heightened risk of breast and prostate cancers, diabetes, and heart disease.”

Given this article, I was pretty disturbed to see the following note sent by Muir Glen recently to a member of my family who was concerned about BPA. Muir Glen is a company whose canned organic tomato products I use regularly:

“Thank you for contacting Muir Glen regarding bisphenol-A in food packaging. Bisphenol-A is a critical component of protective coatings used with metal food packaging and provides important quality and safety features to canned foods.

Scientific and government bodies worldwide have examined the scientific evidence and consistently have reached the conclusion that BPA is not a risk to human health. Recent examples include comprehensive risk assessments in Japan and Europe and a review by an independent panel of experts organized by the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis. The can coatings used in Muir Glen packaging comply with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration requirements for use in food contact applications. These coatings have long played an essential part in food preservation, helping to maintain wholesomeness, nutritional value, and product quality.

We work closely with our suppliers to ensure that all of the food ingredients and packaging materials we use are fully in compliance with U.S. Food and Drug Administration requirements and meet our high quality standards.

We will continue to monitor this situation. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact us. Your questions and comments are always welcome. For more information on the safety of metal food containers, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration press office may be contacted at (301) 436-2335.”

Sincerely,

Lori Quinn
Consumer Services

Really, Muir Glen? People who buy organic products largely buy them to avoid such questionable compounds as BPA. If other companies can package their products without BPA, so can you. Please stop justifying this.

Click here to find out how to take part in “Prevention not Prescriptions.”

other topics: click a “cateogry” or use search box

The Learning Disabilities Association (LDA) has sent out email alerts to all its members urging them to act now.

On November 5, Consumer Reports published a study looking at BPA levels in 19 different name-brand foods and found that a diverse assortment of canned foods, including some labeld “organic” and “BPA-free,” contained measurable levels of BPA.

The neurotoxic chemical Bisphenol-A (BPA) is leaching into many of our foods and beverages.

The study concluded that children eating multiple servings per day of cnned foods with BPA could get a dose of BPA near levels that have caused adverse effects in several animal studies.

And a few days later, NY Times columnist Nicholas Kristof wrote an equally compelling piece that  sounds the alarm on this hormone-disrupting chemical.

A study released in October found an association between women’s exposure to Bisphenol-A during pregnancy and aggressive behavior in their daughters at two years of age.

Another study, released in November, revealed that male Chinese factory workers exposed to high levels of BPA had increased incidene of sexual dyspunction.

LDA and other concerned groups say the science is clear. 

More than 200 peer-reviewed studies show that this extremely toxic, synthetic estrogen is so powerful it can  cross the placenta at parts per billion or parts per trillion and negatively impact prenatal development, including brain development.

Adverse health effect associated with BPA exposure include

• neurological problems causing changes in behavior
• increased risk of breast & prostate cancer
• genital abnormalities in male babies
• early puberty in girls
• metabolic disorders (insulin resistance, altered fat metabolism)

BPA is considered the building block of polycarbonate plastic and can be found in baby bottles, water bottles, food storage containers, and epoxy resins that coat the lining of metal food cans, including infant formula cans.

It’s one of the most pervasive synthetic chemicals in modern life, with more than three billion pounds a year produced in the United States alone.

EMAIL YOUR SENATORS ABOUT  S.593

Right now the Senate is considering the “Ban Poisonous Additives Act of 2009.“  It is “S. 593 – the BPA Act of 2009.”  The legislation has been introduced by Senator Diane Feinstein. 

It would ban BPA from food and beverage containers.

Send an email to your senator.  Ask them to co-sponsor the Ban Poisonous Substances (BPA) Act of 2009.

Find your senator’s contact information at http://www.senate.gov/ Or call any Senate office through the Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121.

source: LDA News-in-Brief, email.  http://www.ldanatl.org/

tutoring in Columbus OH:   Adrienne Edwards   614-579-6021   or email  aedwardstutor@columbus.rr.com

A new study reported by Oxford Journals (www.oxfordjournals.org) and available in a downloadable pdf here, a link has been found between bisphenol-A (BPA) and adverse effects on male sexual dysfunction.

BPA is present in many plastics, epoxy resins and polycarbonates from plastic drinking bottles and baby bottles to some dental sealants. Routine urine tests have found that most people are exposed to some levels of BPA. As quoted from the article “In a national sample of the US population, more than 90% of spot urine samples had detectable BPA with a median urine level of 2.7 mg/l (Calafat et al.,2005; Calafat et al., 2008; National Toxicology Program, 2008). Since BPA has a fast metabolism rate (half-life time ,6 h) (National Toxicology Program, 2008), this finding suggests a continuous exposure to BPA in the US population.”

At increased risk are workers in plants where exposure to BPA might be present.

The adverse sexual dysfunctions identified in men included problems getting or maintaining an erection, orgasmic difficulties, decrease or loss of sexual desire and overall dissatisfaction with sex life.

The article though fairly extensive emphasizes the need for further study.

What does this have to do with writing?  Nothing, except you need your strength in order to create.  Also, nurse Rebecca asked for this recipe while I chowed down on my night shift.  This is my first vegetarian main dish, from Anne Lindsay’s Lighthearted Everyday Cooking.

Ingredients

• 1 tablespoon olive oil
• 1 large onion, diced
• 2 stalks celery, sliced
• 1 (19 ounce) can kidney beans, drained and rinsed*
• 1 (19 ounce) can lentils, drained and rinsed*
• 1 (19 ounce) can tomatoes, drained*
• 1/2 teaspoon dried rosemary or dried thyme
• pepper, to taste
• 1 1/2 cups shredded low-fat cheddar cheese or shredded part-skim mozzarella cheese

Directions

In an oven proof skillet, heat oil over medium heat and cook the onion and celery until the onion is softened.

Add the beans, lentils, tomatoes and seasonings.

Break up the tomatoes.

Bring the mixture to a simmer.

Sprinkle on the cheese.

Broil until the cheese has melted.

SERVES 4

Alternative

I just sprinkle the cheese on to each individual.  The heat melts the cheese and you can add as much or as little as you like.

I also usually serve on a bed of rice, to make it filling and make the casserole last longer, and I add curry powder.

I often don’t have celery, so I’ll put in whatever durable veggie I’ve got.  Tasty, stick-to-your-ribs, real winter food.

*Did you know they use BPA (bisphenol-A) in cans?  Sad but true, so I had my mother buy Eden organic kidney beans.  I use regular dried lentils.  They’re so small, they cook fast.  And tomatoes, I cut up real tomatoes, which makes it less speedy but more healthy.  Once I used grape tomatoes instead.  Also works, just fork ‘em/smash ‘em before you eat them so you don’t end up with a searing tomato mouth bomb.

so i got curious one day. i’ve been encountering a hormone advisory and a chemical warning for the past few days this week: recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH) and bisphenol-A (BPA). one’s in my milk (which, thankfully, i don’t drink. except that milk’s in my ice cream), and the other’s (possibly) in my plastic drinking bottles. one gives rise to the possibility of pus in my ice cream milk (yuck!) and the other, well, literature says can cause downe syndrome as well as repeated miscarriages, among others.

read more >>

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

steadyhealth.com/.../Image/Bisphenol_A2.jpg

http://www.alternet.org/food/143984

/is_bpa%2C_a_chemical_commonly_found_in_food_containers%2C _ruining_your_sex_life/

By Elaine Shannon, AlterNet.  Nov. 17, 2009

Erectile dysfunction and ejaculation problems were two side effects in a recent study of men exposed to high levels of bisphenol A, or BPA.

When people ask whether modern synthetics are damaging their health and endangering future generations, Topic A is nearly always bisphenol A (BPA), a synthetic estrogen, an integral component of polycarbonate plastics and epoxy resins and one of the highest volume industrial chemicals in existence.

Now a ground-breaking study released in the journal of Human Reproduction offers what its authors call “the first evidence that exposure to BPA in the workplace could have an adverse effect on male sexual dysfunction.”

The scientific team, underwritten by Kaiser Permanente’s Division of Research in Oakland, CA., spent five years studying 634 Chinese factory workers whose bodies had been severely contaminated with BPA.

Animal studies link BPA to an extraordinary array of subtle but serious chronic health problems, including impairment of the ability to think and behave normally, reproductive and cardiovascular system damage, cancer, diabetes, asthma and obesity. Evidence of BPA’s impact on human health has been more elusive, which is why the Kaiser Permanente study is making headlines around the globe.

After a year of being bombarded with BPA, the Chinese workers reported disturbing sexual problems: four times as much erectile dysfunction and seven times as many ejaculation difficulties as a control group, the Kaiser team found.

Related:

http://act.credoaction.com/campaign/fda_bpa/
BPA is contaminating our food, and it’s time for the FDA to act.

Did you know that a chemical that has been implicated in everything from miscarriages to cancer to sexual dysfunction can be found in your groceries? Bisphenol-A — or BPA — is contained in a broad range of food packaging including baby bottles, water bottles, almost all soda can liners and many other types of packaging.

Make no mistake, BPA gets into our food: Consumer Reports and the Environmental Working Group have both studied the issue and found BPA in many of the canned products they tested, including infant formula, vegetables, soda and soup. And we are what we eat. BPA is present in detectable levels in over 90% of Americans’ bodies.

It’s time for action. Tell FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg to ban BPA in all food packaging. Just click here to automatically add your name to the petition.

We’ve all heard the buzz about BPA in the news recently. Baby bottles, plastic containers and even plastic water bottles now claim to be BPA free. But what does that mean? Bisphenol A is a chemical used in clear plastic bottles that is known to leak (especially when put in the microwave) and may cause reproductive abnormalities, heightened risk of breast and prostate cancers, diabetes, and heart disease. Exposure to this chemical is particularly a concern for babies, young children and pregnant women.

Recently, it’s been found in a number of canned foods and even baby formula. An article written in The Huffington Post claims that most people are probably exposed to more BPA from eating canned food or drinking canned soda than from drinking out of a polycarbonate bottle. BPA leaches out of the can liner into the food or drink, especially when the food is acidic such as is the case with tomato-based products or sodas.

However, the most shocking information comes from an article in Consumer Reports Magazine. Their latest tests of canned foods, including soups, juice, tuna, and green beans, have found that almost all of the 19 name-brand foods tested contain some BPA. This includes canned organic foods, which did not always have lower BPA levels than nonorganic brands of similar foods analyzed. The chemical was also found in some cans that were labeled “BPA-free.” Please take the time to read this article (Consumer Report) and find out which specific brands are listed and also what we can do to limit our exposure.

-Carissa

Huffington Post – Cans: A Source of BPA by Wendy Gordon

I bought some water bottles from Rustan’s today, it felt like a good deal since they marked down the bottles from Php 239.75 each to Php 189.75 each.

When I buy bottles, I usually look for clear ones (so I can see if they’re squeaky clean), with no sippy straws (because they’re difficult to clean), and a cap on the bottle that doubles as a drinking cup (which makes it travel friendlier for kids).

I ended up choosing between Lock Lock and Xeonic. I counted out a brand called Gallery because the PP plastic cups they had had they really awfully rough edges ( I honestly did not like the quality).

I ended up with Xeonic because it was cheaper than Lock lock (it’s bigger and price wise a lot cheaper). The PP cup on my son’s Lock lock bottle had cracked (my Lock lock bottle was barely a year old). Xeonic had a thicker and sturdier cup.

When I got home, I decided to look up the meaning of the number markings on my bottles. For those who don’t know or are unaware, most plastic bottles in the market today have these little number markings for recycling. ‘

Brands like Lock Lock (blue cap and crystal clear plastic bottles) and Xeonic which I both bought at Rustan’s have markings indicated.

Both use PP polypropylene for the cups. The caps are pretty much safe, heat resistant and haven’t been found to leech chemicals. Polypropylene is the same plastic used other recyclable and reusable containers a la Tupperware and Rubbermaid types.

The body is another story. Both are made of polycarbonate which has been found to leech bisphenol A which is a hormone disruptor that mimics estrogen. The benefit in using polycarbonate as a material is that it is thin and durable. According to the Rustan’s sales person, It can used to be hold hot or cold beverages. Polycarbonate bottles are shatterproof, 100% airtight and water tight, microwave, freezer and dishwasher safe and supposedly resistant to stain.

What is Bisphenol A? According to an article in Scientific American,” BPA is routinely used to line cans to prevent corrosion and food contamination; it also makes plastic cups and baby and other bottles transparent and shatterproof. When the polycarbonate plastics and epoxy resins made from the chemical are exposed to hot liquids, BPA leaches out 55 times faster than it does under normal conditions, according to a new study by Scott Belcher, an endocrine biologist at the University of Cincinnati. “When we added boiling water [to bottles made from polycarbonate] and allowed it to cool, the rate [of leakage] was greatly increased,” he says, to a level as high as 32 nanograms per hour. “

What to do if you’re using polycarbonate water bottles?

1). Try to use a mild detergent in cleaning your bottles (try brands like Seventh Generation, Planet, or coconut based detergents). Please do not use bleach. According to other research made on bisphenol A, it doesn’t necessarily take exposure to harsh detergents for polycarbonate A to leech bisphenol A.

2). The older the plastic is, the faster the leaching rate ( I would suggest disposing the bottles once it starts looking cloudy and has scratches on it).

3). Don’t use it put hot drinks. Heating increases the amount of bisphenol A that leeches.

4). If you can, try not to use polycarbonate bottles.

Some suggestions for cleaning your polycarbonate bottle, since I am again stuck with one :

- soak in soapy water
- soak in warm water with lemon
- soak in warm water with baking soda

If it smells funny :

- put a piece of charcoal wrapped in newspaper for a day or two to absorb the smell annd

I’m going to try Rubbermaid next time, at least they came up with a list of which products do or do not contain BPA.

Articles:

Scientific American

Study in China is likely to bring further scrutiny of the common chemical
By Lyndsey Layton
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, November 11, 2009

Exposure to high levels of a controversial chemical found in thousands of everyday plastic products appears to cause erectile dysfunction and other sexual problems in men, according to a new study published Wednesday.

The study, funded by the federal government and published in the journal Human Reproduction, is the first to examine the impact of bisphenol A, or BPA, on the reproductive systems of human males. Previous studies have involved mice or rats.

The research comes as government agencies debate the safety of BPA, a compound that is found in thousands of consumer products ranging from dental sealants to canned food linings and that is so ubiquitous it has been detected in the urine of 93 percent of the U.S. population.

Researchers focused on 634 male workers at four factories in China who were exposed to elevated levels of BPA. They followed the men over five years and compared their sexual health with that of male workers in other Chinese factories where BPA was not present.

The men handling BPA were four times as likely to suffer from erectile dysfunction and seven times as likely to have difficulty with ejaculation, said De-Kun Li, a scientist at the Kaiser Foundation Research Institute, which conducted the study with funds from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

BPA, which was developed in the 1930s as a synthetic version of estrogen, appears to throw off the hormonal balance in the human body, Li said.

The workers studied did not have to spend years in the factory to develop problems — sexual dysfunction began in new workers after just months on the job, Li said.

The workers had levels of exposure to BPA that were 50 times what an average U.S. man faces. But the findings raise questions about whether exposure at lesser levels can affect sexual function, Li said. “This was a highly exposed group, and we see the effect,” he said. “Now, we have to worry about lower-level exposure.”

Li said the study is significant because chemical manufacturers and other defenders of BPA have long complained that research raising questions about its health effects was conducted on laboratory animals.

“Critics dismissed all the animal studies, saying, ‘Show us the human studies,’ ” Li said. “Now we have a human study, and this can’t just be dismissed.”

Since BPA is most readily absorbed through food and drink containers, health advocates have been particularly focused on how the Food and Drug Administration is regulating the chemical. The agency has maintained that BPA is safe. But a growing body of research over the past decade has linked BPA to a range of health effects in laboratory animals, including infertility, weight gain, behavioral changes, early-onset puberty, cancer and diabetes.

Steven G. Hentges of the American Chemistry Council, which represents the chemical industry, said the new study has little meaning for consumers. “Although this study presents interesting information, it has little relevance to average consumers who are exposed to trace levels of BPA,” he said.

Still, concern about the chemical among consumers has created pressure in the marketplace. Manufacturers have pledged to take BPA out of baby bottles and water bottles. A handful of jurisdictions around the country have banned BPA from baby products, and similar measures are pending in state legislatures.

Last year, the FDA’s scientific advisory board criticized the agency for ignoring more than 100 academic and government studies that linked BPA with health effects. The Obama administration has pledged a “fresh look” at the issue, and the FDA is expected to complete that review by the end of this month.

Meanwhile, the federal government announced last month that it is giving $30 million to researchers across the country over the next two years in an aggressive push to advance knowledge about BPA and end the debate about its safety.

November 8, 2009
OP-ED COLUMNIST
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

Your body is probably home to a chemical called bisphenol A, or BPA. It’s a synthetic estrogen that United States factories now use in everything from plastics to epoxies — to the tune of six pounds per American per year. That’s a lot of estrogen.

More than 92 percent of Americans have BPA in their urine, and scientists have linked it — though not conclusively — to everything from breast cancer to obesity, from attention deficit disorder to genital abnormalities in boys and girls alike.

Now it turns out it’s in our food.

Consumer Reports magazine tested an array of brand-name canned foods for a report in its December issue and found BPA in almost all of them. The magazine says that relatively high levels turned up, for example, in Progresso vegetable soup, Campbell’s condensed chicken noodle soup, and Del Monte Blue Lake cut green beans.

The magazine also says it found BPA in the canned liquid version of Similac Advance infant formula (but not in the powdered version) and in canned Nestlé Juicy Juice (but not in the juice boxes). The BPA in the food probably came from an interior coating used in many cans.

Should we be alarmed?

The chemical industry doesn’t think so. Steven Hentges of the American Chemistry Council dismissed the testing, noting that Americans absorb quantities of BPA at levels that government regulators have found to be safe. Mr. Hentges also pointed to a new study indicating that BPA exposure did not cause abnormalities in the reproductive health of rats.

But more than 200 other studies have shown links between low doses of BPA and adverse health effects, according to the Breast Cancer Fund, which is trying to ban the chemical from food and beverage containers.

“The vast majority of independent scientists — those not working for industry — are concerned about early-life low-dose exposures to BPA,” said Janet Gray, a Vassar College professor who is science adviser to the Breast Cancer Fund.

Published journal articles have found that BPA given to pregnant rats or mice can cause malformed genitals in their offspring, as well as reduced sperm count among males. For example, a European journal found that male mice exposed to BPA were less likely to make females pregnant, and the Journal of Occupational Health found that male rats administered BPA had less sperm production and lower testicular weight.

This year, the journal Environmental Health Perspectives found that pregnant mice exposed to BPA had babies with abnormalities in the cervix, uterus and vagina. Reproductive Toxicology found that even low-level exposure to BPA led to the mouse equivalent of early puberty for females. And an array of animal studies link prenatal BPA exposure to breast cancer and prostate cancer.

While most of the studies are on animals, the Journal of the American Medical Association reported last year that humans with higher levels of BPA in their blood have “an increased prevalence of cardiovascular disease, diabetes and liver-enzyme abnormalities.” Another published study found that women with higher levels of BPA in their blood had more miscarriages.

Scholars have noted some increasing reports of boys born with malformed genitals, girls who begin puberty at age 6 or 8 or even earlier, breast cancer in women and men alike, and declining sperm counts among men. The Endocrine Society, an association of endocrinologists, warned this year that these kinds of abnormalities may be a consequence of the rise of endocrine-disrupting chemicals, and it specifically called on regulators to re-evaluate BPA.

Last year, Canada became the first country to conclude that BPA can be hazardous to humans, and Massachusetts issued a public health advisory in August warning against any exposure to BPA by pregnant or breast-feeding women or by children under the age of 2.

The Food and Drug Administration, which in the past has relied largely on industry studies — and has generally been asleep at the wheel — is studying the issue again. Bills are also pending in Congress to ban BPA from food and beverage containers.

“When you have 92 percent of the American population exposed to a chemical, this is not one where you want to be wrong,” said Dr. Ted Schettler of the Science and Environmental Health Network. “Are we going to quibble over individual rodent studies, or are we going to act?”

While the evidence isn’t conclusive, it justifies precautions. In my family, we’re cutting down on the use of those plastic containers that contain BPA to store or microwave food, and I’m drinking water out of a metal bottle now. In my reporting around the world, I’ve come to terms with the threats from warlords, bandits and tarantulas. But endocrine disrupting chemicals — they give me the willies.

I bought some water bottles from Rustan’s today, it felt like a good deal since they marked down the bottles from Php 239.75 each to Php 189.75 each.

When I buy bottles, I usually look for clear ones (so I can see if they’re squeaky clean), with no sippy straws (because they’re difficult to clean), and a cap on the bottle that doubles as a drinking cup (which makes it travel friendlier for kids).

I ended up choosing between Lock Lock and Xeonic. I counted out a brand called Gallery because the PP plastic cups they had had they really awfully rough edges ( I honestly did not like the quality).

I ended up with Xeonic because it was cheaper than Lock lock (it’s bigger and price wise a lot cheaper). The PP cup on my son’s Lock lock bottle had cracked (my Lock lock bottle was barely a year old). Xeonic had a thicker and sturdier cup.

When I got home, I decided to look up the meaning of the number markings on my bottles. For those who don’t know or are unaware, most plastic bottles in the market today have these little number markings for recycling. ‘

Brands like Lock Lock (blue cap and crystal clear plastic bottles) and Xeonic which I both bought at Rustan’s have markings indicated.

Both use PP polypropylene for the cups. The caps are pretty much safe, heat resistant and haven’t been found to leech chemicals. Polypropylene is the same plastic used other recyclable and reusable containers a la Tupperware and Rubbermaid types.

The body is another story. Both are made of polycarbonate which has been found to leech bisphenol A which is a hormone disruptor that mimics estrogen. The benefit in using polycarbonate as a material is that it is thin and durable. According to the Rustan’s sales person, It can used to be hold hot or cold beverages. Polycarbonate bottles are shatterproof, 100% airtight and water tight, microwave, freezer and dishwasher safe and supposedly resistant to stain.

What is Bisphenol A? According to an article in Scientific American,” BPA is routinely used to line cans to prevent corrosion and food contamination; it also makes plastic cups and baby and other bottles transparent and shatterproof. When the polycarbonate plastics and epoxy resins made from the chemical are exposed to hot liquids, BPA leaches out 55 times faster than it does under normal conditions, according to a new study by Scott Belcher, an endocrine biologist at the University of Cincinnati. “When we added boiling water [to bottles made from polycarbonate] and allowed it to cool, the rate [of leakage] was greatly increased,” he says, to a level as high as 32 nanograms per hour. “

What to do if you’re using polycarbonate water bottles?

1). Try to use a mild detergent in cleaning your bottles (try brands like Seventh Generation, Planet, or coconut based detergents). Please do not use bleach. According to other research made on bisphenol A, it doesn’t necessarily take exposure to harsh detergents for polycarbonate A to leech bisphenol A.

2). The older the plastic is, the faster the leaching rate ( I would suggest disposing the bottles once it starts looking cloudy and has scratches on it).

3). Don’t use it put hot drinks. Heating increases the amount of bisphenol A that leeches.

4). If you can, try not to use polycarbonate bottles.

Some suggestions for cleaning your polycarbonate bottle, since I am again stuck with one :

- soak in soapy water
- soak in warm water with lemon
- soak in warm water with baking soda

If it smells funny :

- put a piece of charcoal wrapped in newspaper for a day or two to absorb the smell annd

I’m going to try Rubbermaid next time, at least they came up with a list of which products do or do not contain BPA.

Rubbermaid’s BPA free listing:

Gladware, the type of food storage I have at home. I’ve heard soft plastics are more prone to have dangerous leachates, and this stuff is as soft as you get. (Creative Commons-licensed photo from Timothy Valentine’s Flickr account)

Nick Kristof’s column Saturday dealt with Bisphenol-A, the chemical lots of people are worried about because, hey, who knows whether it’s dangerous. Some scientists have done studies saying it is; other scientists, funded by companies that use BPA, say it’s not.

Oh no, who to believe?

I think the real story here is that so many corrupt scientists are still working. Who can live with themselves after doing “research” for corporations that concludes unsafe products are safe? Don’t they take the equivalent of the Hippocratic oath when they become scientists? Is there an effort to put something like it in place? Or are these people taught to worship money?

I’d love to do a piece for a magazine where I interview these types of scientists. For example:

• those who said cigarettes are safe
• those who determined “smart bombs” actually hit their targets (They don’t. Watch Why We Fight.)
• those who said the Gardasil vaccine does more good than harm
• those who promoted DDT
• and the list goes on and on and on…

The blog of Seventh Generation—the corporation that produces safe cleaning products and promotes corporate responsibility—frequently features things like BPA. Here’s a link to one post about all leachates, which are chemicals that leach from packaging and food-storage containers.

According to their source, an article in a chemical industry magazine (also an interesting piece), leachates are almost impossible to avoid.

But I’m gonna try to avoid them as much as I can. When I get my student loan, I’m buying glass and/or stainless steel food-storage containers. Those also have the added benefit of lasting my entire life. Screw Gladware.

I wish I could get these things via Freecycle, but the administrators for Chicago’s Freecycle group are falling way behind in approving new members. I’m about to e-mail the national administrators.

An apology: I seem to write about the New York Times a lot. I’m sorry. They just write about good topics, and don’t generally suck at writing about them. I’ve seen it, but it’s rare. I hate crappily-written stuff, so the Times is a safe bet. Also, I generally know how to spot a biased story or one with incomplete reporting, and I stay away from those I find in the Times.