Bisphenol A - The Silent Killer...
by Healthy Action

If you live in the U.S. and eat any packaged foods at all, you are probably also consuming the chemical bisphenol A, or BPA. Now, for the first time, scientists have made a startling discovery about the chemical that could help explain the epidemic of heart disease and diabetes in this country.

This chemical is bad news. It looks like the hormone estrogen. And when it gets into your blood stream, you're in trouble. Extra estrogen will make you fat, slow and tired. It can even wipe out your sex life. If it stays in your blood long term it can trigger cancer or other diseases.

Previous studies have found BPA causes precancerous conditions, kidney and developmental problems in animals. But new research, published in the September 17th edition of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), shows that humans could be walking time bombs of health problems due to "normal" exposures to BPA.

British researcher David Melzer, M.B., Ph.D., of Peninsula Medical School in Exeter, and colleagues measured the BPA found in the urine of 1,455 adults between the ages of 18 and 74 years, using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) which was gathered in 2003 and 2004. Then they looked at the health status of these people whom the scientists note in the JAMA report are "representative of the adult U.S. population".
The results? Dr. Melzer and his team found that average BPA concentrations, adjusted for age and sex, were higher in those diagnosed with cardiovascular diseases and diabetes.In fact, even a slightly raised BPA concentration was associated with a 39 percent increased risk of having cardiovascular disease (angina, coronary heart disease, or heart attack combined) and diabetes.

Those with the highest BPA concentration had nearly three times the odds of heart disease and 2.4 times the risk of diabetes when compared with those with the lowest levels. What's more, higher levels of BPA concentrations were also associated with abnormally elevated levels of three liver enzymes.

"These findings add to the evidence suggesting adverse effects of low-dose BPA in animals. Independent replication and follow-up studies are needed to confirm these findings and to provide evidence on whether the associations are causal," the authors said in a statement to the media."Given the substantial negative effects on adult health that may be associated with increased BPA concentrations and also given the potential for reducing human exposure, our findings deserve scientific follow-up."

But is it too little too late?

There was concern earlier this year that huge numbers of children were being exposed to BPA because it is known to leach out of hard polycarbonate plastics that are used widely in baby bottles, sippy cups and water bottles. The Department of Health and Human Services' National Toxicology Program released a report on the safety of the chemical and warned BPA could cause health and developmental problems. "Because these effects in animals occur at bisphenol A exposure levels similar to those experienced by humans, the possibility that bisphenol A may alter human development cannot be dismissed," the report concluded.
Last spring, consumers bombarded the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) with demands to know if BPA-containing baby and food products are safe. The government agency claimed to have investigated the matter. But, despite dozens of animal studies showing the chemical is a danger to health, the FDA ruled in August there was insufficient evidence to support banning BPA from baby and food products.

Clearly, mainstream medicine is now recognizing that the chemical contaminant is a real health concern.

In the JAMA editorial that accompanies the new BPA study, Frederick S. von Saal, Ph.D., of the University of Missouri, Columbia, and John Peterson Myers, Ph.D., of Environmental Health Sciences, Charlottesville, Va., point out that BPA production has reached about 7 billion pounds per year and the chemical has caused massive planetary contamination. Why? Consider the fact that products containing BPA, like microwavable food containers, often end up in landfills and dumped into water ecosystem. Already, Canada has declared the chemical to be a major worldwide pollutant.

"The good news is that government action to reduce exposures may offer an effective intervention for improving health and reducing the burden of some of the most consequential human health problems. Thus, even while awaiting confirmation of the findings of Lang et al, decreasing exposure to BPA and developing alternatives to its use are the logical next steps to minimize risk to public health," Dr. von Saal and Dr. Myers state in the editorial.
Considering U.S. citizens have been waiting for years for the government to even acknowledge that BPA is a health hazard, it makes little sense to rely on the FDA to to protect us from the chemical. Instead, there are ways to take control of your and your family's exposure to BPA.

What Can I do to Avoid Bisphenol-A?

Avoid baby formula as much as possible.

According to the Environmental Working Group (EWG) a non-profit organization comprised of scientists, engineers, policy experts, lawyers and computer programmers who have been in the forefront of pointing out the potential health and environmental hazards of BPA, all U.S. manufacturers of formula use a BPA containing lining on the metal part of their containers. Opt for breastfeeding exclusively if possible, or use a dry formula that is mixed with filtered water.

Eat fresh, not canned, food.

The EWG has found that food and drink cans are lined with BPA-laden plastic. Canned soups and spaghettis have the highest levels.

Pay attention to the kind of plastics you use for food and drink.

The plastics that have the most BPA are those made of polycarbonate plastic -- they are usually rigid and transparent and used for toddler cups, baby bottles, food storage containers and water bottles. They are frequently marked on the bottom with the letters "PC" and the recycling number 7. Plastics with the recycling numbers 1, 2 and 4 on the bottom are better choices.

Choose safe bottles.

Using glass baby bottles is best. Metal water bottles may not be free from BPA because many are lined with a plastic coating that contains the chemical. The EWG advises using stainless steel bottles that don't have a plastic liner.
Don't use plastic containers to heat food in microwaves.
Ceramic and glass are safe alternatives.

However, avoiding BPA doesn't automatically protect your health. In fact, consumer health advocate Mike Adams says the attention to the plastics issue could be seen as a distraction from the larger problem -- the danger that is often inside the BPA-laden containers. "For example, right now some of the top infant formula products sold in the United States are contaminated with hexane residues, and many infant products are made with as much as 50 percent refined sugars and corn syrup solids. Parents need to pay as much attention to what's inside the bottle as they do the bottle itself."

Scientists Want FDA to Ban BPA, Endocrine Disruptors
Simina Mistreanu
columbiamissourian.com
Tue, 31 Jan 2012 15:00 CST

For the past 20 years, much of MU biology professor Frederick vom Saal's research, thoughts and time have converged into one point: trying to get endocrine disruptors - chemicals that interfere with the hormone system and can cause obesity, infertility and cancer - out of daily use.

He's accomplished the laboratory part, which resulted in dozens of scientific papers outlining the negative effects of bisphenol-A, an endocrine disruptor found in plastics.

Endocrine disruptors are everywhere in the environment: in plastics, food cans, clothing fabrics, furniture and household and beauty products.

Now he's doing the communicator's part, trying to convince U.S. authorities to regulate the chemicals.


Source: columbiamissourian.com

The Real Story Behind Bisphenol A
David Case
Fast Company
Wed, 14 Jan 2009 20:51 CST

How a handful of consultants used Big Tobacco's tactics to sow doubt about science and hold off regulation of BPA, a chemical in hundreds of products that could be harming an entire generation.

Surely you've heard about BPA by now. It's everywhere. Some 7 billion pounds of it were produced in 2007. It's in adhesives, dental fillings, and the linings of food and drink cans. It's a building block for polycarbonate, a near-shatterproof plastic used in cell phones, computers, eyeglasses, drinking bottles, medical devices, and CDs and DVDs. It's also in infant-formula cans and many clear plastic baby bottles. Studies have shown that it can leach into food and drink, especially when containers are heated or damaged. More than 90% of Americans have some in their bodies.

BPA is dangerous to human health. Or it is not. That's according to two government reports in recent months that came to opposite conclusions. The National Toxicology Program (NTP), which is part of the National Institutes of Health, reported in September 2008 "some concern" that BPA harms the human brain and reproductive system, especially in babies and fetuses. Yet less than a month earlier, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration declared that "at current levels of exposure" BPA is safe. Even after the FDA's own science board questioned the rigor of this analysis in late October, the agency didn't change its position.

Let's take a moment to ponder this absurd dichotomy. How could our nation's health watchdogs reach such divergent conclusions? Are we being unnecessarily scared by the NTP? Or could the FDA be sugarcoating things? What exactly is going on?

We went on a journey to find out. What we learned was shocking. To some degree, the BPA controversy is a story about a scientific dispute. But even more, it's about a battle to protect a multibillion-dollar market from regulation. In the United States, industrial chemicals are presumed safe until proven otherwise. As a result, the vast majority of the 80,000 chemicals registered to be used in products have never undergone a government safety review. Companies are left largely to police themselves.

Just five companies make BPA in the United States: Bayer, Dow, Hexion Specialty Chemicals, SABIC Innovative Plastics (formerly GE Plastics), and Sunoco. Together, they bring in more than $6 billion a year from the compound. Each of them referred questions about BPA's safety to their Arlington, Virginia -- based trade association, the American Chemistry Council. "Our view would be, Well, no, there isn't anything to be concerned about," says Steve Hentges, the council's point person on BPA. "In a sense, you could have 'some concern' about just about anything."

Perhaps. But consider this: Of the more than 100 independently funded experiments on BPA, about 90% have found evidence of adverse health effects at levels similar to human exposure. On the other hand, every single industry-funded study ever conducted -- 14 in all -- has found no such effects.

It is the industry-funded studies that have held sway among regulators. This is thanks largely to a small group of "product defense" consultants -- also funded by the chemical industry -- who have worked to sow doubt about negative effects of BPA by using a playbook that borrows from the wars over tobacco, asbestos, and other public-health controversies. A secretive Beltway public-relations consultant. A government contractor funded by the industries it was hired to assess. A Harvard research center with a history of conflicts of interest. These have been the key actors in how the science of BPA has been interpreted by the government. And it is their work, as much as the science itself, that has stymied regulation.

Snip

Source: http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/132/the-real-story-on-bpa.html?

Tips for Kicking the Can
It may seem simple, but trying to avoid canned foods can be a challenge, especially in the kitchen.

Here are some quick tips on how to enjoy your favorite foods without the BPA.

Beans
Some companies have already started using safety-tested, BPA-free alternatives in their canned beans. Eden Foods brand sells BPA-free canned beans (you'll see "BPA-free" on the label), which are a great replacement although slightly more expensive.

If you're looking for a cheaper alternative, try soaking dry beans overnight and cooking them yourself. You'll get affordable, BPA-free beans for the next day's recipe. You can even make a large batch and freeze them for future heat-and-eat convenience.

Fruits
The best BPA-free alternative to canned fruit is simply replacing it with dried or fresh fruit. An added bonus is that many canned fruits contain added sugar so cutting the BPA might also cut the calories! Look for fruits in season to get the freshest produce at the best prices.

Ravioli, Pasta with Meatballs and Other Canned Meals
These all-in-one meals have some of the highest levels of BPA of any canned foods due to their higher fat and sodium content, both of which appear to encourage leaching of the chemical. That means ridding your pantry of these foods offers great bang for your BPA-free buck. If you crave convenience or can't cook, try replacing canned with frozen meals. Just make sure to pop the meal out of the plastic (the tray, too, not just the film cover) before throwing it into the microwave!

Restaurant Meals
Going out to eat can be a challenge since you don't know if the meal you ordered contains canned food or not. Generally speaking, many restaurants use canned foods so it might be tough to completely avoid BPA in your restaurant meal. Your server should have this information, though so don't be afraid to ask!

Soups
Many soups are now coming in packaging called Tetra Pak cartons, which look like oversized juice boxes (you might recognize them from the soy milk section of the store). Tetra Pak cartons are BPA-free. For chunky soups, add your own vegetables, herbs or protein to a ready-made Tetra Pak-packaged soup base.

In need of chicken, beef or vegetable broth? Many broths also come in Tetra Pak cartons, or you can use bouillon cubes and water to create the same broth flavor in recipes.

Vegetables
Cracking open a can of veggies is definitely convenient, but vegetables have some of the highest levels of BPA among canned foods, according to product tests. For heat-and-serve convenience, buy frozen instead.

Canned tomatoes are a pantry staple, but you can get them without the can: some grocers now stock tomatoes in Tetra Pak cartons, those handy BPA-free, shelf-stable boxes. If your favorite store doesn't carry them, ask.

Of course, fresh vegetables are always the best option. Check out what's local and seasonal in your area—they're likely the least expensive, freshest and tastiest produce selections around.

http://www.breastcancerfund.org/reduce-your-risk/tips/kicking-the-can.html


Read this real eye opener, too:

Report: BPA in Thanksgiving Canned Food

Campbell's Cream of Mushroom Soup
Campbell's Turkey Gravy
Carnation Evaporated Milk (by Nestle)
Del Monte Fresh Cut Sweet Corn, Cream Style
Green Giant Cut Green Beans (by General Mills)
Libby's Pumpkin (by Nestle)
Ocean Spray Jellied Cranberry Sauce

For half of the products tested, a single 120-gram serving of the food contains enough BPA to show adverse health impacts in lab studies. Have some pumpkin pie after your green bean casserole and gravy, and the amount of BPA delivered to each holiday diner adds up to a concerning chemical dose.

Read more here: http://www.breastcancerfund.org/big-picture-solutions/make-our-products-safe/cans-not-cancer/bpa-thanksgiving-food.html


Thank you, Sky!

I must be living under a rock because until today I had no idea BPA was in canned foods.

I knew about bottled water, etc., which is why I purchased BPA free water bottles for East Texas and me when we started the gym.

But cans? Canned pumpkin for Thanksgiving?

I'm now looking at my preps in absolute horror!

Hells Bells - I agree Blue. I had no incling that the damn stuff was in cans too. And do we have some cans stored... Lots.

Luckily DW started to can into glass bottles last year and we are well underway to do quite a bit this year. But what about my Baked Beans! Boooo!

Anyway - rather the wiser than having to deal with common illnesses when it really counts. Fortunately we only have a few lines to replace as we do not stock any meat products - Big Grin!

Just another damn human tragedy I say! How many unsuspecting folks out there know this???!!??

I sure didn't! Thanks, Sky, and BLue too. My shelves are loaded with cans. I've done quite a bit of dehydrating, though, but now I have to check the plastic zipper bags I've stored them in!

Well isn't this just grand my panrty and cantenna are full of cans

Well - having thought about this, I do believe we do not have to throw the baby out with the bath water. If one eats fresh and minimise canned goods normally, the arsenal of cans stored are meant to be for when TSHTF sittuation anyway. So for now I am going to go softly on my canned purchases and continue to do home canning to glass containers. In that way the chance of building healthy stocks over the next while will allow the canned goods to be rotated by date, and before long the situation may be resolved.

At least the cans will be the backup we all have so as to weather whatever storm may come our way....

Yep, Sky, I've come to the same conclusion.

Ruts - you've just given me another great excuse to finally purchase the dehydrator.

East Texas said something profound (he does that from time-to-time, ya know?)

If it is bend over and kiss your ass good bye time I, for one, am not gonna be worried one little bit about the linings of canned food.

Spoken like a true redneck!