Inside Prevention

The BPA lurking in your Thanksgiving dinner (Fast Company, 11/15/2011)

Fast Company published a great blog about our BPA in Thanksgiving Canned Food report, out today. It's a great piece to share with friends and family to help spread the word:

BPA is hard to avoid, mostly because it’s in almost everything—soup cans, water bottles, plastic-packaged foods, even store receipts. But here’s one thing that’s easy to remember: Steer clear of certain canned foods in your Thanksgiving dishes unless you want to dose your entire family with high levels of the potentially toxic compound. (Read complete article and comment.)

If you haven't seen our BPA in Thanksgiving Canned Food report yet, check it out! We provide our product-testing data as well as recipes for a no-can Thanksgiving dinner and a chance to tell canned food makers what you think about BPA in their products.

Turkey, stuffing and BPA?

Pumpkin pie and green bean casserole were staples of our Thanksgiving table growing up. And, like in most hectic holiday households, the staple ingredients—pumpkin, evaporated milk, cream of mushroom soup—came from cans.

More recently my mom has discovered Martha Stewart and makes her own mushroom sauce for green bean casserole. But even TV chefs and cookbooks advise going straight for the can opener when it comes to pumpkin—who has time to roast a pumpkin at Thanksgiving?

This year I'm making time. The Breast Cancer Fund's new product-testing report, BPA in Thanksgiving Canned Food, has opened not just my eyes but my entire family’s eyes. Though we know there's BPA in canned food and avoid it most of the year, Thanksgiving always felt like the one day when we might as well overlook it.

But this will be my 1-year-old daughter's first Thanksgiving meal. We know that low doses of BPA can affect her rapidly developing endocrine system, and that lab studies link this chemical to breast cancer, infertility, early puberty and neurological problems.

Of the products we tested for the report, half of them contained enough BPA in a single serving to show health impacts in lab studies. A table full of can-supplemented classics—the pie, the casserole, a dish of gravy, a bowl of creamed corn—adds up to a concerning dose of BPA.

The trouble is most people have no idea that BPA is in their canned food. And sadly, even when confronted with the evidence, most manufacturers are not acting quickly enough to ensure that this chemical, and all chemicals linked to health harms, are out of food packaging.

That's why the Breast Cancer Fund started the Cans Not Cancer campaign. We're educating consumers about BPA in canned food and, together, we're pressuring manufacturers to replace BPA in cans with a safe alternative.

Join the Breast Cancer Fund as we urge manufacturers to go BPA-free and urge lawmakers to pass legislation to ensure that all food packaging is free from harmful chemicals. Let’s make sure that next year’s Thanksgiving can safely include canned food again.

As for this year, we'll be spending more time in the kitchen but less time worrying about BPA. If you're inspired to do the same, check out our can-free solutions for some favorite Thanksgiving recipes.

Feinstein thanks the Breast Cancer Fund for BPA work

Last week, after the American Chemistry Council reversed its position on BPA in baby bottles, the Breast Cancer Fund received a very special thank-you letter from Sen. Dianne Feinstein for our hard work in the fight against BPA. In the letter, the Senator says:

Your efforts have paid off; the chemical industry is listening… At both the state and federal level, the chemical industry has spent millions lobbying against any restriction on the use of BPA. You helped lead the way in California, and now the chemical industry has realized that consumers, advocates, and legislators will not stand down against a chemical that could harm their health… My sincere thanks.

We're honored by the Senator's recognition, and we're thankful for her strong leadership in Congress on critical environmental health issues including BPA. Last November, after the chemical industry successfully blocked her amendment to the food safety bill that would have instituted a federal ban on BPA in baby bottles, Sen. Feinstein said so eloquently:

One day our children will look back and wonder why we willingly risked our health by exposing ourselves to harmful chemicals like bisphenol A (BPA)... Unfortunately, chemical industry lobbyists wish to delay the inevitable for as long as possible. Just as the tobacco industry once told us it was safe to smoke cigarettes, the chemical industry is trying to tell us it's OK to ingest harmful chemicals. It's not OK.

Thank you, Senator, for using your clear and compelling voice to amplify the message that BPA has no place in our food packaging.

Chemical industry shifts on BPA after spending millions to fight legislation (New York Times, 10/12/2011)

Days after California passed a ban on BPA in baby bottles and sippy cups, the American Chemistry Council—trade group for the chemical industry—declared that it was petitioning the FDA to ban the chemical from these products nationwide. It's an intriguing reversal in the ACC's history of lobbying against state and federal BPA bills (including the California ban) over the last several years.

Despite the move, the ACC still maintains that BPA is of no concern for health. We disagree.

As reported by the New York Times yesterday:

The trade group's announcement came after [Gretchen Lee] Salter, the policy manager of the Breast Cancer Fund, had spent the past six years on the frontlines of a major battle over California legislation to ban BPA from those products.

Salter's group and others were able to declare victory when Gov. Jerry Brown (D) signed A.B. 1319 into law last week -- only to see ACC say three days later that the problem does not exist.

To Salter, something didn't ring true.

"The amount of resources they poured into states trying to regulate baby bottles and sippy cups and the amount of resources they poured into California," Salter said, then paused. "To all of the sudden say, 'Folks, there is no problem here, we don't use BPA anyway.' It's this weird, almost Orwellian double speak."

ACC had doggedly insisted that BPA is safe, and the group has fought fiercely against federal and state legislative proposals to ban the chemical, which public health advocates have linked to a hormonal disruption and other developmental problems in children.

Disclosure forms shows that ACC has invested heavily in lobbying in California since 2005, when the first bill limiting BPA was introduced in the state Legislature. (Read complete article.)

Neither the California law nor the ACC petition to the FDA include canned foods or other products known to contain BPA. The Breast Cancer Fund continues to push for safe alternatives to BPA in canned foods through our Cans Not Cancer campaign and support of Rep. Ed Markey's (D, Mass.) Ban Poisonous Additives Act, currently in the U.S. House.

BPA in Kids' Canned Food report media roundup (9/21/2011-9/24/2011)

The Breast Cancer Fund report, BPA in Kids' Canned Food, generated attention across the country when we released it on September 21. In addition to nearly 250 local television news stories, our finding that BPA is in canned food for kids was reported in the following print and online media outlets:

ABCNews.com

AFP

Associated Content

The Atlantic

BlameCancer.org

CafeMom

CBS.com

Chemical Watch

Discovery News

Examiner.com

FoodCt.com

FoxNews.com

France 24

GreenOptions.com

Greenwire

Growing a Green Family

Indiana Public Media

Inhabitots

International Business Times

KGO Radio San Francisco

MSNBC

Non-ToxicKids.net

Packaging Digest

Parenthood Blog

San Francisco Chronicle

SF Chronicle Editorial

Science News

Shape Magazine

ThirdAge.com

United Press International

Washington Post Blog

Washington Times

WebMD

WIBC radio Indianapolis

BPA-free baby bottles become California law

California babies have a better chance at being BPA-free, thanks to legislation signed into law yesterday by Gov. Jerry Brown. The law bans the estrogenic chemical BPA from baby bottles and sippy cups sold in the state.

California is the eleventh state to restrict BPA in baby products, adding to the mass of governmental, corporate and scientific concerns about the chemical's effect on health, even at low levels. BPA exposure is associated with a wide range of adverse health effects, including breast and prostate cancer, birth defects, infertility in men, early puberty in girls, diabetes and obesity.

Because of BPA's link to breast cancer in lab studies, the Breast Cancer Fund has been advocating to get it out of consumer products for the last six years: We've supported the new California law through previous iterations in 2008, 2009 and 2010; we're working with Congress on federal bills that take aim at BPA in kids' products as well as BPA in food-related products for all ages; we've done research that demonstrates the close link between our eating habits and our BPA exposure; and we recently launched a market-based effort to get BPA out of canned goods.

All to say, we're thrilled California has finally taken this important step to make sure ALL babies in the states are protected from BPA in their baby bottles. While the big bottle manufacturers have already moved away from BPA because of consumer concerns, only a law like this can guarantee that all stores, from health food stores to dollar stores—regardless of the brands they carry— stock only safe products.

Clearly, though, this new law isn't our endgame. We took aim at baby bottles and sippy cups first because babies are most vulnerable to the effects of chemicals like BPA. But there's still BPA in baby food jar lids and cans of ready-to-feed formula. And older children, pregnant women, and women and men of all ages are almost certain to be exposed to BPA on a daily basis, and susceptible to the chemical's effects, too.

Our aim: a BPA-free dinner table for all ages, all income levels, all degrees of BPA-savvy and all states. This is a start; help us get further.

Could BPA predispose girls to breast cancer? (California Watch, 10/4/2011)

An important new study published in Molecular Endocrinology demonstrates that BPA exposure in utero and through nursing appears to alter mammary tissue in such a way that predisposes the breast to later-life breast cancer.

In fact, the researchers tested BPA alongside DES, the notorious chemical prescribed to pregnant women from 1938 to 1971 that was later found to increase the risk of various cancers in "DES daughters," and found the two chemicals' effects on the mammary glands to be similar. That's serious cause for concern for pregnant and nursing women, as our president and CEO explained to California Watch:

"This is really an important piece of research," said Jeanne Rizzo, president and CEO of the Breast Cancer Fund, a San Francisco-based nonprofit that advocates for the elimination of breast cancer. "It validates other work that has been done and brings the focus to the pregnant mother, the in utero exposure that’s so critical to our understanding of the influence on breast development."

She said that based on this research, she would advise all pregnant women to do all they can to avoid BPA exposure.

"Don’t eat canned foods, buy glass, avoid plastic," she said. "You can do a lot to cut back on your exposure." (Read complete article.)

In addition to Jeanne's advice, we recommend using glass or stainless steel bottles and food containers instead of plastic. You can find tips for replacing canned foods with safe alternatives on our website.

Taking steps on food chemicals (San Francisco Chronicle, 10/2/2011)

Marion Nestle, author of "Food Politics" and "What to Eat," as well as a professor in the nutrition, food studies and public health department at New York University, writes a monthly column in the San Francisco Chronicle Food section. This month she responds to a reader question about food policy and includes a reference to our September report, BPA in Kids' Canned Food:

Q: I don't understand why the FDA does not ban aspartame, food colors, BPA, pesticides and all those other nasty chemicals in food. I can't believe they are good for us.

A: ...Recent studies raise concerns about BPA's effects on the brain and behavior of fetuses, infants and young children, and on cancer, obesity and infertility in adults. Some studies suggest that exposure to BPA is higher than previously estimated. Just last week, the Breast Cancer Fund released a study finding BPA in canned foods designed for children. (Read complete article.)

She closes with some guidance on personal and political action you can take to reduce exposure to food chemicals, including BPA. Find more tips for eating better on our website.

Industry spin zone of bad science on BPA

Last week, the Atlantic published a great piece outlining how industry lobbyists and trade groups are using bad science to make consumers question the toxicity of BPA. The day after the Breast Cancer Fund released our report, BPA in Kids' Canned Food, the lobbying arm of the canned food industry was spinning science in their own press release touting the safety of BPA in consumer goods. These lobbyists claim that BPA is flushed through our bodies so fast that it can't do any harm.

Don't we wish it were that simple! Independent, academic scientists are furious over this "spin zone" of bad science. It turns out that a single study is prompting canned food lobbyists to claim a slam-dunk victory on the safety of BPA, while leading researchers in the field say the study design is fatally flawed for a litany of reasons.

Here's the bottom line, though: we shouldn’t have to be scientists or toxicologists to go to the grocery store and be confident that the food we are buying doesn't contain toxic chemicals that have been shown in over 250 laboratory studies to cause harm. As a consumer, I want to know that companies are protecting my health before their bottom line and I also want to know that my concerns as a purchaser of products are being heard by companies.

After we released our report last week, we watched social networking sites, blogs and media stories light up with canned food manufacturers responding to consumer outrage. While some companies responded openly and honestly, others continue to stand behind old science and outdated regulations to argue the safety of BPA in canned foods.

In reality, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) maintains a list of more than 3,000 chemicals and other substances that are approved for use in food packaging. More than two-thirds of them were approved under a process that began in 1958, including known or suspected reproductive toxins and carcinogens like BPA and formaldehyde. That's why countries including France, China, Denmark, Sweden and 10 states in the U.S. aren't basing their decisions to regulate BPA on current regulations, but instead are using the 200-plus independent lab studies that have come out in the past 10 years showing the negative health consequences of BPA exposure.

It's time for corporations to stop hiding behind legal speak and own up to the fact that the way our regulatory system allows chemicals to get into consumer goods is broken. That's why on top of consumer actions to tell companies that we think BPA needs to be out of their products, we need to support legislation like Rep. Edward Markey's (D, Mass.) bill, the Ban Poisonous Additives Act, which would overhaul the way the FDA approves chemicals used in food containers.

As we say at the Breast Cancer Fund, we need to stop this disease before it starts. Changing the way we regulate toxic chemicals in our food supply is a great step in achieving that goal.

How lobbyists are spinning weak science to defend BPA (The Atlantic, 9/27/2011)

The Atlantic has published a must-read article about our BPA in Kids' Canned Food report and the food packaging industry's effort to generate controversy about the formidable body of scientific evidence linking BPA to harm. In particular, industry is pointing to one apparently flawed study to defend its continued use of BPA in food cans:

The chemical industry, NAMPA [the North American Metal Packaging Alliance], and other industry groups have consistently defended the safety of BPA -- and lobbied extensively against its regulation. But that such a flawed study would be published and its findings so misrepresented has outraged prominent members of the scientific community. "Its conclusions are preposterous," says Fred vom Saal, professor of biological sciences at the University of Missouri-Columbia whose research on endocrine hormones dates back to the 1970s.

...

In criticizing the Breast Cancer Fund study, NAMPA also said the levels of BPA found in the kids' canned food tested -- an average of 13 to 114 parts per billion -- "are well within the safety recommendations of government agencies." But such levels of BPA, which is known to be biologically active at very low levels of exposure, according to vom Saal, are sufficient "to prompt an entire range of effects." (Read complete article.)