Inside Prevention

FDA one step closer to banning BPA in infant formula packaging

If you've been following the BPA issue closely, then you know that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has been dragging its feet for years on regulating the toxic chemical. But this week we saw a glimmer of hope that the agency is poised for action: On June 6 the FDA accepted a petition from Rep. Edward Markey, D - Mass, to ban the use of BPA in infant formula packaging. Within 90 days the agency will file the petition in the Federal Register to allow for public comment and then propose a final rule that will change federal food packaging regulations so that BPA can no longer be used in infant formula packaging. There's also indication that the FDA will accept a similar petition filed by the American Chemistry Council to ban BPA from baby bottles.

There is virtually no U.S. infant formula or baby bottle manufacturer that still uses BPA. Still, an official ban would be significant not only because it would eliminate the possibility of any future use of BPA in infant formula packaging and baby bottles, but also because this would be the first federal restriction on the use of BPA in food packaging.

Assuming the bans are enacted, as it looks likely they will be, parents everywhere will be able to breathe a little easier knowing the infant formula and baby bottles they are buying are not contaminated with BPA. But that’s just the tip of the BPA iceberg, and the FDA still is not doing enough to protect us. The agency rejected petitions filed by Rep. Markey requesting a ban on BPA in baby food packaging, reusable food containers and food cans.

Why the mixed message? Why would the FDA say BPA should not be used in infant formula packaging and baby bottles, but still allow it in other food containers? BPA has been detected in the blood and urine of pregnant women, in the umbilical cord blood of newborns and in breast milk soon after women gave birth. A mountain of troubling lab research has linked BPA exposure to breast cancer and a host of other diseases. The FDA seems to be saying we should get it out of formula and baby bottles, but not out of the other packaging that exposes kids and pregnant women to BPA like baby food and canned foods.

According to Rep. Markey's office, the FDA says it was unable to move forward with the other petitions because it could not verify whether the major manufacturers in those industries that had abandoned the use of BPA represented the entire industry and because some canned food and beverage corporations, including Coca-Cola ConAgra and Pepsico, have openly opposed transition away from use of BPA.

Sorry, WHAT? So, the FDA won’t ban BPA in other food packaging because companies still want to use it and will oppose a ban? And because the agency needs assurance that the industry in question has stopped using BPA before it will tell that industry it can’t use it anymore? It’s a sobering reality to confront: the federal agency responsible for safeguarding our food supply is more concerned with maintaining the status quo than addressing the growing body of scientific evidence that makes it crystal clear that this hormonally active chemical has no place in our food supply.

So, while we’ll welcome a ban on BPA in formula and baby bottles, we won’t stop there. Not for a second. If the FDA won’t act on its own, then Congress needs to step in by quickly and pass Rep. Markey’s Ban Poisonous Additives Act, which would direct the FDA to ban BPA from all food packaging and to overhaul and modernize the outdated federal food packaging program that allowed BPA and other toxic chemicals into our food supply in the first place. Americans deserve nothing less.

Will Campbell's listen?

Wow, great response to our social media advocacy yesterday asking Campbell's to spell out what it's using to replace BPA in can linings! This amazing community of moms, dads, cancer survivors and everyday activists flooded Campbell's Facebook timeline with our alphabet soup picture, and thousands shared the message with friends.

(If you didn't see the picture yesterday, you can still post and share it.)

A few takeaways from the day:

(1) Campbell's sparse replies don't answer our question.

The company's canned (ahem) responses to people on Facebook:

"We appreciate you reaching out, Heather. We are happy to share with you that we are researching and using a number of alternatives from FDA’s list of approved food contact materials. We respect your concern as a valued consumer and hope this helps."

"We respect your concerns and appreciate you reaching out, Erin. We are using only safe and approved food contact materials. We anticipate that there may be several types of packaging solutions needed to ensure safety and quality across our various products and can package types. As with all packaging, any new alternatives will follow all regulatory policies and requirements. We hope this helps."

The reply is nice, but it doesn't actually help, since Campbell's still isn't telling us what it's using to replace BPA. And as we've mentioned previously, we have concerns about the safety and lack of data about some of the "approved" alternatives.

In fact, as a few savvy Facebook posters pointed out, "FDA-approved" is practically meaningless when it comes to safety because regulations governing food contact materials are woefully inadequate. BPA is FDA-approved, and so is formaldehyde (not that formaldehyde is being used in canned foods). Doesn't give you confidence, does it?

(2) Our community knows its stuff about BPA. See above re: "FDA-approved," but there are many more examples from yesterday, too.

Not only are you showing Campbell's that you're wise to BPA and concerned about alternatives, you're also sharing your knowledge with friends. Many of them probably didn't know until yesterday that BPA is in canned foods, even if they knew that BPA is a problem.

By spreading the word you are driving consumer awareness and demand for truly safe canned food—not just from Campbell's but from all canned food makers.

(3) This is personal.

As Breast Cancer Fund staff, it's our job to look at the science, to examine holes in regulations and strategize ways to protect people on a population level. But yesterday you showed Campbell's that individual people—moms, sisters, sons, friends and lots of people who grew up with Campbell's soup—care about BPA for deeply personal reasons. You showed that corporations shouldn’t and can’t ignore your concerns. Even if we aren’t getting the answers we want today, you made it clear in your comments on Campbell's Facebook timeline that the company needs to be listening to you:

If BPA won't be in your can linings anymore, what will you replace it with? I've had cancer & I don't want it again.

In June of 2011 I was diagnosed with breast cancer. After a mastectomy, and a year of chemo and radiation I am a survivor. I hope you can save not only me, but future generations, from products that may cause cancer. Please do whatever you can to stop it. Thanks

As a woman with an endocrine disorder, and a mother of little girl whom I hope doesn't inherit my disorder, I do not allow BPA in my home. This means we don't use Campbell's soups and I miss them very much….Please, restore our faith in your company. We have a right to know what we're putting in our bodies and the bodies of our precious families.

Do the chemical scientists who formulate the lining for your cans eat your soups? This generation of moms and dads want to know that what they are putting in their kids mouths isn't ending up as more toxic load in their little bodies!

As someone living with stage 4 cancer, I am trying to be super careful to avoid as many toxins as I can. I cannot buy your products until I know that your replacement for BPA is safe.

I HAVE been a campbells soup consumer but I am now a one month Breast Cancer survivor. I will not purchase any more of your soup until I see a response to this.

What's in your can linings? Cancer survivors trying to avoid exposing ourselves to additional carcinogens want to know!

You spoke...will Campbell's listen?

Empty assurances of "BPA-free"

"BPA-free" means safe, not linked to breast cancer, not estrogenic, in the clear, worry-free…right?

Hardly.

There are two major problems with the BPA-free=safe assumption; both are matters of transparency.

First, while you'll easily find polycarbonate (hard, clear, #7) plastic products—like sports water bottles and baby bottles—labeled BPA-free, you are unlikely to find such clear guidance on canned foods. Up until very recently, virtually all food cans were lined with an epoxy resin made with BPA, a toxic chemical linked to breast cancer and other diseases that is nonetheless an FDA-approved food contact substance.

Although many canned food makers are starting to move away from BPA, to our knowledge only Eden Foods is actually printing "BPA-free" on its canned beans. So while you may have heard that Muir Glen tomatoes, Trader Joe's canned fish or some Campbell's soups are packaged in BPA-free cans, it's pretty hard to know if the can in the store (or the one that's been in your cupboard for six months) is, in fact, BPA-free.

Manufacturers could label their BPA-free products or provide detailed, public information about which brands/foods/lot numbers are BPA-free, but most don't.

Second, and arguably more detrimental, is the detail that the chemicals being used to replace BPA are not necessarily safe. Polyvinyl chloride (PVC; yes, the stuff in plastic pipes), for example, is an FDA-approved alternative for can linings, yet vinyl chloride is a known carcinogen. BPS is another lining option—an option plucked from the same family of chemicals as BPA—but is relatively untested so we don't know if it's safe or not; yet BPS is already being found in people.

So while we cheer, celebrate and congratulate canned food manufacturers that have announced plans to replace BPA, our Cans Not Cancer campaign still has some pointed questions:

When will companies be completing the change?
What are they using instead of BPA?
And are the replacements safe?

Campbell Soup Company's recent announcement that it would be moving away from BPA is a great example. An iconic, market-leading canned food company has made a major commitment to replace BPA (great!), but it won't tell us which alternative it's using, its implementation timeline or which products are already sporting the alternative (cream of clarity soup, anyone?).

Here's the thing: we know replacing BPA is complicated for manufacturers. But if we're buying their products and feeding them to our families, we deserve to know what's in those cans, just like we deserve to see the ingredient list or how many milligrams of sodium are in a serving.

The Breast Cancer Fund is committed to getting this information from manufacturers, and soon we'll be calling on you again to help. For now, read and share our tips for avoiding BPA in canned food and join our Cans Not Cancer campaign.

If the food's in plastic, what's in the food? (Washington Post, 4/16/2012)

A new article in the Washington Post about chemicals used in food packaging leads with a study published by the Breast Cancer Fund and Silent Spring Institute that demonstrated a significant dip in families' BPA and phthalate levels when they cut packaged food from their diets for just a few days. How common are these chemicals and what can be done to protect people from exposure?:

[S]cientists are beginning to piece together data about the ubiquity of chemicals in the food supply and the cumulative impact of chemicals at minute doses. What they’re finding has some health advocates worried.

This is “a huge issue, and no [regulator] is paying attention,” says Janet Nudelman, program and policy director at the Breast Cancer Fund, a nonprofit that focuses on the environmental causes of the disease. “It doesn’t make sense to regulate the safety of food and then put the food in an unsafe package.”

How common are these chemicals? Researchers have found traces of styrene, a likely carcinogen, in instant noodles sold in polystyrene cups. They’ve detected nonylphenol — an estrogen-mimicking chemical produced by the breakdown of antioxidants used in plastics — in apple juice and baby formula. They’ve found traces of other hormone-disrupting chemicals in various foods: fire retardants in butter, Teflon components in microwave popcorn, and dibutyltin — a heat stabilizer for polyvinyl chloride — in beer, margarine, mayonnaise, processed cheese and wine. They’ve found unidentified estrogenic substances leaching from plastic water bottles. (Read complete article.)

Learn more about chemicals linked to breast cancer that are found in food and food packaging.

FDA Won't Ban BPA Chemical in Packaging (ABC News, 3/30/12)

As we've been reporting, we've been waiting (and waiting) for the FDA to respond to a 2008 petition from the Natural Resources Defense Council to declare the toxic chemical BPA unsafe and ban it from food packaging. On the eve of the legal deadline, late this Friday afternoon, perhaps when the agency hoped for the least amount of media attention, the FDA announced it has rejected the petition. But the media is alert on this issue, and so are millions of concerned consumers.

This ABC story, which came out minutes after the announcement, explains:

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced today that it won't ban bisphenol A (BPA), the controversial chemical that is widely used in food packaging.

The agency rejected a petition by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) that called for a ban on BPA as an ingredient in food packaging saying in a statement the council didn't have the scientific data needed for the FDA to change current regulations on the chemical...

BPA has been under fire from advocacy groups including the NRDC and the Breast Cancer Fund. The groups claim there is ample evidence linking the chemical to health problems, particularly among fetuses, infants and young children. (Read the full story.)

Indeed, there is plenty of evidence showing harm--evidence that has been mounting for years and years. The public should be able to count on the FDA to take decisive action to protect everyone. The FDA needs to stop waiting for more and more evidence of harm and get BPA out of our food packaging.

Pressure increases on FDA to ban BPA from food packaging

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration must be feeling the pressure to do something about BPA pretty intensely right now. And right it should. As we wait for the agency to meet its March 31 deadline to respond to a petition by the Natural Resources Defense Fund to ban this toxic chemical linked to breast cancer from food packaging, today Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., added his own petitions to the FDA asking for a similar ban. This is the first time a member of Congress has used the FDA’s citizen petition process to pressure the FDA to take regulatory action, signaling a growing frustration on the part of policymakers and the public alike with the FDA’s failure to act on this critical public health issue.

The FDA’s inaction is in stark contrast to consumer and industry action. Last week, the Breast Cancer Fund’s Cans Not Cancer campaign publicized the fact that Campbell Soup Company will phase out the use of BPA in its can linings. Baby bottle and sports water bottle manufacturers abandoned BPA over the last few years. At the public policy level, 11 states have banned BPA from baby bottles and sippy cups, and three of those states have also banned it from infant formula and baby food.

The Breast Cancer Fund submitted a letter of support for Markey’s petitions, signed by organizations representing millions of concerned citizens who are saying loud and clear that it’s time the FDA get BPA out of all food packaging.

And you can make your voice heard today: tell the FDA to declare BPA in food packaging unsafe once and for all.

Under Pressure from Parents, Advocacy Groups, Campbell's Goes BPA-Free (Forbes, 3/5/12)

On Monday, we shared the news that our Cans Not Cancer campaign scored a huge victory: After months of pressure from our campaign, Campbell's Soup Company announced it will phase out the use of bisphenol A (BPA) in its can linings.

Amy Westervelt''s great story for Forbes, Responding to Consumer Concern, Campbell's Goes BPA-Free, says:

Back in September, the traditionally family-friendly Campbell's Soup brand was attracting attention from moms for all the wrong reasons: A report released by advocacy group Breast Cancer Fund found the company’s soup to have some of the highest BPA levels among a variety of canned foods it tested... BPA (bisphenol A), a commonly used additive in food packaging, mimics human estrogen and is thought by some health advocates to be harmful to health, while others maintain that it is perfectly safe. At the time, Campbell Soup Company spokesman Anthony Sanzio said the company was confident in the safety of its products. ”The overwhelming weight of scientific evidence shows that the use of BPA in can lining poses no threat to human health,” he said. “That being said, we understand that consumers may have concerns about it. We’re very aware of the debate and we’re watching it intently.” (Read the full article.)

The victory was also covered by other news outlets, including:

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Campbell's to end use of BPA in can linings

Discovery News: Campbell's to Phase Out BPA

Consumer Affairs: Campbell's Will Phase Out BPA From Soup Cans

Treehugger: Campbell's Says It's Heading BPA-Free

Grist: Campbell's to ditch BPA from soup cans

Campbell's announcement is is a victory for consumer health and safety, but the company still needs to provide consumers with a clear timeline for its transition away from BPA and proof that any alternative can-lining material is safe. Tell Campbell's CEO that you want to see the company’s words turn into real action to make its products safer. Take action!

Campbell's to phase out BPA from canned food

Great news! With your support over the past nine months, our Cans Not Cancer campaign has generated thousands of letters, calls, Facebook posts and Tweets demanding that Campbell Soup Company get toxic BPA out of its canned food. Well, the comany told us that's exactly what it plans to do! But this isn't over: Campbells still needs to provide consumers with a a clear timeline for its transition away from BPA and proof that any alternative can-lining material is safe.

Read our press release and stay tuned for our action alert.

Five Things You Should Know About Environmental Links to Breast Cancer (Forbes, 12/7/2011)

Amy Westervelt's article on Forbes.com does a great job of parsing through the intricacies of the Institute of Medicine's new report, Breast Cancer and the Environment: A Life Course Approach. Here's an excerpt, including a quote from our president and CEO, Jeanne Rizzo:

In the absence of clear advice from the IOM, consumers might want to consider reducing their exposure to these chemicals. “The failure to take a precautionary approach may leave the public confused and even misinformed, as is evidenced by some of the initial media headlines about the report that say that chemicals are unproven to raise breast cancer risk, when the report itself indicated there are plausible reasons for concern,” Rizzo says.

Read the full article and share it with your networks or submit a comment.

New (yet not so new) report on breast cancer and the environment

Today the Institute of Medicine released a report, funded by Komen for the Cure, entitled Breast Cancer and the Environment: A Life Course Approach. Our President and CEO, Jeanne Rizzo, responded to the report:

The Breast Cancer Fund has reviewed the Institute of Medicine’s new report Breast Cancer and the Environment, and our takeaway is that while it offers a useful review of some of the existing data on the disease’s links to environmental factors, it relies on an antiquated model of weighing the evidence and, therefore, does not go far enough to protect public health.(Read Jeanne's full statemet.)

Unfortunately, the report did not go far enough in its warning about the potential harm of chemical exposure. For example, the report finds that the chemical BPA is a ‘biologically plausible hazard,’ but says that the evidence does not necessarily warrant individual action to avoid the chemical. 

But that doesn't make sense to us. If BPA were, say, a potential pharmaceutical drug, it is highly doubtful that, given the adverse effects seen lab studies, the chemical would ever be allowed into clinical trials in humans. Yet, when you think about it, we are all currently part of an uncontrolled human experiment on the effects of BPA exposure. Are you concerned about BPA? Want to help get BPA out of canned foods--one of our biggest expousure sources to the chemical? Join our Cans Not Cancer campaign!