Inside Prevention

I'll take a hearty helping of food, but please hold the toxic BPA

Just when I thought I had gotten ahead in the game by dumping all of the hard plastic BPA water bottles and food storage containers from my house, the Breast Cancer Fund released a study last week showing that when families took BPA out of their diets by eliminating canned foods and using BPA-free food containers, they decreased the amount of BPA in their bodies by 60 percent!

Canned foods make up a significant portion of the American diet, yet most people don't know that most of those cans—and the foods in them—contain the estrogenic chemical BPA. So apparently when I open that can of beans or soup, I'm also giving myself a hearty dose of a toxic chemical? How was I to know? Unless my alphabet soup spells out "BPA" in the bowl, there's no clear indication for shoppers if a can contains BPA or not.

Asking consumers to completely dump the canned foods from their diet is a lofty goal that's unrealistic for many. Canned foods are cheap and sometimes, in communities where fresh fruits and vegetables aren’t easily accessible or affordable, the only option for people.

I'm lucky enough to be able to choose BPA-free, but I'm also tired of being asked to shop my way out of this massive problem of toxins in my products. Shouldn’t it be the responsibility of corporations to make products that are safe for their customers?

I think so and that’s why I joined thousands of others in taking action to ask the three largest canned food companies, Cambell Soup Company, Del Monte Foods and General Mills (maker of Progresso, Cascadian Farm and Muir Glen) what they're doing to get BPA out of their food packaging and out of our bodies. And if they're phasing out BPA, what non-toxic alternative are they replacing it with?

As consumers we have to be confident that the alternatives these companies are using to BPA are adequately tested for safety. Haven’t we already learned our lesson enough times about regrettable substitutions? It’s time for consumers to demand that we have a right to know what is in our food. Just like the calories, fat and sugar content of my food, I want to know if there are toxic chemicals lurking in each bite.

Let's make the message loud and clear to these companies: please hold the toxic BPA.

BPA food packaging study media roundup (3/30/2011-4/4/2011)

Our study on BPA in food packaging, co-released last week, has generated more 120 TV news stories across the country, as well as scores of print, online and radio stories. Not surprising, considering the dramatic results: participants cut their BPA levels by 60 percent in just three days by avoiding canned and packaged food.

Here are some highlights of the media coverage:

ABC Chicago
ABC Houston
ABC News National
Arizona Central
Bellingham Herald
Burlington Free Press
Chemical Watch
CTV
CBS San Francisco
Chicago Sun-Times
Consumer Reports
Daily Green
Discovery Magazine
Fair Warning
Fast Company
French Tribune
GreenDesignHQ
Greenbiz
Huffington Post
KGO AM
Lexington Herald Leader
Los Angeles Times
Los Angeles Times Editorial
Medical News Today
Miami New Times
Mother Earth News
Mother Nature Network
Philadelphia Inquirer
Press Herald
Quality Assurance & Food Safety
Red Orbit
San Francisco Chronicle
Smart Planet
Technorati
Time Magazine
TreeHugger
UPI
USA Today
WCVB
WebMD

California legislature must pass bisphenol A bill (San Francisco Chronicle, 4/1/2011)

The editorial board of the San Francisco Chronicle has been following the issue of BPA in California for some time, and today they fit our new study into the state's legislative puzzle:

The disgrace of the California Legislature's failure to protect infants and toddlers from a hormone-disrupting chemical was brought into sharp relief with a new study that showed the extent to which its use as a food container reaches the human system.

...

Those findings take on one of the chemical and can-manufacturing industries' arguments against legislation to ban the chemical from baby bottles, formula-can liners and other products aimed at children under 3. Those companies lobbied furiously last year to kill SB797, arguing that both the levels of exposure and danger from it were minuscule. (Read complete article)

Time for a food makeover (ABC World News, 3/30/2011)

This great piece on ABC World News with Diane Sawyer educated millions (the program averages 8 million viewers) about our study on BPA in food packaging, the dangers of BPA and how to lower exposure.

After you watch the video, check out the written story for more information about the study and tips for avoiding BPA in food packaging.

Study: Packaged food raises levels of bisphenol A (San Francisco Chronicle, 3/30/11)

Check out this front-page story from today's San Francisco Chronicle about our BPA food packaging study:

Forgoing packaged foods such as canned soups and vegetables could dramatically lower levels of a hormone-disrupting chemical that has been linked to myriad health problems, including birth defects, autism and reproductive issues, according to a study released today.

In the study, published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, five Bay Area families were asked to eliminate packaged foods from their diets and store food only in glass or stainless steel containers. After only three days, levels of the chemical bisphenol A in the subjects' urine dropped by more than 60 percent, researchers found.

Researchers were surprised by the dramatic drop in levels of the chemical after such a short change in diet, even though it was known that bisphenol A, also known as BPA, does not stay in the body for long.

"We're hoping these very remarkable results will help us in our outreach and education to people to show them how easily changes can be made in their personal habits that may diminish significant exposure to BPA," said Janet Gray, an author of the report and science adviser to the Breast Cancer Fund, a San Francisco advocacy group and partner in the study. (Read full article.)

 

How to reduce BPA levels by 60 percent in 3 days

We know BPA is all around us, and the CDC tells us the chemical is in almost 95 percent of us. And we know that laboratory studies have linked BPA to breast cancer, along with a whole host of other serious health problems. But what is the leading source of the BPA that contaminates our bodies? If we removed that source, how much would our BPA levels drop?

The Breast Cancer Fund and Silent Spring Institute conducted a study, published today in Environmental Health Perspectives, to find out. We enlisted five families for a week-long investigation. First, the families ate their normal diets. Then, we provided them with three days’ worth of freshly prepared organic meals that avoided contact with BPA-containing food packaging, such as canned food and polycarbonate plastic. Finally, the families returned to their normal diets. We measured their BPA levels at each stage.

While the families were eating the fresh-food diet, their BPA levels dropped on average by 60 percent. Those with the highest exposure levels saw even greater reductions: 75 percent.

These groundbreaking results tell us that removing BPA from food packaging will eliminate our number one source of BPA exposure.

Here’s a summary of the kinds of changes we made to the family’s diets and how you can replicate them in your own kitchen:

- Switch to stainless steel and glass food storage and beverage containers.
- Move foods to ceramic or glass food containers for microwaving.
- Consider a French press for coffee – home coffee makers may have polycarbonate-based water tanks and phthalate-based tubing.
- Eat out less, especially at restaurants that do not use fresh ingredients.
- Limit canned food consumption. Download our 10 Canned Foods to Avoid wallet card for your next shopping trip. And share it with people you care about.
- Choose fresh fruits and vegetables when possible, and frozen if not.
- Soak dried beans for cooking (you can make extra and freeze them).

While we can take steps to reduce our BPA exposure, we need big-picture solutions to ensure that everyone is protected from this chemical. That's why we're telling industry and government that we want safe, non-toxic food packaging now. We’re urging our elected officials to pass laws that will eliminate harmful chemicals from food packaging. We’re demanding reform of the broken system that allows these chemicals to be in our food packaging in the first place. Thanks for lending your voice to this critical work.

TEDxGreatPacificGarbagePatch ... and breast cancer

Untold tons of plastic swirling in the ocean is plenty sobering as an environmental concern. But what affect does all that plastic have on our health?

Breast Cancer Fund President and CEO Jeanne Rizzo was invited to tell that very side of the story in November at TEDxGreatPacificGarbagePatch, an independently organized offshoot of the TED conference:

With thousands of people watching around the world, scientists, activists, environmentalists and health experts gathered to tell the many-sided story of plastic and what we can—and must—do about plastic pollution.

Big thanks to the Plastic Pollution Coalition for organizing this inspiring event! For more TEDx talks from around the world, drop in on the TEDx YouTube Channel.

Breast Cancer Fund chief's balanced wisdom (Practically Green, 11/30/2010)

Practically Green interviewed Breast Cancer Fund President and CEO Jeanne Rizzo for practical prevention advice:

It’s easy to get alarmed and overwhelmed about all the possible toxins that might lurk in supposedly safe products these days, from shampoo to bed mattresses, from berries to wall paint. We found a seriously experienced public-health advocate for advice on how a normal person gets a handle on this.

Jeanne Rizzo is the President and CEO of the Breast Cancer Fund, a leader in disease prevention and strategic policy initiatives....

Read the whole post and pass it on!

Europe votes to ban chemical from baby bottles (USA Today, 11/29/2010)

Just a week after the U.S. Congress failed to protect kids from bisphenol A in baby bottles and sippy cups—instead allowing the chemical industry to call its own shots—the European Commission has voted to ban the chemical from baby bottles throughout Europe.

Denmark and France have already adopted their own bans on BPA, an estrogenic chemical linked to breast cancer that's used in hard plastic bottles and the lining of food cans, among many other applications. Now all European countries will be directed to stop selling baby bottles that contain BPA by June 2011.

The new EU regulation sets a major precedent—one we hope U.S. lawmakers and agencies will follow.

Simply put, regulation is the only way to make sure that everyone is safe, not just those who know to read labels and shop at forward-thinking retailers. Our own Director of Program and Policy explained to USA Today:

Although consumer backlash has prompted major American baby bottle manufacturers to stop using BPA, the chemical is used in cheaper products sold in discount stores, according to Janet Nudelman of the Breast Cancer Fund. (Read complete article.)

Chemical industry lobbyists block measure to protect infants and toddlers (Huffington Post, 11/19/2010)

The Breast Cancer Fund has been working with Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) to create public policy that would protect Americans from bisphenol A (BPA), an estrogenic chemical linked to breast cancer and found in hard plastics, can linings and more. Unfortunately, her bipartisan proposal to ban BPA from baby bottles and sippy cups was blocked by chemical industry lobbying last week.

Read what Sen. Feinstein has to say about BPA and the future, from the Huffington Post:

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), a chemical used in thousands of consumer products. 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. (Read complete article.)