In the ongoing controversy on BPA, that chemical used in the lining of cans and in plastic containers, a Korean research team claims that BPA increases blood pressure. The American Chemistry Council (ACC) countered and said the study "inappropriately concerns and confuses consumers" in that the claim "is a gross overstatement of the findings, an incredible disservice to public health, and runs contrary to years of research by government scientists".
Huffington Post
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/08/bpa-cans-blood-pressure_n_6290644.html
BPA In Cans Tied To Increased Blood Pressure
Reuters
Posted: 12/08/2014 4:31 pm EST Updated: 12/08/2014 5:59 pm EST
By Andrew M. Seaman
(Reuters Health) - People have small increases in blood pressure after drinking from cans lined with material that includes a common chemical, South Korean researchers say.
When can linings contained bisphenol A - more commonly known as BPA - systolic blood pressure (the top number) went up by about 5 millimeters of mercury (mm/Hg), researchers found.
"I would like to recommend consumers use fresh foods or glass bottled foods rather than canned foods," said Dr. Yun-Chul Hong, the study's senior researcher from the Seoul National University College of Medicine. "I also hope manufacturers develop and use healthy alternatives (instead) of BPA for inner lining of the can containers."
Showing posts with label bpa. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bpa. Show all posts
Thursday, December 11, 2014
Monday, April 2, 2012
FDA will not ban BPA at this time
The controversy will continue as FDA has decided not to ban BPA from food packaging materials at this time (due to inconclusive evidence). A ban would have had a huge impact on the food supply, as companies rushed to find suitable replacements. Continued study will occur.
U.S. Denies Request to Ban Chemical in Food PackagingBloomberg
By Jack Kaskey - Mar 30, 2012 6:07 PM ETFri Mar 30 22:07:58 GMT 2012
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-30/u-s-denies-request-to-ban-chemical-in-food-and-drink-packaging.html
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration rejected a request to ban a contested chemical from cans and other packaging because opponents didn’t provide enough data to support a rule change.
Continued study of bisphenol A, known as BPA, including completion of federal studies currently in progress, is the most appropriate course of action, the agency said in an e-mail today. The chemical has been used in epoxy linings since the 1960s to extend the shelf life of canned foods and beverages.
Manufacturers of baby bottles and cups have stopped using polycarbonate containing BPA in response to consumer concerns it may affect children. Campbell Soup Co. (CPB) is among food makers phasing out the use of BPA, while beverage companies such asCoca-Cola Co. (KO) have kept the chemical, saying it’s safe.
“The information provided in your petition was not sufficient to persuade FDA, at this time, to initiate rulemaking to prohibit the use of BPA in human food and food packaging,”David H. Horsey, an acting associate FDA commissioner, said today in a letter to the Natural Resources Defense Council.
NRDC, a New York-based environmental advocacy group, petitioned the FDA in 2008 to ban its use in food and drinks packaging. BPA, produced by combining phenol and acetone, mimics the female hormone estrogen and may affect the brain and prostate gland in fetuses and young children, according to theNational Institutes of Health.
Quickly Processed
A ban would hurt profits at can-maker Silgan Holdings Inc. (SLGN)and others in the $60 billion industry, Ghansham Panjabi, an analyst at Robert W. Baird & Co., said before the FDA announcement. The biggest U.S. producer of BPA is Saudi Basic Industries Corp. (SABIC), followed by Bayer AG (BAYN) and Dow Chemical Co. (DOW)
About 4.7 million metric tons of BPA valued at about $8 billion will be produced this year, according to a report by GlobalData, a London-based publisher of business intelligence. Three times as much BPA goes into polycarbonate plastics, used in items ranging from plastic bottles to DVDs, as is used in epoxy resins.
The FDA plans to complete an updated safety review of BPA this year and will make any changes to the chemical’s status based on the science, Douglas Karas, an agency spokesman, said in an e-mail. People of all ages metabolize and rid their bodies of BPA faster than rodents used in studies, he said.
Federally funded research confirms that the human body quickly processes and eliminates BPA, making it “very unlikely” that the chemical causes harm, the American Chemistry Council, a Washington-based industry group, said in a statement today.
‘Dangerously Off Course’
Sarah Janssen, a senior scientist at the NRDC, said the FDA’s denial of a ban shows “a major overhaul” of chemical regulation is needed. The Environmental Working Group, a Washington-based advocacy group, said consumers can no longer trust the FDA to protect the health of their families.
“The agency has veered dangerously off course,” Jane Houlihan, the group’s senior vice president for research, said today in a statement. “Pregnant women and new parents should no longer think FDA has their backs.”
The North American Metal Packaging Alliance, a Washington-based industry group, praised the FDA’s decision.
“A ban without conclusive scientific evidence of risk would compromise the safety of canned foods and beverages,” John Rost, the alliance’s chairman, said in an e-mailed statement.
To contact the reporter on this story: Jack Kaskey in Houston at jkaskey@bloomberg.net
U.S. Denies Request to Ban Chemical in Food PackagingBloomberg
By Jack Kaskey - Mar 30, 2012 6:07 PM ETFri Mar 30 22:07:58 GMT 2012
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-30/u-s-denies-request-to-ban-chemical-in-food-and-drink-packaging.html
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration rejected a request to ban a contested chemical from cans and other packaging because opponents didn’t provide enough data to support a rule change.
Continued study of bisphenol A, known as BPA, including completion of federal studies currently in progress, is the most appropriate course of action, the agency said in an e-mail today. The chemical has been used in epoxy linings since the 1960s to extend the shelf life of canned foods and beverages.
Manufacturers of baby bottles and cups have stopped using polycarbonate containing BPA in response to consumer concerns it may affect children. Campbell Soup Co. (CPB) is among food makers phasing out the use of BPA, while beverage companies such asCoca-Cola Co. (KO) have kept the chemical, saying it’s safe.
“The information provided in your petition was not sufficient to persuade FDA, at this time, to initiate rulemaking to prohibit the use of BPA in human food and food packaging,”David H. Horsey, an acting associate FDA commissioner, said today in a letter to the Natural Resources Defense Council.
NRDC, a New York-based environmental advocacy group, petitioned the FDA in 2008 to ban its use in food and drinks packaging. BPA, produced by combining phenol and acetone, mimics the female hormone estrogen and may affect the brain and prostate gland in fetuses and young children, according to theNational Institutes of Health.
Quickly Processed
A ban would hurt profits at can-maker Silgan Holdings Inc. (SLGN)and others in the $60 billion industry, Ghansham Panjabi, an analyst at Robert W. Baird & Co., said before the FDA announcement. The biggest U.S. producer of BPA is Saudi Basic Industries Corp. (SABIC), followed by Bayer AG (BAYN) and Dow Chemical Co. (DOW)
About 4.7 million metric tons of BPA valued at about $8 billion will be produced this year, according to a report by GlobalData, a London-based publisher of business intelligence. Three times as much BPA goes into polycarbonate plastics, used in items ranging from plastic bottles to DVDs, as is used in epoxy resins.
The FDA plans to complete an updated safety review of BPA this year and will make any changes to the chemical’s status based on the science, Douglas Karas, an agency spokesman, said in an e-mail. People of all ages metabolize and rid their bodies of BPA faster than rodents used in studies, he said.
Federally funded research confirms that the human body quickly processes and eliminates BPA, making it “very unlikely” that the chemical causes harm, the American Chemistry Council, a Washington-based industry group, said in a statement today.
‘Dangerously Off Course’
Sarah Janssen, a senior scientist at the NRDC, said the FDA’s denial of a ban shows “a major overhaul” of chemical regulation is needed. The Environmental Working Group, a Washington-based advocacy group, said consumers can no longer trust the FDA to protect the health of their families.
“The agency has veered dangerously off course,” Jane Houlihan, the group’s senior vice president for research, said today in a statement. “Pregnant women and new parents should no longer think FDA has their backs.”
The North American Metal Packaging Alliance, a Washington-based industry group, praised the FDA’s decision.
“A ban without conclusive scientific evidence of risk would compromise the safety of canned foods and beverages,” John Rost, the alliance’s chairman, said in an e-mailed statement.
To contact the reporter on this story: Jack Kaskey in Houston at jkaskey@bloomberg.net
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Cola, BPA, and Our Aversion to Risk
Recently, Campbell Soup made the decision to move away from cans that contain BPA the lining. Was it justified? FDA initially concluded that BPA was not a risk, but after public pressure, they are reevaluating its safety.
Another controversy brewing is the caramel color that gives cola soft drinks their brown color. The chemical, 4-methylimidazole (4-MI), is formed when the caramel color is manufactured. According the FDA, the levels found in soda are well below any concern. The FDA spokesman, Doug Karas stated "A consumer would have to consume well over a thousand cans of soda a day to reach the doses administered in the studies that have shown links to cancer in rodents”. However, the consumer watchdog group, Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), doesn’t agree. They have petitioned FDA to have 4-MI banned.
How do the risks associated with certain chemicals in our food stack up against non-food related risks? For the consumer, this question is difficult to answer. In evaluating the risk associated with a chemical, numerous studies are completed. The scientists issue reports and from these reports, numerous interpretations are made, including ones by industry associations, consumer advocacy groups, and government agencies. Then some of these interpretations make their way to the consumer, either through the mass media (TV, newsprint) or through social media (websites, blogs).
The studies that are conducted to determine risk are rarely perfect. Animal models, where large quantities are injected into small animals such as rats, are often used for toxicity determinations. With these, there is always a question of how realistic it is when compared to humans and their normal living conditions. When large scale human surveys are used to determine risk, it is often difficult to control all of the variables including what people eat, their daily habits, and their genetic makeup. In the end, we hope that conclusions that are drawn are done are unbiased and done in the best interest of the public.
Public opinion polls have been done that show that that is an increasing concern in the consumers’ perception of food hazards. The apparent lack of trust on these technical risk assessments and this can be linked to a number of factors. One is the stories that are reported in the news media and how they are reported. In addition to television and print news, many people now use the internet for their information. On the internet, we see the whole gamut of information, from the scientific studies themselves to the totally unscientific opinion pieces.
One of the primary fears that people have is cancer. Certainly past tragedies provide an underpinning for the public’s concern. Asbestos and tobacco are two examples of cancer related items that have received a high level of media coverage and have led to people being skeptical. So when a linkage is made between a chemical in food and cancer in the news or the media, it will get attention. The question of the level of risk, however, is often more difficult to discern.
How should one respond? First, consumers should inform themselves as best they can by using valid sources of information. It is also important to understand the bias of those providing the information, and try to obtain a balance in what is read. Remember that the information out there is rarely clear cut, so it is important for consumers to make a determination where they feel comfortable.
Links
http://healthland.time.com/2012/03/06/soda-wars-can-the-color-in-your-cola-give-your-cancer/?iid=hl-main-lede?xid=gonewsedit#ixzz1oRRVsFCH
http://www.forbes.com/sites/amywestervelt/2012/03/05/under-pressure-from-parents-advocacy-groups-campbells-goes-bpa-free/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2011/10/25/bpa-is-still-ok/
Another controversy brewing is the caramel color that gives cola soft drinks their brown color. The chemical, 4-methylimidazole (4-MI), is formed when the caramel color is manufactured. According the FDA, the levels found in soda are well below any concern. The FDA spokesman, Doug Karas stated "A consumer would have to consume well over a thousand cans of soda a day to reach the doses administered in the studies that have shown links to cancer in rodents”. However, the consumer watchdog group, Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), doesn’t agree. They have petitioned FDA to have 4-MI banned.
How do the risks associated with certain chemicals in our food stack up against non-food related risks? For the consumer, this question is difficult to answer. In evaluating the risk associated with a chemical, numerous studies are completed. The scientists issue reports and from these reports, numerous interpretations are made, including ones by industry associations, consumer advocacy groups, and government agencies. Then some of these interpretations make their way to the consumer, either through the mass media (TV, newsprint) or through social media (websites, blogs).
The studies that are conducted to determine risk are rarely perfect. Animal models, where large quantities are injected into small animals such as rats, are often used for toxicity determinations. With these, there is always a question of how realistic it is when compared to humans and their normal living conditions. When large scale human surveys are used to determine risk, it is often difficult to control all of the variables including what people eat, their daily habits, and their genetic makeup. In the end, we hope that conclusions that are drawn are done are unbiased and done in the best interest of the public.
Public opinion polls have been done that show that that is an increasing concern in the consumers’ perception of food hazards. The apparent lack of trust on these technical risk assessments and this can be linked to a number of factors. One is the stories that are reported in the news media and how they are reported. In addition to television and print news, many people now use the internet for their information. On the internet, we see the whole gamut of information, from the scientific studies themselves to the totally unscientific opinion pieces.
One of the primary fears that people have is cancer. Certainly past tragedies provide an underpinning for the public’s concern. Asbestos and tobacco are two examples of cancer related items that have received a high level of media coverage and have led to people being skeptical. So when a linkage is made between a chemical in food and cancer in the news or the media, it will get attention. The question of the level of risk, however, is often more difficult to discern.
How should one respond? First, consumers should inform themselves as best they can by using valid sources of information. It is also important to understand the bias of those providing the information, and try to obtain a balance in what is read. Remember that the information out there is rarely clear cut, so it is important for consumers to make a determination where they feel comfortable.
Links
http://healthland.time.com/2012/03/06/soda-wars-can-the-color-in-your-cola-give-your-cancer/?iid=hl-main-lede?xid=gonewsedit#ixzz1oRRVsFCH
http://www.forbes.com/sites/amywestervelt/2012/03/05/under-pressure-from-parents-advocacy-groups-campbells-goes-bpa-free/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2011/10/25/bpa-is-still-ok/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)