Cans Bring BPA To Dinner, FDA Confirms

In the February 25 Issue:

Cans bring BPA to dinner, FDA confirms

The vast majority of tested U.S. canned goods were tainted

By Janet Raloff

Web edition : Wednesday, May 25th, 2011

Text Size

Federal chemists have confirmed what everyone had expected: that if a bisphenol-A-based resin is used to line most food cans, there’s a high likelihood the contents of those cans will contain at least traces of BPA. A hormone-mimicking compound, BPA is the monomer — or chemical building block — used in making the resin. Earlier studies had shown that this resin tends to shed BPA.

In their new paper, Gregory Noonan, Luke Ackerman and Timothy Begley of FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition in College Park, Md., acknowledge that BPA had turned up in the limited studies that had sought it out. But those studies had tended to look at a narrow range of products, such as baby food, infant formulas or soft drinks — or to have assayed foreign foods.

“It was clear that there were no large scale studies of the U.S. market,” they note, “and that there were significant data gaps for highly consumed canned foods, such as chili, pastas and pork and beans.” So they focused their survey on the most widely consumed U.S. canned goods.

In a paper that has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, the researchers now report finding BPA tainting 71 of the 78 canned goods they sampled — or slightly more than 90 percent. They also tested frozen green beans and peas that had been sold in plastic bags as a potential control. As expected, neither frozen veggie contained BPA.

The lowest concentration of BPA in canned foods — 2.6 parts per billion — occurred in a can of peas. But another can of the same vegetable contained BPA at 310 ppb. Tainting of green beans varied 30-fold (up to 730 ppb). Some foods, like pasta, pork and beans, chili, soups and fruits varied less, typically hosting BPA at levels of between 10 and 80 ppb.

Store brands were not necessarily more tainted than name brand products, the new data show, nor were organic foods reliably cleaner than conventional products. Bottom line, the FDA scientists observe: “There are few clear trends in the data.”

Moreover, they add, owing to the broad variation in concentrations witnessed here, comparing BPA data from overseas products to U.S. foods “is not overly informative.” Even over-the-border comparisons can be challenging. Canadian canned tuna hosted 9 to more than 500 ppb BPA, well in excess of the 4.5 to 17 ppb in U.S. tuna. The difference likely traces to the manufacturers’ use of different coatings.

Oh, and the new data show that BPA concentrations tend to be 10 fold higher in a canned food than in any liquid (like water or syrup) in which it had been packaged.

These data reinforce once again why freshly cooked foods are generally healthier. That said, fresh produce also tends to be much more expensive — which is precisely why canned foods are so popular in households on tight budgets. Indeed, I can't imagine how many gallons of BPA my family must have ingested throughout my childhood owing to my parents' propensity for stocking our larder with canned goods (literally, by the case) whenever they went on sale.

Print
|
Comment
|
|
|
Tweet
|

Found in: Environment, Food Science, Molecules, Science & Society and Technology

Share & Save

Comments 5

Please alert Science News to any inappropriate posts by clicking the REPORT SPAM link within the post. Comments will be reviewed before posting.

I hope this doesn't just lead to more hand-wringing. We now know that BPA is unsafe, so it should be banned for any application that exposes us to it. Are we so inept that we cannot come up with a natural can-liner?

We need to dump our plastic-everything mentality and return to using more benign materials. Here's a thought: GLASS containers! Wow! Glass is cheap, and as far as I know, relatively benign, unless of course you drop it on concrete and step on it with your bare feet. I am more than willing to trade the risk of a cut against the risk of any number of life-threatening health issues brought on by the unwarranted consumption of noxious materials.

Dr. Momus A. Morgus

May. 26, 2011 at 5:47pm
Dr. Morgus states the case well. There is no excuse for BPA in the human food supply. Glass containers with a large deposit to encourage recycling would do the job. Unless, of course, we can find a non-poisonous can-liner.

euonymous

May. 29, 2011 at 12:05pm
I don't like BPA, either. But this article fails, as most have, to point out that its presence in food in cans does not mean that it harms anyone.

Dr. Williams

May. 30, 2011 at 10:49am
Dr. Williams has a point -- but in response, it also does not mean that BPA is safe! The fact is, the Precautionary Principle should be followed, and we should not be expected to wait until this omnipresent substance is confirmed to is poisoning us! Put the burden of proof of its safety where it belongs: on the purveyors who make, distribute, license and use the stuff!
Goldie Caughlan

Goldie Caughlan

May. 31, 2011 at 6:19pm
if the article fails to point out the presence in foods, I certainly don't want to be the guinea pig in this science experiment.I would rather not take my chances, as other countries have already banned this.We have enough studies showing us that chemicals are harmful, so common sense tells me that a combination of all the different chemicals I get will lead to problems down the road. A 2005 study that studied umbilical cord blood samples found a total of 287 chemicals including two chemicals that were banned in the 1970s and other chemicals used in gasoline, garbage treatment, power plants, the production of flame-resistant products, plastics, Teflon, and wood preservatives. Just recently another study found Cry1Ab toxin(insecticidal proteins of GM crops which we were told breaks down in the gut of humans) was detected in 93 per cent and 80 per cent of maternal and fetal blood samples, respectively and in 69 per cent of tested blood samples from non-pregnant women.

susan n

Jun. 6, 2011 at 4:38pm

Registered readers are invited to post a comment. To encourage fruitful discussion, please keep your comments relevant, brief and courteous. Offensive, irrelevant, nonsensical and commercial posts will not be published. (All links will be removed from comments.)

You must register with Science News to add a comment. To log-in click here. To register as a new user, follow this link.