|

PORTLAND, Maine, March 30, 2016–Maine moms and doctors are voicing concern about the findings of a national report released ​today that show the results of testing nearly 200 cans of food for the presence of  the dangerous chemical Bisphenol A (BPA). The tests revealed BPA’s presence in the linings of two out of three cans of food distributed by popular national brands. Some of the cans tested were purchased in Maine grocery stores.

BPA is a hormone-disrupting chemical that strong science links to adverse health effects such as breast and prostate cancer, infertility, and learning and attention deficit disorders. Most people are exposed to BPA from dietary sources; prenatal exposure to BPA occurs when pregnant women consume canned foods. BPA easily migrates out of can linings, getting into food.

The report also identifies, for the first time, unsafe alternative chemicals found in BPA-free food cans.

Buyer Beware: Toxic BPA & Regrettable Substitutes in the Linings of Canned Food was conceived and authored by the Mind the Store campaign of Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, a Washington, D.C.-based coalition organization in which Maine’s Environmental Health Strategy Center is a lead partner, and other national organizations. Infographic, B-Roll & Social Media Graphics Available Here

“Years after BPA was banned in baby food packaging, most Maine families are still exposed to this hormone disruptor from canned foods,” said Mike Belliveau, executive director of the Environmental Health Strategy Center. “Lawmakers and industry leaders must take swifter action to eliminate BPA from our food supply.”

The report finds that 67% of cans tested still contain BPA in the liners, and 100% of leading food manufacturer Campbell’s cans contained BPA. The report also documented chemicals used as replacements for BPA, many of which were unsafe PVC-based substitutes, and others had chemicals which require more research to determine their safety.

In 2011, in the first action taken under Maine’s Kid Safe Products Act, BPA was banned in baby bottles and sippy cups over the objections of Governor Paul LePage. In 2013, the Environmental Health Strategy Center and Alliance for a Clean and Healthy Maine led a successful campaign to expand the phase-out of BPA to infant-formula cans and baby food jar lids. But the Maine Board of Environmental Protection stopped short of banning BPA in canned foods marketed to toddlers based on the opposition of the LePage Administration.

Three years later, this report verifies that canned foods are still a major source of exposure to BPA.

“I hope this report shows legislators that we haven’t finished the job on protecting Maine families from BPA in their food,” said Katie Mae Simpson, a Portland mom with two young children who supported the 2013 bill. “No matter how carefully we shop, there’s a chance parents are buying canned foods that contain chemicals linked to learning disabilities or cancer.”

Dr. Jenny Carwile, an epidemiologist living in Cape Elizabeth who testified in support of the phase-out of BPA in packaged foods, was the lead author of a 2011 Harvard University study showing that people who ate canned foods with BPA linings had significantly higher levels of BPA in their bodies afterwards. She was surprised to learn from the Buyer Beware report that so little had changed in the five years since her research was published.

“Taking BPA out of cans is an obvious way to reduce exposure to BPA” Dr. Carwile said. “Many consumers, including my family, would like to avoid BPA, and it is frustrating that BPA-free canned goods are still difficult to find. My son was born around the time we published our study showing higher BPA levels after consumption of canned foods. I didn’t think this would still be an issue when he was five years old, but it definitely is.” 

Dr. Daniel Oppenheim of Physicians for Social Responsibility, Maine Chapter, who specializes in endocrine disorders, stated his concern about the unsafe alternatives being used as BPA replacements.

“I have been troubled for many years by the inclusion of BPA in food packaging” said Dr. Oppenheim of the Physicians for Social Responsibility, Maine Chapter. “This report is worrisome not only because it shows that the majority of canned foods still contain BPA, but also because other chemicals, either untested or known to be linked to medical problems, have been substituted for BPA. The human body should not be the testing ground for chemicals.”

Priscilla Carothers, a Cumberland mom, has observed many of the companies producing these foods are changing to healthier ingredients, but wants to see them apply the same trends to their packaging.

“Clearly these food companies are trying to gain back consumer confidence, using fewer additives and less processed ingredients, but this report shows there’s still work to be done,” she said. “If they want my trust, these industry leaders need to take full responsibility for eliminating BPA from their linings and replacing it with a safe alternative.”

The report identified and analyzed the interior linings and lids of canned foods containing vegetables, fruits, soups, broth, gravy, milks, and beans.

Alarming findings in the new report include:

  • 100 percent of Campbell’s products sampled (15 of 15) contained BPA-based epoxy, while the company says they are making significant progress in its transition away from BPA.

  • 71 percent of sample Del Monte cans (10 of 14) tested positive for BPA-based epoxy resins.

  • 50 percent of sampled General Mills cans (6 of 12, including Progresso) tested positive for BPA.

  • Collectively, 62 percent of private-label, or generic food cans (71 out of 114) from retailers analyzed in the study tested positive for BPA-based epoxy resins, including Albertsons (which owns Shaws), Dollar General, Dollar Tree (including Family Dollar), Target, Trader Joe’s, and Walmart.

  • BPA was found in the private-label cans of both Target and Walmart. 100 percent of Target private-label cans sampled (5 of 5) and 88 percent of Walmart private-label cans sampled (7 of 8) tested positive for BPA-based epoxy resins.

  • Discount retailers (commonly known as “dollar stores”) were among the laggards in transitioning away from BPA in can linings. Testing revealed that 83 percent of Dollar Tree and Family Dollar private-label cans (five out of six) and 64 percent of Dollar General private-label cans (nine out of 14) were coated with BPA-based epoxy resins. Discount retailers are often the major retail outlet in low-income communities—which already face higher levels of BPA exposure. Broth and gravy cans were the most likely (100 percent of those sampled) to contain BPA in the can linings; corn and peas were the least likely category (41 percent of those sampled).

On the positive side:

  • Whole Foods has clearly adopted the strongest policy of the retailers surveyed in the report. Whole Foods reports that store brand buyers are not currently accepting any new canned items with BPA in the lining material.

  • Amy’s Kitchen, Annie’s Homegrown (recently acquired by General Mills), Hain Celestial Group, and ConAgra have fully transitioned away from BPA and have disclosed the BPA alternatives they’re using.

  • Eden Foods reported eliminating the use of BPA-based epoxy liners in 95 percent of its canned foods and stated that it is actively looking for alternatives.

What about the alternatives?

The report found that retailers and national brands that are phasing out BPA could be replacing it with regrettable substitutes. Identifying the safety of BPA alternatives is challenging, given the insufficient FDA review and approval of packaging additives and highly protected trade secrets in this product sector. However, the report found that:

  • Aside from BPA, four major coating types were identified among the 192 cans tested including: acrylic resins, oleoresin, polyester resins, and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) copolymers. There were multiple formulations of these compounds found, but no way to determine the specific chemicals used or how they are produced.  

  • 18 percent of retailers’ private-label foods and 36 percent of national brands were lined with a PVC-based copolymer that is made from highly hazardous chemicals including vinyl chloride, a known human carcinogen. PVC is considered a regrettable substitute.  

  • 33 percent of retailers’ private-label foods and 51 percent of national brands were lined with acrylic based polymers. Of the cans tested, 39 percent had a polystyrene-acrylic combination, of concern because styrene is considered a possible carcinogen.   

  • Much more research is needed to determine the safety of these compounds, and what may be migrating from the “alternative” can linings into food.

The report includes numerous recommendations including:

  • National brands, grocery stores, big box retailers and dollar stores should eliminate and safely substitute BPA from all food packaging and label all chemicals used in can liners.

  • In conjunction with the report release, advocates have launched a national online campaign calling on Kroger and Campbell’s to eliminate and safely substitute BPA. Congress should adopt comprehensive legislation to reform the FDA’s fatally flawed system for reviewing and approving the safety of packaging material.

  • Consumers should choose fresh or frozen foods, or only purchase canned food from manufacturers and retailers that fully disclose the identity and safety of their can linings. Look for food packaged in other materials such as glass and Tetra Pak containers.

“This new report should be a wake-up call for grocery and big box retailers across the nation,” said Mike Schade, Mind the Store campaign director with Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families. 

Buyer Beware: Toxic BPA & Regrettable Substitutes in the Linings of Canned Food (#BPA #ToxicFoodCans) was conceived and authored by Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families’ Mind the Store campaign–in which Maine’s Environmental Health Strategy Center is a partner, the Breast Cancer Fund; Campaign for Healthier Solutions; Clean Production Action; Ecology Center; and Environmental Defence (Canada). The full report can be downloaded at www.toxicfoodcans.org.