A quick follow up to my post on 2 March about Governor Patrick’s laudable effort to ban the sale of baby bottles and spill-proof cups made with the chemical Bisphenol-A, a substance viewed with “some concern” by the FDA for very young children, that has been declared a toxin in Canada and banned from such products — and the otherwise-excellent-in-many-respects Senator Benjamin Downing’s startling opposition to the measure (perhaps because he has a big chemical company in his district, or maybe because he thinks a long-term experiment on the health consequences of this substance using Massachusetts babies as the subjects is a reasonable economic trade-off — positions on legislation speak louder than carefully parsed statements — or perhaps for some other reason).
The bottom line is that this is worthy legislation that every Massachusetts Senator should support, and the chemical companies too, for that matter, unless they want to wind up as PR pariahs like the cigarette companies over the long run through opposition to this and other sensible health regulations.
CTV News and the Globe and Mail newspaper recently conducted a test on the amount of Bishphenol-A in common canned goods (it is used in can liners) and published their findings and responses from the companies involved today. Interesting reading.
joeltpatterson says
This is a good post with lots of links and info.
<
p>Gov. Patrick is right to ban this from baby bottles–it’s not worth the risk. Companies can lobby the Legislature against this, or they can get ahead of the issue and command greater market share.
stomv says
How many people drink the veg-juice form the pea and carrot can? How about the corn? Do you sop up all the baked bean goo? If not and the rightmost column represents the liquid only, it’s rather useless. Furthermore, is the concentration on or in the solids expected to be the same as in the liquids? In the case of peas and carrots, is the 430 ml just the liquid in the can or is that the volume of the liquid plus solid? If the latter, and if the density of BPA differs in solids and liquids, then the rightmost column is entirely useless for cans containing solids.
<
p>Campbell’s also pointed out that
<
p>
<
p>A mercury thermometer, unbroken, is perfectly safe. A mercury thermometer, broken, is a double danger — glass and mercury exposure. Sometimes we pull the product anyway, like thermometers. Other times we don’t.
<
p>If it were the case that a single exposure to BPA at the levels in the chart were dangerous, then heating the can to take a worst case scenario would make sense. If, however, BPA exposure has negative effects with repeated long term exposure, then extrapolating a worst case scenario to be every scenario, every day, for years is a bit nonsensical.
<
p>
<
p>In the mean time, if our neighbors to the north (or our neighbors proper) are worried about BPA in their two-four, just drink ’em outta glass bottles.
dhammer says
First off, when I’m enjoying my baked beans with a tonic, I always sop up the ‘goo’ with piece of bread from a can, toasted with raisins for me thanks, but that’s really besides the point.
<
p>I don’t know what a zoodle is, nor would I opt to eat a ‘meal replacement’ from a can, even if the President chose it, but besides that, almost all these products are solid and goo combos, so I’m not sure the first part of your post is valid.
More precisely, useless for cans containing solids in which the liquids are not regularly consumed – on this list, that’s only the peas and carrots.
<
p>As to your second point, I tend not to trust a company line, especially when it starts like this,
<
p>
The problem being, if kids are taking showers using shampoo, shower curtains, moisturizer and apple juice, the levels can get pretty high, pretty quickly.
stomv says
<
p>Firstly, it’s not just the peas and carrots — how about the canned corn? The tomatoes? You sop up all that baked bean goodness, but certainly not everybody does for the beans or the ravioli.
<
p>But there’s another problem which I mentioned and you ignore. They measure the amount in the liquid, and then assume an equal amount in the solids. That doesn’t make a damned bit of sense to me.
<
p>
<
p>As to my second point, I’m well aware of the aggregate, but that wasn’t where I had beef. My beef is the way they take the measurement — they heat up the can for 24 hours first. Is this reasonable? I dunno. It seems very much like a worst case analysis, which may or not be appropriate in cases of measuring the impact of long term exposure from multiple sources. The point of the blockquote was to emphasize that the test used a procedure (24 hours of heat exposure) which people don’t generally do with their tins.
daufiero says
I had read the many BPA-related posts and, after days of waiting for a password, which is totally understandable, completely forgot to go back and post what I wanted to post. The proposed BPA ban is not, in fact, legislation. The Governor did not go through the Legislature to get their approval; he told the DPH to begin the regulatory procees toward implementing a ban on SOME products containing BPA. Though this is a good step, I think ONE reason Sen. Downing (and perhaps other legislators) see this as “unfortunate” is that he is sidestepping legislation already awaiting approval by committees that would ban BPA, that would require companies to use safer alternatives when available, and that would enhance the Toxic Use Reductions Act. (Yes, Sen. Downing has a SABIC plant in his district, but in his defense it is the company’s WORLDWIDE HQ. That would be a tough loss.)
<
p>I’m with pretty much everyone outside of the plastics and manufacturing companies; BPA is unsafe and there needs to be a sea change in the way we look at product distribution. Massachusetts would not be the first state to have a limited ban (Minnesota claims that), but the entirity of the Legislature is moving toward making MA a greener state by forcing companies to reduce their use of toxic chemicals. This looks to me like political posturing on the part of Patrick (the Governor vs. the Legislature, the “I’m trying to get things done and they just want to take six week holiday breaks” kind of posturing) in an election year. If you think the DPH is going to draft acceptable regs in any kind of timely manner you are almost certainly mistaken; after the public comment process we might wait many more months for revised draft regulations.
stomv says
<
p>I don’t see it as sidestepping at all. I think the Gov recognizes that the legislation that’s before committee may not make it out whole, if it makes it out at all. He’s got the authority to regulate, so he’s getting something done while waiting for the legislative process to work itself out. What’s wrong with that?
bob-neer says
If the legislature can get its BPA ban passed before the new regulations, terrific. If the new regulations go into force and the legislation comes later, that also is a step forward. Who cares who gets credit: that’s just infantile politics, and I certainly hope that was not the basis for Senator Downing’s statements. He certainly hasn’t mentioned that as an issue in his postings here.
<
p>Regulations versus legislation noted: thanks also for the very helpful additional details.
<
p>The point is to get this “concerning” chemical away from our little kids before it hurts them. Actually, the chemical companies should be more concerned about that then anyone else, lest they invite even more lawsuits than they already suffer.
stomv says
bob-neer says
đŸ™‚
stomv says
daufiero says
I hope. And to his credit, the Governor has people talking about BPA now.
georgiasmom says
BPA is also in the stuff dentists paint on kids teeth to protect them from tooth decay. Personally for my kid a couple of fillings is preferable to the things I have read BPA can cause. Most people focus on the plastic bottles and toys and there is much out there about the dental stuff and canned foods.