SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
FDA Keeps BPA in Food, Fails Public Health Again
'FDA should remove "responsible for protecting the public health" from its mission statement'
Mar 30, 2012
Today the Food and Drug Administration has announced that it will not take steps to bar bisphenol-A, or BPA, a known toxic chemical, from canned food and liquid infant formula containers.
Studies show that BPA leaches from epoxy linings of cans into food and drink, and resurfaces in breast milk, saliva, urine, amniotic fluid and umbilical cord blood; the contamination is linked to many health problems including birth defects.
Jane Houlihan, Senior Vice President for Research of the Environmental Working Group today stated, "The next decision the FDA should make is to remove 'responsible for protecting the public health' from its mission statement. It's false advertising. Allowing a chemical as toxic as BPA, and linked to so many serious health problems, to remain in food means the agency has veered dangerously off course."
* * *
FDA Keeps Toxic Plastic Chemical in Food, Infant Formula (Environmental Working Group):
Once again, the federal agency charged with protecting the public from tainted food has ignored a mountain of scientific research and decided to allow a toxic chemical to remain in food packaging.[...]
The FDA's decision comes five years since Environmental Working Group's groundbreaking 2007 study showed that leached from epoxy linings of cans into surrounding food and drink. EWG's tests showed the highest concentrations of the chemical, a synthetic estrogen, in canned soup, pasta and infant formula. [...]
The chemical has been associated with many health problems, including breast cancer, prostate cancer, insulin resistance, reproductive defects, diabetes and miscarriages.
"Pregnant women and new parents should no longer think FDA has their backs," said Houlihan.
FDA's decision comes just weeks after a landmark three-year study published by The Endocrine Society found low dose exposures to endocrine disrupting chemicals, including BPA, do produce significant, adverse health effects in people. The report rebuts the chemical and food industries' arguments that people are exposed to too little BPA to do harm.
"When the most populous state in the country, California, and the world's largest soup maker, Campbell's, are both taking steps to reduce BPA in people's diets, you'd think the FDA would join in," said Houlihan. "The FDA and chemical industry lobbyists may soon be the only ones left to defend the use of this synthetic hormone in food containers."
* * *
FDA Rejects Call to Ban BPA from Food Packaging (Associated Press):
The Food and Drug Administration has rejected a petition from environmentalists that would have banned the plastic-hardening chemical bisphenol-A from all food and drink packaging, including plastic bottles and canned food [...]
About 90 percent of Americans have traces of BPA in their bodies, mainly because it leaches out of bottles, canned food and other food containers.
Some scientists believe exposure to BPA can harm the reproductive and nervous systems, particularly in babies and small children, potentially leading to cancer and other diseases. They point to results from dozens of BPA studies in rodents and other animals. [...]
Many companies have already responded to consumer demand by removing BPA from their products. In 2008, Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and Toys "R'' Us said they began phasing out bottles, sippy cups and other children's items containing BPA. By the end of 2009, the six leading makers of baby bottles in the U.S. went BPA-free. Earlier this month Campbell's Soup said it would begin removing BPA from its most popular soups, though it did not set a time frame.
But the vast majority of canned goods in the U.S. are still sealed with resin that contains BPA to prevent contamination and spoiling. Canned food manufacturers have used the chemicals since the 1950s, and the practice is approved by the FDA.
# # #
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Today the Food and Drug Administration has announced that it will not take steps to bar bisphenol-A, or BPA, a known toxic chemical, from canned food and liquid infant formula containers.
Studies show that BPA leaches from epoxy linings of cans into food and drink, and resurfaces in breast milk, saliva, urine, amniotic fluid and umbilical cord blood; the contamination is linked to many health problems including birth defects.
Jane Houlihan, Senior Vice President for Research of the Environmental Working Group today stated, "The next decision the FDA should make is to remove 'responsible for protecting the public health' from its mission statement. It's false advertising. Allowing a chemical as toxic as BPA, and linked to so many serious health problems, to remain in food means the agency has veered dangerously off course."
* * *
FDA Keeps Toxic Plastic Chemical in Food, Infant Formula (Environmental Working Group):
Once again, the federal agency charged with protecting the public from tainted food has ignored a mountain of scientific research and decided to allow a toxic chemical to remain in food packaging.[...]
The FDA's decision comes five years since Environmental Working Group's groundbreaking 2007 study showed that leached from epoxy linings of cans into surrounding food and drink. EWG's tests showed the highest concentrations of the chemical, a synthetic estrogen, in canned soup, pasta and infant formula. [...]
The chemical has been associated with many health problems, including breast cancer, prostate cancer, insulin resistance, reproductive defects, diabetes and miscarriages.
"Pregnant women and new parents should no longer think FDA has their backs," said Houlihan.
FDA's decision comes just weeks after a landmark three-year study published by The Endocrine Society found low dose exposures to endocrine disrupting chemicals, including BPA, do produce significant, adverse health effects in people. The report rebuts the chemical and food industries' arguments that people are exposed to too little BPA to do harm.
"When the most populous state in the country, California, and the world's largest soup maker, Campbell's, are both taking steps to reduce BPA in people's diets, you'd think the FDA would join in," said Houlihan. "The FDA and chemical industry lobbyists may soon be the only ones left to defend the use of this synthetic hormone in food containers."
* * *
FDA Rejects Call to Ban BPA from Food Packaging (Associated Press):
The Food and Drug Administration has rejected a petition from environmentalists that would have banned the plastic-hardening chemical bisphenol-A from all food and drink packaging, including plastic bottles and canned food [...]
About 90 percent of Americans have traces of BPA in their bodies, mainly because it leaches out of bottles, canned food and other food containers.
Some scientists believe exposure to BPA can harm the reproductive and nervous systems, particularly in babies and small children, potentially leading to cancer and other diseases. They point to results from dozens of BPA studies in rodents and other animals. [...]
Many companies have already responded to consumer demand by removing BPA from their products. In 2008, Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and Toys "R'' Us said they began phasing out bottles, sippy cups and other children's items containing BPA. By the end of 2009, the six leading makers of baby bottles in the U.S. went BPA-free. Earlier this month Campbell's Soup said it would begin removing BPA from its most popular soups, though it did not set a time frame.
But the vast majority of canned goods in the U.S. are still sealed with resin that contains BPA to prevent contamination and spoiling. Canned food manufacturers have used the chemicals since the 1950s, and the practice is approved by the FDA.
# # #
Today the Food and Drug Administration has announced that it will not take steps to bar bisphenol-A, or BPA, a known toxic chemical, from canned food and liquid infant formula containers.
Studies show that BPA leaches from epoxy linings of cans into food and drink, and resurfaces in breast milk, saliva, urine, amniotic fluid and umbilical cord blood; the contamination is linked to many health problems including birth defects.
Jane Houlihan, Senior Vice President for Research of the Environmental Working Group today stated, "The next decision the FDA should make is to remove 'responsible for protecting the public health' from its mission statement. It's false advertising. Allowing a chemical as toxic as BPA, and linked to so many serious health problems, to remain in food means the agency has veered dangerously off course."
* * *
FDA Keeps Toxic Plastic Chemical in Food, Infant Formula (Environmental Working Group):
Once again, the federal agency charged with protecting the public from tainted food has ignored a mountain of scientific research and decided to allow a toxic chemical to remain in food packaging.[...]
The FDA's decision comes five years since Environmental Working Group's groundbreaking 2007 study showed that leached from epoxy linings of cans into surrounding food and drink. EWG's tests showed the highest concentrations of the chemical, a synthetic estrogen, in canned soup, pasta and infant formula. [...]
The chemical has been associated with many health problems, including breast cancer, prostate cancer, insulin resistance, reproductive defects, diabetes and miscarriages.
"Pregnant women and new parents should no longer think FDA has their backs," said Houlihan.
FDA's decision comes just weeks after a landmark three-year study published by The Endocrine Society found low dose exposures to endocrine disrupting chemicals, including BPA, do produce significant, adverse health effects in people. The report rebuts the chemical and food industries' arguments that people are exposed to too little BPA to do harm.
"When the most populous state in the country, California, and the world's largest soup maker, Campbell's, are both taking steps to reduce BPA in people's diets, you'd think the FDA would join in," said Houlihan. "The FDA and chemical industry lobbyists may soon be the only ones left to defend the use of this synthetic hormone in food containers."
* * *
FDA Rejects Call to Ban BPA from Food Packaging (Associated Press):
The Food and Drug Administration has rejected a petition from environmentalists that would have banned the plastic-hardening chemical bisphenol-A from all food and drink packaging, including plastic bottles and canned food [...]
About 90 percent of Americans have traces of BPA in their bodies, mainly because it leaches out of bottles, canned food and other food containers.
Some scientists believe exposure to BPA can harm the reproductive and nervous systems, particularly in babies and small children, potentially leading to cancer and other diseases. They point to results from dozens of BPA studies in rodents and other animals. [...]
Many companies have already responded to consumer demand by removing BPA from their products. In 2008, Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and Toys "R'' Us said they began phasing out bottles, sippy cups and other children's items containing BPA. By the end of 2009, the six leading makers of baby bottles in the U.S. went BPA-free. Earlier this month Campbell's Soup said it would begin removing BPA from its most popular soups, though it did not set a time frame.
But the vast majority of canned goods in the U.S. are still sealed with resin that contains BPA to prevent contamination and spoiling. Canned food manufacturers have used the chemicals since the 1950s, and the practice is approved by the FDA.
# # #
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.