Cosmetics: Untested and Unregulated

How many personal care products do you use daily? Few of us keep a tally, reaching regularly for soap, toothpaste, mouthwash, shampoo, conditioner, hairspray, deodorant, hand lotion, facial cleanser, fragrance, sunscreen, lip balm, acne cream, foot powder, or hand sanitizer. Men might add shaving cream, aftershave, or hair gel. Women might add facial moisturizer, makeup, powder, eyeliner, mascara, eye shadow, blush, lipstick, and nail polish. But then you need more chemicals to remove that makeup, eyeliner or nail polish. In addition, there are products to color, lighten and straighten your hair, or remove unwanted hair from your body. On average, Americans use between 9 to 15 products a day, applying over 126 different chemicals to their skin. I suspect many of us use even more than this on a daily basis, in an endless quest for lasting beauty and youth in a bottle.

In conversations, I’ve found that people tend to assume that such personal care products are tested for health and safety. Yet, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has absolutely no authority to review or approve cosmetic and skin care products–or even to require companies to test such products. In general, these products are NOT approved or tested before they go to market — one exception involves certain regulated color additives.

The $50 billion industry polices itself through the voluntary Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR) — which is funded by the industry’s trade association. In other words, it regulates itself. In fact, the CIR has evaluated fewer than 20% of cosmetic ingredients in widespread use. In its thirty year history, only eleven ingredients have been found unsafe; in any case, the findings of the CIR are not legally binding on companies; compliance is voluntary. Nearly 90% of the ingredients used in the manufacture of U.S. cosmetics have not been tested for safety.

More than 500 products sold in the U.S. contain ingredients currently banned in Canada, Japan or the European Union, which maintain stricter oversight. Many widely used personal care and beauty products contain phthalates, mercury, toluene, petroleum distillates, parabens and other chemicals that may be associated with increased risk of cancer, birth defects, or disruption of the reproductive system. Even small amounts used consistently over a lifetime can add up to substantial doses of potentially harmful chemicals. Unfortunately, the label “Natural” is no guarantee of ‘greenness’ or purity.

Of particular concern, lead has been consistently found in lipstick. Lead is a neurotoxin, associated with language and learning disabilities. According to a clarification on the FDA’s own website: “No, the FDA has not set limits for lead in cosmetics” — though it does regulate lead in color additives. Another class of potentially harmful chemicals: Phthalates. These industrial solvents are found in hair spray, nail polish, perfumes and deodorants. These chemicals (banned in Europe) are recognized as hormone disruptors, associated with damage to the liver, kidneys and reproductive systems.

These days, hand sanitizer is pushed at kids like candy. One advertisements read: Kills 99.99% of germs! Mothers carry bottles in their purses, smearing it over kids’ hands before a meal. Bottles sit next to my bank teller, store cashiers, even teacher’s desks. But in this case, the cure may be worse than the disease. What you’re getting with your dose of hand sanitizer is Triclosan, an antibacterial compound that is also found in toothpaste, face wash, and deodorant. The EPA registers it as a pesticide. The American Medical Association warns against triclosan, as it may encourage bacterial resistance to antibiotics. Triclosan is associated with liver and thyroid disfunction. In nature, it is toxic to aquatic wildlife. Humans have an immune system that has developed to deal with germs–not triclosan.

In addition, synthetic fragrances, found in shampoos, shaving creams, lotions, even “unscented” products are common allergans, associated with asthma attacks, contact dermatitis, thryoid disruption and immune system damage. In an independent investigation, “Not So Sexy: The Health Risks of Secret Chemicals in Fragrance. The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics tested fragrance products on the market. They found fourteen unlisted chemicals, claimed as trade secrets, ten substances associated with allergic reactions, and four hormone-disrupting chemicals.

These products do not just affect humans, for chemicals enter the environment, passed through urine, washed down the drain through hand washing or bathing, or when unused products are thrown into the trash. Traces of these PPCPs (Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products) are widely identified in waterways across the nation, affecting aquatic wildlife, such as amphibians and fish and birds, as these chemicals enter the food chain. More research is needed on the cumulative effects of PPCPs on the environment.

Too few of us take the time to read the labels — even on products we use daily. Propylene glycol, tocopheryl acetate, propylparaben, emulsifying wax, methylparaben, and petrolatum are a few of the chemicals in the hand lotion we smear on our skin. How can you find out what’s in your child’s toothpaste? How about your makeup? EWG, the Environmental Working Group maintains Skin Deep, a searchable database with safety profiles on cosmetics and skin care products, with listings for over 70,00 products. The Consumer’s Dictionary of Cosmetic Ingredients offers a compilation of chemical listings. Also see The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics.

A visual summary of the issue can be found in the graphic: Fatal Attraction: What’s really in your beauty products? See the video: What’s in your makeup?

A few hundred companies have signed the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics Business Network, pledging to eliminate harmful or toxic chemicals from personal care products. Legislative action is pending; The Safe Cosmetics Act of 2011 (H.R. 2359) would require full disclosure of ingredients and give the FDA authority to ensure that personal care products are free of harmful ingredients. There is increasing pressure for the FDA to regulate the use of nanotechnology in food and cosmetics. Nanomaterials in these products are currently unlabeled and untested, but there are indications that they enter the bloodstream when we ingest them — or through contact with skin.

The cosmetics industry generates immense profits off these products. Sales by L’Oreal, the world’s largest cosmetics company, topped $26 billion last year. They profit from our ignorance — while promoting unattainable (for most of us) levels of physical perfection and beauty.

We have a choice between dozens of types of shampoo and skin creams which offer to make our hair silky and our skin smooth, but we’re given little data on the decision that maters — basic safety.

Support companies that fully disclose chemicals in their products. We deserve to know.

School Lunches? Our Kids Deserve Better

Pizza, chicken tenders, fish sticks, hot dogs, French fries, tater tots, jello and chips are all too common staples served to U.S. students — resulting in school lunches that are consistently high in saturated fats and sodium. 34% of the calories in a typical school meal come from fat. When I first toured our local elementary school, the principal stated that a kid could conceivably choose to eat pizza every single day. Certainly some do.

Parents have ready access to information about what their kids are eating — most school districts now post menus online. For example, see a sample menu from the Chesterfield County Public Elementary School. For this particular week, on Monday, kids could pick between Hot Dog on a Bun, Chicken Fillet Sandwich, a Peanut Butter & Jelly Sandwich or Entree Salad. They could then select two additional add-ons from: potato, tossed salad, baby carrots, fruit or juice.

A study of 1000 Michigan sixth graders found that those who regularly ate school lunches were 29% more likely to be obese than their peers who brought home-made lunches. Of course there is no guaurantee that lunches brought from Mom and Dad are home-spun marvels: Pre-packaged “Lunchables,” potato chips and peanut butter and jelly sandwiches are laden in fats and salt. Children raised on the concept of fast food and “kid foods,” including Happy Meals, Fruit by the Foot, Dora the Explorer yogurt, Goldfish, and Scooby-Doo Macaroni & Cheese have acquired a persistent taste for salt, fat and sugar. Parents have an obvious role to play in modeling healthy eating.

The U.S. is behind the game. Other countries have already launched improvements to school lunches. Take a look at a visual comparison of U.S. lunches to those from around the world. South Korea’s selection of Mushroom soup, rice, egg, tofu, kimchi and bean sprouts look far healthier, but most likely not to the taste of a majority of American kids.

A recent infographic from the website GOOD compared school lunches with prison food. Guess which turned out to be superior? An average prison meal includes more protein and vegetables than a typical school meal. A school meal is even worse than fast food: McDonald’s tests their ground beef five to ten times more often than the USDA tests beef sent to school.

The first new nutritional standards in fifteen years are being imposed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, part of the Healthy, Hunger-free Kids Act of 2010. Unveiled in January, these measures would limit the caloric count of meals served – and add whole grains, fat-free or low-fat milk, as well as more variety in fruits and vegetables. New limits will restrict sodium, saturated fat and trans fats. Flavored skim milk will be on the menu – due to persistent lobbying by the dairy industry.

And yet, House Republicans are urging that such mild reforms be scaled back, claiming that the FDA is relying upon “soft sciences” rather than “hard science” to formulate such guidelines.  They also cite the burden of increased costs in an economic downturn. Let’s not politicize this issue: raising healthy kids doesn’t have to bring up fears of a “nanny state.”

The National School Lunch Program, created by President Harry Truman in 1946, is a federally-funded program to provide free or reduced-price meals to children from low-income families. For the 2009-10 school year, 31.6 million children participated on a daily basis.

Unfortunately, the lunch program is tied to another historic monstrosity: agricultural subsides. The U.S. government encourages over-production of dairy, corn and beef by subsidizing these industries. According to basic economic theory, a surplus would normally drive down prices. So the government buys these food surpluses and provides the products to schools. Note that very few of these subsides go to growers of broccoli or spinach.

One basic problem is that very few adults eat what our kids eat. In one district, an anonymous “Mrs. Q” committed to eating 162 school lunches. She blogged about it on Fed up with Lunch, describing her experiences consuming popcorn chicken, bagel dogs, applesauce, and red-colored ice. Pizza was typically served once a week. She noted that kids only had 20 minutes to eat lunch, so many kids began by eating dessert.

There have been many local attempts at innovation. School districts have experimented with food presentation, providing artfully-arrayed locally-grown fresh choices instead of processed food slapped on a tray. One school district used psychology to influence kids’ choices. renaming foods, such as “x-ray vision carrots” or “lean, mean green beans.”  Chef Alice Waters of Chez Panisse in Berkeley began the Edible Schoolyard Program, creating student-run farms where kids could grow what they ate. Josephine Lauer runs the Organic School Project to encourage healthy choices in Chicago schools. In California, the Golden Carrot program encourages alternative, sustainable nutrition in schools. Information and sample menus, including vegetarian options, can be found on this site from the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. Of course, gardens aren’t an option for a school in the inner city. Funding remains an obstacle for poorer districts, when budget cuts are requiring schools to cut back on basics.

So what can we do? A few simple measures:

1. Let kids create: Making your own salad is a lot more appealing than the same old green beans or chopped carrots.
2. Go with fresh instead of processed: crunchy carrot sticks or snap peas are more appealing than mushy canned peas. Provide apples over applesauce, cherries over red-flavored ice.
3. Let kids see where food comes from: many schools have had success with gardens, where kids tend tomato and zucchini plants. Kids are much more likely to eat what they’ve participated in growing. This doubles as a lesson in science and business.
4. Stop letting agricultural subsidies decide what’s on the menu. School lunches have a surfeit of high fat dairy products, corn and high fructose syrup.
5. Avoid fried and processed foods as much as possible. Challenge kids beyond the narrow range of so-called “kid foods.” Kids can learn to eat grilled chicken instead of popcorn chicken, roasted potatoes instead of french fries, baked zuccini instead of hot dog on a stick.
6. Try an international flair. This doesn’t mean cheesy nachos, but perhaps Thai coconut vegetables or Indian chicken curry. Pass out chop sticks instead of plastic forks to stimulate interest.
7. Have school officials eat with the kids. If principals and teachers ate the same foods as the students, they would most certainly demand improvements.

We can do better. Our children deserve better.

Over-Indulging our Sweet Tooth

Globally, the incidence of diabetes has more than doubled over the last three decades, according to a new study published in the medical journal, The Lancet, which correlated data on 2.7 million participants in 199 countries. The incidence of diabetes in 2008 was 347 million, up from 153 million in 1980. This is a stunning increase, with severe repercussions for the future of health care worldwide. No longer a problem limited to developed nations, diabetes is rapidly spreading to developing countries in Africa and Asia, as well as South America and the Middle East. Worldwide, 9.8% of men and 9.2% of women now suffer from diabetes – largely a result of shifts in diet, such as higher sugar intake and increased consumption of processed and ‘fast’ foods, coupled with a general trend toward a more sedentary lifestyle.

The average American consumes approximately 22 teaspoons of added sugar every day, which adds more than 320 calories to our daily diet. On average, 16% of Americans’ daily caloric intake comes from added sugar. One problem is that this added sugar generally substitutes for healthier more nutrient-dense, fiber-rich foods, which should form a larger part of our diet.

Sugar, or sucrose, is a carbohydrate which supplies a quick source of energy to the body. Sugar occurs naturally in plants and vegetables – it is the product of photosynthesis, by which plants convert the sun’s energy and carbon dioxide into food (and oxygen). Chemically, sucrose is a dissaccharide (a double sugar molecule), consisting of glucose linked to fructose.

Historically, people used natural sweeteners such as honey and molasses, as well as beet sugar and sugar cane. However, in processed foods sugar has largely been replaced by high fructose corn syrup, which is far cheaper as a result of substantial government subsidies encouraging overproduction of corn. A wide range of sugars are added to processed foods, including corn syrup, fructose, glucose, and maltose, as well as calorie-free sugar substitutes.

Added sugar intake is associated with obesity, tooth decay, high triglyceride blood levels, diabetes, gout and increased cardiovascular risk. The American Heart Association guidelines recommend limiting daily sugar intake to 9 teaspoons for men, 5 teaspoons for women, and 3 teaspoons for children. Note that one gram of sugar delivers about 4 calories.

A child would easily consume the recommended daily allowance merely by eating two oreo cookies for a snack or a single package of Quaker oatmeal for breakfast. A carton of fruit-flavored yogurt contains 19 grams of sugar (11 added), while a can of soda delivers 9 grams of added sugar. A one cup serving of baked beans contains an incredible 15 grams of added sugar. One cup of dried, sweetened cranberries will give you 25 grams of added sugar; and a single serving of sweetened lemonade contains 17 grams. Very few Americans manage to live within the recommended daily doses of sugar.

Added sugars in processed foods may be listed (or disguised) in the ingredients under a range of names such as:

Can your body tell the difference between added sugar and natural sugar? No, but natural sugars such as in honey and fruit are generally coupled with dietary fiber, nutrients and antioxidants, whereas added sugars are empty calories, often coupled with high fat content, as in a candy bar.

The problem is that we have tuned our ‘sweet tooth’ to ever higher levels of sugar, just as we have gotten used to increased intake of salty foods. What used to be a rare treat is now a key component of nearly every meal and snack, starting at a very young age. Americans’ sugar intake increased 19% between 1975 and 2005. This chart shows a corresponding increase in sugar consumption in Britain:

The easiest ways to cut back: skip sugar-sweetened drinks, such as sodas, as well as sweetened teas, fruit juices and lemonade. In general, limit consumption of candy and processed foods — and try to retrain your taste buds to appreciate the natural flavors of unsweetened foods.

Above all, we need to educate children about the health consequences of over-indulging in sugar. One summer, when I dropped my kids off to chess camp, the counselor rewarded them for being first to arrive (on time) by handing them pieces of candy. Sweets should not be a reward for doing what is expected. Nor should they be a regular finale to a healthy meal.

Otherwise, we’ll be facing a diabetes epidemic of global proportions.

My Plate: A Step up from the Pyramid?

Like most children of the sixties and seventies, I grew up with the Four Basic Food Groups, fairly simple guidelines to follow, though some mocked these as Frozen, Canned, Bagged and Bottled! Then along came the Food Pyramid, which suggested our meals should be built upon a solid foundation of bread, cereal, rice and grains — this may explain why we all ate way too many carbohydrates, contributing to our nation’s growing waistline.

Times change and the pyramid is out; My Plate is in. The USDA introduced a new educational tool to encourage healthy eating. The colorful dinner plate — an icon divided into food groups — makes it easier to envision meal portions, by allotting approximately one-half of the plate to fruit and vegetables. “This is a quick simple reminder for all of us to be more mindful of the foods we’re eating,” said Michelle Obama, introducing the new guidelines.

The Food Pyramid, released in 1992, recommended incorporating 6 to 11 servings of bread, rice and cereal into your daily diet, along with 3 to 5 servings of vegetables, 2 to 4 servings of fruit, 2 to 3 servings of meat and poultry, and 2 to 3 servings of dairy. First, who can possibly remember that? We were being asked to recall if we were on our seventh or eighth serving of bread. Second, what exactly is a serving — it’s obviously different for child versus an adult. The pyramid was just too confusing to translate into everyday usage. Everyone knew about the widely publicized pyramid, but few regularly tabulated the required numbers of servings, and incorporated them into daily meals.

An updated version, My Pyramid, added a staircase with runner to the pyramid’s side — a reminder that exercise is an important part of a healthy lifestyle. Colorful bands rose up from food groups arrayed along the base, to converge at the pyramid’s apex. This version provided even less visual help in planning a meal.

Yet, the food pyramid lives on – in visuals from the European Union and Japan. Canada uses a rainbow icon, employing different colored arcs to symbolize the four basic food groups, with grains making up the largest, outer sector and meat and fish the smallest, inner arc.

But let’s take a closer look at the classic Food Pyramid: it placed grains, bread, pasta and cereals at the base, forming the foundation of nutrition – the food group recommended to make up the majority of our diet. In contrast, vegetables take up the largest sector on the My Plate icon, making the new recommendations far more amenable to vegetarians and vegans. Guidelines also emphasize that at least half of grains should be whole grains, rather than the refined grains of white bread and processed foods.

And yet, there is a discrepancy with federal policy: the bulk of U.S. food subsides continue to encourage cultivation and over-production of corn, soybean, wheat, and rice — with some of that grain going to animal feed. As a result, these foods are under-priced compared to vegetables. These are also the foods that end up in school lunches and fast food menus.

My Plate allots slightly less than one fourth of a plate to protein. This is simpler to remember than measuring out 3 ounces of meat. Notice that the more general term, protein, is used – widening options to include nuts, tofu, seeds or beans. The tip of the pyramid, devoted to fats, oils and sugars has been eliminated. Few of us need reminders to incorporate only small quantities of these into our diet.

But why the cup labeled Dairy off to the side? Do we really need a glass of milk with each meal? For one thing, a substantial fraction of adults are unable to digest milk products. In addition, there are other ways to get dairy – from cheese, yogurt, and cottage cheese. Many green vegetables, such as spinach and broccoli, provide sufficient calcium. The reason is, no doubt, due to pressure from the dairy industry. The USDA site does recommend switching to fat-free or low-fat milk. And the USDA did stand up to the soda industry — recommending water instead of sugary drinks. Nevertheless, dairy products should be included with the protein group – they should not comprise a separate category.

In the end, what really matters: Will MyPlate encourage healthier eating? Food choices all too often come down to a matter of convenience and cost. Microwavable meals offer speed and convenience over home-cooked meals. Due to government subsidies, cereals and sodas are cheap and readily available. Fast food restaurants are more accessible than farmer’s markets to many busy families. The high fat, salt and sugar content of a hamburger, fries and soda contribute to heart problems and diabetes in the general population.

My Plate is an improvement over the Food Pyramid, easier to implement. Yet, it has to compete with ubiquitous ads, many aimed at kids, offering an enticing array of candy, sodas, snacks, and sugary cereals.

When the choice comes down to Tony the Tiger versus the USDA, Who do you think kids will listen to?

What’s really inside that dog?

Whether you call it a frankfurter, frank, wiener, wienerwurst, coney, foot long, red hot, pig in a blanket, or just dog — or dressed up as a chili dog, coney dog, bagel dog, Chicago dog, Puka dog, Dodger dog or slaw dog — the hot dog has long been a crowd-pleaser at ballgames and Fourth of July cookouts. The American Hot Dog and Sausage Council estimates that Americans eat over 7 billion dogs during the summer months. Not just in America: this slideshow illustrates hot dogs around the globe: in Argentina, dogs are eaten with chimichurri sauce; in Sweden they’re topped with mashed potatoes and lingonberry jam, and in Japan, they’re sliced and spread open to resemble an octopus, served with teriyaki and wasabi in bento boxes.

What are you getting in that foot long? I’ve heard people respond, with a shrug, “I’d rather not know.” There are a lot of popular misconceptions about what’s in a dog — you’re not eating ground-up chicken feathers or pig snouts, for example. A small quantity of pulverized bone? Quite possibly.

Standard hot dogs are made from a mix of pork, beef, chicken and/or turkey trimmings – consisting of pieces of raw skeletal muscle meat left over after cutting the choicer pork chops or steaks. The U.S. Department of Agriculture specifies that the meat used for hot dogs must be the same quality sold in grocery stores. If meat byproducts — such as livers, hearts, or kidneys — are used, the package must specify that it is made “with variety meats” or “with meat by-products.” Fillers, such as nonfat dry milk, cereal or soy protein are often added — they must also be listed in the ingredients. According to USDA standards, the finished product may not contain more than 30% fat. Finally, some dogs have a ‘casing’. If the casing is not the same species as the dog itself, that must be listed in the ingredients.

But it gets complicated when you consider how those meat trimmings are actually obtained. This process, called Advanced Meat Recovery, involves scraping and shaving the last races of edible meat from the bone. For beef, USDA regulations state that the bones must emerge intact from this process — they can not be pulverized or ground into the meat, due to fears of Mad Cow disease, bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE). That doesn’t mean there’s no ground up bone, but there is a legal upper limit to the calcium content in the processed meat.

Not so for poultry: chicken and turkey meats can be obtained by mechanical separation. This Mechanically Separated Meat (MSM) results from forcing chicken & turkey bones, with attached meat, into a high-pressure grinder and sieve to separate edible portions from bone. What comes out is a paste-like substance. According to federal regulations, hot dogs can contain no more than 20% mechanically separated pork — but any amount of mechanically separated chicken and turkey is acceptable in processed meat.

The process of manufacture begins with the cuttings ground into a hamburger-like paste, before adding processed chicken trimmings, food starch, salt, water, and flavorings such as ground mustard, with a touch of corn syrup for sweetness. In contrast, an all beef hot dog starts with lean meat, to which is added fat, a secret spice mix, and brown mustard.

The paste-like mixture is extruded into cellulose casing. Chains of linked hot dogs are then cured with liquid smoke, which contains salt and sodium nitrite. This adds flavor and increases the shelf life. The salt helps inhibit bacterial growth. The dogs are then sent to the ovens. After baking, they are chilled with salty water, and the casings stripped off, before packaging. The factory shown in the video above manufactures over 300,000 hot dogs an hour.

Sodium nitrite is used as a flavor enhancer, color enhancer and preservative — it also protects against clostridium botulinum, the bacteria that causes botulism. During digestion, sodium nitrite reacts with gastric acids in the stomach to form nitrosames, which are considered carcinogens – associated with cancer of with liver, esophageal and colorectal cancer. Note that other studies dispute this correlation. You can buy nitrite-free dogs (they tend to be browner in color), but you won’t eliminate nitrites from your diet. They are also found in vegetables, including spinach, celery and pumpkin.

How unhealthy is that dog? Consumption of processed meats, such as hot dogs, bacon, and sausage, is associated with a 42% increase in the risk of heart disease and 19% higher incidence of diabetes. You’re also getting a lot of fat and salt in that dog, as well as MSG. Your average hot dog contains 5-7 grams of protein, 13 g of fat, 450 mg sodium. Yet, there are low-fat and low-sodium options, as well as vegetarian tofu-dogs. With federally-imposed standards, the quality of meat is better than most people think, at least for the more expensive brands. Pay a bit extra to get an all meat dog, with no by-products. Kosher dogs are one guarantee of superior meat.

Hot dogs are one area where you definitely get what you pay for.

A Dash of BPA with those Canned Pork ‘n Beans?

If you regularly eat canned foods, then you’re most likely getting a daily dose of BPA. Many common processed foods contain trace residues of the chemical Bisphenol A, also known as BPA. Bisphenol A is an industrial organic chemical, with the formula: (CH₃)₂C(C₆H₅OH)₂.

It has been identified as an endocrine disruptor, which means that it can mimic the effects of hormones, such as estrogen, in the body.

Bisphenol A is widely used in the resin that lines the majority of food cans — to keep the contents from direct contact with metal. BPA is also found in polycarbonate plastic bottles, including water bottles and baby bottles, as well as plastic food storage containers, particularly those used for microwavable food. Traces of Bisphenol A are also found in the dental sealants used to coat the surfaces of children’s teeth.

A new study by Gregory Noonan, Luke Ackerman and Timothy Begley of the FDA Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition focused on the foods that are most widely consumed from cans, including peas, green beans, chili, pasta, tuna, sardines, and pork and beans. They found BPA residues in 90% of the canned foods they tested.

The lowest residues of BPA were found in peas (2.6 parts per billion), whereas higher residues (10 -80 parts per billion) were found for pork and beans, as well as chili. Canned tuna levels range from 5 to 17 ppb. Higher concentrations of BPA in food contents may be correlated with the more acidic, tomato-based foods, such as chili or tomato-based sauces in pork and beans.

Some companies, such as Healthy Choice, Hunt’s and Heinz have pledged to use BPA-free can linings, for at least some of their products.

The European Union voted in 2010 to ban BPA in baby bottles, while the U.S. Congress failed to approve such a ban. Many water bottles are now labeled “BPA-free. How do you know which plastics contain BPA? Plastics marked with recycling codes 3 and 7 are most likely to contain BPA, while those marked with codes  1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 are unlikely to contain BPA.

Bisphenol A has been around for a while. The chemical was first synthesized in the laboratory in 1891; it was used as a synthetic estrogen in the 1930s. Some of the health effects correlated with BPA include early onset puberty in females, cancer in laboratory animals, and increased incidence of obesity, as well as behavioral issues, such as attention deficit disorder. Note that a clear cause and effect has not yet been established for many of these health issues, yet it is worrisome, and worthy of more research.

How concerned should we be about health risks posed by BPA? The National Institute of Environmental Health Services clarified the level of threat posed by Bisphenol A, concluding that they have “some concern for effects of the brain, behavior, and prostate gland in fetuses, infants and children at current human exposures,” yet only minimal concern for early onset of puberty, and negligible concern for birth defects or reduced birth weight.

For more extensive information about heatlh concerns for Bisphenol A, see this extensive website, sponsored by the Polycarbonate/BPA Global Group, with links to recent scientific studies.