CONTACT:
Maureen
Swanson, Learning Disabilities Association of America, 724-813-9684
www.ToxicFoodCans.org
Two Out of
Three Food Cans Tested Have
Toxic BPA
in the Linings, New Report Says
Nearly 200
Cans Analyzed from Campbell’s,
Del Monte,
General Mills, Kroger, Albertsons and More
A new report
released today by six nonprofit organizations that tested nearly 200 food can
linings for the toxic chemical, Bisphenol A (BPA) found that two out of three
cans tested have the chemical in the lining. BPA is an endocrine-disrupting
chemical that negatively impacts our hormonal systems. Evidence suggests it may
contribute to a host of harmful health effects including breast and prostate
cancer, infertility, type-2 diabetes, obesity, asthma and learning and
attention problems. Other studies have demonstrated the capacity of BPA to
migrate into food and then into people, raising concerns about exposures to
low, but biologically relevant levels of BPA.
For the first
time ever, this report also identified the replacement materials for BPA in can
linings, and to what extent – if any -- their safety has been studied.
Buyer Beware:
Toxic BPA & Regrettable Substitutes in the Linings of Canned Food (#BPA #ToxicFoodCans) was
conceived and authored by the Breast Cancer
Fund; Campaign for
Healthier Solutions; Clean
Production Action; Ecology Center; Environmental Defence (Canada); and
Safer
Chemicals, Healthy Families’ Mind the Store campaign. (The full
report can be downloaded here.)
“The Learning
Disabilities Association of America urges food companies and grocery and dollar
stores to take swift action to protect consumers, and especially children, from
ingesting BPA from canned goods. This is a chemical that can disrupt brain
development even at low levels of exposure,” said LDA Board President Patricia
Lillie. LDA and its state affiliates across the country are members of the
campaigns that produced the report.
The report identified and analyzed the interior linings and lids of
canned foods containing vegetables, fruits, soups, broth, gravy, milks and
beans.
The findings
were alarming:
- 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. Upon learning about the
upcoming report, Campbell’s announced yesterday they are eliminating BPA
in North American cans by mid- 2017. While this is a step in the right
direction, report authors state the announcement left
out important details that we think would make this truly good news for
Campbell’s soup lovers.
- 71 percent of sample Del Monte cans (10
of 14) tested positive for BPA-based epoxy resins.
- 50 percent of sampled General Mills
cans (six 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 (including Randalls and Safeway), Dollar General,
Dollar Tree (including Family Dollar), Gordon Food Service, Kroger,
Loblaws, Meijer, Publix, Target, Trader Joe’s, and Walmart.
- BPA was found in
the majority of private-label canned goods tested at the two biggest
dedicated grocery retailers in the United States: Kroger and Albertsons
(Safeway). In private-label cans, 62 percent of the Kroger products sampled
(13 out of 21), and 50 percent of the Albertsons products sampled (eight
out of 16 from Albertsons, Randalls, Safeway) tested positive for
BPA-based epoxy resins.
- BPA was found in private-label cans
sold at both Target and Walmart, the largest grocery retailer in the
United States. In their private label products, 100 percent of Target cans
sampled (five out of five) and 88 percent of Walmart cans sampled (seven
out of eight) 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. This
is especially a problem because 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, 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. 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.
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 (including almost all 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.
Quotes from
the report authors:
“Most people in the United States are
exposed to BPA every day, largely from food packaging, despite the negative
health impacts. It shouldn’t be a buyer beware
situation for shoppers every time they set foot in the canned food aisle,” said
Janet Nudelman, director
of Program and Policy for the Breast Cancer Fund.
“Campbell’s and other major national brands need to get BPA out of food can
linings and fully disclose the identity and safety of any BPA alternatives
they’re using. Consumers deserve protection from the toxic effects of
this hormonally active chemical and the likelihood of exposure to unsafe toxic
alternatives.”
"Food
manufacturers refused to tell us what chemicals were in their cans, so we
reverse engineered and tested them ourselves," said Jeff Gearhart, MS, the Ecology Center’s HealthyStuff.org research
director. "Since they can’t hide these chemicals from consumers
anymore, perhaps they will be more motivated to use safer materials.”
"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.
"We found 62 percent of Kroger's cans in the investigation tested positive
for BPA. As the largest grocery chain in the country, Kroger should be
leading the way by developing a clear public timeframe for phasing out and
safely substituting BPA in all of their canned food."
"BPA-free
doesn't mean a can lining is safe, as the substitute could itself be harmful.
That is why we are asking companies to take the GreenScreen Challenge and work with us to demonstrate the chemical safety of their
can liners," said Clean Production
Action’s Beverley Thorpe, who helps companies understand the value of the GreenScreen®
for Safer Chemicals as
an essential tool for replacing toxic chemicals with safe alternatives.
”While some
families are fortunate to have access and means to purchase fresh produce, many
communities across America have no choice but to buy canned food lined with
toxic BPA,” said Jose Bravo, coordinator
of the Campaign for Healthier Solutions. “Some families, live in a food
desert where fresh food simply isn’t available, or they can only afford the
cheap food sold at dollar stores. These communities, people of color and
low-income families are already exposed to toxic chemicals more frequently and
at higher levels than the average American. The use of toxic BPA in canned
foods means that families will sit down to a double serving of harmful
chemicals.”
"The fact that many food cans contain
endocrine-disrupting BPA means that Canadians are likely eating food
contaminated with the hormone-mimicking chemical,” said Maggie MacDonald, Toxics Program manager with Environmental Defense.
“This is very disconcerting, as Canadians who rely on canned foods in their
diets are at continuous risk of developing serious health problems.”
#
# #
