Without a doubt you recall the appropriately placed concern last year when it was revealed that Sigg bottles contained BPA, naturally a consumer alert was sounded and an appropriate inquiry began. We wrote about the issue last August and again in September when the company issued an apology. At the heart of the matter was not just the potential hazards of the situation but the way Sigg handled the situation and reacted with questionable merits. Less than a year later another new report that links numerous companies to harmful BPA might be just scratching the surface of an even bigger problem.

In the middle of May a report was released that showed the occurrence of BPA in canned goods was not tangible but that it was in truth common. How can this be when you consider the recent high profile of the risks associated with BPA?

Officially only Canada, Denmark, and a small portion (5 states) of the US have restricted the use of BPA in selected products such as baby and infant formula can linings.  At present numerous other countries and states are actively reviewing the implementation of BPA bans or at least restrictions and bans. This report provides new data about the amount of BPA that could be consumed from eating canned food and drinks
available in the U.S. and Canada, the reported data is not only bad news but the results have not improved. Test were conducted on the food and drinks contained in canned products purchased in 19 different US states in addition to Ontario, Canada. The report shows that BPA is routinely measurable in our canned foods, and while a single can is not cause for great alarm a continued pattern can lead  to levels that have been shown to cause health effects in developing fetuses in laboratory animal studies.

The biggest point to stress is that this wasn’t the occasional product tested, but that over 90% of the cans tested had detectable levels of BPA, with some showing higher levels than have been detected in previous studies. Nor is the report limiting the scope of the issue to one particular type of product as the tested goods included brand name (let me stress these were not generic or lower cost manufacturers) fish, fruits, vegetables, beans, soups, tomato products, sodas, and milks. Collectively these are products that sell by the million and are consumed on a daily basis by a very significant number of people. Trying to target the issue at present is a tricky business, unlike saying one brand of canned salmon from one specific maker poses potential risk – instead we are looking at most products of a huge variety are registering levels that are not acceptable.

“Canned food can play a significant role in contaminating people with BPA at levels linked to health problems in laboratory animals. The solution must be sustainable, non-toxic packaging“

State by state and international legislation is sure to follow, and a company by company damage control scenario can be expected as more tests are published. The products were purchased under normal circumstances from retailers or found in the home kitchen cabinets of different consumers. The full report ‘No Silver Lining’  has been published online and is available here. Rather than simply a whistle blowing report, the study shows just what is happening in the industry, what options can be used to replace BPA linings and who needs to act. It is not a problem that can be easily or rapidly fixed – but the report is very constructive as it looks at the part that retailers, manufacturers and government needs to play to reduce the danger of BPA from products in our shops and homes.

One can of DelMonte green beans had the highest levels of BPA ever found in canned food, at 1,140 parts per billion. This isn’t an isolated issue.