I'm not a scientist, but the more I read, the more concerned I get about BPA, a chemical used in the plastic linings of 'tin' cans, and a host of other food and water containers. It seems that this chemical is now believed to cause significant and harmful hormonal changes in humans.

I think it is wise to have some long term storage of basic food, especially of beans and grains. I am now in the process of phasing out canned beans in favor of dry beans. The latest research seems to indicate that dry beans retain significant nutritional value for up to 30 years if stored properly.

Here is some info:

http://www.usdrybeans.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/BeanBriefs-Fall-2010.pdf

Also:

www.providentliving.org

Agree with Izzy. Another consideration is your stage of life. I consume a lot of things I wouldn't give my kids on a long term basis. I am not at all bothered by potential hormonal changes. Now let me see, where did I put my rouge and lipstick?

+1 Izzy

It's true that the media panic was way out of proportion to any possible risks. Still, there's nothing wrong with limiting exposure if you feel that's important. It will take some time for definitive studies on low-level exposure to come out. Meanwhile, I'll bet the coating manufacturers are looking for ways to reduce/remove this chemical from their products. They've been mostly under the radar so far, but the public perception is pretty well set in concrete. That puts their business at risk, and they know it.

Maintain vigilance.

"BPA is at unsafe levels in one out of every three cans of canned infant formula." (Consumers Union)

If you have a baby on canned formula, does that make you uneasy?

Always keep in mind that money really does talk. If Monsanto can control every negative report on its GMOs in the U.S., what about all the other companies with something to hide?

Sue

Sue,

I think that vigilance is a wise choice, as there is a growing body of evidence that some common chemicals including BPA are disruptive, and there are good alternatives (such as stainless steel) for portable water bottles. We tossed the plastic in the kitchen too, and now use only glass in the microwave.

We're finally begining to get human research on BPA and health. There are hundreds of studies that mention its effects in the lab or in animal experiments but very little research results in people. But that situation is slowly changing.

This article mentions a 2010 paper that confirms the authors' earlier analysis that higher BPA is associated with higher risk of heart disease. In this case, 33% higher risk. And we're not talking about unrealistic amounts of BPA but levels that normal people have in their daily lives.

The actual mechanism between BPA and heart disease is still unknown, so we can't say with any certainty that the BPA is causing the higher risk of heart disease yet, but these two analyses in two different sets of human data is pretty convincing evidence to me that there is something "there" there and that it is not some theoretical possbility that requires "drinking acid out of the bottle 24/7".

I originally came out defending BPA in my posts when the controversey first started. But since then, I have been progressively swayed the other way as more and more data piles up indicating possible harmful effects. So I think it is totally reasonable for people to be concerned about long term exposure to BPA based on what is currently known.

The other problem with BPA is the current paradigm for determing the "safe" level of BPA (the same system that sets limits for things like mercury and lead) doesn't really work for hormone-disrupting substances like BPA where smaller doses can be more harmful than larger ones, so it's going to take a long time for that system to catch up and change with the latest research.

Id rather be safe then sorry but Im sure fake sweeteners and diet zero calorie drinks are worse then the containers they are in.

To play the devil's advocate, the key statement in the article you linked states:
Patients with the highest levels of the endocrine disruptor in their urine carried a 33% increased risk of coronary heart disease, a follow-up analysis of National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data showed.

However, this is NOT proof that the two are related. It could just as easily be something about the lifestyle of the test participants lead to both increased BPA concentrations and higher heart risks. The fact that they refer to the molecule in question as "endocrine disruptor" suggests that they are already biased, especially since no where in the article do they give any proof that the molecule had any effects whatsoever on the endocrine system.

Every food contains toxins, every action has risks.

-Blast

Neither I nor the authors claimed that this analysis proves that BPA caused the increased risk of heart disease. By definition, this particular data set (NHANES) cannot answer that question so this particular objection is moot in this case.

There have been many interesting "findings" over the years that generated a lot of buzz. However, in many cases, no one has been able to reproduce those results. The fact that these researchers have been able to find the same result in two different sets of data a priori significantly reduces the chance that this association between BPA and heart disease is just coincidence. They also control for other likely risk factors in their analysis, thus attempting to remove the effects of those other risk factors that might be associated with both BPA and heart disease. And even after doing so, the association persists which seems to strongly imply that there is something going on here, although, yes, there is the possibility that it isn't actually the BPA causing the increased risk.

Reproducibility is just one step on the long road to gathering enough scientific consensus to support a new understanding of some process. As I mentioned, we're still just in the beginning phase of really starting to understand what BPA does or doesn't do using human data.


It is already accepted in the literature that BPA is among a class of biologically active chemicals called "endocrine disruptors". I have read negative studies that also refer to BPA as endocrine disruptors, so I don't consider it a sign of bias.