Industry reacts to Consumer Reports' BPA report

Consumer Reports’ recent article on the presence of Bisphenol A in canned food drew widespread interest after it was published this past week. It also quickly drew critical comments from industry groups representing companies that manufacture or use BPA, a chemical whose safety is currently being reassessed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

The groups took exception to some parts of the report that found nearly all of the 19 name-brand canned foods we tested contained this chemical, which is used in the linings of most food and beverage cans. They did not dispute the test findings of the BPA levels we measured in canned food. Rather, the discussion focused on our risk assessment of the effects of BPA, which was based on the scientific literature that has become available over the past 20 years.
 
Here’s a sampling of those reactions, along with a more detailed discussion of some of the research involved in the debate:
             
1. The American Chemistry Council issued a press release contending that our experts’ recommendations, which include calling for a ban on the use of BPA in all materials that come in contact with food, is “inconsistent with the conclusions of expert regulatory bodies worldwide, all of which have confirmed that BPA exposure levels are low and well within safety standards.”

That is exactly the issue. As our story makes clear, food safety experts at Consumers Union believe federal regulatory guidelines—which are the same as those set by the European Food Safety Authority—are outdated and fail to adequately protect consumers. The FDA’s own scientific advisory board also concluded that the agency’s assessment of BPA’s safety is inadequate. Hundreds of scientific studies have shown harm in animal studies from extremely low levels of BPA—levels that are ten to twenty thousand times lower than what the FDA considered as the basis of its safety assessment in 1988. And even some human studies show a link between elevated BPA levels and harmful effects such as diabetes and cardiovascular risk. Our test results show that consumers may be exposed to potentially harmful levels of BPA that could be reached through a few or multiple servings of the canned foods we tested.

Testing for BPA: Concern over canned foods

Consumer Reports recently tested a variety of canned foods to determine whether they contain Bisphenol A (BPA), a chemical used in the epoxy resin linings of most food and beverage cans. We found that even samples of canned food we tested from manufacturers who aim to reduce consumers’ BPA exposure by using non-epoxy based can linings had measurable amounts of the chemical.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration currently is reassessing what it considers a safe level of exposure to BPA, which some studies show is linked with increased risks of certain cancers, diabetes, reproductive abnormalities, and heart disease. Federal guidelines currently put the daily upper limit of exposure at 50 micrograms of BPA per kilogram of body weight. But that level is based on experiments done in the 1980s rather than hundreds of more recent animal and laboratory studies indicating that serious health risks could result from much lower doses of BPA.

Mounting scientific evidence of the chemical’s health risks prompted Eden Foods President and Chairman Michael Potter more than a decade ago to search for BPA-free cans for the canned foods produced by his Ann Arbor, Mich.-based natural foods company. In an interview with Consumer Reports, he explained that he eventually negotiated a deal with Ball Corp.—famous for its glass jars—to manufacture BPA-free cans starting in 1999 for Eden’s bean products, including chili. The inner coating of those cans is an oleo-based material originally known as “corn enamel,” which was commonly used in food can linings prior to the 1960s. That’s when epoxy resins took over the market because they helped extend shelf life without affecting flavor, according to Scott McCarty, spokesman for Ball Corp.

Potter says that finding a supplier of cans that weren’t lined with BPA-containing epoxy resin was a difficult and frustrating process. “I made hundreds of calls to can manufacturers trying to find out what was in their can linings and I always ended up talking to an attorney in the Beltway who informed me to my amazement that it was a trade secret and I had no right to know,” says Potter.

The Ball Corp. eventually agreed to produce custom runs of cans with oleo-based C-enamel linings for Eden. It’s also doing research to develop BPA-free can coatings that could work for more acidic foods such as fruit, which Eden now markets in glass containers. “It’s costing me 14 percent more for these BPA-free cans, but I said I have to do this because not only do I eat canned foods, but so do my kids and grandkids,” Potter says.

Even so, the samples of Eden Baked Beans in our tests were found to contain an average of one part per billion of BPA. That’s far below many other food products we tested, which ranged up to a high of 191 ppb for a single sample. The fact that the Eden Baked Beans we tested still had any measurable amounts of BPA—even though our tests confirmed the cans did not have epoxy-based linings—suggests that food can have multiple sources of exposure.

BPA is now one of the highest-volume chemicals in the world, with more than 100 tons released into the atmosphere per year. Various studies have found BPA in dust and water samples from around the world. This unavoidable environmental exposure makes it all the more important to eliminate the use of BPA in can linings and all materials that come in contact with food. Consumers Union is calling upon manufacturers and government regulators to do just that.

U.S. House passes Food Safety Enhancement

Last night, the House of Representatives passed the Food Safety Enhancement Act, legislation designed to give the FDA more authority and oversight over food producers.  The House approved the bill by a vote of 283 to142.

In a statement after the vote, President Barack Obama said the legislation was a “major step forward in modernizing our food-safety system and protecting Americans from food-borne illness.”

Jean Halloran, Consumers Union's Director of Food Policy Initiatives, said, "This bill will go a long way to prevent a repeat of deadly contaminations like the salmonella-laced peanut butter that caused hundreds of illnesses and nine deaths earlier this year.”

Consumers Union has long advocated for measures contained in the FSEA to improve food safety by giving the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) the authority to recall contaminated food, requiring FDA to inspect high-risk facilities at least every six months to a year, and enacting other critical reforms, citing the string of serious food-borne illnesses linked to peanut butter, spinach, peppers, and other common foods.

Ami Gadhia, policy counsel for Consumers Union, said, "This bill will make a fundamental difference in keeping our food safe and our families safe. This reform is long overdue, and we’re optimistic that the momentum is building for these changes to finally become law.  We commend the House leadership for taking action and finding common ground on food safety.  We hope the Senate will act promptly to pass a similarly strong bill after the recess.”

The U.S. Senate will likely give this legislation high priority once they return from summer recess.

- Don Mays

California panel decides not to list BPA as a toxin

It's rare that California doesn't set the bar for dealing with a health threat, but that's exactly what's happened. A California board of seven physicians and Ph.D.s voted unanimously last week not to include BPA as a developmental or reproductive toxin, saying there was not enough scientific evidence of the chemical's potential dangers.

Startling and disturbing, in light of the mounting evidence that BPA (bisphenol A, a chemical used in some plastic bottles and food containers) can mimic estrogen and may be linked to cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, reproductive abnormalities, and other health problems in children and adults.

Several jurisdictions have banned BPA in baby bottles and sippy cups, including Suffolk County, New York; the city of Chicago; and the state of Minnesota. Connecticut also recently banned BPA in reusable food and beverage containers, as well as infant formula and baby food cans and jars. In 2008, the Canadian government banned its use in baby bottles. And the California legislature itself is considering a bill that would ban BPA in baby bottles, sippy cups, infant formula containers, and baby food jars designed for children three and younger.

Although the Food and Drug Administration has reiterated its stance that BPA is safe for humans, the agency has since come under intense criticism from the scientific community, including its own Science Advisory Board. And the new FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg recently told a House panel that the agency will complete a full review of BPA by the end of the summer.

Almost a decade ago, Consumers Union was one of the first to test BPA in baby bottles, and to warn consumers about its potential dangers. Today, an array of groups, including consumer, health, environmental, medical, and scientific, have urged FDA to remove BPA from food and beverage containers, and at the very least, to protect the most vulnerable consumers, young children and pregnant women.

For more information on BPA, visit Consumer Reports' Greener Choices Web site.

This week in safety: Recalled foods that may be in your cupboard

This week's recall of nonfat dry milk didn't attract the headlines of such previous recalls as peanuts and pistachios but it was a major recall nonetheless. The recall notices for nonfat dry milk and related ingredients have been pouring in all week. It's a good idea to pay attention because you may not realize that the milk-based products can be an ingredient in gravy, popcorn, flavored drinks, cake mixes and other foodstuffs.

Earlier recalls of peanut and pistachio products have gotten scant notice lately but products containing those ingredients continue to be taken off grocery store shelves. We recommend that you take a moment to check your own shelves as well as the databases for all three of these major recalls.

• Nonfat dry milk
• Peanut products
• Pistachios

Toll House cookie recall
The recall of Toll House cookie dough also made more news this week when the investigation into the contamination turned up not one but three different strains of E. coli. According to the Washington Post, federal and state investigators found two different strains of E. coli bacteria in samples of recalled Nestle Toll House cookie dough, and neither matched the type that caused a national outbreak of illness. The Food and Drug Administration said that laboratory analysis of E. coli O157 found in a sample of cookie dough at Nestle's Danville, Va., plant did not match the strain that is believed to have sickened 72 people in Maryland, Virginia and 28 other states. The state of Minnesota reported that preliminary tests of a package of Nestle cookie dough taken from a household where two people were sickened by E. coli O157 showed that the product was contaminated with a third deadly strain of bacterium, E. coli O124.

We'll continue to keep an eye on all these recalls -- and you should too.

More safety news
Coming of age in the years of living dangerously
MSNBC.com
When Phyllis Murphy's mother was pregnant, back in the 1950s, her doctor advised her to take up smoking for relaxation. A few years later, that same mom smeared her toddler's skin with a concoction of baby oil and iodine for a deep, rich tan. Now, safely in adulthood, Murphy fondly recalls childhood as a time of leaping from rooftops and accumulating "more scars than Joan Rivers." Read more ...

"Boomeritis" hits aging athletes
Reuters
Fifty may be the new thirty, but baby boomers' bodies haven't heard the news. Orthopedic surgeons are seeing a "tidal wave" of 45- to 64-year-olds suffering from exercise-related injuries they've dubbed "boomeritis," said Dr. Ray Monto, a spokesman for the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons. Read more ...

The Simplicity recall is a ready-made story
Product Safety Letter
Oh yawn, another recall. As tragic as the potential consequences can be for failing to respond to a recall, that's probably the reaction not only of many consumers, but of many news reporters. With the CPSC handling over 500 recalls a year, it's easy to see why. But what might seem like a liability in a current recall might actually help gain attention to it. Read more ...

Faking it: Nothing phony about profits in the knock-off business
Long Island Business News
Trademark counterfeiting -- where a brand name is essentially  stolen and slapped on a cheaper and vastly inferior copy -- is big business. On Long Island, fakes are sold at nearly every flea market, in car washes, delis, mom-and-pop stores and at kiosks in the malls. Read more ...

Writers on the Range: An appeal to reduce the West's ATV carnage
The Denver Post
At least 24 people have been killed in all-terrain-vehicle accidents in the West since mid-March, the onset of warm riding weather. A 9-year-old girl in Arizona was among them. So were a 10-year-old boy in California, an off-duty sheriff's deputy in Utah, and 16-year-old girls in Wyoming and Arizona. Read more ...

Clearing the water: CPSC focuses on pool drain law
Product Safety Letter
The CPSC pointed news reporters and pool safety groups to an NBC Today Show segment about compliance problems with the Virginia Graeme Baker pool act, including an interview with CPSC Chairman Inez Tenenbaum. NBC also reports that some jurisdictions are implying that only the CPSC can enforce the law. The fact is that state attorneys general also have enforcement powers under the act. Read more ...

Don't miss these recalls

• 240,000 Intermatic in-wall electronic timers (shock hazard)
• 91,900 DesignWare sport balls (lead paint)
• 25,800 Ionic salt lamps (fire hazard)
• 8,200 Craftsman lawn tractors (loss of control)
• 3,200 pairs Charles David women's sample shoes (fall hazard) [Image above]
• 1,570 Dragonfly II mosquito traps and NightWatch bed bug monitors (laceration or burn hazard)
• 800 Polaris 2009 Assault model snowmobiles (loss of control)
• 700 Jaloma pacifiers (choking hazard)

Is tap water safer than bottled?

Score one for the green movement. For years as sales of bottled water climbed, environmental groups said it was likely less safe than tap water even without taking into consideration the impact on the enviroment. This week the government agreed. A study released by the General Accounting Office said that bottled water undergoes less scrutiny than tap water, which must meet a tougher safety standard. The GAO study found that the regulation of bottled water (under the Food and Drug Administration's Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) is less strict than the Environmental Protection Agency's regulation of tap water (under the Safe Drinking Water Act).

This news came during a House subcommittee hearing in which John Stephenson of the GAO told the House panel that when it comes to water, the FDA lacks the regulatory authority of the EPA.

In fact, bottled water makers are not required to disclose even as much information as your local municipality. If you live in a city of 10,000 residents or more, you probably receive a copy of a water report each year. The Safe Drinking Water Act requires that public water systems test tap water for various contaminants using certified laboratories and issue a water-quality report, called the consumer-confidence report (CCR), once a year.  (For particularly toxic contaminants, the SDWA requires results to be reported within 24 hours.)  The CCR summarizes local drinking water quality, information about the water source, levels of detected contaminants, whether any of the detected contaminants exceed federal levels, as well as information on the potential health effects of certain contaminants. (If you live in a smaller town, consult the EPA's Web site.)

In contrast, bottled water manufacturers don't have to use certified laboratories nor report the results of any water quality testing to the FDA, even if the contaminants exceed federal standards. The GAO study also found that only a small percentage of the 83 bottled water labels looked at, companies contacted, or company Web sites reviewed contained information comparable to that required of tap water.

In addition, SDWA has set standards for acceptable levels of the plasticizer DEHP (a chemical widely used in the manufacture of polyvinyl chloride plastics), which is an endocrine-disrupting compound banned in children's products.  The FDA, on the other hand, still has not set a standard for DEHP in bottled water.

In 2000, when Consumer Reports last tested bottled water, we found it to be safe when it met FDA standards.  There were some disturbing findings, however.  Eight of 10 five-gallon polycarbonate jugs we tested left residues of BPA, another endocrine disrupting chemical that we think should be banned from use in children's products, as some states have done.  All tested bottled water brands met the then-current EPA and FDA arsenic standard of 50 parts per billion (ppb), but two exceeded the EPA's new 10 ppb standard, effective in 2006.  We also reviewed 25 CCR reports and found that 22 of them reported some contaminants such as lead, chlorine and E. coli.  Indeed, some water samples from Boston had lead levels 45 times higher than the federal limit.

The bottom line is that bottled water is not necessarily safer than tap water.  We think that FDA should:

• Have bottled water standards as strict as the EPA's tap water standards;
• Require bottled water companies to provide the same information to consumers as required for drinking water; and
• Set a standard for DEHP.

In the meantime, we recommend that consumers get a copy of their local CCR to see what the water quality issues are in their area. (How to decipher the report.)   If you want to test your own tap water, try calling the EPA's Safe Drinking Water Hotline (800-426-4791) for the names of state-certified testing labs or for your local health authority, which might offer low- or no-cost test kits, or check the EPA's Web site for listings. 

Also testifying at the hearing was the president and CEO of the International Bottled Water Association who said that its code of practice for bottled water had testing and monitoring levels that exceeded FDA requirements. The IBWA followed up with a press release saying it was willing to work with the FDA to address the issues contained in the GAO report.  After the hearing, the House subcommittee sent letters to 13 bottled water companies requesting documents related to testing of bottled water and its sources, as well as lists of the names and locations of each company's water sources.-- Michael Hansen, Ph.D.

FDA recalls food and drinks that may contain tainted milk-based ingredients

Even if you're not a fan of nonfat dry milk you should pay attention to a number of recalls being made by the Food and Drug Administration because the tainted milk—or related milk products—can appear as an ingredient in foods you do like such as popcorn, hot cereal and cocoa.

Giant, Kroger, Meijer, Stop & Shop and other well-known retailers have recalled a variety of foods made over the past two years with ingredients provided by Plainview Milk Products Cooperative in Plainview, Minn., because they might be contaminated with salmonella. Malt-O-Meal has recalled instant oatmeal products sold under a number of brand names that may also contain ingredients from Plainview.

None of Plainview's products were sold directly to the public. Plainview provides instant nonfat dry milk, whey protein, fruit stabilizers and food thickening agents to distributors, who may distribute them further, and to manufacturers to use in their own branded products.

This recall is reminiscent of another recall in which ingredients were the culprit -- the recall of almost 4,000 peanut products made with peanuts and peanut paste distributed by the Peanut Corporation of America (search the recall database). Like the peanut recall and the subsequent recall of pistachios (664 recalled products), the Plainview recall is being classified as a "major" recall and features a growing database of products.

Some of the recent recalls include:

• Giant brand nonfat dry milk
• Land O Lakes “Madagascar Vanilla” cocoa
• Meijer brand instant nonfat dry milk
• Malt-O-Meal  “Maple & Brown Sugar Instant Oatmeal” sold under a variety of private labels
• CPI Foods brand nonfat dry milk
• NOW Foods products containing whey protein concentrate
• Stop & Shop brand nonfat dry milk
• Kroger brand popcorn seasoning

The recall follows an FDA investigation that found some Plainview processing equipment contaminated with salmonella. The investigation was sparked by a U.S. Department of Agriculture test that found a contaminated dairy shake powder produced by one of Plainview's customers, in "shelf-stable meal kits" distributed to consumers at home by community service organizations. So far, no illnesses have been associated with the dried-milk products.

Black & Decker recalls 670,000 coffeemakers because of burn hazard

After getting at least 10 reports of second-degree burns, Black & Decker today recalled 670,000 "Spacemaker" coffeemakers in the U.S. and Canada because the brew basket can shift out of alignment causing hot water to overflow. The company has received 282 reports of hot water overflowing including the burn incidents, according to the U.S. and Canadian recall notices.

The Spacemaker coffeemaker has an under-cabinet mount, programmable digital clock/timer, removable water reservoir, and either a 12-cup glass carafe or an 8-cup thermal carafe. Only model numbers ODC440, ODC440B, ODC450 and ODC460 are included in the recall. The model number is on the back of the coffeemaker.

Made in China, the coffeemakers were sold at major retailers nationwide, including K-Mart, Kohl’s, Target, Walmart, Bed, Bath & Beyond and Amazon.com, from March 2006 through March 2009 for between $60 and $80. In Canada, they were also sold at Canadian Tire, Home Hardware, London Drugs, Sears Canada and Zellers.

The distributor, Applica Consumer Products of Miramar, Fla. is asking consumers to stop using the coffeemakers and contact the company for a free replacement brew basket. Call Applica toll-free at (866) 668-4442 between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday or visit the firm's Web site at www.acprecall.com.

Viking recalls 45,000 built-in refrigerators

Imagine building your dream kitchen featuring a shiny built-in Viking refrigerator. Now imagine opening the door of that pricey appliance and having it fall off. That's what happened to at least 57 homeowners including four who suffered broken toes or fingers, bruises and strains. Others reported damage to their floors or countertops, according to the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

As a result, Viking today recalled 45,000 built-in side-by-side (48-inches wide) and bottom freezer (36-inches wide) units sold between July 1999 and April 2006 for $4,725 to $6,400. The refrigerators came in stainless steel and various colors and wood finishes.

Specifically, the screws attaching the pivot plate of the top hinge on the door may shear causing the door to detach from the hinge pivot plate and fall. The recall includes 21 different model numbers, which can be found on the recall notice. Viking owners can also go to the company's Web site and type in their model and serial numbers to see if their refrigerator is included in the recall. The model and serial numbers are located either behind the produce drawer or on the ceiling of the interior.

Consumers who own the refrigerators should contact Viking to schedule a free in-home repair. Homeowners are advised not to use the recalled units if the door isn’t sealing properly, is sagging, or fails to open and close properly. If the door is functioning properly, consumers may continue to use the refrigerator until it has been repaired.

For more information, contact Viking toll-free at (888) 345-2650 from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday or visit Viking's Web site at www.vikingrange.com.

Starbucks recalls 530,000 'Barista' coffee grinders

Starbucks today recalled 530,000 'Barista' blade coffee grinders because they can turn on unexpectedly or fail to turn off. Starbucks has gotten 176 reports of the grinders malfunctioning including three that resulted in hand lacerations when the grinders turned on unexpectedly during cleaning, the Consumer Product Safety Commission said.

The recall involves models in eight different colors from Starbucks and one brown metallic model branded Seattle's Best. Made by Tsann Kuen (Zhangzhou) Enterprises of China, the grinders were sold in Starbucks and Seattle’s Best coffee stores nationwide from March 2002 through March 2009 for about $30.

Starbucks is asking consumers to stop using the coffee grinders and to contact the company to receive a free replacement. Call Starbucks toll free at (866) 276-2950 between 9 a.m. and 9 p.m. MT or visit the company’s Web site at www.starbucks.com for more information.