Is the Can Worse Than the Soda? 388
DevotedSkeptic sends this excerpt about research that found a correlation between the use of a common food-packaging chemical and obesity rates. "Since the 1960s, manufacturers have widely used the chemical bisphenol-A (BPA) in plastics and food packaging. Only recently, though, have scientists begun thoroughly looking into how the compound might affect human health—and what they've found has been a cause for concern. Starting in 2006, a series of studies, mostly in mice, indicated that the chemical might act as an endocrine disruptor (by mimicking the hormone estrogen), cause problems during development and potentially affect the reproductive system, reducing fertility. After a 2010 Food and Drug Administration report warned that the compound could pose an especially hazardous risk for fetuses, infants and young children, BPA-free water bottles and food containers started flying off the shelves. In July, the FDA banned the use of BPA in baby bottles and sippy cups, but the chemical is still present in aluminum cans, containers of baby formula and other packaging materials. Now comes another piece of data on a potential risk from BPA but in an area of health in which it has largely been overlooked: obesity. A study by researchers from New York University, published today in the Journal of the American Medical Association, looked at a sample of nearly 3,000 children and teens across the country and found a 'significant' link between the amount of BPA in their urine and the prevalence of obesity."
Amount in urine (Score:4, Interesting)
The studies that look at the mount of BPA in urine drive me crazy. They take a group of people, give them some food or liquid with BPA, then freak out when it's in their urine.
I'll let you in on a little secret here: humans have the ability to excrete BPA. Mice do not. All those studies that show health issues in mice from BPA ingestion are testing on creatures that cannot rid their bodies of the compound.
Re:Silly (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Silly (Score:5, Interesting)
Let's assume BPA is bad. The question is, is it worse than no BPA? The reasons cans are lined with plastic are to prevent botulism and to keep the contents from eating through the cans.
Really, though, there's no reason we need to keep doing this. Just switch everything back to glass. The occasional shattering bottle is probably less of a danger to society than the constant poisoning through food and drinks.
Not to mention, things just plain taste better when coming from a glass container.
/. audience to go get a can of your favorite soda, and a glass bottle of the same, and do your own taste test.
Yes, I know that's entirely anecdotal, but instead of having your normal, knee-jerk reaction of pointing out the obvious, I implore the
Re:Silly (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Amount in urine (Score:5, Interesting)
I googled something and found something that disputes your claim that
humans have the ability to excrete BPA. Mice do not.
http://healthandenvironmentonline.com/issue-archive/bpa-science-safety-1/ [healthande...online.com]
Slashdot: A mix between a peer review journal and "bum fights"
Re:Silly (Score:5, Interesting)
Up until the late 1970s cans had a corrosion-resistant liner made from wax. This was replaced by bpa-based lacquers - I worked for a coatings vendor at this time who watched their business disappear due to this shift. Wax coatings were sprayed in just before the product, the BPA finish went on at the coil plant or can maker. To some extent it just pushed the liability upstream. The coatings we made we resistant to pretty much everything outside of aromatic solvents and heat. Depressing to see that what replaced them leeched chemicals into the food. Guess this is our version of the roman lead cooking pots.
Re:Silly (Score:5, Interesting)