BPA: What’s Getting Missed?
Bisphenol-A, or BPA, has long been an incredible example of just how far chatter can run away from science. We even profiled the BPA “debate” as part of our War on (Food) Science series last year. This week is no different, with specious claims about BPA increasing the risk for cancer to obesity, diabetes, and ADD, plus a half-dozen other scary sounding things. It won’t surprise you to hear that those unsubstantiated claims aren’t science-based or helpful for our food safety. Bizarrely, this week also brought critiques of substitutes for BPA, which the same critics had long been pushing for, due to the unscientific rumors about BPA itself. Let’s dive into both. Should I be worried about BPA, or about BPA substitutes? (Hint: Neither, really) Dr. Henry Chin, PhD, an independent expert in food safety and food chemistry, demystifies it: “Since BPA doesn’t pose a risk, there is no scientifically valid reason for families to avoid BPA. All food packaging materials are safe and some food products are available in alternative packaging. There are no packaging materials that are ‘safer’ than BPA.” BPA? Safe and approved. Substitutes for BPA? Also safe and approved. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approves all food packaging materials as “food contact substances,” so all of these substitutes are in the same boat as BPA: The FDA confirms there is “sufficient scientific information to demonstrate that the use of these materials is safe.” BPA (and Substitutes): What’s the point? Let’s back up for a minute and talk about why BPA exists. BPA (or substitutes) are used in can liners. Without a liner, metal cans get corroded or punctured. That means that the food would get contaminated by the metal can and/or outside bacteria that can cause dangerous foodborne illness. It made a big difference […]
article