Come and join us for our 2 in 1 webinar!
3M Food Safety
However, the agency also pointed out that its results were “exploratory and should not be used to indicate the distribution of BPA in canned food products”. It added that its overall aim was to “limit human exposure to BPA to the greatest extent possible” by working with the food packaging sector to find out how the chemical migrates into food o food.
The body said its study of a range of canned tuna, soups, vegetable and tomato-based products from such companies as Campbell Canada, Loblaws, ConAgra and General Mills revealed only a low-level presence of BPA in the foodstuffs.
“The results of this survey confirm that exposure to BPA from canned food products is very low and poses no health or safety concerns to the general population,” said Health Canada.
BPA is used to make epoxy resins, which are used as protective linings on the inside of metal lids and containers.
Survey findings
Health Canada said it found BPA in almost all the 78 canned products tested. Canned tuna products had highest levels – with average and maximum BPA levels of 137 and 534 ng/g respectively. Canned soups had the second highest levels, with condensed soups exhibiting much higher levels that ready-to-eat varieties. Condensed soups had average and maximum BPA levels of 52 and 94 ng/g compared to 15 and 34 ng/g for RTE products.
Levels of the chemical in canned tomato paste products were found to be considerably lower. The average and maximum BPA levels for the tomato paste products were 1.1 and 2.1 ng/g, while they were 9.3 and 23 ng/g for the pure tomato products.
The body concluded that the average findings of BPA in the canned food products were consistent with those of past surveys and were not “considered to represent a human health concern”.
Industry response
The North American Metal Packaging Alliance (NAMPA) welcomed the survey results and said the findings confirmed industry research that BPA levels in metal-packaged foods are “negligible”.
“What is important about this latest survey from Health Canada is that once again, research conducted by a well respected international body has shown that the minute levels of BPA in canned foods do not represent any risk to consumers,” said NAMPA chairman Dr John M. Rost.
The industry group added that BPA-based epoxy linings are a vital food safety tool and no fully tested alternative had yet been found.
Last month, a report from National Working Group for Safe Markets (NWGSM) found an average level of 77 parts per billion (ppb) of BPA in canned food after testing 50 products. The highest level of the chemical - at 1,140 ppb - was detected in Del Monte French Style Green beans.
NAMPA dismissed the study on the grounds that the sample numbers were too small to be statistically significant and that the consumer group had failed to provide a complete picture to consumers.
6 comments (Comments are now closed)
ignorance an overreaction... ?
It disturbs me, that in the face of current cancer and hormone related disease rates, we have " educated " and "experienced" folks out there advocating synthetic molecules which have ANY level of risk associated with them, as safe for contaminating our food supply! Are we waiting for " conclusive" evidence so that we may be the industry's " rodent" ? Where is the benefit?
If BPA is "discarded" in the human digestive system, why is it found in human urine??.. and how then was it found in African Americans?? IS there evidence that shows the extent and limitations of the receptor sites that BPA binds and all possible long term human exposure effects??? It seems that there are many unanswered questions, and if anyone didn't run a background check, it was the plastics industry and Health agencies who approved BPA to be in contact with our food.
Report abuse
Posted by marco
15 June 2010 | 02h18
Ignorance
You people need to seriously educate yourselves and stop publishing naive statements formed out of speculation. BPA has NOT been proved to cause or have any correlation to a HUMAN disorder whether it being birth defects, cancerous tumors or affecting brain function. The only studies that have been preformed that show any result that displays risk are that of independent studies where Rodents are injected with highly saturated solutions of Bisphenol A (billions larger dosage than the suggested daily regulation, or any value present in canned food). This study is invalid not only because of the ridiculous dosage that manipulates the results, but the fact that the HUMAN digestive system discards BPA, unlike that of a rodent. Rodents conversely are very sensitive to estrogens (BPA is a derivative form of an estrogen), causing them to stimulate an especially powerful reaction to the chemical. The National Toxicology Program (NPT) asserted that the average amount of BPA found within a single can was approximately 57 μg/1. Meaning that in order to achieve the accepted consumption threshold and elicit any profound impact, an individual would need to consume 50 mg/kg bw/day; equivalent to the amount of BPA found in 14 million cans of food or beverage. With these dramatic proportions being physically impossible, there lies no legitimate risk with Bisphenol A consumption. So next time you claim something to be "absurd", i urge you try running a background check before voicing your inexperience on the subject matter.
Report abuse
Posted by Andrew Radlicz
14 June 2010 | 17h50
Overreaction
If 100's or 1000's parts per billion of an endocrine disruptor were "an actual health hazard", as Marco claims, then nobody should be eating any soy products, which contain significant amounts of phytoestrogens that are much stronger estrogen disruptors than BPA. And the same with bioflavanoids found in many fruits.
And with regard to "confirmed risks associated with heart disease and diabetes", there is no evidence that BPA actually CAUSES either condition. The statistical LINK to these conditions is more likely the result of particular diets, not BPA itself. In fact, the study found a much higher level of BPA in African-Americans, obese people, and lower income people, which is explained by diet. In fact, a followup study published by the same authors failed to find any statistical link to diabetes at all --- but the news media generally has ignored that study.
The other thing most people don't appreciate is that almost EVERYTHING you eat is a health hazard --- it all depends on HOW MUCH you're exposed to. Sugar is toxic in the sense that if you eat enough of it, you'll likely develop diabetes. There are safe levels of, say, vitamin E and there are unsafe levels. The whole science of toxicology is based on exposure limits -- and there are virtually no substances that do not have some level that is not safe for humans. So, it is not a matter of black and white, safe or not safe, but an issue of what EXPOSURE is safe or not safe. What the Canada study is saying is that the levels of BPA are so low that the human exposure at these levels is considered to be safe based on the pertinent, valid scientific studies.
So, if you're really concerned about trace levels in your food, then certainly you need to stop eating any tuna, canned or otherwise -- not because of the BPA but because of the trace mercury, which is more likely to affect your health than BPA. Yes, tuna has ppb levels of mercury -- and a lot of other fish you buy.
Report abuse
Posted by Don
07 June 2010 | 04h32
endocrine disruptor
BPA is a confirmed endocrine disruptor with confirmed risks associating it with heart disease and diabetes. I'm not sure how much human biochemical understanding Health Canada actually has? Because if they did understand human biochemistry they would certainly realize that 100's and 1000's of ppb (ppb = ng/ g) of an endocrine disruptor in daily servings of food is undoubtedly an actual health hazard, not even a risk. To say that BPA at these levels, "poses no health or safety concern" is completely irresponsible.
Report abuse
Posted by Marco
06 June 2010 | 02h01
Absurd.
So they found BPA in all of the food, and we know that BPA poses a health risk. Who decides what amount of it is not large enough to hurt you? Or your children? Or your unborn child? This is trash. We shouldn't have margins of tolerance for something we know is bad for us. Does that make ANY sense?! No it does not. Exercise zero tolerance for the products you know contain this substance, and show the food industry that it's exactly what we expect from them in return.
Report abuse
Posted by Frank
05 June 2010 | 04h10
Survey
How does a survey pass for longterm testing of the effects of chemicals in the human body. Why do we have more cancers in kid, more asthma in kids, if chemicals are in the body that don't belong there. they should not be put into the food chain. Hey lets take alittle bit of all the cemicals in our food chain and mix it in a class add a little water and see how meny ceo,s and lobbyist would drink it.
Report abuse
Posted by Bob
04 June 2010 | 18h39
Read all comments (6)