Flexible, Centralised, Decentralised & Local Solutions for Automation of Hygienic Processes
Burkert
Please fill in the box below to tell us why you feel the post breaks our rules. When you are finished, click on "Send" so that it can be reviewed by a moderator.
Spotlight
  Sirane pledges packaging solutions on back of Courtauld launchSirane has said it is already working on projects to help Courtauld 3 become a reality and... |
 New packaging line engineering firm can make “immediate impact”, says company presidentA new packaging line engineering firm can make an “immediate impact” on the market, according to the... |
 Acquisitions help Mondi defeat Europe malaisePackaging firm Mondi overcame weak European demand to post first quarter strong profit figures, boosted by recent acquisitions, and... |
 Packaging format preferences evaluated in studyPackaging format plays an important role in consumer choice when it comes to Iberian dry-cured ham according... |
 RPC targets processors eyeing packaging transitionRPC is capturing increasing numbers of food manufacturers that are switching to plastic packaging from other materials... |
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.
Posted by Don
07 June 2010 | 04h32