Is BPA safe or no? Gov't leaves consumers confused

0 comments

Posted on 29th October 2008 by Gordon Johnson in Uncategorized

, , , , , , , , ,

Date: 10/29/2008

By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) _ BPA — a chemical used in food containers — is so widespread that most people have traces of it in their bodies.

But health officials can’t decide if that’s a problem, or something we all can live with.

Bisphenol A is useful for hardening plastics to make all sorts of consumer products, from CDs to baby bottles. And the canning industry uses it for coatings that prevent leaks and bacterial contamination in metal food containers.

Some scientists are concerned that BPA could be harmful, since it mimics some of the effects of a powerful hormone, estrogen. Infants may be particularly vulnerable because their bodies are developing and cannot eliminate the chemical as quickly.

Earlier this year, the Food and Drug Administration issued a scientific assessment that BPA is safe and asked independent scientists to review its conclusion. That report — made public Tuesday — found that the FDA’s science was badly flawed. The FDA did not consider all the evidence and its margin of safety for human exposure to BPA could be off by a factor of ten times or more, the outside scientists said.

While the experts sort out the issue, what are the options for worried consumers? Here are some questions and answers:

Q: It sounds like BPA is everywhere, how can people avoid it?

A: “Get to know your plastics,” says Urvashi Rangan, a senior scientist with Consumers Union, which publishes Consumer Reports. Avoid polycarbonate plastic containers, those imprinted with the recycling number “7” and the letters “PC.” Don’t microwave foods in these containers. Don’t use polycarbonate plastic baby bottles. Consider powdered infant formula instead of liquid formula in cans. Cut down on canned foods.

“If you the consumer want to take matters into your own hands while the science is being sorted out here, those are the things you can do that will directly reduce your level of exposure to BPA,” said Rangan.

One thing mothers should not do is stop giving their infants proper nutrition because of fears about BPA, says acting Surgeon General Steven Galson. “While the best source of nutrition for babies is the mother’s breast milk, infant formula remains the recommended alternative when breast milk is not an option,” he said.

Q: Wait a minute, aren’t some people overreacting here? Has anybody died from BPA?

A: No direct cause-and-effect relationship has been established to show that exposure to small amounts of BPA harms people.

But many scientific studies have raised that possibility, and some government scientists believe it should not be dismissed lightly. Chemical exposures that cause harm over a long time are hard to detect.

The National Toxicology Program conducted its own BPA assessment earlier this year, and differed with the FDA. The toxicology program found “some concern” for BPA effects on the brain, behavior and prostate gland in fetuses, infants and children at current exposure levels. “Some concern” is right in the middle of the toxicologists’ five-level scale for ranking the possible harmful effects of chemicals.

The independent panel that reviewed the FDA’s assessment said the agency needs to go back and take a second look at several studies it earlier dismissed.

Q: What’s going to happen now?

A: On Friday, the FDA’s Science Board will meet to discuss the controversy in public. It was a subcommittee of the Science Board that issued the report criticizing FDA’s safety analysis. But FDA officials say it could take two to five years to complete additional research and reach a final conclusion.

If scientific evidence against BPA mounts and U.S. regulators don’t act, Congress may try to restrict some uses for the chemical.

“If FDA continues to dismiss independent scientific evaluations of BPA, correcting the issue legislatively is an option,” said Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., chairwoman of a committee with jurisdiction over the FDA budget.

Q: What would be the downside of just banning BPA altogether?

A: The canning industry thinks there would be unintended consequences. The chemical is used to make epoxy resins that coat and seal the inside of cans. That prevents leaks and keeps bacteria from contaminating the foods inside.

“Although we are looking for alternatives, they are not readily available, and there is no ‘drop-in’ replacement for these uses,” said John Rost, chairman of the North American Metal Packaging Alliance, a trade group. “Quick changes that have not been evaluated could impact the real safety issue: food poisoning.”

Short of a ban on all BPA in food containers, Canada has banned it in baby bottles as a precaution.

___

On the Net:

Scientific advisers report to the FDA: http://tinyurl.com/5mfmm7

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press.

FDA seeks advice to improve tracking of produce

0 comments

Posted on 17th October 2008 by Gordon Johnson in Uncategorized

, , , , , ,

Date: 10/16/2008 4:16 PM

By KEVIN FREKING
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) _ Prompted by this summer’s salmonella outbreak, the government has begun investigating how to quickly identify the source of contaminated food and stop it from getting to consumers.

At the first public hearing on the issue Thursday, representatives from the produce industry cited progress toward labeling on every case of fruit and vegetables that would make it easier to trace tainted food from the dinner table back to the farm.

Consumer advocates want more: marking individual tomatoes, heads of lettuce and other produce from an industry subject to 900 safety recalls over the past two years.

“We need better information going to the consumer so he can identify fruits and vegetables when it’s in his refrigerator and in his cabinet shelves,” said David Plunkett, senior staff attorney at the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

The salmonella outbreak that sickened at least 1,440 people exposed flaws in the nation’s food safety system. Government investigators found strong evidence to implicate jalapeno and serrano peppers, and a farm in Mexico, in the largest outbreak of foodborne illness in a decade. An earlier warning advised people against eating various kinds of tomatoes.

The Food and Drug Administration has asked companies and consumers to recommend ways to improve the tracing of produce throughout the distribution system. Agency officials said the large number of food recalls and food-borne illnesses of recent years is a sign that health officials are better at finding problems.

“We are going to see more of these (outbreaks) rather than fewer,” said Stephen Sundlof, director of the FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. “We just need to respond sooner when they do occur.”

One of the questions the FDA is asking is whether an identifier should be assigned to fresh produce, and if so, at what stage in the supply chain. The industry agrees with that concept, said Kathy Means of the Produce Marketing Association. She said it is in the industry’s best interest to quickly track problems.

“They have every incentive to want to do this,” Means said.

Means said each container of produce should contain a label with a bar code that would allow businesses and the FDA to immediately identify the owner of that product — from manufacturers to packers to retailers. She said individual companies have their own system for tracking products, but the system is not uniform. She also urged the agency to let the industry enact its plan rather than seek new federal rules. Some companies are ready to put in place the barcode system immediately while others have a long way to go.

“This is going to be hundreds of millions of dollars over a few years,” she said.

Some legal underpinnings for a national tracing system are in place.

A federal bioterrorism law requires food to be traced one step forward and one step back — who supplied it, and where it went — so that, in theory, regulators can follow the trail. Industry officials said they believed that law was sufficient to get companies to enact the kind of record keeping that would keep them in compliance with the law, but so far, they have heard of little enforcement by the government to ensure that companies were complying.

Sundlof said the law authorized the FDA to check whether businesses were complying only when health dangers had surfaced. He said on a few occasions this year when potential health problems were identified, the agency exercised its authority

___

On the Net:

Food and Drug Administration: http://www.fda.gov

Produce Marketing Association: http://www.pma.com/

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press.

More foods getting labeled as US or foreign-grown

0 comments

Posted on 30th September 2008 by Gordon Johnson in Uncategorized

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Date: 9/29/2008 2:34 PM

By LAURAN NEERGAARD
AP Medical Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) _ No more wondering where your hamburger came from, or where your lettuce and tomatoes were grown: Starting this week, shoppers will see lots more foods labeled with the country of origin.

It’s a law years in the making but timely, as China’s milk scandal and the recent salmonella-tainted Mexican peppers prompt growing concern over the safety of imported foods.

Still, hold the import-bashing: Numerous outbreaks in recent years have come from U.S.-produced foods, like spinach grown in California.

Until now, shoppers have had little clue where many everyday foods — meats, fresh fruits and vegetables, certain nuts — originate. That’s what the so-called COOL law, for country-of-origin labeling, changes.

Those who want to buy local — or who prefer, say, Chilean grapes and New Zealand lamb — can more easily exercise their purchasing power. Those worried about lax safety regulations in certain countries can avoid those imports. And the next time tomatoes are suspected of food poisoning, consumers may be able to tell investigators they bought only ones grown in a certain region, speeding the probe.

“We do see it as an important step on the road to a more comprehensive system for tracing food items” during outbreaks, says Caroline Smith DeWaal of the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

“It will be a very good thing because we’ll have a lot more information,” adds Jean Halloran of Consumers Union. But, “you can still be fooled by the COOL label.”

How? There are bunches of exceptions. Fresh strawberries get a label but not chocolate-covered ones. Raw peanuts? Label. Roasted ones? No label. Those popular pre-washed salad mixes? Sometimes.

Here are some common questions as shoppers navigate the change:

Q: What does the new law require?

A: That retailers notify customers of the country of origin — including the U.S. — of raw beef, veal, lamb, pork, chicken, goat, wild and farm-raised fish and shellfish, fresh or frozen fruits and vegetables, peanuts, pecans, macadamia nuts and whole ginseng. (The aim was big agricultural commodities; ginseng was added for fear of imports masquerading as U.S.-grown.)

Q: Where will I see the country of origin?

A: Anywhere it fits. The rubber band around asparagus; the plastic wrap on ground beef; the little sticker that says “Gala” on an apple. If a food isn’t normally sold in any packaging — such as a bin of fresh green beans or mushrooms — then the store must post a sign.

Q: Aren’t many foods already labeled?

A: Some fresh produce already uses origin labeling as advertising. “Fresh from Florida” or “Jersey Grown” or “Vidalia Onion” tags don’t have to be changed under the new rules; the shopper should realize they’re all U.S. products.

The COOL law mandating such labels first passed in 2002, but lobbying by grocery stores and large meatpackers led Congress to delay the U.S. Department of Agriculture from implementing it. Seafood labeling was phased in first, in 2005 — a key change given recurring safety problems with fish and shellfish from certain countries, including China.

Q: What’s the biggest exception?

A: The labels aren’t for processed foods, meaning no label if the food is cooked, or an ingredient in a bigger dish or otherwise substantially changed. So plain raw chicken must be labeled but not breaded chicken tenders. Raw pork chops are labeled, but not ham or bacon. Fresh or frozen peas get labeled, but not canned peas. Raw shelled pecans, but not a trail mix.

Q: What if the foods are merely mixed together?

A: They’re exempt, too. So cantaloupe slices from Guatemala get labeled. Mix in some Florida watermelon chunks, and no label. Frozen peas, labeled. Frozen peas and carrots, no label. As for bagged salads, USDA considers iceberg and Romaine to be just lettuce, so that bag gets a label. Add some radicchio? No label.

Q: Must all stores comply?

A: No. Meat and seafood sold in butcher shops and fish markets are exempt.

Q: What if companies buy food from various places — beef from both U.S. and Mexican ranchers, for instance?

A: That’s a bone of contention between large U.S. meat producers and smaller ranchers that produce exclusively U.S. animals. Tyson Fresh Meats, for instance, says it’s too expensive to separate which of its cattle came from which country. So in a July letter to customers, Tyson said it would label all beef “Product of the U.S., Canada or Mexico.” The National Farmers Union is protesting; USDA is considering the complaints.

Q: Aren’t country labels on some processed foods?

A: Yes, tariff regulations have long required that a food put into consumer-ready packaging abroad be labeled as an import; that doesn’t apply to bulk ingredients.

Q: When does the change take effect?

A: The law goes into effect Tuesday, although USDA won’t begin fining laggards until spring. Violations can bring a $1,000 penalty.

EDITOR’s NOTE — Lauran Neergaard covers health and medical issues for The Associated Press in Washington.

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press.
Summary