New Hope 360 Blog

Just because it’s BPA free doesn’t mean it’s safe


Many manufacturers have ousted BPA from product and packaging formulations, but what chemicals are they swapping in instead?

“BPA free” is quite the buzz claim these days, slapped on everything from soup cans to Camelbaks to pacifiers. And for good reason: Bisphenol A—a chemical used to create clear, hard plastics, as well as epoxy resins that line metal containers’ insides—is a known endocrine disruptor with potential neurological, reproductive and cancer-causing effects.

Currently, the Food and Drug Administration acknowledges BPA’s potential health ramifications, yet the agency wants more research to bolster these claims before it considers banning the chemical’s use in consumer products. Meanwhile, as the feds deliberate, several states have stepped in, enacting their own bans on the manufacture and sale of BPA-leaching children's goods on their respective soils. And as it often goes with assessing chemical toxicity, Canada is ahead of the curve, having declared BPA toxic, aka potentially harmful to health or the environment.

Regardless of U.S. government regulation, or lack thereof, all this anti-BPA banter has caught widespread consumer attention, and manufacturers now market BPA-free products like no tomorrow. And sure enough, consumer demand and manufacturer response is bouncing BPA out of the scene at a fairly rapid rate—which, quite frankly, is awesome and impressive and entirely indicative of consumers’ exponentially mounting power. But here’s where this victory dance slows from a boisterous boot-stomp to a sluggish heel-shuffle. 

BPA may be out, but which other chemicals are in? What are consumer goods manufacturers using in BPA’s place to firm up baby bottles, cast canteens and coat cans of beans? As Dominique Browning points out in a recent New York Times op-ed, some of BPA’s chemical cousins—bisphenol B, F and S, for instance—that are showing up in products may not be so sweet either. Some may even carry greater health risks than BPA.

So why are these alternatives deemed OK while BPA gets roasted? Simple. They’re newish and relatively untested and their ramifications are far from known or able to be accepted as fact. And then, even if a chemical seems safe now, its health problems might not surface for decades (My mom remembers her elementary school teachers telling students to be thankful that their school was chockfull of asbestos—yikes!). Therefore, it’ll be awhile before enough scrutiny sets in to put them up for FDA toxicity debate.  

So this all goes back to the innocent-until-proven-guilty mantra that permeates U.S. public health and safety regulations. Whether it’s personal care, food or children’s toys, ingredients that we have little clue about routinely touch our lives. Of course, we can’t protect ourselves entirely from every potential health saboteur, but we can do well by being skeptical of claims, diligent in research and aware of what’s out there.     

Discuss this Blog Entry 3

AC (not verified)
on May 12, 2011

I wholly agree with your point. Many manufacturers proudly claim BPA free without telling consumers what has replaced it and consumers seem to blindly go along without demanding proof that whatever has been used to replace BPA is harmless. It is crazy to beleive that any petroleum-based plastic food packaging is inert, especially if the package/food is heated during processing.
There are serious problems with current regulatory laws and requirements of the thousands of chemicals currently used in our food system - read more at try to stick with glass packaging, which is not only the most inert of all packaging materials but it is also the easiest to recycle making it the "greenest" of food package options.

Thanks so much for your excellent point, much more unbiased testing needs to done on theses chemicals before being allowed to be used in our food system.

Anon (not verified)
on Aug 10, 2011

Most people will catch on. The fact that more people are becoming ingredient aware will only lead them to read about more ingredients. Same thing with Nail Polish... just cause it's 3-Free (DBP, Formaldehyde, toulene) doesn't mean that everything else in it is safe either... it just means those 3 ingredients have been the most concern...

All of these products need to be tested for chemical out-put before they hit the shelves. There is no need for us to have to wait 5-10 years until an ingredient is assumed and proven harmful.

Aneta (not verified)
on Apr 4, 2012

Indeed, by now the methods for testing for residues of substances are so advanced, that we do not need to wait 5-10 years to find out if a replacer is safe or not. Of course in 10 years we will probably know more than today, as we certainly know today more than we knew 20 years ago.

Please or Register to post comments.

What's New Hope 360 Blog?

Your home for commentary from around the healthy lifestyle industry

Blog Archive

Sponsored Introduction Continue on to (or wait seconds) ×