Inside Prevention

If the food's in plastic, what's in the food? (Washington Post, 4/16/2012)

A new article in the Washington Post about chemicals used in food packaging leads with a study published by the Breast Cancer Fund and Silent Spring Institute that demonstrated a significant dip in families' BPA and phthalate levels when they cut packaged food from their diets for just a few days. How common are these chemicals and what can be done to protect people from exposure?:

[S]cientists are beginning to piece together data about the ubiquity of chemicals in the food supply and the cumulative impact of chemicals at minute doses. What they’re finding has some health advocates worried.

This is “a huge issue, and no [regulator] is paying attention,” says Janet Nudelman, program and policy director at the Breast Cancer Fund, a nonprofit that focuses on the environmental causes of the disease. “It doesn’t make sense to regulate the safety of food and then put the food in an unsafe package.”

How common are these chemicals? Researchers have found traces of styrene, a likely carcinogen, in instant noodles sold in polystyrene cups. They’ve detected nonylphenol — an estrogen-mimicking chemical produced by the breakdown of antioxidants used in plastics — in apple juice and baby formula. They’ve found traces of other hormone-disrupting chemicals in various foods: fire retardants in butter, Teflon components in microwave popcorn, and dibutyltin — a heat stabilizer for polyvinyl chloride — in beer, margarine, mayonnaise, processed cheese and wine. They’ve found unidentified estrogenic substances leaching from plastic water bottles. (Read complete article.)

Learn more about chemicals linked to breast cancer that are found in food and food packaging.

FDA Won't Ban BPA Chemical in Packaging (ABC News, 3/30/12)

As we've been reporting, we've been waiting (and waiting) for the FDA to respond to a 2008 petition from the Natural Resources Defense Council to declare the toxic chemical BPA unsafe and ban it from food packaging. On the eve of the legal deadline, late this Friday afternoon, perhaps when the agency hoped for the least amount of media attention, the FDA announced it has rejected the petition. But the media is alert on this issue, and so are millions of concerned consumers.

This ABC story, which came out minutes after the announcement, explains:

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced today that it won't ban bisphenol A (BPA), the controversial chemical that is widely used in food packaging.

The agency rejected a petition by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) that called for a ban on BPA as an ingredient in food packaging saying in a statement the council didn't have the scientific data needed for the FDA to change current regulations on the chemical...

BPA has been under fire from advocacy groups including the NRDC and the Breast Cancer Fund. The groups claim there is ample evidence linking the chemical to health problems, particularly among fetuses, infants and young children. (Read the full story.)

Indeed, there is plenty of evidence showing harm--evidence that has been mounting for years and years. The public should be able to count on the FDA to take decisive action to protect everyone. The FDA needs to stop waiting for more and more evidence of harm and get BPA out of our food packaging.

Pressure increases on FDA to ban BPA from food packaging

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration must be feeling the pressure to do something about BPA pretty intensely right now. And right it should. As we wait for the agency to meet its March 31 deadline to respond to a petition by the Natural Resources Defense Fund to ban this toxic chemical linked to breast cancer from food packaging, today Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., added his own petitions to the FDA asking for a similar ban. This is the first time a member of Congress has used the FDA’s citizen petition process to pressure the FDA to take regulatory action, signaling a growing frustration on the part of policymakers and the public alike with the FDA’s failure to act on this critical public health issue.

The FDA’s inaction is in stark contrast to consumer and industry action. Last week, the Breast Cancer Fund’s Cans Not Cancer campaign publicized the fact that Campbell Soup Company will phase out the use of BPA in its can linings. Baby bottle and sports water bottle manufacturers abandoned BPA over the last few years. At the public policy level, 11 states have banned BPA from baby bottles and sippy cups, and three of those states have also banned it from infant formula and baby food.

The Breast Cancer Fund submitted a letter of support for Markey’s petitions, signed by organizations representing millions of concerned citizens who are saying loud and clear that it’s time the FDA get BPA out of all food packaging.

And you can make your voice heard today: tell the FDA to declare BPA in food packaging unsafe once and for all.

Under Pressure from Parents, Advocacy Groups, Campbell's Goes BPA-Free (Forbes, 3/5/12)

On Monday, we shared the news that our Cans Not Cancer campaign scored a huge victory: After months of pressure from our campaign, Campbell's Soup Company announced it will phase out the use of bisphenol A (BPA) in its can linings.

Amy Westervelt''s great story for Forbes, Responding to Consumer Concern, Campbell's Goes BPA-Free, says:

Back in September, the traditionally family-friendly Campbell's Soup brand was attracting attention from moms for all the wrong reasons: A report released by advocacy group Breast Cancer Fund found the company’s soup to have some of the highest BPA levels among a variety of canned foods it tested... BPA (bisphenol A), a commonly used additive in food packaging, mimics human estrogen and is thought by some health advocates to be harmful to health, while others maintain that it is perfectly safe. At the time, Campbell Soup Company spokesman Anthony Sanzio said the company was confident in the safety of its products. ”The overwhelming weight of scientific evidence shows that the use of BPA in can lining poses no threat to human health,” he said. “That being said, we understand that consumers may have concerns about it. We’re very aware of the debate and we’re watching it intently.” (Read the full article.)

The victory was also covered by other news outlets, including:

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Campbell's to end use of BPA in can linings

Discovery News: Campbell's to Phase Out BPA

Consumer Affairs: Campbell's Will Phase Out BPA From Soup Cans

Treehugger: Campbell's Says It's Heading BPA-Free

Grist: Campbell's to ditch BPA from soup cans

Campbell's announcement is is a victory for consumer health and safety, but the company still needs to provide consumers with a clear timeline for its transition away from BPA and proof that any alternative can-lining material is safe. Tell Campbell's CEO that you want to see the company’s words turn into real action to make its products safer. Take action!

Campbell's to phase out BPA from canned food

Great news! With your support over the past nine months, our Cans Not Cancer campaign has generated thousands of letters, calls, Facebook posts and Tweets demanding that Campbell Soup Company get toxic BPA out of its canned food. Well, the comany told us that's exactly what it plans to do! But this isn't over: Campbells still needs to provide consumers with a a clear timeline for its transition away from BPA and proof that any alternative can-lining material is safe.

Read our press release and stay tuned for our action alert.

Five Things You Should Know About Environmental Links to Breast Cancer (Forbes, 12/7/2011)

Amy Westervelt's article on Forbes.com does a great job of parsing through the intricacies of the Institute of Medicine's new report, Breast Cancer and the Environment: A Life Course Approach. Here's an excerpt, including a quote from our president and CEO, Jeanne Rizzo:

In the absence of clear advice from the IOM, consumers might want to consider reducing their exposure to these chemicals. “The failure to take a precautionary approach may leave the public confused and even misinformed, as is evidenced by some of the initial media headlines about the report that say that chemicals are unproven to raise breast cancer risk, when the report itself indicated there are plausible reasons for concern,” Rizzo says.

Read the full article and share it with your networks or submit a comment.

New (yet not so new) report on breast cancer and the environment

Today the Institute of Medicine released a report, funded by Komen for the Cure, entitled Breast Cancer and the Environment: A Life Course Approach. Our President and CEO, Jeanne Rizzo, responded to the report:

The Breast Cancer Fund has reviewed the Institute of Medicine’s new report Breast Cancer and the Environment, and our takeaway is that while it offers a useful review of some of the existing data on the disease’s links to environmental factors, it relies on an antiquated model of weighing the evidence and, therefore, does not go far enough to protect public health.(Read Jeanne's full statemet.)

Unfortunately, the report did not go far enough in its warning about the potential harm of chemical exposure. For example, the report finds that the chemical BPA is a ‘biologically plausible hazard,’ but says that the evidence does not necessarily warrant individual action to avoid the chemical. 

But that doesn't make sense to us. If BPA were, say, a potential pharmaceutical drug, it is highly doubtful that, given the adverse effects seen lab studies, the chemical would ever be allowed into clinical trials in humans. Yet, when you think about it, we are all currently part of an uncontrolled human experiment on the effects of BPA exposure. Are you concerned about BPA? Want to help get BPA out of canned foods--one of our biggest expousure sources to the chemical? Join our Cans Not Cancer campaign! 

The BPA lurking in your Thanksgiving dinner (Fast Company, 11/15/2011)

Fast Company published a great blog about our BPA in Thanksgiving Canned Food report, out today. It's a great piece to share with friends and family to help spread the word:

BPA is hard to avoid, mostly because it’s in almost everything—soup cans, water bottles, plastic-packaged foods, even store receipts. But here’s one thing that’s easy to remember: Steer clear of certain canned foods in your Thanksgiving dishes unless you want to dose your entire family with high levels of the potentially toxic compound. (Read complete article and comment.)

If you haven't seen our BPA in Thanksgiving Canned Food report yet, check it out! We provide our product-testing data as well as recipes for a no-can Thanksgiving dinner and a chance to tell canned food makers what you think about BPA in their products.

Turkey, stuffing and BPA?

Pumpkin pie and green bean casserole were staples of our Thanksgiving table growing up. And, like in most hectic holiday households, the staple ingredients—pumpkin, evaporated milk, cream of mushroom soup—came from cans.

More recently my mom has discovered Martha Stewart and makes her own mushroom sauce for green bean casserole. But even TV chefs and cookbooks advise going straight for the can opener when it comes to pumpkin—who has time to roast a pumpkin at Thanksgiving?

This year I'm making time. The Breast Cancer Fund's new product-testing report, BPA in Thanksgiving Canned Food, has opened not just my eyes but my entire family’s eyes. Though we know there's BPA in canned food and avoid it most of the year, Thanksgiving always felt like the one day when we might as well overlook it.

But this will be my 1-year-old daughter's first Thanksgiving meal. We know that low doses of BPA can affect her rapidly developing endocrine system, and that lab studies link this chemical to breast cancer, infertility, early puberty and neurological problems.

Of the products we tested for the report, half of them contained enough BPA in a single serving to show health impacts in lab studies. A table full of can-supplemented classics—the pie, the casserole, a dish of gravy, a bowl of creamed corn—adds up to a concerning dose of BPA.

The trouble is most people have no idea that BPA is in their canned food. And sadly, even when confronted with the evidence, most manufacturers are not acting quickly enough to ensure that this chemical, and all chemicals linked to health harms, are out of food packaging.

That's why the Breast Cancer Fund started the Cans Not Cancer campaign. We're educating consumers about BPA in canned food and, together, we're pressuring manufacturers to replace BPA in cans with a safe alternative.

Join the Breast Cancer Fund as we urge manufacturers to go BPA-free and urge lawmakers to pass legislation to ensure that all food packaging is free from harmful chemicals. Let’s make sure that next year’s Thanksgiving can safely include canned food again.

As for this year, we'll be spending more time in the kitchen but less time worrying about BPA. If you're inspired to do the same, check out our can-free solutions for some favorite Thanksgiving recipes.

Breast cancer awareness should be a year-round event (Huffington Post, 10/27/2011)

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) champions breast cancer prevention and elimination of the environmental causes of this disease in a piece for the Huffington Post. In it she mentions some of our proudest achievements, including our State of the Evidence report on environmental exposures linked to breast cancer, as well as a ban on phthalates in children's toys that Sen. Feinstein authored and we supported through its passage in 2008.

Mounting scientific evidence links exposure to everyday chemicals -- in our food, our products, our air and our water -- to breast cancer. The President's Cancer Panel released a report in 2010 that highlighted how little we know about environmental links to cancer and the need for more research.

I could not agree more with the report's recommendation that "a precautionary, prevention-oriented approach should replace current reactionary approaches to environmental contaminants."

Similarly, the Breast Cancer Fund's 2010 report, the State of the Evidence: The Connection Between Breast Cancer and the Environment, linked breast cancer to synthetic hormones in pharmaceuticals, cosmetics and meat, pesticides in food, solvents in household cleaning products; bisphenol A (BPA) in food containers and flame retardants in furniture, to name a few.

In our daily lives, we can take steps to reduce exposure to some chemicals, such as buying BPA-free products. But we need more than personal action; we need policies that ensure the public is protected. And we need to understand the chemicals we interact with every day and what they are doing to our bodies. (Read complete article.)

Thank you, Sen. Feinstein, for standing up for environmental health. Human health depends on it.