Governments can’t or won’t do anything about BPA in cans
But the food industry, including Campbell and Del Monte, is deciding it will
The Campbell’s soup can is one of the most recognizable food packages in the world. In recent years, it’s also become among the most scrutinized — though, perhaps, not scrutinized enough.
Like dozens of other food manufacturers, the Campbell Soup Company uses a chemical called bisphenol A, or BPA, in the lining of its cans. But this week, responding to consumer pressure and mounting evidence of links to disease and developmental problems, the company announced it would stop using BPA by 2017. (The day after the Campbell announcement, Del Monte joined in, saying it would also transition nearly all of its cans to BPA alternatives.)
Growing evidence of BPA’s dangers, critics say, should have forced government regulators, including the US Food and Drug Administration, to ban the chemical’s use in cans years ago — but the FDA hasn’t done that. Meanwhile, the chemical industry has spent millions fighting aggressively against any measures that would suggest BPA is harmful, while funding research supporting its safety.
So companies like Campbell are bowing to consumer concerns and making the first move.
“This is how it always is,” said Michele Simon, a consumer advocate and president of Eat Drink Politics. “The federal government lags behind where consumers are, and then companies respond to consumer demand.”
Food makers have used BPA widely since the 1950s, during a post-war tin-can boom, largely to prevent corrosion on the inside of cans. (Cans became so ubiquitous in that decade that Andy Warhol famously documented the Campbell’s soup can in 1962, in what was the beginning of the pop art movement.)
For years government scientists believed it would take high doses of BPA to cause injury or illness. But, beginning in the 1990s, after manufacturers began using it in everything from medical devices to DVDs to copy paper, researchers noticed that BPA’s cumulative effects could impact the human endocrine system at lower doses. The dangers were particularly worrisome for young children, whose systems can’t eliminate the chemical as well as adults. Since then, more research has surfaced pointing to potential dangers, including increased breast cancer risks, developmental problems in children, infertility and even diabetes.
Despite massive pushback and lobbying by the American Chemistry Council, at least 13 states have passed BPA restrictions since 2009, eventually forcing the plastics and baby food industries to stop using it in sippy cups and baby bottles altogether.
But then the FDA said in 2012 that it would ban the use of BPA in baby food containers — though not because of safety concerns. Rather, the agency said, its decision was “based solely on a determination of abandonment.” In other words, the industry had already stopped using BPA in baby bottles and formula cans, so the FDA was changing its rules. (The FDA’s decision came in response to a petition from the American Chemistry Council, which had pushed the agency to make the change so consumers could regain faith in BPA’s safety.)
But that still leaves the manufacturers of canned food — and their nearly $80-billion industry — free to use the chemical.
One thing most everyone agrees on is that BPA is found in the bloodstreams of more than 90% of Americans — and that the primary source is cans. In one study, Harvard students who volunteered to eat canned soup had a 10-fold increase in BPA in their urine compared to days when they ate non-canned soup.
But regulators and researchers disagree over its potential dangers, and the chemical industry continues to adamantly vouch for BPA’s safety, pointing to studies showing it’s harmless. The FDA, meanwhile, continues to say its “current safety review supports the safety of BPA for use in the manufacture of food contact articles as authorized in the food additive regulation.”
In other words, feel free to line your cans with it.
Dozens of brands, though, aren’t taking a risk — or, at least, are trying to gain a competitive advantage in the marketplace by going “BPA-free.” The Environmental Working Group last year found that 78 of the 252 brands they surveyed use BPA-lined cans for all their products, including some big names: Chef Boyardee, Green Giant and Hormel. Thirty-one brands do not use BPA-lined cans at all.
Consumer advocates were watching Campbell — with its iconic, kid-friendly lineup, including SpaghettiOs — especially closely. In 2012, the company announced it would phase out BPA, but didn’t say when. Now it has said all of its products will be BPA-free by next year. The company, which ships 2 billion cans a year, has already made 2 million cans with new linings, and 10 million more are being shipped this month.
But what will companies use instead of BPA? A new report, issued Wednesday by health advocacy groups, says alternatives could be just as problematic.
