SAN FRANCISCO, CA — Hain Celestial, Heinz and ConAgra received passing grades from two groups that surveyed companies about their efforts to eliminate bisphenol A (BPA), an endocrine-disrupting chemical, from can linings.
BPA, which has been linked to numerous reproductive and development problems, is used in various products, among them the epoxy liners in metal cans. The gender-bending chemical has been banned in some products by a handful of countries and states, and Canada recently officially declared it toxic, paving the way for future regulations. Many companies that make hard plastic water bottles and infant formula have already eliminated the chemical from their products.
Investment firm Green Century Capital Management and shareholder advocacy organization As You Sow surveyed 26 food, drink and retail companies, grading them based on their use of BPA-free alternatives, plans to phase out BPA and transparency. Their findings are details in the Seeking Safer Packaging 2010 report.
The top scorers were Hain Celestial, H.J. Heinz and ConAgra, each of which received an A. Hain and Heinz removed BPA from their infant food cans, and ConAgra replaced it in canned tomatoes. Though those account for a fraction of the companies' overall products, all three have timelines for eliminating BPA from all their other product lines. Hain also makes Health Valley and Westbrae Natural, and ConAgra produces Chef Boyardee, Hunt's and Healthy Choice.
General Mills got a B+ for committing to remove BPA From its Muir Glen line of tomatoes, but the company has no timeline for replacing it in its other lines like Progresso and Green Giant.
Walmart, Coca-Cola, Del Monte, Kraft and eight others received Fs for various reasons, such as not having plans to eliminate BPA, not funding research into BPA alternatives and not responding to the survey.
Out of all the companies, eight are putting money into BPA-free liner research, while the rest are relying on suppliers to fund and test alternatives. Eleven intend to phase out BPA "when effective and feasible substitutes are available," but only seven have timelines.
Companies also shared what factors are driving the switch away from BPA. Twelve cited consumer concerns, eight said possible regulations, seven said it was to protect their reputation and five pointed to the precautionary principle.
On the challenges side, 16 said a major hurdle is the lack of substitutes, two said they don't have enough influence over their supply chain and three cited conflicting research on BPA and consumer confusion. Only three said cost increases are a challenge.
All of the companies surveyed and their scores are:
- Hain Celestial - A
- ConAgra - A
- H.J. Heinz - A
- General Mills - B+
- Nestle - B
- Sara Lee - C
- McCormick - C
- Campbell Soup - C
- Kellogg - D+
- Whole Foods - D+
- Dean Foods - D+
- Costco - D
- PepsiCo - D-
- JM Smucker - D-
- Coca Cola - F
- Del Monte - F
- Kraft - F
- Supervalu - F
- Unilever - F
- Kroger - F
- Safeway - F
- Walmart - F
- Hormel - F
- Sysco - F
- Delhaize Group - F
- Hershey - F
Soup cans - CC license by Flickr user 2493™
John: That is probably why
John: That is probably why the website doesn't list an author. That way, nobody is accountable for publishing name-calling ("gender-bending") conjecture without peer-reviewed, cause-showing-effect scientific support. I found this "article" to be an incredibly biased opinion piece with a clear agenda.
There should be a rule that
There should be a rule that all articles written about an accused substances ill-effects, point to the studies showing the effect and also point to the generally accepted practices of how to test in studies.
Could you please show me the studies that show BPA is bad were they didn't inject the subjects with massive quantities of the chemical vs what a normal subject would ingest if eaten.
Can you also link to what BPA is, since it's not just a chemical to make hard plastics. It's a chemical shown to decrease risk of botulism in long term food carriage. Something that I'd be sure to not want to make a comeback just to remove a chemical not shown to be harmful in the doses normally seen in human consumption.
You must work for Del
You must work for Del Monte... key 'F' player.
I'm not sure I understand
I'm not sure I understand your point? Do you blindly accept anything said to you without research? I don't work for del monte or any other food processor but my point was that articles like these do nothing to help inform a person of possible issues. They attempt to scare someone into stopping from using a product that has not clearly been shown to cause any ill effects. I have seen the studies that first were brought forth to show BPA is bad, which were all using a very poor method of action(direct injection). I hope all people would do research whenever they read these articles, but it would be 100% better to actually link to the studies so people can actually read them. Or have some journalistic integrity and be objective.
Look at Aspartame. One study done in 1977 using direct injection of levels that would never be seen in the real world caused such a stir. Thankfully in that case there have been multiple more studies that show, in real world situations, that it is safe(in quantities under roughly 14 cans a day, or unless you have PKU).
If BPA is truly bad, then it should certainly be removed from our food products, but to go on improper studies is ludicrous, but hey it helps fund the correct method studies and gives researchers something to do right? Also an alternative should be found because again I'd hate to see Botulism make a comeback.
http://stats.org/stories/2009/Consumer_reports_false_on_BPA_nov2_09.html
Is replacement material
Is replacement material known/better? What materials are being used to replace BPA by each of these companies? That's not clarified in the report. It states that some generally-known alternatives have negative impacts or haven't been tested sufficiently. By rushing to get out of one problem are we jumping into another?