Why BPA Hasn’t Been Banned

Why BPA Hasn’t Been Banned
5 (100%) 9 votes

If the synthetic estrogen BPA is linked to billions of dollars’ worth of medical problems a year, why is it still allowed in the food supply?

Discuss
Republish

Below is an approximation of this video’s audio content. To see any graphs, charts, graphics, images, and quotes to which Dr. Greger may be referring, watch the above video.

“The number of new chemicals is increasing exponentially”—we’re talking 12,000 new substances a day. Yet, data aren’t available on the hazards of even some of the high volume chemicals. BPA is one of the highest volume chemicals, with billions of pounds produced each year. And, studies have “raised concerns about its possible implication in the [cause] of some chronic diseases, such as diabetes, obesity, reproductive disorders, cardiovascular diseases, birth defects, chronic respiratory and kidney diseases and breast cancer.”

A new study on the health implications of BPA comes out nearly every week. BPA was first developed over a hundred years ago as a synthetic estrogen. But it wasn’t until the 1950s that industry realized it could be used to make polycarbonate plastic, and it rapidly became one of the most used chemicals worldwide, even though it was recognized to have hormonal effects. About a billion pounds are also used to line food and beverage cans—especially, it seems, in tuna and condensed soups.

And now, we basically all have BPA in our bodies, and our children’s bodies. But, not to worry; the government says up to 50 a day is safe; 50 micrograms per kilogram. And, even those working in Chinese BPA factories don’t get exposed to more than like 70 times lower than that safety limit. Okay, then, why did exposure seem to affect the male workers’ sperm counts?

In the U.S., the general population only gets less than like a thousand times lower than the safety limit. Yet, still, we seem to be seeing adverse effects on thyroid function, weight control, blood sugar control, cardiovascular disease, liver function, and immune function —even at those incredibly low doses. So, “the fact that there are significant adverse effects in populations exposed to BPA at concentrations [thousands of] times lower than the [official tolerable daily limit] indicates that the safe exposure to BPA may be much lower than previously thought in humans.” Yet, the limit hasn’t been changed. It’s been banned from baby bottles and sippy cups, but nearly unlimited doses are still apparently okay for everyone else. What’s the disconnect here?

It has to do with the fascinating world of low-dose effects of hormone-disrupting chemicals. “For decades, [these chemicals] “have challenged traditional concepts in toxicology”—particularly the old adage that it’s the dose that makes the poison, the concept “that lower exposures to a hazardous compound will, therefore, always generate lower risks.” That’s “the core assumption underlying [our] system of chemical-safety testing.” They start dosing lab animals with super high amounts, and then keep lowering the dose until whatever adverse effects disappear; then, add a safety buffer and assume everything below that dose should be okay, assuming the curve looks like this. You know, the higher the dose, the higher the effect. But, hormone-disrupting chemicals can have all sorts of “curious curves.” Basically, how could something have more of an effect at a lower dose?

Think about a hormone, and its receptors in the body. At low levels of the hormone, like going from 0 to 1, the receptors can fill up quickly. But, once they’re almost all filled up, going from 4 to 5, adding really high doses may not change things much. Let’s use an actual BPA example. This was a study to see if BPA suppressed an obesity-protective hormone in fat samples taken from breast reduction and tummy tuck patients. As you can see, at a hundred nanomoles of BPA (I feel like a weatherman here!) you can see hormone levels are no lower than they are at 0 BPA. And, since most people have levels like between 1 and 20, then BPA must be safe. But, here’s the actual graph. So, no suppression at 0; no suppression at 100. But, right where levels are in people’s bodies, BPA appears to cut hormone release nearly in half.

As the world’s oldest, largest, and most active organization devoted to research on hormones concluded, “even infinitesimally low levels of exposure—indeed, any level of exposure at all—may cause [problems],” nearly three billion dollars’ worth of problems every year, just counting the estimated effects of BPA on childhood obesity and heart disease alone.

Now, there are alternatives that the industry could use; the problem, though, is that they may cost two cents more.

Please consider volunteering to help out on the site.

Image thanks to 445693 via Pixabay. Image has been modified.

Below is an approximation of this video’s audio content. To see any graphs, charts, graphics, images, and quotes to which Dr. Greger may be referring, watch the above video.

“The number of new chemicals is increasing exponentially”—we’re talking 12,000 new substances a day. Yet, data aren’t available on the hazards of even some of the high volume chemicals. BPA is one of the highest volume chemicals, with billions of pounds produced each year. And, studies have “raised concerns about its possible implication in the [cause] of some chronic diseases, such as diabetes, obesity, reproductive disorders, cardiovascular diseases, birth defects, chronic respiratory and kidney diseases and breast cancer.”

A new study on the health implications of BPA comes out nearly every week. BPA was first developed over a hundred years ago as a synthetic estrogen. But it wasn’t until the 1950s that industry realized it could be used to make polycarbonate plastic, and it rapidly became one of the most used chemicals worldwide, even though it was recognized to have hormonal effects. About a billion pounds are also used to line food and beverage cans—especially, it seems, in tuna and condensed soups.

And now, we basically all have BPA in our bodies, and our children’s bodies. But, not to worry; the government says up to 50 a day is safe; 50 micrograms per kilogram. And, even those working in Chinese BPA factories don’t get exposed to more than like 70 times lower than that safety limit. Okay, then, why did exposure seem to affect the male workers’ sperm counts?

In the U.S., the general population only gets less than like a thousand times lower than the safety limit. Yet, still, we seem to be seeing adverse effects on thyroid function, weight control, blood sugar control, cardiovascular disease, liver function, and immune function —even at those incredibly low doses. So, “the fact that there are significant adverse effects in populations exposed to BPA at concentrations [thousands of] times lower than the [official tolerable daily limit] indicates that the safe exposure to BPA may be much lower than previously thought in humans.” Yet, the limit hasn’t been changed. It’s been banned from baby bottles and sippy cups, but nearly unlimited doses are still apparently okay for everyone else. What’s the disconnect here?

It has to do with the fascinating world of low-dose effects of hormone-disrupting chemicals. “For decades, [these chemicals] “have challenged traditional concepts in toxicology”—particularly the old adage that it’s the dose that makes the poison, the concept “that lower exposures to a hazardous compound will, therefore, always generate lower risks.” That’s “the core assumption underlying [our] system of chemical-safety testing.” They start dosing lab animals with super high amounts, and then keep lowering the dose until whatever adverse effects disappear; then, add a safety buffer and assume everything below that dose should be okay, assuming the curve looks like this. You know, the higher the dose, the higher the effect. But, hormone-disrupting chemicals can have all sorts of “curious curves.” Basically, how could something have more of an effect at a lower dose?

Think about a hormone, and its receptors in the body. At low levels of the hormone, like going from 0 to 1, the receptors can fill up quickly. But, once they’re almost all filled up, going from 4 to 5, adding really high doses may not change things much. Let’s use an actual BPA example. This was a study to see if BPA suppressed an obesity-protective hormone in fat samples taken from breast reduction and tummy tuck patients. As you can see, at a hundred nanomoles of BPA (I feel like a weatherman here!) you can see hormone levels are no lower than they are at 0 BPA. And, since most people have levels like between 1 and 20, then BPA must be safe. But, here’s the actual graph. So, no suppression at 0; no suppression at 100. But, right where levels are in people’s bodies, BPA appears to cut hormone release nearly in half.

As the world’s oldest, largest, and most active organization devoted to research on hormones concluded, “even infinitesimally low levels of exposure—indeed, any level of exposure at all—may cause [problems],” nearly three billion dollars’ worth of problems every year, just counting the estimated effects of BPA on childhood obesity and heart disease alone.

Now, there are alternatives that the industry could use; the problem, though, is that they may cost two cents more.

Please consider volunteering to help out on the site.

Image thanks to 445693 via Pixabay. Image has been modified.

Doctor's Note

BPA isn’t the only problem with canned tuna. Check out:

What can we do to avoid endocrine-disrupting chemicals? See, for example, Avoiding Adult Exposure to Phthalates, and How to Avoid the Obesity-Related Plastic Chemical BPA.

Alkylphenols are another group of endocrine disrupting chemicals. Learn more about them here:

If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my videos for free by clicking here.

185 responses to “Why BPA Hasn’t Been Banned

Comment Etiquette

On NutritionFacts.org, you'll find a vibrant community of nutrition enthusiasts, health professionals, and many knowledgeable users seeking to discover the healthiest diet to eat for themselves and their families. As always, our goal is to foster conversations that are insightful, engaging, and most of all, helpful – from the nutrition beginners to the experts in our community.

To do this we need your help, so here are some basic guidelines to get you started.

The Short List

To help maintain and foster a welcoming atmosphere in our comments, please refrain from rude comments, name-calling, and responding to posts that break the rules (see our full Community Guidelines for more details). We will remove any posts in violation of our rules when we see it, which will, unfortunately, include any nicer comments that may have been made in response.

Be respectful and help out our staff and volunteer health supporters by actively not replying to comments that are breaking the rules. Instead, please flag or report them by submitting a ticket to our help desk. NutritionFacts.org is made up of an incredible staff and many dedicated volunteers that work hard to ensure that the comments section runs smoothly and we spend a great deal of time reading comments from our community members.

Have a correction or suggestion for video or blog? Please contact us to let us know. Submitting a correction this way will result in a quicker fix than commenting on a thread with a suggestion or correction.

View the Full Community Guidelines

  1. Great information.
    I’m begging, lose the pop-ups(weatherpersoning). Pretty please? They are distracting and add nothing (in my view). Perhaps a poll is called for?




    1
    1. Thea responded to a similar plea last week by saying that the videos are prerecorded and that there are about 20 more of them to go that include the popups. After that, there will be no popups used. We just have to be patient :)




      0
        1. It’s my pleasure Thea. LoL yes so that takes us into January sounds like? In my view, I don’t care if Dr Greger stands on his head and throws peanuts at me — he’s my doctor (in a manner of speaking), and he’s made me well (for real), and he makes me smile. Its all good.




          0
          1. susan:I don’t know how long it will be. I think each volume is a couple of months, so you are probably about right.
            .
            Thanks for sharing a bit of your story. Very nice. :-)




            0
          2. I totally agree! It just utterly boggles me that Dr G pursues his vital mission, essentially for free and for our benefit, yet there is so much negativity about a tiny little experiment that seems to distress his benefactors so profoundly.




            0
            1. Exactly, if they don’t like the pop-ups they can pop out. Dr. G does not have to do this for us and to be disrespectful to him as an adult I am mortified.




              0
            1. RL:

              I would like to see water filtering addressed, too. It is “on topic” with the current video in the sense that the water we drink is the vehicle of exposure for many of the thousands of new chemicals Dr. G alludes to. I assume that you are talking about household filtration units, such as reverse osmosis systems.




              0
          3. susan:

            “…he’s my doctor…”

            Imagine meeting with your doctor three times a week in order to receive timely, prevention-oriented advice!




            0
            1. Yes indeed plant_this_thought! This is truly an amazing resource and I am grateful. I tell my friends with health issues that half the battle is just showing up ! Tune into NF weekdays and you can’t help but be informed, make better health decisions, and feel better. You benefit and your family benefits. Thank you Dr Greger.




              0
            2. I, too, consider Dr G to be one of “my doctors”. Just because he speaks to me through the Internet rather than in person makes little difference … it’s the content of the message that really counts!




              0
          4. The popups are no problem for me as I rarely watch the videos just listen. The place it doesn’t work well is in trying to share with people who are NOT Dr. Greger followers and have not really bought into the WFPB lifestyle. To them he is just another voice on the web and they are still deciding who has the real science.




            0
          1. Kirsta Behymer: There were definitely some people in your camp who enjoyed the popups. But the other camp is far bigger. Since I have been told that there will be a fair number of additional videos with the popups pre-recorded, you can be happy and enjoy them for a while anyway.
            .
            There’s no pleasing everyone even with smaller groups. With a group this size, it is impossible to please everyone. sigh again!




            0
    2. I agree – this information is important and new website visitors may take it less seriously with the pop ups. Once you’re in (as I am), you deal with it. But as someone who works in marketing, I can tell you those popups may not only distract, they may turn away new folks.




      0
      1. I disagree. I don’t think they detract at all from the message. I have recommended and will continue to recommend Dr. G’s videos to anyone. When I do, I usually tell people that they’re both informative as well as entertaining.




        0
        1. I hear you, some or even many people may like the popups – but if they weren’t distracting, there wouldn’t be this much conversation about them. I point the videos out to friends and others because they are research based whereas there is so much nonsense on the internet about nutrition. I’m sure the popups were well intentioned. I feel hesitant to refer people to the videos now. I wouldn’t even have commented had I not seen the thread, because I do appreciate that Dr. Greger is not making money from them and doing them purely as a service.




          0
      2. Hello there! Thanks for the feedback. We have heard you, we are not continuing any pop-ups in the next volume as originally planned. There are still scheduled videos that have the popup elements (sorry! :)




        0
  2. Seems as if once again consumer demand will have to take the lead here. Continue to contact and request from your favorite food manufacturers that this chemical be removed. The problem with the “better safe than sorry” perspective, is that it gives them license to raise prices, often significantly.




    0
  3. Eating soy may block BPA from doing harm. In women undergoing IF, as urinary BPA increased, their fertility decreased. However in women who ate soy foods, BPA did NOT reduce fertility. A study on mice found that BPA was able to switch on and off certain genes – and that soy prevented BPA from being able to do so. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3437468/Could-tofu-boost-fertility-Soy-foods-protect-against-chemical-food-packaging-block-conception.html




    0
    1. Switching to soy milk did it for me (failed to conceive after trying for over a year, marriage ended, diet changed, new relationship, had a happy accident).




      0
          1. Well changing to a healthy plant based diet is bound to improve just about any issues you may have had. Either way, seems like it was a good outcome so the diet change certainly didn’t hurt.




            0
  4. It is madness. The indiscriminate release of millions of novel chemical substances into the environment without regard or understanding of the implications of doing so is a crime and would be if our standard for consideration was the well being of the inhabitants of this planet instead of that of financial and manufacturing institutions.

    Our portfolios may look healthy, but life is under assault.
    We live in a sad, sick and rapaciously unsustainable situation.




    0
    1. And the WI-FI signals shooting through our brains? Maybe worse? 4G cell phone signals all around us? Maybe worse
      than chemicals?

      How about the toxic second-hand chemicals being exhaled into the public domain by e-cig smokers? And the synthetic drugs that are now being smoked in “supposedly nicotine containing e-devices”? Public breathing in their second-hand toxins.




      0
      1. In an effort to address concerns rather than stir up concern with no information, I’ll simply note that WiFi signals (a specific frequency of electro-magnetic radiation) so far haven’t proven to interact with living organisms. People freak out when they hear the word ‘radiation’. Radiation is a word that means that energy can be carried across distances without needing matter in between (like sound and water waves.)

        Some radiation is indeed dangerous. But some/many kinds of radiation are not. For example, sunlight is electromagnetic radiation… the *same kind* of radiation that WiFi signals are. X-rays and microwaves are too. Even radiowaves are electromagnetic radiation. But because, people have lived with radios in their cars, houses and pockets for a hundred years now, and don’t realize radiowave = electromagnetic radiation, they don’t freak out about the radiowaves that are also shooting through their brains.

        So to address your fretting about which is worse, chemicals vs WiFi signals, I’ll take my chance with WiFi signals any day of the week. There are things to fret about about cell phones (like the idiots who drive on the road carrying on their conversations), but brain irradiation isn’t likely to be one of them. With 7.4 billion phones currently in use in the world (yes, with a b), it there were adverse affects from cell-phone usage I’d think we’d be seeing it, especially in my three 20-something children




        0
        1. Your reply sounds prudential, yet I’ve seen a list of over 100 medical associations worldwide that either urge caution or suggest limiting use. Those nonprofessionals who seem over-cautious have been bitten before.




          0
          1. Well for those of us who just can’t go and live in a cave to avoid these things I thoroughly appreciate Ralph’s response. Too much scaremongering going on, no wonder we are all so stressed.




            1
            1. Maybe stresses resulting from NOT Enough ‘scaremongering going on’ should be included.
              I saw a recent TV ad with actors saying yeh, eatcher veggies, been there done that, cut back meat, I know, and up comes the magic pill to save the day. Scaremongers, those Big Pharma folk…




              0
    2. I don’t think there has been more than a short period in recorded history when there wasn’t a war somewhere in the world. Many times just one army murdering another’s citizens and one civilization conquering another for it’s riches. The Buddha taught that most people were predominantly motivated by greed, aversion and ignorance. He said this is a natural law. And that was about 2500 years ago. And the global human population continues to explode exacerbating shortages. So if we’re waiting for the masses or our leaders to “do the right thing”……Hmmm. What we can do now is eat a WFPB diet. I have confidence that regardless of environmental exposure (not all smokers get lung cancer), it will keep us healthy. A WFBP diet, vigorous daily exercise, and daily meditation for health.




      0
      1. Ditto on all that you said. The thing I most value about Buddhism is that it goes beyond telling me I’m screwed up or that I should hope/pray that someone else will rescue me, it offers practical techniques and skills for living life fully. In the Native American tradition, there’s a story about how a wise, happy and respected elder when asked how she had come to be that way, told of choosing to nurture the wolf of love instead of the wolf of hate that resided within her. I’ve always loved that story because it acknowledges that while we have the potential to be meanspirited, it encourages us to chose love over hate. The same basic message of the Buddha.

        I’m not willing to claim that eating WF-PB will *definitely* keep us healthy, but it’s the best approach that I have yet seen. The more I’ve studied nutrition, the more convinced I am that most of our society’s health woes are the result of our bodies not being able to cope with the over-processed foods we are educated and tempted to eat (refined flour, refined sugar, milk & butter, cheese, vegetable shortenings & oils, salts, preservatives, etc). While I chose to eat only plants for the welfare of cows and chickens, that decision ended up being the best I’ve ever made for my health. Walking 4-5 miles 6-7 times a week and meditation help, too!




        0
      2. “I don’t think there has been more than a short period in recorded history when there wasn’t a war somewhere in the world. Many times just one army murdering another’s citizens and one civilization conquering another for it’s riches. The Buddha taught that most people were predominantly motivated by greed, aversion and ignorance. He said this is a natural law. And that was about 2500 years ago. And the global human population continues to explode exacerbating shortages. So if we’re waiting for the masses or our leaders to “do the right thing”……Hmmm.”

        As long as there are profits to be made…it apparently doesn’t matter to the powers that be (stupid?)…. Get sick they’ll sell you a drug….weather not right…they’ll sell you a environmental dome.

        And you also have to be careful of involvement with those still caught in the matrix…if they haven’t even started to try and extricate themselves…they are a danger to themselves and others…

        The overarching issue to me is that eventually the larger “system” might eventually fail of it’s on accord…due to population/weather/resource stresses. Then a good diet…exercise…etc…will be hard to come by…though maybe if you a refugee out on the road looking for a place to sleep for the night…you might still get plenty of exercise. Food…shelter…and safety will be major issues though….

        Our current political situation pretty much guarantees pain ahead for anyone under 65 or so…..




        0
  5. So we are intoxinated just for the industry being able to save 2,2cents more for each can… That’s just disgusting… For this inhumane and disgusting act, producers should have rolling heads! They endanger us all for 2,2cents savings per can! I hate these scumbags -.-




    0
  6. Safety limits provide false security. When we are exposed to multiple chemicals simultaneously, there may be combined effects, so below safety limit for 1000 different chemicals in your body is definitely a problem




    0
    1. And add to that the chemical soup of stuff we willingly ingest… OTCs, pharmaceuticals, fake foods, etc., or put directly on our skin, and it sure is scary!




      0
    2. …and since most studies seem to examine effects for sole or at best paired chemicals, we have an insoluble problem…short of banning all but a few and testing them exhaustively.
      Even then, special populations or others at special times (pregnancy for one) may have reactions.




      0
      1. Since it is insoluble it is best to apply the precautionary principle and avoid and minimize the chemical additives especially ones that are difficult for our bodies to handle (e.g. persistent organic pollutants). The internet helps. It is challenging as you critically sort through the information you obtain. That’s why it is best to find sites like NF.org to sort through the material.
        Keep tuned, pass the word on to friends and family and have a Happy Holiday Season.




        0
      2. Artificial intelligence and in silico experiments are making formerly insoluble biological problems soluble (when I was an undergrad I used to say to people my favorite biologist was Alan Turing and I think that pissed off a few people – eff them. The future of biology seems to belong to computer scientists, information theorists and control systems engineers). We’re not quite there, but the progress I’ve been seeing lately is nothing short of stunning.

        Until we do get there – what Don Forrester said.




        0
        1. Lemonhead: I totally agree. In my career as a mathematician, I was on the ground floor of the research into Artificial Neural Systems where computers are used to simulate how the brain works. (In the early days we called it Parallel Distributed Processing.) These systems could actually “Learn” by using a process called back-propagation.This use of computers is truly the future of not only biology and medicine, but many other fields as well.




          0
            1. Yes, it was a very exciting career. (I’m retired now.) I haven’t seen the work of Brendan Frey but I’ll check it out..
              BTW, I liked that movie of Alan Turing’s life and career, except for the ending.




              0
            2. lemonhead: My mouse slipped and I clicked the wrong part of the screen. I accidentally down voted your post above. I un-did the down vote immediately, but I’m worried you might have gotten a notice that I down voted your post. It was an accident! :-O (I was trying to up-vote HaltheVegan’s post.)




              0
              1. Don’t worry – I didn’t even notice (and if I had, I don’t mind if people disagree with me). I’ve done the accidental downvote thing, too.




                0
  7. Forget banning BPA. President elect Trump has named a big beverage food lobbyist to set up his FDA team. Blatant conflict of interest. Expect consumer protections to come crashing down.




    0
    1. Nor will he have a blind trust for his holdings, nor a program for aiding the very needy among folks who voted for him. Apart from a January surprise (a positive but improbable one), I expect a long slog back to the 19th century, though not an immediate depression.




      0
      1. You got to laugh at people voting for a dude sitting on gold-plated furniture giving a good damn about the plight of the 99%….if they think Hillary was a drag…just wait….;-)…..




        0
        1. “As democracy is perfected, the office [of President] represents, more and more
          closely, the inner soul of the people. …On some great and glorious day the plain
          folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last, and the White House
          will be adorned by a downright moron.”H L Mencken, 1920
          Less than a century!




          0
        1. …although yummy lead arsenate was used against the gypsy moth in 1892…
          and I’ve seen a quote from someone farming in Ohio early that century, to the effect that when he had to worry about ‘his’ soil’s fertility, it was time to move west.




          0
          1. Yes, that was the procedure. Use up all the top soil that the Native Americans had taken care of for millenia, then move west and use up the next place. Unfortunately, we ran out of places to ruin. There are no more areas to the west and no more planets to pollute.




            0
            1. I hesitate to disagree about First Americans, though some in the continent’s center had rather wasteful hunting practices, and war and predation of other groups did occur. Overall, you’re right, and the westward march continued with Hawaii’s pineapple plantations, and as Mark Twain reminded us, aggression against Philippine natives resulted in what was, till Afghanistan, the longest-running US war– and against muslims!
              Now there’s increasing talk of colonizing (and eventually terraforming) Mars, disregarding what may be a trove of microbial life there.




              0
        1. Well, two ideologically opposite institutions reporting different perspectives. Guess we’ll have to wait, see, and hope. On term limits: Unfortunately the only people who can vote for term limits in Congress, is Congress itself. Good luck getting 535 people to vote themselves out of a job.




          0
            1. Not surprising. I stopped reading the NYT what, over 10 years ago. Although not exclusive to them, there’s just way too much group think in these media institutions.




              0
          1. …and used by both right- and left-leaning groups, though mostly right. In more recent years, both nazis and more recent German neos, and Trump and some followers, have used ‘the lying press’.
            What’s worse, there’s a clear attempt to put down major news sources, Washington Post and now the ‘paper of record’, the New York Times. It’s unfortunate that the Times kept silent on the Bay of Pigs invasion out of ‘patriotism’, but I doubt its detractors worry about that.




            0
    2. I feel like all candidates are just puppets for industry. We live in a corporatocracy, any illusion it is a democracy is just wishful thinking.




      0
      1. FYI
        Frequently, politicians, and many ordinary Americans, refer to the United States as a democracy. Others find this aggravating because, unlike in a democracy where citizens vote directly on laws, in the United States, elected representatives do – and, therefore, the U.S. is a republic.Jan 22, 2014




        0
        1. I think the technical term is “representative democracy”. It reflects the fact that, unlike in the ancient Greek city states, populations in modern states are just too large to make (direct) democracy feasible (although the Swiss are making a fair stab at it).

          Of course, many politicians, acsademics and media pundits also say that we live – or should live – in “liberal democracies” ie the people can get have their way as long as they don’t try to suppress basic ‘human rights’ such as eg freedom of speech and assembly. Of course freedom of speech and assembly now appear to be limited by political correctness although the USA appears to be somewhat less badly affected by this situation than some other Western countries




          0
      1. Nor do I; it’s a fact, and its cause is mostly human. But I take your point, and only wish picks for EPA or FDA or Transport or,,, were based more firmly on knowledge.




        0
    3. Lobbyist Michael Torrey is overseeing transition of the USDA, not FDA. Speculation is that former Texas governor Rick Perry (the 2012 candidate who couldn’t remember which three federal agencies he’d eliminate) will be the cabinet level pick.

      So far, there’s no pick for the FDA, but the president elect’s platform is for lesser regulatory burdens for drug approvals. For some drug candidates for rare disorders, this may be a good thing. But in general, it means some of the phase III trials for efficacy and safety will be replaced by retrospective studies looking for adverse effects in early consumers. With the potential for more situations like those with Fen-phen or Vioxx, perhaps more wariness of pharmaceutical salves to our lifestyle problems will be called for.

      Its not a good time for science literacy or evidence-based anything right now. As individuals, we can encourage alternative ways to disseminate information, like here, and speak up for independent expertise over rhetoric when we talk to our neighbors. Let this be a wake up call that decades of anti-intellectualism in our popular culture has real consequences.




      0
  8. I approve of the Dr. G pop ups. It does not take away from the message; and it gives variety to those people who like it.

    The question I have is: How do we know which cans have BPA, so that we can avoid them? Paying two to three cents for a better product is worth it to me as a consumer.




    0
    1. My dogs and I eat quite a few cans of canned vegetables each week. Libby’s brand says it is BPA free, prominently, on the front label. And they’re one of the cheapest brands too. It’s a win win. So we switched to Libby’s. Unfortunately they don’t have spinach, which we like. Also, I haven’t seen any low salt in the Libby’s brand. I know that’s a big issue for Dr. G. For me, I really don’t care all that much about salt. Oe of my last vices.




      0
      1. I don’t buy much in cans….frozen veggies or fresh ONLY. Beans I cook in a crock pot.

        You probably can’r realistically avoid all pollution…but use a good water filter…avoid plastic pretty much…use chemical free toothpaste/deodorant etc.




        0
    2. For those of you who shop at Trader Joe’s, they list on their website which products contain BPA and which don’t. Other grocery stores may not be as forthcoming about their products. Here is the BPA information from Trader Joe’s:

      “To help clarify the use of BPA in our packaging, we’ve categorized the kind of packages that are BPA-free, the packages that contain BPA, and the packages that contain BPA that never comes into contact with food. We’ve noted all exceptions, so some items do appear on two different lists. Please review carefully and be aware that the information is updated regularly, as our suppliers discover and adapt non-BPA alternatives:

      BPA-FREE Packages:
      ALL Tetra-Pak® Cartons
      ALL Plastic Bottles, Tubs & Containers
      ALL Canned Beans
      MOST Canned Fruits & Vegetables (EXCEPT: Mandarins, Hatch Chilies, Artichokes & Olives)
      MOST Canned Fish, Chicken & Beef (EXCEPT: Sardines, Crabs, & Cherrystone Clams)
      ALL Canned Coconut Milk & Coconut Cream
      ALL Pet Food
      Organic Vegetarian Chili

      Packages with BPA:
      Canned Artichokes
      Canned Cherrystone Clams
      Canned Crabs
      Canned Dolmas
      Canned Grecian Style Eggplant with Tomatoes & Onions
      Canned Hatch Chilies
      Canned Mandarins
      Canned Olives
      Canned Sardines
      Canned Soups & Stews (EXCEPT: Organic Vegetarian Chili)

      The Metal Lids of Glass Jars DO contain BPA, but it DOESN’T come into contact with the food:
      Every glass jar item has a metal lid. All metal lids DO have a layer of BPA coating, but there is coating of another material put on top of the BPA coating. Thus, the BPA is never in direct contact with the food. Test results from multiple suppliers show that there is no BPA detected from metal lids.”




      0
      1. Are free from any bisphenol type?

        “In the rush to be rid of BPA, many manufacturers simply swapped one
        bisphenol chemical for another, so rather than use BPA, they’re now
        using BPS, or BPF. These bisphenols, as well as other chemicals used in
        the production of plastics can exhibit what is called “estrogenic
        activity” – this is the indicator that it being a hormone disruptor, and
        this is what we want to test for – not whether it just has levels of BPA in it.”

        http://www.laraadler.com/coaches/bpa-free-not-so-fast




        0
  9. The multitude of unnatural substances we are now accosted with is mind-numbing, and no matter how we try to avoid them, it’s become inevitable. I try to be mindful even though I’m ancient, but it breaks my heart to contemplate the abominations my poor grandkids and future generations will have to endure thanks to the greed of corporations!




    0
  10. Haven’t you dropped those ridiculous pop ups yet? You are turning an authoritative presentation into a freak show. Please edit them out of the remaining 20.




    0
    1. I’ll preface the following comment with a disclaimer… I in no way would type the following in the course of normal conversation… this is only to illustrate a point:

      // Haven’t you learned how voice your unhappiness about a situation without using insulting language yet? You are turning off the people you hope to influence by using disrespectful language. Please edit such language out of your future posts. //

      I mimicked your post so you could experience how your word choice comes across. I have to think you were not happy to hear the tone that came along with the message. As a matter of record, while I don’t agree with your labeling Dr Greger’s videos as freak shows, I do agree with you that I’d prefer that he drop the pop-ups… I find them distracting and I think they seem forced rather than an integral part of the visual presentation.

      As to editing the remaining 20 posts, I imagine that’s easier said than done. Of course, if you wanted to send in extra-contributions to off set the cost to Dr Greger to do that, I imagine he’d be willing to entertain your suggestion.




      0
  11. That was even better. The more screen time Dr. G does, the more I like it. It puts a face behind the mysterious scientific voice over. And the colors are perfect. This strategy might just perk some interest from the masses. For the most part, people want to be entertained. Keep it up Dr. G. I want to see you working that treadmill for the whole video net time.




    0
  12. Okay Dr. Greger. I love you, but having you pop up during the video is very distracting. I was looking at you and missed what you were saying and had to listen to it again. If you think you must pop up in your videos, stop moving as if walking on a treadmill and where your lab coat with a coat an tie. The pop up looks unprofessional. For us who know you, no problem, but someone watching for the first time may not take this seriously. I like it also when you speak at the pace of this video. Sometimes you speak so fast that it is hard to follow you. Thank you for all your good work!




    0
    1. While to a non-Latin speaker ‘data aren’t available’ may sound strange, the Good Doctor is correct… funny that a doctor would know his Latin! ;^) ‘Data’ is the plural ‘datum’. So, a sentence using both words correctly follows: “The datum is available because we did one experiment: once we have done all the experiments, the data are going to give us the big picture.” May sound strange because many many people don’t realize that datum/data are Latin, but that’s how the Latin works.

      Unfortunately, there are lots of misused words that become ‘correct’ (actually normalized) through repeated misuse… e.g., ‘momentarily’ has been so misused by the press and the airline industry that the phrase ‘in a moment’ has been abandoned… when the airlines say ‘we’ll be on the ground momentarily’, they mean to say that ‘we’ll be on the ground soon’. What they actually are saying is ‘you’d better be pretty spry because the plane will be on the ground for only a short period of time and then taking of again’. I could also rail about the misuse of ‘remainder-and-duration’, but I’ve probably droned on too long as it is. Sorry – my bad! 8^)




      0
        1. Yeah… people are so averse to fractions (one of the ‘eff-words of math’) that speakers will use ’10 x smaller’ when it would be clearer to say ‘1/10 as large’ or ‘1/10 as much’




          0
            1. I have to disagree with the attitude of it doesn’t matter how you say something as long as the listener manages to understand what was said.

              While I don’t run around telling the myriad of folks who abuse the English language that they’re usage is poor, I do fundamentally believe that it is every speaker’s responsibility to say things as clearly as they can rather than shift the burden of understanding what’s attempting to be said to the listener. Yes, that happens all the time and we still manage to communicate and get along, but I think society would benefit from such a practice.

              While you could understand me if I conjugated the verb “to be” as I be / you be / he-she-it be / we be / you be / they be, things work much better if we take the time to use English as our teachers attempted to teach it to us back in school. That’s my opinion for what it’s worth (maybe 2 cents). YMMV




              0
              1. So often a stance taken defeats itself, as with “They’re usage”, unless that was intended. Purists, I guess, still pronounce the plural for ‘book’ ‘beck’, as in the good old days. Yet language evolves from what teachers have taught, I be sure, and ’10x smaller’ takes no effort for me to grasp beyond ‘1/10 as big as.




                0
      1. My pet peeve is hearing “orientated” when someone means oriented, but I hear it so often I wonder if it has some legitimacy? (Even the spell checker doesn’t question it!)




        0
        1. I’d forgotten that one, but you’re spot on… people don’t realize that oriented and orientation both derive from ‘to orient’ and instead think orientation derives from ‘to orientate’ which I guess it actually does. ‘To orient’ appeared in the mid-1700s and ‘to orientate’ appeared a hundred years later. They mean the same thing so the additional syllable has no function except to make the word sound more ‘official’ because it’s longer. Per dictionaries, both are valid though oriented tends to be the useage in the US and orientated tends to be the usage in Britain and the US military.

          I try to follow the guidance of E. B. White (of Strunk & White and ‘Charlotte’s Web’) and use smaller words when possible… hence, I prefer ‘use’ to ‘utilize’ and prefer ‘orient’ vs ‘orientate’. Of course, that and $5 will buy you a latte.




          0
          1. Is ‘lot’ short for ‘latte’? If so, that and $5 buys a lot. Yes, shorter’s usually better, but not all are familiar with Britishisms like ‘spot on’…
            I’ve noted the US tradition of not expressing anything in 2 syllables when 4 will do…




            0
            1. I figured that with the likes of Sarah Palin and Rick Perry using “spot on” that I was unlikely to be busted by the Language Patrol for puttin’ on aires. Guess I was wrong.

              In my defense, ‘Britishisms’ are not inherently inappropriate and sometimes British idioms are, well, spot on. Given English’s indiscriminate adoption of words and phrases from across the world, it’s hard to avoid.

              I don’t mind the use of a non-‘Murican words and I actually think it’s a good thing to use of words and phrases from other languages and cultures as long as they do the job better than can be done in American English usage (e.g., schadenfreude, deja vu, guerrilla, klutz, tiresome, ‘fed up’, (the last two of which were Britishisms a century ago.))




              0
                1. It has nothing to do with “liking” (your word, not mine) Latin plurals. That’s simply a matter of understanding how the language works.

                  You appear to’ve missed the forest for the trees… when I started this thread, I was responding to Baggman744’s question, not busting his chops. I notice that over on the Food Synergy comments section, you found another poster’s statement that ‘humans evolved to live without vitamin C’ “unfortunate”. We appear both have our pet peeves.




                  0
                  1. “how the language works” is by consensus over time, not by rules, which are made after the facts and have attached exceptions. And ‘data’ is also an English word.
                    The ‘peeve’ you mention was about an erroneous statement about human evolution.
                    And we agree about using shorter expressions.




                    0
                    1. RalphRhineau: You have posted 4 posts that had the single word ‘meh’. I deleted 3 out of the 4 as you only need one post. I’m saying something, because I’m wondering if you re-posed because you had trouble finding your first posts. I thought I would let you know that they were there until now. Sometimes a post is hard to find. You can find your posts on your disqus profile page.




                      0
                    2. Hey, Thea, always great to have a chance to talk with you. Thanks for looking out for me.

                      Yes, the other three replies were redundant. I don’t know what happened… I’d submit the reply, have it process, appear that it was going to be posted and then seemingly disappear and so I reposted.

                      So, as for your post immediately above this one, seems to me the thing to do is to delete it. I’ll delete this post once it’s clear to me that you’ve seen it.

                      -ralph




                      0
                    3. RalphRhineau: Sometimes disqus is quirky (to be kind). I just didn’t want you to think I was deleting your posts willy nilly.
                      .
                      FYI: While your recent posts may have been off topic, I enjoyed reading your posts about words. So interesting. Now, back to nutrition!




                      0
        1. …but don’t get flummoxed by the plural of octopus, which (if your pedantry’s above average) can be tough. Octopodes, octopuses, even octopi are possible…
          not to mention oktapodes, which fails continuity but was a Greek plural, only not of the mollusc (or mollusk)…




          0
        1. Oh, goodie!… careful what you ask for! 8^)

          When the airline flight draws to it’s end and the perky crew member asks me to ‘stay seated for the duration of the flight’, if I’ve gone to the lavatory during the flight, I have a huge problem on my hands (and not because I didn’t wash up ;^)… I literally *can’t* comply with their request. For you see, the word *duration* means ‘the full extent’. So, for me to stay seated for the duration of the flight would mean that I had to stay seated from ‘wheels up’ to the impending landing. (I also like it when the flight crew informs me that we’ll soon be *landing* rather than just ending up on the ground soon.)

          What they really want from me is to not get up *any more*, until after we’ve landed. An appropriate word for that request would be for all of us over-crowed prols to stay seated for the *remainder* of the flight, irrespective of whether we were up and about earlier in the flight.

          Thus endth the rant… I’ll stop now so I don’t abuse your indulgence. Thanks for asking!




          0
  13. With the $$$ involved in producing and selling billions of pounds of BPA every year, do we have a chance at reversing this? It’s everywhere! It’s almost impossible to avoid! What can we do?




    0
    1. There is exponentially more money involved in cigarettes and we’ve managed to decrease their marketing and sales. Reach out to your local government officials and let them know that this is an issue that concerns you!




      0
  14. We may or may not be able to reduce the amount of chemicals released into the environment. And we may or may not be able to reduce the amount of chemicals we ingest.My guess is that these are going to be major uphill battles. In the words of the great Dr. Greger himself, “our liver is a detoxifying machine”. In the words of T. Colin Campbell, a mutated gene isn’t a problem if it doesn’t express itself and a cancer cell isn’t a problem if it doesn’t proliferate. We have control over these NOW. How do we influence them? Eat a WFPB diet NOW.




    0
  15. While I agree that the doctor’s head popping up adds nothing relevant to the presentations, I actually found it funny, and fitting right in Dr. Greger’s sense of humor we all seem to like. The fact that it’s there just for a few seconds and comes out as a surprise makes it better. So thumbs up!




    0
  16. A question: Does anyone know: – If a can contains organic food and is labeled organic, is it also required to have no BPH lining?

    Another question. Does anyone know of a good water filtration system that will remove chemicals from drinking water. I know my town’s City water filters, treats, and tests for required toxic substances. But, as we all know, many other substances are showing up in our water: antibiotics, pharmaceuticals, herbicides, etc. most of which are not tested for and removed. Who might have some good suggestions about water filtration systems. I would be interested in suggestions for counter top filters and also in-line in-home installed systemic filters. Any suggestions?




    0
    1. From ConsumerReports.org (2009):

      “Now Consumer Reports’ latest tests of canned foods, including soups, juice, tuna, and green beans, have found that almost all of the 19 name-brand foods we tested contain some BPA. The canned organic foods we tested did not always have lower BPA levels than nonorganic brands of similar foods analyzed. We even found the chemical in some products in cans that were labeled ‘BPA-free.’ ”

      Wish the news were happier…




      0
  17. Dandidate Trump’s choice to set up the FDA is a prominent lobbyist for the brewery industry – conflict of interest in spades.
    The people are going to get what they voted for, but the blue collar workers abandoned by the Democrats and Republicans won’t understand they did it to themselves. Bernie preached about a “Yuge Revolution” and the voters got it. Corporations are supremely happy and the Republican establishment will continue to minimize costs by holding wages down – which holds consumer demand down and GDP down too; The medial and the Democratic establishment (including me) didn’t believe Bernie.




    0
    1. The people won’t quite get what more voted for, thanks to that College of Electors who will later anoint Mr Tangerine Man. If all goes as expected, Trump’ll be President, but with 47% of the vote, like Mitt before him.




      0
  18. Very good video which serves as a reminder for us to avoid BPA. I have consumed hundreds of cans of beans from Italy and I feel really bad about it because cans which are not labelled otherwise are almost certain to be lined with BPA.




    0
  19. I buy my cat food in cans and many cat food manufactures now market
    their cat food as bpa free as they elminated bpa in the can liner…bpa
    has been linked to thyroid disease in cats…




    0
      1. I suggest that Dr. G put the greenscreen up on Craigslist (or Ebay) and let us _move on_ with whole plants and de-mystifying of Human Nutrition. Or join the local theatrical troupe and get jolly there.




        0
    1. I oh so wish that what we now face would be simple goofiness… I fear it’s gonna get (much) worse a’fore it gets better… the only solace I can take at the moment is that the republic has faced, endured and survived worse circumstances. Brings to mind ‘The Chinese Curse’: “May you live in interesting times.”

      I feel for the marginal groups among us who will bear the brunt of the exploitation and denigration that is likely to come and will support as I can those who will resist that onslaught. It’d be easier if we had a viable second party… one can only hope at this point




      0
  20. I am in no way saying that BPA is harmless. In fact, I avoid it like a pest, no canned foods, no plastic container at my home. Having said that, I am just trying to find out if BPA is a real health problem or not. For instance lead is harmful and our home water may contain lead from the pipe but people have been drinking water out from the faucet without serious harm.

    So the Chinese factory workers are exposed to 1000 times the level of BPA that typical consumers are exposed. The workers seem to have low sperm count. But I am sure that the Chinese in general have no issue with infertility and a lot of them work in factory making those plastic toys.

    I know a lot of Asians who use plastic containers all the time and they don’t seem to have any health problems.

    Is it because BPA is not so harmful at low level or is it because the Asians eat some foods we don’t usually eat?

    http://dev.acsh.org/news/2010/10/29/bpa-chinese-workers-and-junk-science




    0
    1. That is a very good question, I do not thunk that anybody knows the answer.

      Most studies have linked urinary BPA concentrations with increased risk of heart disease, diabetes, high blood pressure and liver dysfunction (as well,as reproduction problems etc). However a large Chinese study found a protective effect for BPA concentrations although average levels were apparently considerably lower than in Western countries. The authors did however note that confounding by diet or medication use could not be ruled out.
      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4985394/




      0
    2. What matters for lead is whether or not it leaches into the water and that depends on water chemistry. If it gets into the water, you have a problem.




      0
  21. We are being soft killed. Population reduction is a growing concern of the elite-Luciferian maniacs. UN Agenda 21 spells it out as does Georgia Guidstones- (etched in stone). Mandatory-(deadly) vaccines are near. Resist.




    0
    1. Though population reduction is a concern among many students of Earth’s environment, Agenda 21 looks quite benign, as do most vaccines.
      However, the Republican Natl Committee opposes the former, and many RWNs oppose vaccination, so no need to resist, eh?
      On another hand, the Arizona CofC resisted an anti-Agenda21 (anti-sustainable development) bill on the grounds that it would discourage corporations from locating there…




      0
  22. Does anyone know how much BPA is in canned beans? Specifically, in Goya canned beans? I know Eden organic has BPA-free cans, but those beans cost at least twice as much as Goya or my local supermarket’s generic brand.




    0
    1. BPA is an endocrine-disrupting-chemical and ingesting any amount of it is not safe. If you would like to pay less for your beans, I would suggest buying dried beans in bulk and putting in a little effort to cook them. Dried beans are also healthier as salt is not added. Or you could pay more for BPA-free canned beans if you find that more convenient.




      0
      1. tevans: I believe those boxes are called aseptic packaging/boxes. They are made of three layers: polyethylene, aluminum foil, and paper. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aseptic_processing The plastic/polyethylene layer is the layer that touches the food (assuming the aluminum does not leach through?).
        .
        I have no idea what the risks are with such packaging. I just wanted to pass on the above information as I had not known previously myself that the inside layer of the boxes was plastic. Also, upon doing some research some time ago, I found that the stuff can’t easily be recycled because of the three layers. So those boxes are environmental nightmares.
        .
        I’m not saying to buy or not buy food in the aseptic packaging. I don’t know one way or the other. I’m just saying that I don’t think the decision is as easy as cans=bad, boxes=good. Too bad, because I would like an easy decision. ;-)




        0
        1. I had done some research on the plastic that frozen food comes in and the boxes some time ago & thought that they were ok. I will have to recheck that now. I am very disappointed but grateful to you for the update, sheesh we usually cook but people need some kind of convenience. Hopefully we can presure industry to change its ways, stop laughing at me ;)




          0
          1. tevans: :-)
            .
            Just to repeat, I’m not saying aseptic boxes are unhealthy. I don’t know. It’s just that I had used to think that those boxes were just wax covered paper. I was disappointed to learn that they were really wax covered paper and aluminum. If you discover something interesting about the boxes, please do share. I totally get your point about some convenience. I buy soy milk in those boxes and often wonder how much I might be hurting myself. I wish it came in glass containers!




            0
      2. Unfortunately, while those aseptic boxes may be better for our bodies, they are likely worse for the environment… multimaterial substances are harder to recycle and are so resistant to decay that they’ll take decades (centuries) to eventually decompose. I try to avoid the problem by buying fresh where possible and hauling my veggies home in reüsable bags




        0
  23. I know Dr Greger uses a vitamix ( or refers to one) I have resisted buying one because I have heard bpa substitutes were thought to be just as or more dangerous. If one does not use the hot feature (I hear heat encourages leaching) I am wondering if anyone has looked into the specific danger, since food is not stored in the vitamix jar. I have looked for metal containers but sometimes they line metla and I have no idea which one, if any, might be as successful at say, reducing large hard frozen strawberries to puree. Any comments on the safety of using a vitamix or a substitute?




    0
    1. It is tough to find truly safe blender canisters… I searched and searched and never found anything that pleased me. I settled on a Breville Boss because I don’t like being fleeced by Vitamix for the privilege of buying their name plate à la the way Apple fleeces folks. That said, while im *really* pleased with the construction and operation of the Breville, I still ended up with a Tritan bowl which is just as unsatisfactory with respect to exposure to endocrine disruptors. As with too many things in life, it’s a trade-off between risk and benefit. The option to make really smooth salad dressings and humus leads me to eat more beans and leafy-greens which I hope will counteräct the BPA I get from the blending canister.




      0
    2. Wrt heating issues: a rough rule of thumb in chemistry is that a 10°F (5°C) increase in temperature will roughly double the rate of a chemical reaction. Higher temps will also increase the diffusion rate of molecules leaching/spreading out in a solution. Accordingly, while I do use my Breville hp-rated blender to mix/prepare soups, there’s no way I’d use it to *heat* those soups… I instead blend them for as short a time as possible and then heat/cook conventionally in stainless steel on the stove or in glass in a microwave oven.

      Other things one can do to minimize the mobility/reäctivity of BPA compounds is to chill ingredients before blending and using an immersion (stick) blender instead whenever possible.




      0
    3. I have an Oster blender with a borosilicate glass jar. It is just a regular blender but it makes smoothies that are good enough for me. One problem I have is that it takes longer to blend tougher materials (e.g., celery, kale stalks) and the mix gets heated up in the process so I add ice cubes towards the end.




      0
  24. Dr Greger, allow me to speculate a bit here, but if phytoestrogens can protect against the body absorbing animal estrogen, wouldn’t it be logical to say that consuming phytoestrogens regularly could also protect against synthetic estrogen? In other words, do you know if flax and soy can block this BPA substance and contribute to its excretion without it being absorbed by the hormone receptors? And as question number 2: what other strategies besides eating natural plant foods can we adopt in order to protect ourselves against synthetic estrogens? Thanks




    0
    1. Thanks for your question.

      I found one paper (see here) that seems to partially address your first question and I quote:

      “Collectively, our findings suggest that GEN, a dietary phytoestrogen, has an inhibitory effect on the growth of estrogen-dependent cancers promoted by E2 or BPA.”

      To minimise your exposure to BPA, the National Institute of Health has a nice summary on the topic (see here). A more detailed document can be found here, though it was produced by the Breast Cancer Fund.

      Hope this answer helps.




      0
  25. I love the pop-ups!!! Look forward to them. Having heard Dr G sopeak at Harvard Law School 2 weeks ago, I appreciate his information delivered with humor all the more!! I vote to keep the pop-ups, please!!




    0
  26. Is there anyway to get rid of BPA from body? Unfortunately, it is hard to find tomatoes or its paste in glass jars. Costco has organic tomatoes in cans and we don’t buy it. I wish they would change in future.




    0
    1. Thanks for your question.

      I think there is definitely room for minimising your exposure to BPA, the National Institute of Health has a nice summary on the topic (see here). A more detailed document can be found here, though it was produced by the Breast Cancer Fund.

      In regards to that, you do have a point, but the only thing I can suggest is try to use fresh organic tomatoes whenever possible.

      Hope this answer helps.




      0
    1. Jacob Dijksra: You are not alone. After reviewing the feedback, NutritionFacts decided to discontinue the popups. However, there are many pre-recorded videos. So, please be patient. When we get to the next volume of videos, there will be no more popups.




      0
    1. I can understand that 2.2 cents on 10’s of millions of cans would cost the tin companies a significant amount, but I would happily buy canned beans that cost 2.2 cents more or even 50c more if they used the plant based lining instead of BPA or untested BPB etc.




      0
  27. I am busy, single, and not a good cook. I rely on canned beans and olives. Is there a brand of canned beans (or olives) that advertises being BPA free?




    0
    1. Larry: Eden brand has three things going for it: 1) organic, 2) BPA free, 3) No added salt. The Eden beans are stored with seaweed, which means you don’t have to rinse the beans. The liquid is healthy. If I’m making a dip or other dish with beans that needs liquid, I’ll often use the liquid from the can. NutritionFacts has an article saying that the liquid in the Eden can gives us about the daily amount of iodine that we need (due to the seaweed). http://nutritionfacts.org/2012/07/05/do-eden-beans-have-too-much-iodine/ Pretty cool.
      .
      The drawback of the Eden beans is the expense. I find the expense worth it, but others may not.




      0
  28. Ever get the feeling all these chemicals are the solution to population control? Geez, if we are going to get used as lab animals they could at least feed and house us! Makes me wonder if the movie “Children of Men” is prophetic.




    0
  29. Is it practical to live our lives with *zero* exposure to BPA? BPA is in practically everything. Cooking oils are typically stored in plastics that have some level of BPA. BPA is in the cash register receipts we are handed. I am typing on a plastic keyboard.

    If infinitesimally small amounts of BPA are worse than high levels, maybe we should just give up? The only alternative seems to be a vegan Grizzly Adams lifestyle.




    0
  30. Yes, unfortunately you do need to be aware that canned beans can contain BPA. Dr. Greger gives you advice on how to minimize exposure to BPA, if you havn’t see this yet: https://nutritionfacts.org/video/how-to-avoid-the-obesity-related-plastic-chemical-bpa/ Another site you can rely on is this one https://www.ewg.org/research/bpa-canned-food#.WgDegWhSyUk which advises you of what brands of canned products do NOT contain BPA. Hope that helps and keep eating more of those healthy legumes!




    0
  31. There are instances in which certain foods are available to me either canned and organic or frozen and non-organic, and I am curious whether either option is preferable and a lesser evil.




    0

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This