Posted on 12/30/2009 1:06:40 PM PST by woollyone
I used to eat nothing but natural foods.
Until I found out most people die from natural causes.
Generations ate only canned foods and life somehow went on.
We have become a nation of fearful people.
At some point they will determine that this is all wrong or overstated but you are unlikely to read it anywhere.
Exactly..
They're coming after your socks next...
HA! Over my dead body. ;-)
LOL and that’s why I eat anything I want since I need all the preservatives I can get. :)
I see you’re relatively new here.
Let me say... Welcome to FR!
Other tests have shown sperm counts drop by people that eat Bisphenol A (BPA).
>>I see you’re relatively new here.
Let me say... Welcome to FR!<<
I appreciate that welcome, sir, and I’m happy to be here. I am new to this forum but not new to fighting the left and big government. I have been really active since 2003 but it doesn’t seem to be doing any good. :(
(Yikes, I truly hope that’s not the “code” I read on another thread for calling someone a (shudder) troll).
BTW, Tijeras_Slim, I think we might be sorta neighbors. Nice to meet you.
Dang ... I had no idea .. thanks for posting. All these years and endless studies, possible collusion by the BPS manufacturers .. and still no conclusive response from the FDA ?? Outrageous.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
FDA likely to delay ruling on BPA
Agency may say it needs more time to analyze hundreds of new studies
###
By Meg Kissinger of the Journal Sentinel
Posted: Nov. 30, 2009
Warning:
Chemicals in the packaging, surfaces or contents of many products may cause long-term health effects, including cancers of the breast, brain and testicles; lowered sperm counts, early puberty and other reproductive system defects; diabetes; attention deficit disorder, asthma and autism.
A decade ago, the government promised to test these chemicals. It still hasn’t.
Despite months of additional study and a self-imposed timetable, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration likely will not release its ruling Monday on the safety of bisphenol A, a chemical used in thousands of household products that has been linked to developmental and behavioral problems.
Sources told the Journal Sentinel the agency instead is likely to ask for more time as its scientists consider hundreds of new studies on the chemical’s effects.
Last year, relying on two studies paid for by BPA-makers, the FDA held the chemical was safe for all uses. But the FDA’s own science board recommended that the agency had not considered enough of the other studies on the chemical. Earlier this year, the FDA said it would review its findings and set the Nov. 30 deadline.
Advocates for a ban on BPA viewed the prospect of a delay as a good sign, figuring if the FDA plans to maintain its earlier ruling the agency would not need more time.
Additionally, environmentalists were pleased at the recent appointment of Lynn Goldman, a pioneer in research on endocrine-disrupting chemicals and a leading voice for strong environmental health policy, to act as a part-time consultant to the FDA on the chemical.
Advocates of a ban, and packaging company executives who maintain BPA is safe, have anxiously awaited the new FDA ruling.
Even if a new ruling does not come Monday, environmental groups - including the Breast Cancer Fund, Environmental Working Group and the Natural Resource Defense Council - say they will ask the FDA to immediately impose a public health warning, mandatory labeling of food cans, and an outright interim ban on polycarbonate plastic in food containers.
The FDA regulates food packaging. And because BPA is found in the lining of most food and beverage cans, the agency is charged with the task of saying whether BPA is safe for that use.
The FDA’s previous ruling relied on two studies, both of which were paid for by BPA-makers.
E-mails obtained by the Journal Sentinel showed that the FDA’s ruling was written in part by lobbyists for the BPA-makers. The e-mails also showed how agency scientists relied on chemical industry lobbyists to examine the chemical’s risks, track legislation to ban it and even monitor press coverage.
Last year, more than seven billion pounds of BPA were produced in the United States, bringing in more than $6 billion in sales. BPA, developed as an estrogen replacement and used to make hard, clear plastic, has been found in the urine of 93% of Americans tested.
A decade of concern
Scientists began becoming concerned about BPA about 10 years ago when researchers noticed that lab animals stored in polycarbonate cages were getting much fatter and were more likely to develop breast cancer.
Since then, more than 600 studies have looked at the effects of the chemical.
BPA has been linked in studies on lab animals to breast and prostate cancers, diabetes, heart disease and behavioral disorders.
In 2007, the Journal Sentinel analyzed 258 BPA studies and discovered that more than 80% of the studies that found harm were funded by independent scientists. Nearly all of the studies that found no harm were paid for by industry.
Last year, bowing to consumer demand, several baby bottle manufacturers announced they would stop making products with BPA.
Sunoco, one of six companies to manufacture BPA in the U.S., said it would not sell the chemical to companies without a guarantee that it would not be used to make baby bottles.
Canada declared BPA to be a toxin and outlawed its use in baby bottles.
Similar measures followed in New York’s Suffolk and Schenectady counties and the city of Chicago, as well as Minnesota and Connecticut. Massachusetts has issued a health advisory for pregnant woman and babies to avoid products containing BPA.
A federal ban of BPA has been proposed in all food contact items and could be attached to legislation late this year or early next year.
Worries about BPA continue to mount.
A study released this month by Kaiser Permanente found that Chinese factory workers exposed to huge amounts of the chemical were four times more likely to experience erectile dysfunction and seven times more likely have trouble ejaculating.
And a Consumer Reports study released in October and fashioned after tests performed by the Journal Sentinel, found traces of BPA in nearly all food cans, including those marked “BPA Free.”
Plastics industry responds
BPA makers, meanwhile, have intensified their public relations measures to try and assure consumers that the chemical is safe.
In May, the Journal Sentinel reported on a meeting of several executives to devise a campaign, hoping to find a pregnant woman to serve as a spokeswoman for BPA. The newspaper later found documents that showed the plastics industry turning to many of the same tactics - and people - the tobacco industry used in its decades-long fight against regulation.
Meanwhile, the federal Environmental Protection Agency, which monitors BPA in the environment through things like piping for water, said in September it also would be evaluating the chemical’s safety.
And the National Institutes of Health announced in October it would spend $30 million over the next two years for studies of BPA health effects.
http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/78108852.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Consumer Reports magazine: December 2009
###
Concern over canned foods
Our tests find wide range of Bisphenol A in soups, juice, and more - Last reviewed: December 2009
BPA Health Risk
###
The chemical Bisphenol A, which has been used for years in clear plastic bottles and food-can liners, has been restricted in Canada and some U.S. states and municipalities because of potential health effects.
The Food and Drug Administration will soon decide what it considers a safe level of exposure to Bisphenol A (BPA), which some studies have linked to reproductive abnormalities and a heightened risk of breast and prostate cancers, diabetes, and heart disease.
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.”
The debate revolves around just what is a safe level of the chemical to ingest and whether it should be in contact with food. Federal guidelines currently put the daily upper limit of safe exposure at 50 micrograms of BPA per kilogram of body weight.
But that level is based on experiments done in the 1980s rather than hundreds of more recent animal and laboratory studies indicating serious health risks could result from much lower doses of BPA.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Canned foods found to contain dangerously high level of toxic chemical bisphenol-A (BPA)
Monday, April 02, 2007 by: David Gutierrez, staff writer
###
A new study spearheaded by the Environmental Working Group found the toxic chemical bisphenol A (BPA) in over 50 percent of the name-brand canned goods tested. In some cases, a single serving was enough to expose a woman or infant to BPA levels that were 200 times higher than the government’s safe level for industrial chemicals.
What you need to know - Conventional View
• BPA is an industrially produced chemical commonly used in polycarbonate plastics and epoxy resins. BPA-containing resins are a common ingredient in the linings of canned goods.
• BPA is a known estrogen mimicker, and can cause hormone-disrupting effects, toxicity or even neurotoxicity, low sperm counts and cancer. Some of these effects can occur in concentrations as low as two parts per billion. More than 200 animal studies show that BPA is toxic at very low doses, and the Centers for Disease Control explains that it has found BPA in 95 percent of patients being tested at levels that raise health concerns.
• The study found that cans of chicken soup, infant formula and ravioli had the highest levels of BPA. One to three servings of these foods was enough to expose women or children to BPA levels that have been shown to cause harm in animal tests.
• One in 10 of the cans tested — and one in three cans of infant formula — contained concentrations high enough that a single serving contained levels less than five times lower than the dose shown to cause harm in animal studies. Typically, the government classifies exposure as dangerous if it is within 1,000 to 3,000 times that shown to harm animals.
• The FDA estimates that 17% of the U.S. diet comes from canned food, but there is no government safety standard regulating the amount of BPA allowed in such foods.
• Quote: “Given widespread human exposure to BPA and hundreds of studies showing its adverse effects, the FDA and EPA must act quickly to revise safe levels for BPA exposure based on the latest science on the low-dose toxicity of the chemical.” - Environmental Working Group
http://www.naturalnews.com/021761.html
I guess if the bad stuff looks like it’s going to hit the fan I’ll buy canned goods. Otherwise- I can’t remember when I last bought anything in a can other than dog/cat food. Fresh or frozen for vegetables- tomato sauce/salsa I get in jars.
I use a lot of canned goods .. and frozen veggies,
will have to ponder this one. I had no clue there
was this risk out there.
It’s all bad since they quit soldering the cans together with lead!!!
??Who is it bad for the eater or the guy that got put in the can??
“I’m not Mark. I merely enjoy his website.”
No wonder what you posted is crap, it came from a stinking blog!!!
All right, break it down to me in simple English.
Can I eat canned food or not? LOL.
Thanks Star, been eating canned foods for ever, think some other things may ‘get me’ first, lol.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.