BPA: Kicking the can
A recent study by environmental groups suggests that over 70% of food cans stocked in major Canadian retail stores contain bisphenol A, better known as BPA, a chemical often linked to health complications. In fact, many studies have suggested that BPA can mimic the hormone estrogen and conceivably affect the behaviour and neurological development in infants and young children. Some findings have also suggested links between BPA and cancer. These are not the words our risk-obsessed society likes to hear. The controversy of BPA is interesting given that for over 40 years this chemical’s main purpose was indeed to make canned food products safer.
Despite several claims by Health Canada that BPA exposure to young children is below levels and should not be a cause for concern, studies suggest that it can migrate from canned food linings into the food itself, which exposes consumers to more risks. The use of BPA is banned from sippy cups and baby bottles, but its use is still accepted with most other food products. However, evidence stemming from research on BPA is anything but conclusive. These conflicting messages appear to be leading to more market confusion. Consumer pressure, however, is mounting due to more studies that support the dangers of BPA and want the chemical outlawed.
Mixed messages from policymakers is also creating some discomfort in the industry. In fact, Campbell Soup Co. announced recently that it will become BPA-free by mid-year in 2017. Its announcement attracted significant attention to the BPA issue. In light of the confusion surrounding BPA, the famous soup company likely opted to act pre-emptively to shield its brand. It should not come as a surprise if more food processors make similar commitments over the next few years. Food safety in business is about addressing risks, both factual and perceptual. Accordingly, if safety and welfare are at the core of a food-related brand then many players in the field may move on this issue sooner rather than later.
When looking at the BPA issue we can learn from our less-than-stellar past on how we have anticipated potential threats throughout the food chain. The underestimation of risks in the early stage appears to be part of a necessary pattern. Trans fats, or unsaturated fatty acids, in food is one of the many examples which speak to how valuable a longitudinal approach to research can be for the food industry. Time and extended research lead to a greater understanding of how to deal with socio-technical challenges. Trans fats was about extending shelf life and making food taste better, thus benefiting consumers, until the research pointed to cardiovascular diseases. Within a few years after the studies new regulatory labelling policies were put into place and now trans fats are rarely found in Canadian food. Mad cow disease is another example we have seen in recent years.
BPA is about protecting the public, yet industry has had good reasons to use it. It is affordable, available and uncompromising to food taste. What we have learned from the past though is that we cannot take anything for granted. More than ever we should acknowledge that science is not an absolute. Over time more research leads to new discoveries and intriguing findings that can lead to better policy, full stop. Evidence-based standards are key to making our food systems more efficient. Given our risk mitigating track-record over the years, we should all proceed with extreme caution.
Of course, if we are to get rid of BPA we should equally be concerned about what would replace it. The industry would be required to forfeit a chemical with a proven food safety track-record and potentially exchange it for one that may pose more risks. A desirable outcome would be to develop a product with less public health baggage, but this could lead to increased packaging costs. This is a reality consumers should be aware of, but with time proper alternatives can be found and, as such, we should not kick the can down the road.
A recent study by environmental groups suggests that over 70% of food cans stocked in major Canadian retail stores contain bisphenol A, better known as BPA, a chemical often linked to health complications. In fact, many studies have suggested that BPA can mimic the hormone estrogen and conceivably affect the behaviour and neurological development in infants and young children. Some findings have also suggested links between BPA and cancer. These are not the words our risk-obsessed society likes to hear. The controversy of BPA is interesting given that for over 40 years this chemical’s main purpose was indeed to make canned food products safer.
Despite several claims by Health Canada that BPA exposure to young children is below levels and should not be a cause for concern, studies suggest that it can migrate from canned food linings into the food itself, which exposes consumers to more risks. The use of BPA is banned from sippy cups and baby bottles, but its use is still accepted with most other food products. However, evidence stemming from research on BPA is anything but conclusive. These conflicting messages appear to be leading to more market confusion. Consumer pressure, however, is mounting due to more studies that support the dangers of BPA and want the chemical outlawed.
Mixed messages from policymakers is also creating some discomfort in the industry. In fact, Campbell Soup Co. announced recently that it will become BPA-free by mid-year in 2017. Its announcement attracted significant attention to the BPA issue. In light of the confusion surrounding BPA, the famous soup company likely opted to act pre-emptively to shield its brand. It should not come as a surprise if more food processors make similar commitments over the next few years. Food safety in business is about addressing risks, both factual and perceptual. Accordingly, if safety and welfare are at the core of a food-related brand then many players in the field may move on this issue sooner rather than later.
When looking at the BPA issue we can learn from our less-than-stellar past on how we have anticipated potential threats throughout the food chain. The underestimation of risks in the early stage appears to be part of a necessary pattern. Trans fats, or unsaturated fatty acids, in food is one of the many examples which speak to how valuable a longitudinal approach to research can be for the food industry. Time and extended research lead to a greater understanding of how to deal with socio-technical challenges. Trans fats was about extending shelf life and making food taste better, thus benefiting consumers, until the research pointed to cardiovascular diseases. Within a few years after the studies new regulatory labelling policies were put into place and now trans fats are rarely found in Canadian food. Mad cow disease is another example we have seen in recent years.
BPA is about protecting the public, yet industry has had good reasons to use it. It is affordable, available and uncompromising to food taste. What we have learned from the past though is that we cannot take anything for granted. More than ever we should acknowledge that science is not an absolute. Over time more research leads to new discoveries and intriguing findings that can lead to better policy, full stop. Evidence-based standards are key to making our food systems more efficient. Given our risk mitigating track-record over the years, we should all proceed with extreme caution.
Of course, if we are to get rid of BPA we should equally be concerned about what would replace it. The industry would be required to forfeit a chemical with a proven food safety track-record and potentially exchange it for one that may pose more risks. A desirable outcome would be to develop a product with less public health baggage, but this could lead to increased packaging costs. This is a reality consumers should be aware of, but with time proper alternatives can be found and, as such, we should not kick the can down the road.
