Clydesdales/Athenas (200+ lb / 91+ kg) - Food (and Drinks) in Cans And Obesity Causing Endocrine Disruptor BPA Linked!

I just read something scary.
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/22/bpa-lurks-in-canned-soups-and-drinks/

Evidenly some recent research by a Harvard epidemiologist and colleagues revealed that eating SOME (not all, see below) canned foods -from cans that use BPA in their lining- can raise blood levels of Bisphenol A by a huge amount.

(Note post below>:" I work for a big soup company and we do not have this issue anymore.")

Its expected that some other canned items (similarly coated sodas + beers) are going to be even more of a health threat because people consume more volume of them. (Someone might eat food from half - as in the study, evidently- or even more of these BPA-coated cans in a day, but its even more common for people to consume several canned sodas or beers a day)

The evidence is mounting up that Bisphenol A levels and obesity are associated.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?term=obesity+bisphenol-a

Bisphenol A seems to negatively impact male fertility and it is one of the most omnipresent "endocrine disruptors (ttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?term=endocrine%20disruptor)" that seem to be increasingly linked to obesity (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=bisphenol%20a%20obesity), (also see here (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&cmd=link&linkname=pubmed_pubmed&uid=21457182)) reproductive system abnormalities (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=bisphenol%20a%20reproduction), cancer, diabetes, and many other serious illnesses.

-----

This is the first few paragraphs of the NYT article:

"BPA Lurks in Canned Soups and Drinks
By ANAHAD O'CONNOR
Is there BPA in your canned food?

A new study by Harvard researchers may provide another reason to skip the canned pumpkin and cranberry sauce this Thanksgiving. People who ate one serving of canned food daily over the course of five days, the study found, had significantly elevated levels — more than a tenfold increase — of bisphenol-A, or BPA, a substance that lines most food and drink cans.

Most of the research on BPA, a so-called endocrine disruptor that can mimic the body’s hormones, has focused on its use in plastic bottles. It has been linked in some studies to a higher risk of cancer, heart disease, diabetes and obesity, and health officials in the United States have come under increasing pressure to regulate it. Some researchers, though, counter that its reputation as a health threat to people is exaggerated.

The new study, which was published Tuesday in The Journal of the American Medical Association, is the first to measure the amounts that are ingested when people eat food that comes directly out of a can, in this case soup. The spike in BPA levels that the researchers recorded is one of the highest seen in any study.

“We cannot say from our research what the consequences are,” said Karin Michels, an associate professor of epidemiology at Harvard Medical School and an author of the study. “But the very high levels that we found are very surprising. We would have never expected a thousand-percent increase in their levels of BPA.”

As part of the study, Dr. Michels and her colleagues recruited a group of 75 staff members and students at the Harvard School of Public Health, split them into two groups, and then followed them for two weeks. During the first week, one group ate a 12-ounce serving of vegetarian soup from a common brand of canned soup every day for five days; the other group, meanwhile, ate 12 ounces of vegetarian soup made from fresh ingredients each day. Then, after a two-day soup-free “wash out” period, the groups switched roles and were followed for five more days. At the end of each five-day period, the subjects provided urine samples.

Dr. Michels noted that all the participants were fed amounts of soup that were smaller than what people probably would consume on their own. “One serving of soup is a not a lot,” she said. “They were actually telling us that that wasn’t even enough for their lunch.”....

Christ: not all soups cans are like this. I work for a big soup company and we do not have this issue anymore.

Which company? Also, are you absolutely sure? No BPA in the coating?

If so, you should make that public knowledge. That is a big selling point. Also, you should write the NYT blog linked above as well as the researcher each a letter explaining that they may be wrong in some cases (give the specific info they need to verify that) as the article says that most cans are coated with plastic.

If you can PM me with some kind of info that shows this I will edit this post to reflect that.

Are you allowed to put that info on your can labels? "NO BPA IN THIS CAN'S LINER"

Chris: I am a small fish in big waters. There are many layers in the onion so to speak and all I am one of the chefs for the company.

Not looking for an edit on the post at all but just wanted to add that not every can is created equally. Technology has come SO far in the last 30 years when it comes to cans.

In some communities, canned soups and similar canned products like tomato paste are as good at it gets at the neighborhood food store.

I thought the move from tin cans with lead solder to plastic coated aluminum was completely good, but if they added BPA to some of them, that's not good at all.

Lead builds up in your bones, etc, BPA gets stored in your fat cells.

I wonder how they could ever do a study on long term exposure on this planet, they would probably have to use people from the very poorest countries as controls.. Certainly almost everybody in the US, has been exposed to lots of it.

I'd be interested in learning any method of identifying brands that use it from brands that don't.

In some communities, canned soups and similar canned products like tomato paste are as good at it gets at the neighborhood food store.

I thought the move from tin cans with lead solder to plastic coated aluminum was completely good, but if they added BPA to some of them, that's not good at all.

Lead builds up in your bones, etc, BPA gets stored in your fat cells.

I wonder how they could ever do a study on long term exposure on this planet, they would probably have to use people from the very poorest countries as controls.. Certainly almost everybody in the US, has been exposed to lots of it.

I'd be interested in learning any method of identifying brands that use it from brands that don't.

Aluminum without BPA isn't exactly innocent either, being linked to alzheimer's as it is used (in various chemical compounds) as an emulsifier in baking powder, table salt etc. and many processed baked goods, like pizza dough. Anyone getting the picture yet?

try soup in a pouch or in plastic.

Glass or stainless steel are good for cooking, but what are people supposed to use to buy store-bought food in. I suppose we could bring our own containers, and buy it in bulk from large glass/steel dispensers.

Like bulk items in health food stores. I used to buy shampoo like that.

It may come to that.

>"try soup in a pouch or in plastic."

Isaac, if the soup was cooked, then cooled very quickly, put in a pouch, sealed, and then immediately flash frozen, that might reduce the amount of plasticizers that could leach. Also, as I understand it, the very hard kinds of plastic are fairly safe, its the soft kinds that have the worst chemicals in them.

The same thing goes for the plastics on electronics. Those old soft plastics on TVs and monitors were very bad.

The stuff in non-stick coatings is also really, really bad. Especially if it gets "too hot".

If you have a pet bird, they say, never, ever use non-stick pans in your home, always use stainless steel, cast iron, or glass, because if you burn your pot - or even if it just gets too hot, you may not smell anything yet, but even that- low level of its vapor can sometimes kill them.

Some parrots are very intelligent and we now realize, self aware tool makers who bond for life - like (now-deceased) Alex "Pepperberg", whose life and work was eulogized in the New York Times. I love parrots but I don't have one, because I would be terrified of the responsibility, so many chemicals around us are dangerous now.

The evidence against BPA has been pretty dang persuasive for a number of years but the US has really dragged its feet on the issue. Industry lobbies are strong.

There is no good research showing a connection between aluminum and Alzheimer's. But a connection has not been disproved either. :)

And yes, don't use nonstick coatings if you have a pet bird.

I just find eating parrots in excess makes me fat. So rather than blame the cans or the pans or my genes, I just don't eat parrots any more. But I cook with Aluminum, so I can't really remember.

Are there any feral parrots in Oregon? There are large flocks in San Francisco, San Diego, and Brooklyn/Queens (of all places)

Crows are also extremely intelligent, recent research shows, but they are less likely to be in a house.

Birds are commonly eaten as you describe as street food in Asia. Roasted on a stick. So are large grasshoppers.


I just find eating parrots in excess makes me fat. So rather than blame the cans or the pans or my genes, I just don't eat parrots any more. But I cook with Aluminum, so I can't really remember.

Whoa.. that "pizza vegetable" is also laced with alumina? Maybe we should forgo the pizza in those controversial school lunches and just serve em spaghetti with gobs of tomato paste instead for their lycopene!


Aluminum without BPA isn't exactly innocent either, being linked to alzheimer's as it is used (in various chemical compounds) as an emulsifier in baking powder, table salt etc. and many processed baked goods, like pizza dough. Anyone getting the picture yet?

Are there any feral parrots in Oregon? There are large flocks in San Francisco, San Diego, and Brooklyn/Queens (of all places)

Crows are also extremely intelligent, recent research shows, but they are less likely to be in a house.

Birds are commonly eaten as you describe as street food in Asia. Roasted on a stick. So are large grasshoppers.

Roast parrot is better than boiled, I find, whether on a stick or on an aluminum pan. Too many feathers in my teeth from the boiled ones in the plastic pouch.

I grew up eating food on aluminum but now the only aluminum cookware in my life is my wife's nonstick frying pan. Which I worry about a little but she's made up her mind on the issue.

Formaldehyde is another ubiqutous carcinogen that has been soft-pedaled around but which is probably a serious problem. Almost all recently built homes are loaded with it. People who own them should look into a heat recovery ventilator to allow year round ventilation without energy loss.


The evidence against BPA has been pretty dang persuasive for a number of years but the US has really dragged its feet on the issue. Industry lobbies are strong.

There is no good research showing a connection between aluminum and Alzheimer's. But a connection has not been disproved either. :)

And yes, don't use nonstick coatings if you have a pet bird.

the Jillian Michaels book "master your metabolism" is mostly about the things we encounter in every day lives that create havoc on our system. It is worth taking a look

http://www.amazon.com/Master-Your-Metabolism-Naturally-Balancing/dp/0307450732/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1322153934&sr=1-3

There are many icky things in our environment - some we can control, others we cannot. Accuse me of doing the head-in-the-sand thing if you wish, but I work on controlling the things I can within reason and not worrying about those I cannot. I try to eat and drink the right things, avoid doing the stupid things, etc. The thing I don't care for in the original article is the implication from one study that the compounds cause obesity. It is just another excuse for some for their situation, when the hard truth is all summed up in the concept of calories in / calories out. I had to come to grips with that before I could continue weight loss, since it is all too easy to out-eat my exercise (if I rode 6-8 hours a day, that would be different) in my still overweight state. But I can't blame externalities for my choice to eat more than I burn.

There are many icky things in our environment - some we can control, others we cannot. Accuse me of doing the head-in-the-sand thing if you wish, but I work on controlling the things I can within reason and not worrying about those I cannot. I try to eat and drink the right things, avoid doing the stupid things, etc. The thing I don't care for in the original article is the implication from one study that the compounds cause obesity. It is just another excuse for some for their situation, when the hard truth is all summed up in the concept of calories in / calories out. I had to come to grips with that before I could continue weight loss, since it is all too easy to out-eat my exercise (if I rode 6-8 hours a day, that would be different) in my still overweight state. But I can't blame externalities for my choice to eat more than I burn.

+1

There are many icky things in our environment - some we can control, others we cannot. Accuse me of doing the head-in-the-sand thing if you wish, but I work on controlling the things I can within reason and not worrying about those I cannot. I try to eat and drink the right things, avoid doing the stupid things, etc. The thing I don't care for in the original article is the implication from one study that the compounds cause obesity. It is just another excuse for some for their situation, when the hard truth is all summed up in the concept of calories in / calories out. I had to come to grips with that before I could continue weight loss, since it is all too easy to out-eat my exercise (if I rode 6-8 hours a day, that would be different) in my still overweight state. But I can't blame externalities for my choice to eat more than I burn.

I agree that there isn't solid research on BPA and obesity and most of the research is animal research and therefore questionable. However, I do not agree with you that understanding factors that enter into eating too many calories for our metabolism amounts to "just another excuse." I lost weight. My weight loss was not sabotaged by understanding that there may be genetic and environment reasons I ate too much and why there may be reasons why it is hard to keep weight off. In contrast to you, not taking all the blame on myself helped me lose weight and helps me be aware that it is going to be hard to keep it off. Knowledge is power and all that jazz. But what works for me may not work for others.

Also, as I understand it, the very hard kinds of plastic are fairly safe, its the soft kinds that have the worst chemicals in them.
If you're talking about BPA, then it's the other way around. BPA is used in the manufacture of polycarbonates, which were used in the very hard plastic bottles. But the hard bottles now sold are generally BPA-free. Softer bottles, such as typical bicycle water bottles, never had BPA.

I agree that there isn't solid research on BPA and obesity and most of the research is animal research and therefore questionable. However, I do not agree with you that understanding factors that enter into eating too many calories for our metabolism amounts to "just another excuse." I lost weight. My weight loss was not sabotaged by understanding that there may be genetic and environment reasons I ate too much and why there may be reasons why it is hard to keep weight off. In contrast to you, not taking all the blame on myself helped me lose weight and helps me be aware that it is going to be hard to keep it off. Knowledge is power and all that jazz. But what works for me may not work for others.

But in the end, we have to eat less than we burn to lose it, eat the same as we burn to maintain it, or decide to eat more than we burn to gain it. I'm not taking blame on myself, just responsibility. Nobody else can do it for me, or to me.

It's better to eat fresh vegetables or fruit rather than canned, since a lot of the canning process removes a lot of the nutrients the food has to offer. If you do that, you shouldn't have to worry about that. As far as soda -- it should be avoided at all costs. And you are right, a lot of these studies are done by testing on animals. Animals aren't a very stable source for research because often times the same research is done on humans, only to find out that we react differently, making the original study null and void.

But in the end, we have to eat less than we burn to lose it, eat the same as we burn to maintain it, or decide to eat more than we burn to gain it. I'm not taking blame on myself, just responsibility. Nobody else can do it for me, or to me.

Yes, that is all we can do. But being aware of internal and external factors that effect weight gain may help us exercise that responsibility. Plus, I don't believe in beating myself up--it just makes me feel bad and hopeless. Instead, I'd rather go the behavior modification route and try to find ways of thinking that help me not overeat. So instead of thinking that I am a lazy-ass that can't resist food it helps me to know that resistance is difficult for most anyone in my position and my nature in fact is not lazy. Or, if I am stressed or unhappy instead of eating I will try to find some other way to relieve the stress. Thank goodness for birding and bikes! Or, if my spouse makes fudge instead of trying to resist the fudge I ask him to give most away and hide the rest. I know I can't resist fudge if it is sitting in front of me. Etc.


As far as soda -- it should be avoided at all costs..


Axiom, I love my soda. I know it is bad for me and comes in BPA coated cans. But I am picking my battles and I am not fighting this one for now. :)

Yes, that is all we can do. But being aware of internal and external factors that effect weight gain may help us exercise that responsibility. Plus, I don't believe in beating myself up--it just makes me feel bad and hopeless. Instead, I'd rather go the behavior modification route and try to find ways of thinking that help me not overeat. So instead of thinking that I am a lazy-ass that can't resist food it helps me to know that resistance is difficult for most anyone in my position and my nature in fact is not lazy. Or, if I am stressed or unhappy instead of eating I will try to find some other way to relieve the stress. Thank goodness for birding and bikes! Or, if my spouse makes fudge instead of trying to resist the fudge I ask him to give most away and hide the rest. I know I can't resist fudge if it is sitting in front of me. Etc.




Axiom, I love my soda. I know it is bad for me and comes in BPA coated cans. But I am picking my battles and I am not fighting this one for now. :)

I do too :-(

I didn't mention the fact that I am trying to avoid soda, and that it is still very hard for me. Good luck with your goals :-)

The stuff in non-stick coatings is also really, really bad. Especially if it gets "too hot".

If you have a pet bird, they say, never, ever use non-stick pans in your home, always use stainless steel, cast iron, or glass, because if you burn your pot - or even if it just gets too hot, you may not smell anything yet, but even that- low level of its vapor can sometimes kill them.



With teflon, too hot is in the range of 500F to over 1000F. That's damned hot and probably due to heating a pan without anything in it for a very long time.

The thing I don't care for in the original article is the implication from one study that the compounds cause obesity.
That is created entirely by the news media. The original news release located on the Harvard website is here (http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/2011-releases/canned-soup-bpa.html), and highlights the fact that one study does not an all-encompassing slam-dunk make.

(The actual study is here (http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/306/20/2218.2.extract), but requires JAMA access to read.)

In any case, my simplistic understanding of things that "cause obesity" is that they tweak the body's ability to recognize satiety, making people under their effect hungry when they should have enough caloric intake already. That would make it HARDER for people to pull off calorie control, to have a meal that should be "Ah, that was small but good, let's go" instead have the body screaming "Is that all? Have you flipped your lid? I'm going into famine mode right now!"

In any case, my simplistic understanding of things that "cause obesity" is that they tweak the body's ability to recognize satiety, making people under their effect hungry when they should have enough caloric intake already. That would make it HARDER for people to pull off calorie control, to have a meal that should be "Ah, that was small but good, let's go" instead have the body screaming "Is that all? Have you flipped your lid? I'm going into famine mode right now!"

I suppose the things we eat, and what they contain, can help us be triggered. I know that chocolate chip oatmeal cookies can disappear by the cookiejar full if I let myself go. It's the cussed brown sugar!

I harken back to my Grandfather - at age 80 he was told that his glaucoma could cause him to go blind if he didn't stop smoking. He asked the doc about the easiest way to stop smoking: "Just stop" said the doctor. After over 60 years of smoking, he stopped, cold turkey. Motivated - smoke and go blind (at least that's what was presented to him). And he was a chain smoker, lighting the next one from the last. Supposedly nicotine is tougher to kick than heroin (per a former surgeon general).

Now, one doesn't have to smoke. One does have to eat. So we can't cold-turkey hthefood. And, having had to fight my weight most of my 53 years (most, not all, my mom used to feed me whipped cream to put weight on me when I was little), I understand the struggle.

But if I am going to have success, I have to not blame somebody or something else. It is my job to lift the fork or to put it down. So even if some compound influences my hunger, I have to decide who wins. Me. I can do some things, like not keep the trigger foods in the house, eliminate the HFCS, or quit drinking the diet soda. But in the end, it is steps I have to take in order to get the job done, and in the end I cannot blame anything or anybody else for my pants size but me. I ate it, I wear it.

And, I am not a dog or a cat - even if my body still thinks it is hungry, if I know I have had enough calories, I simply don't eat any more (simply, he says.......). But I have a mental capacity to overcome what my fat cells are saying - I cannot simply live on my cravings.

Caveat: None of this is easy, and I am still on the road to health and fitness. Hoping to finally drop to 185 or so from my start at 238, and to finally rid myself of the BP meds. It ain't easy, and I don't EVER want to imply it so. Simple, maybe - easy, never.

Yes, but not everyone is The Determinator, and most peoples' willpower only stretches so far before they let themself slide. Especially when they're trying to wrap their mind around the idea that this is going to be a permanent state of affairs.

Something that can turn "Not eating until i'm STUFFED is a new experience - but I can get the hang of this" into nagging weakness and hunger cravings all day long is going to make weight loss harder for most mortals, to say the least.

If I try staying to a diet that SHOULD be sufficient, but feel continually hungry and weak? I'm going to despair and likely conclude that the whole diet thing is simply flat without patches or tubes.

See this paper.. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21676388 "Environ Res. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21676388#) 2011 Aug;111(6):825-30. Epub 2011 Jun 14.Urinary bisphenol A and obesity: NHANES 2003-2006.""CONCLUSIONS: Higher BPA exposure is associated with general and central obesity in the general adult population of the United States. Reverse causation is of concern due to the cross-sectional nature of this study; longitudinal studies are needed to clarify the direction of the association."


The thing I don't care for in the original article is the implication from one study that the compounds cause obesity. It is just another excuse for some for their situation, when the hard truth is all summed up in the concept of calories in / calories out.

Here are some others..

"
RESULTS:

Higher urinary BPA concentrations were associated with cardiovascular diagnoses in age-, sex-, and fully adjusted models (OR per 1-SD increase in BPA concentration, 1.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.18-1.63; P = .001 with full adjustment). Higher BPA concentrations were also associated with diabetes (OR per 1-SD increase in BPA concentration, 1.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.21-1.60; P < .001) but not with other studied common diseases. In addition, higher BPA concentrations were associated with clinically abnormal concentrations of the liver enzymes gamma-glutamyltransferase (OR per 1-SD increase in BPA concentration, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.14-1.46; P < .001) and alkaline phosphatase (OR per 1-SD increase in BPA concentration, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.18-1.85; P = .002).
CONCLUSION:

Higher BPA exposure, reflected in higher urinary concentrations of BPA, may be associated with avoidable morbidity in the community-dwelling adult population.


..........


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmid/20084273/?tool=pubmed
"

CONCLUSIONS:

Higher BPA exposure, reflected in higher urinary concentrations of BPA, is consistently associated with reported heart disease in the general adult population of the USA. Studies to clarify the mechanisms of these associations are urgently needed."


"

Environ Health. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez#) 2008 Jun 3;7:27.
Association of urinary phthalate metabolite concentrations with body mass index and waist circumference: a cross-sectional study of NHANES data, 1999-2002. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18522739)

Hatch EE (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Hatch%20EE%22%5BAuthor%5D), Nelson JW (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Nelson%20JW%22%5BAuthor%5D), Qureshi MM (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Qureshi%20MM%22%5BAuthor%5D), Weinberg J (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Weinberg%20J%22%5BAuthor%5D), Moore LL (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Moore%20LL%22%5BAuthor%5D), Singer M (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Singer%20M%22%5BAuthor%5D), Webster TF (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Webster%20TF%22%5BAuthor%5D).
Source

Department of Epidemiology, Boston University School of Public Health, 715 Albany St,, Boston, MA 02118, USA. eehatch@bu.edu

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Although diet and activity are key factors in the obesity epidemic, laboratory studies suggest that endocrine disrupting chemicals may also affect obesity."


CONCLUSION:

This exploratory, cross-sectional analysis revealed a number of interesting associations with different phthalate metabolites and obesity outcomes, including notable differences by gender and age subgroups. Effects of endocrine disruptors, such as phthalates, may depend upon endogenous hormone levels, which vary dramatically by age and gender. Individual phthalates also have different biologic and hormonal effects. Although our study has limitations, both of these factors could explain some of the variation in the observed associations. These preliminary data support the need for prospective studies in populations at risk for obesity.
PMID:18522739 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
PMCID: PMC2440739
Free PMC Article (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmid/18522739/?tool=pubmed)
Related citations (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&cmd=link&linkname=pubmed_pubmed&uid=18522739)

There are many more.. see the Related Articles from the first link.. and the others above

Exactly. The report isn't claiming anything of the sort. It is simply showing a new vector of exposure to a chemical for which a body of work already exists showing such a linkage.

Thats what I heard too, several years ago, but the level at which the problems occur seems to sometimes be low enough so that, for example, self cleaning ovens seem to be implicated in some bird deaths.. They may cause human health issues too if homes aren't well ventilated... We might not attribute them to them..

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?term=polytetrafluoroethylene



With teflon, too hot is in the range of 500F to over 1000F. That's damned hot and probably due to heating a pan without anything in it for a very long time.

"With teflon, too hot is in the range of 500F to over 1000F. That's damned hot and probably due to heating a pan without anything in it for a very long time."

Thats what I heard too, several years ago, but the level at which the problems occur seems to sometimes be low enough so that, for example, self cleaning ovens seem to be implicated in some bird deaths.
According to Wikipedia:
A self-cleaning oven is an oven (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oven) which uses high temperature (approximately 900 degrees Fahrenheit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit) or 500 degrees Celsius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celsius)) to burn off leftovers from baking, without the use of any chemical agents.

So it's not surprising that it could cause issues.

Note that we need to read the studies carefully. The NIH.gov papers reflect surveys of a few thousand people. Guess what? The fat ones have more BPA. Hence they use the term "linked." It's called "get me more research funding."

A good journalist will turn to CDC and get data on BPA and associated toxicity and LD50 dose and linear model data on what is conservatively "safe" levels to have. And then we look at the BPA level measured in soup made fresh (near zero) and BPA levels soup out of a can causing 1223% (okay, like 12X) toxicity. But 12 x zero still = zero.

I've seen all sorts of toxicity of mercury studies on various fish and some cultures eat tonnes of fish. This study was done and corroborated by various entities that stated that farmed salmon in BC and Washington state had 12 - 16x the mercury levels of fresh ocean run salmon. Ergo - don't eat farmed salmon. But as I mentioned, some cultures eat LOTs of fish. And many actually live longer holding UN records as top 1 or 2 in longevity. So what's up with that? Shouldn't they all be crazy and dead from mercury? Well, the truth was that the levels of mercury in ocean-run salmon was near zero and about like 100,000 times lower than anything of concern. So 16x that is still a really small number. And the level of concern is usually set by CDC to be very conservative and based on a linear-hypothesis (i.e. if X-amount of the stuff is lethal to 50% of the population, then 1/1000th of that level is lethal to 1 person in 2000).

I suspect that much of the conclusions on "linkage" are due to self-selection. That folks who have high BPA levels consume lots of sweet juices and sodas and are already obese due to such caloric intake. And 95% correlation factor is pretty weak. I just need to show a statistical certainty that average BPA levels are higher with fat people by even a small amount to make that claim. And as the original NYTimes referenced article explains, they need more study. They didn't see how long BPA levels were in the blood and what the effects were. And I would conclude that rats are not people.

We have a fundamental rule of kcals in vs. kcals out. The BPA causing some change in metabolism that affects the general kcals in vs. kcals out - well, that's a hard sell for me. BPA would have to affect the way the body fundamentally digests food and absorbs calories that would somehow make us more "efficient" at absorbing food. I suspect that's not the case. If we count total caloric content - we might find that folks that crack open some chunk/cut stew or soup from a can, then to pour that over a massive box of cooked minute rice or pasta or some other carb, and overall, it's just a faster way for the fat folks to chow down more food. And if in general a simple majority of fat people do this slightly more often, there's your 95% "confidence."

Empirical studies in medicine are the bain of true science in a lot of these cases. It bugs me as an engineer because I always like to know the underlying root-cause in true Physical Terms (Physical = Physics/Chemistry = real hard core science). They have made many claims about Saccharin, Aspartame, Benzene, and other trace chemicals in our environment. But I find if I eat less, and ride MORE - the weight comes off. That's a zero-order/first-order effect that vastly overwhelms any trace BPA from the 10 cans of carcinogenic diet soda I drink a day with brain over-stimulating caffeine. But I digress....

Ding!Ding!Ding! gyozadude wins!

Gdude, I too am frustrated by the "linkages" so many studies make based on a faulty application of statistics. An engineer as well, I like to see a stronger correlation - and studies that are not done with the purpose of justifying more funding.

One can draw a conclusion from the studies if one wants - if you want to lose weight, and believe BPA from canned foods make you fat, DONT EAT CANNED FOOD. Because, if in fact the BPA compounds change the way one's body processes food, it still comes down to intake of less energy than you use.

Believe me, if there were some magic other than the basic "equation", I'd be in line for that pill. But as far as I can tell, the only thing I can blame my gut on is my feeding my pie hole.

I grew up eating food on aluminum but now the only aluminum cookware in my life is my wife's nonstick frying pan. Which I worry about a little but she's made up her mind on the issue.

Formaldehyde is another ubiqutous carcinogen that has been soft-pedaled around but which is probably a serious problem. Almost all recently built homes are loaded with it. People who own them should look into a heat recovery ventilator to allow year round ventilation without energy loss.

I've heard that carpets and their padding are particularly nasty.


Yes, but not everyone is The Determinator, and most peoples' willpower only stretches so far before they let themself slide. Especially when they're trying to wrap their mind around the idea that this is going to be a permanent state of affairs.

Something that can turn "Not eating until i'm STUFFED is a new experience - but I can get the hang of this" into nagging weakness and hunger cravings all day long is going to make weight loss harder for most mortals, to say the least.

If I try staying to a diet that SHOULD be sufficient, but feel continually hungry and weak? I'm going to despair and likely conclude that the whole diet thing is simply flat without patches or tubes.

I've all but eliminated carbs from my diet and replaced them with fats and protein. I don't get hunger pangs like I used to. Cravings are down for me as well.


Ding!Ding!Ding! gyozadude wins!

Gdude, I too am frustrated by the "linkages" so many studies make based on a faulty application of statistics. An engineer as well, I like to see a stronger correlation - and studies that are not done with the purpose of justifying more funding.

One can draw a conclusion from the studies if one wants - if you want to lose weight, and believe BPA from canned foods make you fat, DONT EAT CANNED FOOD. Because, if in fact the BPA compounds change the way one's body processes food, it still comes down to intake of less energy than you use.

Believe me, if there were some magic other than the basic "equation", I'd be in line for that pill. But as far as I can tell, the only thing I can blame my gut on is my feeding my pie hole.

Well, yea, it all comes down to money and the way it is handed out for studying mating habits of a squirrel that only resides in Africa and drug addictions of shemale prostitutes in Asia is it really any surprise?

According to Wikipedia:
A self-cleaning oven is an oven (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oven) which uses high temperature (approximately 900 degrees Fahrenheit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit) or 500 degrees Celsius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celsius)) to burn off leftovers from baking, without the use of any chemical agents.

So it's not surprising that it could cause issues.

The response you quote concerns non-stick materials used on pans, particularly teflon. Who puts pans in the oven while using the self-cleaning feature?

The inside surfaces of some ovens are made of various nonstick materials..


The response you quote concerns non-stick materials used on pans, particularly teflon. Who puts pans in the oven while using the self-cleaning feature?

One of the posters here works in a canned food company and he sounds to me as if he's an authoritative source in that he knows specifically that the coating used in his company's cans do not use BPA.

I do think its possible to use safer coatings. I don't think they use BPA the way we do, in Europe.


See http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?term=endocrine%20disruptor (http://www.bikeforums.net/See%20http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?term=endocrine%20disruptor)

http://www.ourstolenfuture.com and
http://www.ourstolenfuture.com/New/newstuff.htm




Ding!Ding!Ding! gyozadude wins!

Gdude, I too am frustrated by the "linkages" so many studies make based on a faulty application of statistics. An engineer as well, I like to see a stronger correlation - and studies that are not done with the purpose of justifying more funding.

One can draw a conclusion from the studies if one wants - if you want to lose weight, and believe BPA from canned foods make you fat, DONT EAT CANNED FOOD. Because, if in fact the BPA compounds change the way one's body processes food, it still comes down to intake of less energy than you use.

Believe me, if there were some magic other than the basic "equation", I'd be in line for that pill. But as far as I can tell, the only thing I can blame my gut on is my feeding my pie hole.

We bought a pad for one of our carpets that made me sick. We had to throw it out. We still can't use the carpet that was on it, its wrapped up in two layers of plastic. It still smells. It took me a long time to figure out what was happening.

Maybe I can bake the smell out of it in the summer. Put it upside down (back side up) in the sun for a while.


I've heard that carpets and their padding are particularly nasty.

As I understand it, many of the soft plastic bottles DO have plasticizers (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21457182) in them. The hotter they get the more they leach out. Also, many plastics around the home do too. We see a lot less soft plastics now than we did a few years ago. That is why.

Many of them are illegal in some countries now. Many studies have been done in Europe (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?term=endocrine%20disruptor%20Europe). Europe uses the precautionary principle (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?term=precautionary%20principle) so the legal situation is different than in the US.

In the US Corporations are people (http://reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood/) legally and corporate people are innocent until proven guilty (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1513293/?tool=pubmed).

Clear, non leaded, glass is generally okay. We know that. Stainless steel is probably safe.

PubMed Search on "Plastic Bottles (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?term=plastic%20bottles)"


If you're talking about BPA, then it's the other way around. BPA is used in the manufacture of polycarbonates, which were used in the very hard plastic bottles. But the hard bottles now sold are generally BPA-free. Softer bottles, such as typical bicycle water bottles, never had BPA.

Because, if in fact the BPA compounds change the way one's body processes food, it still comes down to intake of less energy than you use.

Yes, and no. Its not quite that simple. The BPA link is still yet to be proven, but there is a lot of evidence that a calorie is not a calorie when it comes to how fat we are. When you eat fructose, if I remember the numbers right, about 20% of the calories gets turned immediately to fat by your liver. If you are eating the perfect amount of calories your body need, you immediately have more fat, plus you have a 20% calorie deficit. You body responds by keeping your hunger sensation running full speed.

Check out the second audio stream here http://www.peoplespharmacy.com/2011/11/26/802-sugar-hazards/
The same guy has a youtube video where he goes step by step through the chemical processes in your liver that cause you to put on more fat when your calories come from sugar vs glucose.

Yes, and no. Its not quite that simple. The BPA link is still yet to be proven, but there is a lot of evidence that a calorie is not a calorie when it comes to how fat we are. When you eat fructose, if I remember the numbers right, about 20% of the calories gets turned immediately to fat by your liver. If you are eating the perfect amount of calories your body need, you immediately have more fat, plus you have a 20% calorie deficit. You body responds by keeping your hunger sensation running full speed.

Didn't say a calorie was a calorie was a calorie. What I DID say was that you have to take in less than you burn. But I don't buy the idea that you intake less than you need, and still get fatter. Would need to see a lot more to convince me that is the way our furnaces work.

Shoot, surrounded by plastic bottles, carpet, sugar, and imported veggies. Plus, the doggone Parrot gave me a stomach ache and had to see the dentist to get the feathers out of my teeth. I fear I am not long for this world...

If I'm reading this right, they just measured the level in the blood, but they have no idea what affects that may have. Did I miss something other than some alarming journalism? The article you references came up first when I searched, followed 2nd by one that says we should enjoy our dinner with no fear (http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2011/11/bpa-and-thanksgiving-enjoy-your-dinner-with-no-fear/).

I Googled for the study, and all I found was this information (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21705716), linked from the above article I found. I'm guessing the NYTimes blog didn't link to it because it was hard to read and the results weren't nearly as alarming as the article, if I understand what I read right. It was a small sample of people eating nothing but canned food for a 24 hour period as far as I can tell. It looks like the level in the urine was pretty high, but the blood serum levels were undetectable 83% of the time. So it seems the body was doing a pretty good job of eliminating this chemical.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not happy with adding chemicals in my body (even though it's pretty much unavoidable), but canned food generally has other chemicals added that I want to avoid as well. If you consist of a diet containing nothing but canned foods, BPA is only one of your concerns.

I added a bunch of links to the original post.. follow some of them. You'll see what I am talking about.

that
That is created entirely by the news media. The original news release located on the Harvard website is here (http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/2011-releases/canned-soup-bpa.html), and highlights the fact that one study does not an all-encompassing slam-dunk make.

(The actual study is here (http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/306/20/2218.2.extract), but requires JAMA access to read.)

In any case, my simplistic understanding of things that "cause obesity" is that they tweak the body's ability to recognize satiety, making people under their effect hungry when they should have enough caloric intake already. That would make it HARDER for people to pull off calorie control, to have a meal that should be "Ah, that was small but good, let's go" instead have the body screaming "Is that all? Have you flipped your lid? I'm going into famine mode right now!"

Your explanation leaves out all of the new explanations in the research linked above.

ave Very well put!


Exactly. The report isn't claiming anything of the sort. It is simply showing a new vector of exposure to a chemical for which a body of work already exists showing such a linkage.

Don't trust CDC or any US Federal agency to give you accurate info on things like this, that would be extremely unwise, because ever since the Bush administration, all US Federal agencies have been hamstrung by a Bush era requirement that political appointees.. non scientists.."Kommisars" were the ex-USSRs political apointees - these are their US equivalent - as the USSR's were members of ex-USSR's nomenklatura (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomenklatura), often appointed via a patron system) so are our own equivalents..

As far as I know, Obama has not gone back to the pre-2002 situation of civil servants running their own agencies.. Also many Federal agencies have little funding to enforce rules.

In 2002 Bush gave the appointees, who often had no training in the fields they were appointed to or had worked as lobbyists.. veto power over any "statements" publications, or rulemaking "that could effect business"

:bang:

Now that you point it out - that Bush is the root of it all - I understand...

Go to http://www.ewg.org/search and plug in "pet birds" You'll get 70 hits on these compounds.. The EWG did a report several years ago about the dangers of PFCs.. Here is one: "PFCs: Global Contaminants: Teflon and other non-stick pans kill birds" (http://www.ewg.org/node/21780) .



According to Wikipedia:
A self-cleaning oven is an oven (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oven) which uses high temperature (approximately 900 degrees Fahrenheit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit) or 500 degrees Celsius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celsius)) to burn off leftovers from baking, without the use of any chemical agents.

So it's not surprising that it could cause issues.

I like GWB. He's a likeable fellow. He would make a great chain store manager or something similar.


:bang:

Now that you point it out - that Bush is the root of it all - I understand...

The evidence against BPA has been pretty dang persuasive for a number of years but the US has really dragged its feet on the issue. Industry lobbies are strong.

Really?

"Meanwhile, the European Union is at the other end of the spectrum, going as far as saying that the US (referring to the NTP report) and Canada are using bad science to create unwarranted fears about BPA. In a recent update to their policy (http://www.efsa.eu.int/EFSA/efsa_locale-1178620753812_1211902017373.htm)on BPA they write:

'The conclusions of the Panel are that after exposure to BPA the human body rapidly metabolises and eliminates the substance. This represents an important metabolic difference compared with rats. EFSA will continue to monitor closely scientific findings regarding BPA and any related health effects.'"

source:http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/bisphenol-a-in-plastics-should-we-worry/

eta: sorry, the link in that article is broken. Here is the most recent stance from the EU: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/cef100930.htm (http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/topics/topic/bisphenol.htm)

The EU must be part of the conspiracy :rolleyes: