BpA - Bisphenol A

[benbo1]

I can't get a straight answer - I finally found a soda that's good for me (ok, at least not harmful - with Stevia), just in time to stumble into the BpA-inside-the-can-coating maelstrom. On the 1 hand, the company states in its FAQ that the level of BpA in its cans is 2,000 times lower than the EPA standard, and only babies need to be prevented from drinking, and it's consensus opinion in the chemist community that BpA won't leech off cold contents, only hot - so soda swimming in BpA-coated cans is fine. On the other hand, other alternative sources warn that it's the next cyclimate, worse than aspartame - there is no safe level, it routinely is found in cold food & drink, etc. Supposedly it mimics estrogen, which in high enough levels can cause (you saw this coming) - cancer.
What's the scoop? Is BpA as toxic as dioxin & a threat to life on Earth? Or harmless as mothers' milk? Or somewhere in between? Can I drink my 1 or 2 cans/day without fear, assuming I keep them in the fridge & don't heat them up?

[Labrador Deceiver]

What's wrong with aspartame?

[Leaffan]

Sounds like you can drink 2,000 cans a day before you need to worry.


You're welcome.

[ExcitedIdiot]

There isn't scientific consensus on this issue. No reliable study has shown any direct links between BPA containing products and cancer. Most places have banned it's use in baby bottles, based on studies that show higher levels of BPA in infant urine.

Animal studies have shown links between BPA exposure and cancer, and high level exposure has caused negative health effects on chemical plant workers. This doesn't necessarily mean that low levels are also dangerous.

From Wikipedia:

The FDA recently concluded an assessment of scientific research on the effects of BPA. In the March 2012 Consumer Update, the FDA concluded that "the scientific evidence at this time does not suggest that the very low levels of human exposure to BPA through the diet are unsafe.” [284] However, the FDA recognizes potential uncertainties in the overall interpretation of these studies including route of exposure used in the studies and the relevance of animal models to human health. The FDA is continuing to pursue additional research to resolve these uncertainties.

[typoink]

Originally Posted by Labrador Deceiver

What's wrong with aspartame?

Can't speak for the OP's concerns, but there's a lot of folks concerned about the safety of aspartame. The gist of the concern is that it wasn't studied enough prior to FDA approval and hasn't had enough followup attention. This is coupled with a lot of anecdotal reports of diet soda triggering headaches or nausea. There's also been concerns raised more recently that articifial sweeteners cause problems with satiety, but I'm don't know if stevia escapes these complaints.

I'm not speaking to the veracity of any of this, just that that's the usual criticism I hear. I will admit to being someone who frequently feels nauseous after drinking aspartame-containing soda.

[ExcitedIdiot]

Originally Posted by typoink

Can't speak for the OP's concerns, but there's a lot of folks concerned about the safety of aspartame. The gist of the concern is that it wasn't studied enough prior to FDA approval and hasn't had enough followup attention.

Aspartame has had plenty of attention. It is safe.

Wikipedia has a good article on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asparta...health_effects

The safety of aspartame has been studied extensively since its discovery with research that includes animal studies, clinical and epidemiological research, and post-marketing surveillance,[55] with aspartame being one of the most rigorously tested food ingredients to date.[56] Peer-reviewed comprehensive review articles and independent reviews by governmental regulatory bodies have analyzed the published research on the safety of aspartame and have found aspartame is safe for consumption at current levels.[8][55][20][57] Aspartame has been deemed safe for human consumption by over 100 regulatory agencies in their respective countries,[57] including the UK Food Standards Agency,[58] the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)[59] and Canada's Health Canada.[60]

[thelabdude]

I am a chemist who has worked in the resin field, but not specifically with BHA. Generalizing, from my knowledge, it looks like one more media circus. Enjoy your soda.

[Labrador Deceiver]

Originally Posted by typoink

Can't speak for the OP's concerns, but there's a lot of folks concerned about the safety of aspartame. The gist of the concern is that it wasn't studied enough prior to FDA approval and hasn't had enough followup attention. This is coupled with a lot of anecdotal reports of diet soda triggering headaches or nausea. There's also been concerns raised more recently that articifial sweeteners cause problems with satiety, but I'm don't know if stevia escapes these complaints.

I'm not speaking to the veracity of any of this, just that that's the usual criticism I hear. I will admit to being someone who frequently feels nauseous after drinking aspartame-containing soda.

Those are some really, really inaccurate concerns. Aspartame is probably the most researched substance in FDA history.

[benbo1]

Originally Posted by Labrador Deceiver

Those are some really, really inaccurate concerns. Aspartame is probably the most researched substance in FDA history.

The jury is far from decided, to make such a sweeping 'all clear' pronouncement. The most chilling point for me was the formaldehyde by-product breakdown. Not sure about BpA, but I wouldn't eat something with aspartame for free.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/ar...d-to-food.aspx

http://www.livestrong.com/article/22...ers-aspartame/

Of course, there's gonna be the smug criticism that no mainstream agency has found a solid, conclusive link between aspartame and symptoms. Absence of evidence <> evidence of absence. is there any human requirement for formaldehyde?
The Aspartame industry is huge, and billions of $$$ at stake - much like the debate about high-tension power lines causing cancer, it's simply too expensive too pull aspartame off the market now, just as it'd be too expensive to bury all power lines underground. Stevia is a good sugar alternative; the evidence against aspartame is mounting, but I don't thnk it'll ever get to the point of slamdunk-conclusive for the FDA to pull it. The test results for cyclamates were immediate & overwhelming, the ones for aspartame are not; with such a good natural substitute available, there's no need to take a risk on ingesting something that turns into formaldehyde. Unless someone can bring forth a link to site claiming formaldehyde is good for you.

Back to BpA, the assurances are hardly comforting. While ready to admit that the coating is much more likely to leech into hot food and not cold soda, it's not been proven to not leech in. The mechanisms of cancer, for example, are still not understood, and just like 1 too many radiological scans may be the trigger for runaway mitosis, so too even the little bit of BpA could do some damage. Is there any1 claiming, or any website, that has the soda-canning industry claiming a leech-proof coating? Or is their defense that they're sure the levels that they're at are completely safe (as was once thought with lead-soldered cans)?

[Leaffan]

Take a breath. It sounds like you're scared of everything: BpA, aspartame, power lines, x-rays.

It's astounding that average continues to increase with all these hazards surrounding us, isn't it?

[ExcitedIdiot]

Originally Posted by benbo1

The jury is far from decided, to make such a sweeping 'all clear' pronouncement. The most chilling point for me was the formaldehyde by-product breakdown. Not sure about BpA, but I wouldn't eat something with aspartame for free.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/ar...d-to-food.aspx

http://www.livestrong.com/article/22...ers-aspartame/

Of course, there's gonna be the smug criticism that no mainstream agency has found a solid, conclusive link between aspartame and symptoms. Absence of evidence <> evidence of absence. is there any human requirement for formaldehyde?
The Aspartame industry is huge, and billions of $$$ at stake - much like the debate about high-tension power lines causing cancer, it's simply too expensive too pull aspartame off the market now, just as it'd be too expensive to bury all power lines underground. Stevia is a good sugar alternative; the evidence against aspartame is mounting, but I don't thnk it'll ever get to the point of slamdunk-conclusive for the FDA to pull it. The test results for cyclamates were immediate & overwhelming, the ones for aspartame are not; with such a good natural substitute available, there's no need to take a risk on ingesting something that turns into formaldehyde. Unless someone can bring forth a link to site claiming formaldehyde is good for you.

Back to BpA, the assurances are hardly comforting. While ready to admit that the coating is much more likely to leech into hot food and not cold soda, it's not been proven to not leech in. The mechanisms of cancer, for example, are still not understood, and just like 1 too many radiological scans may be the trigger for runaway mitosis, so too even the little bit of BpA could do some damage. Is there any1 claiming, or any website, that has the soda-canning industry claiming a leech-proof coating? Or is their defense that they're sure the levels that they're at are completely safe (as was once thought with lead-soldered cans)?

Those are your big cites? The livestrong article is search-bait with no facts, and cites from anti-aspartame websites. They do cite National Cancer Institute, but they disagree with everything in the article.

Mercola is one of the quackiest quack sites on the net. Joe Mercola has been trying to sell his vitamins that cure cancer for years, and is an anti-vaxxer.

[Leaffan]

Originally Posted by Leaffan

Take a breath. It sounds like you're scared of everything: BpA, aspartame, power lines, x-rays.

It's astounding that average continues to increase with all these hazards surrounding us, isn't it?

Average age, that is.

[purplehorseshoe]

Ah, thank you. I turned my head sideways at your post like a confused puppy.

[Leaffan]

Originally Posted by purplehorseshoe

Ah, thank you. I turned my head sideways at your post like a confused puppy.

Awe, you're so cute when you do that.

[Taomist]

Originally Posted by purplehorseshoe

Ah, thank you. I turned my head sideways at your post like a confused puppy.

Same here, but it's not nearly as cute.

[benbo1]

Originally Posted by ExcitedIdiot

Those are your big cites? The livestrong article is search-bait with no facts, and cites from anti-aspartame websites. They do cite National Cancer Institute, but they disagree with everything in the article.

Mercola is one of the quackiest quack sites on the net. Joe Mercola has been trying to sell his vitamins that cure cancer for years, and is an anti-vaxxer.

I didn't say we should be afraid of everything, and I know of Mercola's rep. But even a quack is right some of the time. All I'm saying is there's no evidence that BpA is safe, and there is some suggestive evidence that it ain't. What I was asking for was any slamdunk study to prove its safety, and so far, there haven't been any. It's not the same thing as proving a negative; Stevia, for example, has been proven (or shown, if u like) to be safe - a reason I switched from aspartame sodas to Stevia ones. But the data on BpA is far from conclusive. I brought up the power lines as an example of a fix that simply is too expensive to undertake. As of now, there are no studies to show BpA is safe, and there are some indications that it ain't.

[ExcitedIdiot]

Originally Posted by benbo1

I didn't say we should be afraid of everything, and I know of Mercola's rep. But even a quack is right some of the time. All I'm saying is there's no evidence that BpA is safe, and there is some suggestive evidence that it ain't. What I was asking for was any slamdunk study to prove its safety, and so far, there haven't been any. It's not the same thing as proving a negative; Stevia, for example, has been proven (or shown, if u like) to be safe - a reason I switched from aspartame sodas to Stevia ones. But the data on BpA is far from conclusive. I brought up the power lines as an example of a fix that simply is too expensive to undertake. As of now, there are no studies to show BpA is safe, and there are some indications that it ain't.

Now you're confusing your arguments. BPa is a component of plastics, not a sweetener. Read my first post for my thoughts on it.

Aspartame has been proven to be safe. More research exists for the safety of aspartame, than exists for the safety of Stevia.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17828671
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12180494

[benbo1]

yes, we all know BpA is not a sweetener. Again, absence of evidence <> evidence of absence. Taking it from the top, are there studies that prove BpA's safety, as a coating for the can, not as a sweetener?

[ExcitedIdiot]

Originally Posted by benbo1

yes, we all know BpA is not a sweetener. Again, absence of evidence <> evidence of absence. Taking it from the top, are there studies that prove BpA's safety, as a coating for the can, not as a sweetener?

You posted 2 links about the dangers of aspartame. I questioned the quality of those links, and your assertions about aspartame. Your response is to make a bunch of claims about BpA.

[benbo1]

actually, no - if u look at the 1st post, it's about BpA. I mentioned aspartame in the context of some people claiming BpA is as bad. Now that that's straight, how about just answering the original question, about BpA?

[ExcitedIdiot]

Originally Posted by benbo1

actually, no - if u look at the 1st post, it's about BpA. I mentioned aspartame in the context of some people claiming BpA is as bad. Now that that's straight, how about just answering the original question, about BpA?

You made a strong statement against aspartame. I said you are wrong about aspartame. It's the only reason I replied to you.

If you read my other posts you'd see I agree with you that there isn't scientific consensus about BpA. It is probably safe at current exposure levels, but hasn't been conclusively proven to be.