FDA to Decide Soon on BPA Food Packaging Ban
The federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA), faced with a series of legal actions from environmental groups, is poised to decide whether to move toward barring the toxic chemical bisphenol-A from food packaging.
The agency’s decision is expected by March 31.
Five years have passed since Environmental Working Group’s (EWG) groundbreaking 2007 study showed that BPA leached from epoxy linings of cans into surrounding food and drink. EWG’s tests showed the highest concentrations of the chemical, a synthetic estrogen, in canned soup, pasta and infant formula.
“FDA is the only agency with the power to protect consumers from being exposed to BPA from the food they eat,” said Sonya Lunder, senior research analyst for Environmental Working Group. “Let’s hope the agency’s upcoming decision will keep the public’s health at the forefront.”
A second EWG study in 2007 showed that 1 in 16 formula-fed infants were being exposed to levels of BPA toxic to animals in research studies.
Because BPA has been shown to disrupt the hormone system, EWG has repeatedly called on FDA to order it removed from food and beverage packaging, starting with infant formula.
The FDA decision comes as Campbell’s Soup has announced its intention to seek a safer substitute for BPA-laden epoxy in the linings of its cans.
“If one of the world’s largest food suppliers and users of BPA in its packaging feels it should move away from using it, maybe the federal health agency charged with protecting people from contaminated food will follow suit,” Lunder said.
The prevalence of BPA in the environment and in people was underscored by 2009 tests commissioned by EWG and Rachel's Network that detected BPA for the first time in the umbilical cord blood of 9 of 10 American newborns.
For more information, click here.
By Robin Scher
Beyond the questions surrounding the availability, effectiveness and safety of a vaccine, the COVID-19 pandemic has led us to question where our food is coming from and whether we will have enough.
- Can Urban Farms Prevent Hunger in 54 Million People in the U.S. ... ›
- New Report Finds Malnutrition World's Top Killer Amid Pandemic ... ›
- Oxfam Warns 12,000 Could Die Per Day From Hunger Due to ... ›
- Three Ways to Support a Healthy Food System During the COVID ... ›
- Trump USDA Resumes Effort to Cut Food Stamp Benefits - EcoWatch ›
- Pandemic Threatens Food Security for Many College Students ... ›
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
Tearing through the crowded streets of Philadelphia, an electric car and a gas-powered car sought to win a heated race. One that mimicked how cars are actually used. The cars had to stop at stoplights, wait for pedestrians to cross the street, and swerve in and out of the hundreds of horse-drawn buggies. That's right, horse-drawn buggies. Because this race took place in 1908. It wanted to settle once and for all which car was the superior urban vehicle. Although the gas-powered car was more powerful, the electric car was more versatile. As the cars passed over the finish line, the defeat was stunning. The 1908 Studebaker electric car won by 10 minutes. If in 1908, the electric car was clearly the better form of transportation, why don't we drive them now? Today, I'm going to answer that question by diving into the history of electric cars and what I discovered may surprise you.
As bitcoin's fortunes and prominence rise, so do concerns about its environmental impact.
- 15 Top Conservation Issues of 2021 Include Big Threats, Potential ... ›
- How Blockchain Could Boost Clean Energy - EcoWatch ›
By David Drake and Jeffrey York
The Research Brief is a short take about interesting academic work.
The Big Idea
People often point to plunging natural gas prices as the reason U.S. coal-fired power plants have been shutting down at a faster pace in recent years. However, new research shows two other forces had a much larger effect: federal regulation and a well-funded activist campaign that launched in 2011 with the goal of ending coal power.
- Major Milestone: More than 100,000 MW Worth of Coal-Fired Power ... ›
- Coal Will Not Bring Appalachia Back to Life, But Tech and ... ›
- Renewables Beat Coal in the U.S. for the First Time This April ... ›