Avenue

Rules of Containment

Navigating the minefield that is the plastic container debate is best done with a healthy degree of caution and common sense

By Lynda Sea
Photography by Mason Hastie

• print
• email

Look inside any North American household and you’ll find plastic everywhere. We eat, drink, wear, drive, store, play and live with the cheap and handy material so readily that it’s hardly given a second thought.

It’s definitely convenient, but consider the big picture costs such as the floating “soup” of plastic waste in the Pacific Ocean (which is two times the size of continental U.S.A.) known as the “Great Pacific Garbage Patch,” the reported risks posed by chemical components such as phthalates and bisphenol A, and the millions of barrels of oil used to manufacture plastics to begin with, and you might think twice.

Bringing even more scrutiny to the not-so-fantastic side of plastics is bisphenol A (BPA), the main ingredient in polycarbonate plastic bottles and commonplace in the epoxy resins that line canned food. Each year, approximately 1 billion kilograms of BPA is produced in the U.S. — almost 4 billion kilograms worldwide. It is the primary building block of everything from baby bottles, water bottles, canned food liners, tableware and storage containers to dental sealants.

In April, the Canadian government set a precedent by being the first country to ban the import, sale and advertising of polycarbonate baby bottles. Studies suggest that low level doses of BPA can affect neural development and behaviour and that the main sources of exposure in newborns and infants are from infant formula cans and polycarbonate baby bottles. Health Minister Tony Clement told reporters in April that the intention of the ban was a precaution to “reduce exposure and increase safety.” As he puts it, “it is better to be safe than sorry.”

The baby bottle ban likely won’t take effect for another year, but Health Canada assures that other sources of BPA such as hard, clear non-disposable water bottles and canned foods are safe because the levels of exposure are low and if “used properly,” are fine.

“Exposure from all sources of bisphenol A to the general population is very low, and most uses of products containing bisphenol A pose little risk to Canadians,” says Alastair Sinclair, a media spokesperson for Health Canada.

BPA was first identified as a high priority chemical to be reviewed along with approx-imately 200 other chemicals in Canada under the Chemicals Management Plan in 2006.

This initiative was launched by the govern-ment to review the safety of industrial and consumer products, many of which have  been in the marketplace for years.

Even though BPA has been widely used in consumer products for the past 50 years, it was back in 1998 that Case Western Reserve University genetics researchers observed some abnormalities in their lab that sparked further investigation. Chromosome mutation rates spiked in mice kept in polycarbonate cages and researchers later discovered low doses of BPA had significant effects on the fetuses of their pregnant mice.

Since that incident, BPA has gotten a flurry of media attention and spurred further scientific animal studies. It is a known hormone disruptor which mimics estrogen and is linked to breast and prostate cancer, reproductive disorders and obesity. Researchers in Spain also found that BPA enhanced the risk of developing Type II diabetes by altering pancreatic cells in mice. Human studies are limited but some relate elevated levels of BPA in women to ovarian dysfunction. Another study in Japan found BPA levels were higher in women who had miscarriages than those with successful pregnancies.

But, while scientists and consumer advocates continue to warn the public about BPA’s toxicity, industry and most government agencies still say there’s nothing to worry about. The Canadian Plastics Industry Association (CPIA) maintains that many of the plastic con-tainers and bottles we use are safe, Food & Consumer Products of Canada doesn’t want a ban on BPA and Health Canada says there is no need to throw out BPA products, just to “minimize our exposure” to them.

As the focus now shifts from baby bottles to food containers with BPA, most industry-funded studies say levels of BPA intake from can liners is still exceedingly low. Conversely, a study commissioned by CTV and the Globe and Mail in May found levels of BPA in food cans were similar or higher than those found in baby bottles. It showed a can of tomato juice leached 14 parts per billion of BPA compared to baby bottles at six parts per billion.

This is relevant because cans are heated during the manufac-turing process and BPA leaches out faster at higher temperatures.

Dr. Scott Belcher is a medical researcher at the University of Cincinnati and one of the authors of a much-quoted BPA study that looks at BPA levels and heat. He found that BPA migrated from used and brand new water bottles alike and that BPA leaches up to 55 times faster with boiling water than with room temperature water.

“But migration of BPA out of water bottles into liquids does occur even at room temperature,” he says. Belcher notes that even after bottles are cooled, emptied and cleaned, then filled with room temperature water, BPA migration is still higher than it was before the hot water was added. More importantly, his report also shows  the concentration of BPA leaching at room temperature increases over time.

Belcher stresses that BPA still leaches regardless of the temperature and says this is why he personally, has chosen to stop using his water bottles in order to avoid exposures to BPA.   

“Everybody in Western nations already has some BPA in their bodies that are at levels shown to be harmful to lab animals,” he says. “If I limit my exposure, I’m not doing any harm even if the risk is extremely minor. And if it turns out the risk is greater than expected, it seems like a win-win decision.”

Because human exposure to BPA is mainly through consumption, more research is still needed to determine if heating food in contain-

ers increases the leaching of BPA. Later this month, Statistics Canada, Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada will release preliminary results from its joint study that monitored chemicals including BPA in the blood and urine of 5,000 study participants.

Despite the concern about the levels of BPA inside infant formula cans, the government maintains that there isn’t a practical alternative currently in place and that the nutritional bene-fits of infant formula far outweigh the risks of the cans.

But BPA-free can alternatives do exist. Eden Foods, an organic food company in Michigan sells its food in BPA-free cans and has been doing so since the late ’90s. In Japan, beverage-makers have reformulated resin liners to reduce the amount of BPA leaching.

Within the last year, major retailers including Mountain Equipment Co-op, Wal-Mart Canada, Home Depot Canada, Forzani Group stores, Toys ’R Us, Canadian Tire and London Drugs have responded to consumer concerns and already pulled certain products off their shelves  replacing them with BPA-free alternatives.

However, this voluntary measure by the marketplace may remain exactly that: a voluntary ban. Even if, under the Canadian Environment Protection Act, BPA is deemed CEPA-toxic — meaning it was a substance defined as having potential immediate or long term harm on the environment or danger to human health — at the end of the day, it would still be legal to use BPA in consumer products that remain on the shelves. Take for example, lead, which has been considered CEPA-toxic since 1988 but is still in use. While not as widespread, it’s still allowed in certain consumer products.

But unlike the effects of lead exposure, which can be quantified directly, plastics are much more subtle. Low doses of BPA can be as significant as large amounts and because it affects our hormones, the reper-cussions are likely long-term and won’t be immediately observed.

As this debate over BPA continues, it’s wise to note that all this attention afforded to BPA doesn’t necessarily mean all plastics are more dangerous than they used to be — but if they are, certainly a lot more people are now telling us why. Plastics remain ubiquitous in our daily lives making it unnecessary, and unreal-istic, to purge them totally, so it is prudent to always question their use in the first place.

Back To Features