BPA in commercial products - dangerous or not?
December 8, 2019 9:18 PM Subscribe
I'm considering these commercial containers for food storage in my pantry. All of Rubbermaid's products are BPA-free except for the commercial products, which last decades if well-cared for. I know BPA is dangerous when the plastic is heated, but is it dangerous to store dry food in?
I'm also considering Oxo products, but I'm not sure if the pop-style lid will last long. I don't want to spend a lot on a gimmicky product that will crap out in a couple of years. I like the Rubbermaid commercial bins because they stack well, are crystal clear, lightweight, and have a good reputation for years of durability. They also have a simple lid without annoying latches, which take up extra space, get gummy from flour and can also harbor mold.
Thanks for any and all insights, especially from anyone with direct knowledge of the dangers of BPA.
I'm also considering Oxo products, but I'm not sure if the pop-style lid will last long. I don't want to spend a lot on a gimmicky product that will crap out in a couple of years. I like the Rubbermaid commercial bins because they stack well, are crystal clear, lightweight, and have a good reputation for years of durability. They also have a simple lid without annoying latches, which take up extra space, get gummy from flour and can also harbor mold.
Thanks for any and all insights, especially from anyone with direct knowledge of the dangers of BPA.
This really depends on what you mean by "dangerous". People assess risks very differently...what's dangerous to one person is not necessarily dangerous to another person, and vice-versa. Some people bike without a helmet, others think it's crazy. Some people scuba dive, others think it's nuts. From what I've read, BPA poses a potential health risk, but there's probably no way to exactly and precisely quantify that risk. So I think only you can decide for yourself whether you want to take that risk or not, just like any other risk people choose whether to take or not. I don't think you can get a truly definitive answer here from anyone. But I'm sure some people may try to give you such an answer, and you can of course make of it what you want.
posted by Dansaman at 12:52 AM on December 9, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by Dansaman at 12:52 AM on December 9, 2019 [1 favorite]
MeFi's own blasdelb is pretty smart about biochemistry and says BPA is not something to worry about.
posted by bfranklin at 3:57 AM on December 9, 2019 [3 favorites]
posted by bfranklin at 3:57 AM on December 9, 2019 [3 favorites]
On the other hand:
The new method developed by researchers and outlined in their study suggests that the measurements used by the FDA and other regulatory agencies underestimate BPA exposure by as much as 44 times.posted by Kirth Gerson at 4:55 AM on December 9, 2019 [3 favorites]
My main concern with BPA is the cumulative effect. Like you're exposed to the stuff all the time anyway (receipts, canned food..) so we just went with square glass containers w/plastic lids that snap on, trying to cut down on plastic stuff in the kitchen.
We've been happy with them, they've worked well for years, and I like that I can even bake stuff in them. The only downside is that they're kinda heavy.
posted by speakeasy at 5:26 AM on December 9, 2019
We've been happy with them, they've worked well for years, and I like that I can even bake stuff in them. The only downside is that they're kinda heavy.
posted by speakeasy at 5:26 AM on December 9, 2019
The main concerns about BPA center on possible impacts during development, including fetal development and development during childhood. It is an estrogen mimic.
There is still a lot of debate among researchers. If I had young children in the house or was planning on having children, I would stay away from it. I don't see a food storage container having enough benefit to even warrant a 1% risk that the dangers are real.
posted by Winnie the Proust at 6:37 AM on December 9, 2019
There is still a lot of debate among researchers. If I had young children in the house or was planning on having children, I would stay away from it. I don't see a food storage container having enough benefit to even warrant a 1% risk that the dangers are real.
posted by Winnie the Proust at 6:37 AM on December 9, 2019
I use glass as much as possible, always for microwaving. BPA substitutes may be just as bad as the popular consumer plastic. I also try to avoid buying food, especially fatty ones like mayo and peanut butter, in plastic jars. I don't know if this is necessary or effective but precautionary...
posted by Botanizer at 6:46 AM on December 9, 2019 [2 favorites]
posted by Botanizer at 6:46 AM on December 9, 2019 [2 favorites]
The Rubbermaid containers you linked strongly follow the design concept of Cambro Camsquare containers. The non-clear Cambro containers are BPA free - BPA is not used in polyethylene forming. These are translucent, not clear.
posted by Glomar response at 9:20 AM on December 9, 2019
posted by Glomar response at 9:20 AM on December 9, 2019
The primary thing driving the production of BPA-free plastics is neither scientific evidence nor any coherent understanding of the precautionary principle, but a business model that appropriates these things without really having any need for them.
By way of explanation, there is an old urban legend about two salmon canneries dueling in the marketplace with competing slogans. The story goes that one cannery, which packaged naturally white-fleshed salmon, came out with a campaign declaring that its salmon was "Guaranteed Not To Turn Pink In The Can!," which while factually true falsely implied that their competitors sold old salmon. Then, not to be outdone, the other cannery, which packaged naturally pink-fleshed salmon, comes out with its own slogan "Guaranteed: No Bleach Used in Processing!" It's a funny parable of capitalism abandoning the public interest in favor of profitable lies, but then so is the whole labeling debate and the fear we're being sold by the billion-dollar organic and woo industries. At its core, intellectual honesty, the public interest, and public health are all fundamentally irrelevant to this business model, and it is often most profitable when the use of Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt takes advantage of the ignorance of the consumer while actively contributing to it. We see this with huge industries dedicated to the sale of GMO-free labeled food, like paraben-free cosmetics, or MSG-free Chinese food in ways that are pretty directly analogous to the sale of 'bleach-free' salmon.
The current scientific consensus on the safety of BPA is still reflected in this truly beautiful document written by the FDA in response to a Natural Resources Defense Council petition. As I mentioned in the comment linked above, it discusses how the potential toxicity of BPA in commercially relevant exposure levels was always unlikely but vaguely scary before the excretion pathway was elucidated. However, it pretty effectively demonstrates with clear evidence that the concern is now pretty absurd. Our bodies rapidly and effectively convert BPA into BPA-monoglucuronide, which is both inactive and rapidly excreted. This means that all of the researchers who applied BPA to their various model systems before this point, from DNA methylation to obesity to thyroid function, were using dramatically non-relevant amounts. Our digestive systems are exposed to higher levels of more bizarre estrogen-like compounds regularly by nature, it only stands to reason that we are - at least generally - built to handle that kind of thing.
There is, however, a very reasonable concern that some subset of the less well-studied but potentially endocrine-disrupting chemicals that we are exposed to on a daily basis do in fact produce serious public health problems at the concentrations that we are exposed to them, including the alternatives to BPA that are used in BPA-free products. Given that corporate interests have successfully placed BPA into the public imagination, it makes for a temptingly easy poster child for this broader and much more valid but also much more complex concern.
More broadly, I think that, as a general public, we need to be at least as concerned about greedy corporations poisoning our endocrine systems with fear to advance their bottom lines at the expense of the public interest as with any chemical disruptors. Used in this way, fear doesn't just push us towards purchasing products with a higher margin like is its only real goal, it poisons our discourse by helping to mainstream conspiracy theories about the experts at regulatory agencies who are paid out of the public purse to make scientific determinations in the public interest, it pushes politicians with no relevant subject matter expertise to seize control of decisions that they do not understand, drives us to harmful reactionary politics, and it worms its way into our daily lives.
posted by Blasdelb at 6:02 AM on December 13, 2019 [2 favorites]
By way of explanation, there is an old urban legend about two salmon canneries dueling in the marketplace with competing slogans. The story goes that one cannery, which packaged naturally white-fleshed salmon, came out with a campaign declaring that its salmon was "Guaranteed Not To Turn Pink In The Can!," which while factually true falsely implied that their competitors sold old salmon. Then, not to be outdone, the other cannery, which packaged naturally pink-fleshed salmon, comes out with its own slogan "Guaranteed: No Bleach Used in Processing!" It's a funny parable of capitalism abandoning the public interest in favor of profitable lies, but then so is the whole labeling debate and the fear we're being sold by the billion-dollar organic and woo industries. At its core, intellectual honesty, the public interest, and public health are all fundamentally irrelevant to this business model, and it is often most profitable when the use of Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt takes advantage of the ignorance of the consumer while actively contributing to it. We see this with huge industries dedicated to the sale of GMO-free labeled food, like paraben-free cosmetics, or MSG-free Chinese food in ways that are pretty directly analogous to the sale of 'bleach-free' salmon.
The current scientific consensus on the safety of BPA is still reflected in this truly beautiful document written by the FDA in response to a Natural Resources Defense Council petition. As I mentioned in the comment linked above, it discusses how the potential toxicity of BPA in commercially relevant exposure levels was always unlikely but vaguely scary before the excretion pathway was elucidated. However, it pretty effectively demonstrates with clear evidence that the concern is now pretty absurd. Our bodies rapidly and effectively convert BPA into BPA-monoglucuronide, which is both inactive and rapidly excreted. This means that all of the researchers who applied BPA to their various model systems before this point, from DNA methylation to obesity to thyroid function, were using dramatically non-relevant amounts. Our digestive systems are exposed to higher levels of more bizarre estrogen-like compounds regularly by nature, it only stands to reason that we are - at least generally - built to handle that kind of thing.
There is, however, a very reasonable concern that some subset of the less well-studied but potentially endocrine-disrupting chemicals that we are exposed to on a daily basis do in fact produce serious public health problems at the concentrations that we are exposed to them, including the alternatives to BPA that are used in BPA-free products. Given that corporate interests have successfully placed BPA into the public imagination, it makes for a temptingly easy poster child for this broader and much more valid but also much more complex concern.
The new method developed by researchers and outlined in their study suggests that the measurements used by the FDA and other regulatory agencies underestimate BPA exposure by as much as 44 times.This is how Gernoa et al. (2019) are really using BPA in the scientific correspondence that the article linked here fails to properly cite. I'm neither a toxicologist nor an endocrinologist, and I will be very curious how the FDA responds to the concern that Gernoa et al. (2019) are raising that seems pretty valid to me, but its not really so relevant to BPA itself as the title would seem to claim.
More broadly, I think that, as a general public, we need to be at least as concerned about greedy corporations poisoning our endocrine systems with fear to advance their bottom lines at the expense of the public interest as with any chemical disruptors. Used in this way, fear doesn't just push us towards purchasing products with a higher margin like is its only real goal, it poisons our discourse by helping to mainstream conspiracy theories about the experts at regulatory agencies who are paid out of the public purse to make scientific determinations in the public interest, it pushes politicians with no relevant subject matter expertise to seize control of decisions that they do not understand, drives us to harmful reactionary politics, and it worms its way into our daily lives.
posted by Blasdelb at 6:02 AM on December 13, 2019 [2 favorites]
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by brainmouse at 10:02 PM on December 8, 2019 [1 favorite]