We are all still reeling from the BPA scare of 2008 that called for an early retirement to all plastic baby bottles, various canned foods, and an assortment of plastic bottles and such. For those of you left unaware of what exactly the BPA scare is all about, bisphenol A (also affectionately known as BPA) is a synthetic estrogen, as well as dangerous chemical, and most commonly used to strengthen plastic and line various types of food packaging (mainly, but not exclusively, cans). It has been linked to everything from cancer to bizarre cellular changes that cause all sorts of disease and neural complications. Activists and consumer rights advocates have been demanding a general ban on the chemical for years now, and just recently the FDA reversed its previous position on BPA (insisting that it was safe) and announced a renewed concern about the use of it in food packaging. Recent government studies estimate that the chemical has been found in the urine of more than 90 percent of the population, and this can’t be good.
However, it may be said that no one wants to get BPA out of the food supply more than U.S. foodmakers, who are being severely pressured to clean up their products or face a boycott and/or financial ruin. So it seems that everyone just wants to get the BPA out of the food supply, but strangely it still remains ï¿½ sometimes in abundance. The complications that arise around eradication of BPA, which is in the epoxy linings of nearly every metal can on supermarket shelves and leaches into nearly everything it comes in contact with, resides in the hugely expensive R&D it takes to find a viable alternative.