BADGE, made from BPA, reacts with food.
Coulier, L, EL Bradley, RC Bas, KCM Verhoeck, M Driffield, N Harmer and L Castle 2010. Analysis of reaction products of food contaminants and ingredients: Bisphenol A diglycidyl ether (BADGE) in canned foods. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 58:4873-4882.
Leftover residues of a compound made from bisphenol A (BPA) for use in food can linings reacts with sugars, proteins and other parts of food to form new molecules, researchers report.
A main component of food can linings forms new chemicals when it reacts with different parts of food, according to research published in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry.
BADGE – which is short for bisphenol A diglycidyl ether – is manfactured from bisphenol A and is a building block of certain types of resins that coat food and drink cans. Like its parent compound, BADGE has endocrine disrupting properties.
The researchers from The Netherlands and Great Britain found that BADGE residue left over from manufacturing of the can coating can react with sugars, proteins and other small molecules – for example ethanol in beer.
The findings show how critical it is to understand the extent of chemical migration from resin linings into the can’s contents and what happens to the compounds once they interact with the food and beverage.
This is important because of the implications for food safety. The European Union bases its regulations for how much BADGE can migrate from food primarily on the reaction between BADGE and water.
However, the study’s authors found that the BADGE-water reaction only accounted for as much as 26 percent of the “disappearing” BADGE they added to samples of canned tuna, apple puree and beer. Some of the remaining BADGE could be detected as BADGE-glucose and BADGE-amino acid reaction products. Even when the additional BADGE products were considered, it was still not possible to account for all of the BADGE added to the food.
The researchers suspect that BADGE can form products with larger, high-molecular-weight carbohydrates, fibers and proteins that would be difficult to detect directly with the methods they used. This was the case for proteins. When the authors mixed BADGE with insulin, a large protein, the BADGE was effectively invisible. But when they broke down the protein into its component parts, then the BADGE products could be detected.
Although large molecules like the insulin-BADGE product would probably be too large to be absorbed by the body at first, it is possible that after they break down into smaller molecules in the stomach, then exposure to BADGE would be likely.
The BPA-like chemical backbone of BADGE was not changed by reactions with food molecules. The authors did not discuss whether the structural similarity of these products to BADGE and BPA might lead to similar harmful effects attributed to BPA or if the BADGE products might be related to levels of BPA that have been detected in most of the U.S. population.
For the study, BADGE was added to two types of canned food – tuna in sunflower oil and apple puree – and three drinks – an ale, a stout, and a lager. Spiked and nonspiked controls were recanned, homogenized and then analyzed three weeks later using liquid chromotagraphy.




Article misleads on BPA alternatives.
Monday, August 2nd, 2010By Laura Vandenberg Aug 02, 2010 06:00 AM | Permalink
In reviewing a proposed bill to ban BPA from food and beverage containers, a San Francisco Chronicle article presents a one-sided view of available alternatives.
A San Francisco Chronicle article describes efforts by U.S. Representative Dianne Feinstein to pass a bill banning bisphenol A (BPA) from food and beverage containers. Unfortunately, the reporter relies on information provided by industry officials to explain the availability of BPA-free alternatives. This one-sided approach misinforms readers.
Reporter Carolyn Lochhead states that “With no viable alternative for can liners, an immediate ban would be equivalent to banning canned foods.” An industry spokesman adds that “banning [BPA] would make food less safe because there is no viable alternative to line cans and jars.”
These statements stretch the truth. There are, in fact, food cans on the market without BPA in their epoxy linings. Some BPA-free cans are made with a vegetable-based lining that was used by the canning industry before the switch to BPA-based resins. These have been used for more than a decade.
Lochhead interviewed only a few sources for her story: Representative Feinstein; a U.S. Food and Drug Administration representative; and the director of the American Chemistry Council, an industry lobbying group. The important voice that is missing is an independent scientist. A scientist who works on BPA could have pointed out the alternative cans that exist and provided better accuracy in reporting the effects of BPA on animals and humans.
Human exposure to BPA is widespread through food can linings, polycarbonate plastics, some thermal papers and dental sealants, among other sources. A 2008 study by the US CDC showed that almost everyone has this chemical in their bodies. Reducing or eliminating BPA in consumer products can have a significant impact on human exposures. A 2003 study found that BPA levels in urine collected from Japanese college students in 1999 dropped compared to levels measured from similar students in 1992. During this period of time, the authors report that some can linings were changed from a BPA-based resin to a lining that eliminated or reduced the use of BPA.
BPA has been linked to numerous adverse health effects in exposed animals, including malformations of the male and female reproductive tract, changes in the development of the brain, alterations in the immune system, development of prostate and mammary cancers, and changes in behavior, among others. BPA studies in humans, while limited, also suggest that this chemical could have adverse health effects.
Tags: BPA, plastics, polycarbonate, replacements
Posted in Commentary | Comments Off