US Soup Maker Campbell’s to Drop Hormone-Mimicking Chemical

One of the largest manufacturers of tinned soup in the United States has signalled its intention to desist from using Bisphenol-A (BPA), a hormone-mimicking chemical, in the production of its cans. Campbell’s, whose iconic cans are known around the world thanks to the artistry of Andy Warhol, have pledged to drop BPA altogether by mid-2017.

The announcement comes after a new study conducted by Michigan’s Ecology Centre, which tested 200 different containers from a range of brands in the US food market. Over 60% of the samples analysed were found to contain BPA.

Campbell’s not Alone

All 15 of the cans tested by Campbell’s were found to contain BPA – but they were far from alone. With almost two-thirds of all containers tested showing traces of the chemical, other giants of the food industry such as Del Monte and Nestle also were found to include BPA in their production process.

BPA is such a controversial substance due to the fact that it has been linked to a variety of serious medical complications, including prostate and breast cancer, diabetes, asthma and obesity, among others. Campbell’s were quick to react to the news, with their packaging chief Mike Mulshine expressing their intention to move away from BPA as soon as possible.

“Our priority throughout this transition has been, and will continue to be, food safety,” explained Mr Mulshine in a statement on the company website. “We have tested and conducted trials with hundreds of alternatives to BPA lining and believe the acrylic and polyester options will ensure our food remains safe, affordable and tastes great.”

70% of the containers from Del Monte were found to contain BPA as well and they are believed to be pursuing a similar course of action. Meanwhile, Nestle indicated their intention to phase the substance out, though were more sceptical about the dangers posed by BPA than other corporations seemed to be.

“Despite BPA being safe and posing no health risk to consumers, we have made a public commitment to remove it from our packaging materials,” said a spokeswoman for the business. “We have already eliminated BPA from our packaging for infant foods and are working towards completing the full transition of our product portfolio to non-BPA food contact packaging, where suitable safe alternatives exist.”

A Contentious Issue

Indeed, it’s far from a cut-and-dry issue when it comes to BPA. Though concerns about the chemical stretch back several years (in 2010, it was feared that Bisphenol-A might be infiltrating the water supply of most of the USA), not all studies agree on the properties of BPA.

In the EU, the consensus is divided. The European Chemicals Agency listed the substance as “toxic for sexual reproduction” and an investigation conducted by the Dutch health ministry recommended avoiding exposure to BPA, especially among young children and pregnant mothers. On the other hand, the most recent report by the European Food and Safety Authority concluded that the chemical was not harmful to any age group.

Clearly, litigating against such a contentious chemical is not an easy task. France have successfully banned BPA outright and have pushed for the rest of Europe to follow suit – though as yet, it has only been prohibited in food and drink containers for babies. Whether or not the action taken by major brands across the pond will influence European legislators and corporations remains to be seen.