"Studies have shown when cans are heated in the manufacturing process, BPA leaches out of the linings. Foods are first sealed in cans and heated to kill bacteria in the food. Cans are heated to temperatures between 116 C and 121 C, and the length of time varies according to the type of food."

im interested in those studies. can you recall where you saw them in print?

also, do food cans include ALL foods found in cans? like beenie weenie and corn? If so, I think there may be more to worry about since the food is heated to 240°F
there goes Dinty Moore beef stew. (right out the window, jimmy)

but hey, what is written about the type of cans in question? no canned food I purchase comes in aluminum, only tin/steel. Does this matter?

also, what effect does carbonation of beer have on the plastic lining? anybody know?

Here are some links to what was said by Dlarson:

http://www.ourstolenfuture.org


two of the links were not responding, I'll try again.

Edited by zelph on 12/10/2008 10:13:23 MST.

That means no Wolf chili. St. Pete, blow...

>"Studies have shown when cans are heated in the manufacturing process, BPA leaches out of the linings. Foods are first sealed in cans and heated to kill bacteria in the food. Cans are heated to temperatures between 116 C and 121 C, and the length of time varies according to the type of food."

This is just standard canning procedure, aka autoclaving. And yes, tin cans also have a lining.

Dave H and Brian,

"Are you really willing to trust what the EPA suggests? Its recommendations are typically based on industry-generated safety cliams, not independent research."

Well, yes, I am willing to trust what the EPA suggests in lieu of something better and apparently you aren't. So it goes. I would argue that your second sentence is not entirely true, however, I suspect, as you do, that industry plays a larger roll in the recommendations than we would like. So lets say that their recommendation is off by say a factor of 10, no lets say 100. Then the BPA in my 10 minutes of boiling is no longer 1/10,000 of the EPA recommended amount but is still 1/100 of that recommendation. Still a fairly tiny amount. ( instead of boiling my 2 cups of water for dinner it would be more like 12.5 gal. to get the new revised dose!)

Brian- the reference you site and quote is interesting, but I believe biased ( as am I and as are you). Mr Jeffrey St. Clair, the author, is an activist journalist, not a scientist. This is his opinion and apparently yours. I have my own opinion and I posted it above.

The "stew of toxic chemicals" argument is old. It is true, of course, that we live in a stew of chemicals. We are made up of chemicals. All "chemicals" are toxic if given in sufficient quantities. I think this goes back to the notion that some how "all chemicals are bad" and anything "natural" is good, which of course is absurd.

Let's just say that I believe we live in a time and in a place where our life expectancy is longer than it has ever been, due in some part to all those "chemicals" we use for antibiotics, cancer treatments, purification of water, etc.

Please do not get me wrong. I do not advocate using more "chemicals" than we need. I think that research needs to be continued to identify risks and benefits of "chemicals" we use and develop. If something better or less toxic can be found then use it.

"It's kinda spooky and cultish that posters here will use a cookpot that they know is toxic in order to save a couple ounces of pack weight. Seems like the slow road to a Darwin Award to me..."

Well, Thanks, I always wanted to win an award, but I believe that you are the one that said it is toxic not me. I don't know what you use for a cooking pot, but titanium can be toxic and even the dread EPA thinks more study on exposure should be done. Aluminum is definitely toxic so don't use that. As Tony notes alcohol is toxic so don't use that either. Iron and steel are toxic, but since they have been used for hundreds of years we will grandfather them in. Propane, butane, wood smoke-- all toxic.

In the end, everyone needs to come up with their own set of risks and benefits that suits them.

Happy Trails,

-Mark

Edited by markhurd on 12/11/2008 10:36:49 MST.

As an addendum:

It occurred to me that most drinking water in the U.S. is chlorinated. Chlorine and it's derivatives are toxic in small doses, yet we continue to drink the water. The treatment of water to make it safe to drink is probably the single most important development in health in the last century. Many on this forum actually use "chemicals" to treat their water and think nothing of it. Most of those treaters prefer to take the risk of exposure to tiny amounts of this "toxic" chemical as opposed to say -- giardia. I do not find this "spooky or cultish", but some do. ( I personally use cancer causing UV light to treat my water :-) There are many examples of risks and benefits in life in general and in backpacking specifically that we all must weigh.

Again, I am not saying my opinion is right. I choose my risks just like you do. I try to do it with logic, reason, a good dose of independent scientific research if available, and common sense (which is not so common). I recommend that you all do the same.

-Mark

Edited by markhurd on 12/11/2008 11:13:31 MST.

So some of us trust Medline for our information while others go to "OurStolenFuture.com".

I would suggest that therein lies our differences.

Mark, its true that the "toxic" chlorine is used by many of us to treat water. Some of us refuse to use chemicals to treat water and I just want to point out 2 things:
1) bottled water in the US is made from plastic containing BPA. You may think you are benefitting from drinking "clean" bottled water as opposed to "chemical" tap water.. but wait, there's more..
2) if you take hot showers as most of us do, and you are not using a filter on your shower head like most of us aren't, then you are inhaling a righteous dose of chlorine and chloramine directly to your bloodstream via your pulmonary system.
3) you would likely ingest less chlorine by drinking tap water than you would by taking a daily hot shower for 15 minutes. And much of this chlorine and its by-products passes right through you.

this information was provided to me by a conversation I have had with a well respected employee of the ADEQ (az dept. of environmental quality) waste-water division.

I would honestly worry less about that Heineken pot in your 6 minute boil than the can of spagetti-o's you ate as a child.

likewise, it was believed that aluminum cookpots caused alzheimer's when in recent news it was discovered the lab's rinse water was contaminated with aluminum, not the patients' brain tissue samples.

oh, i guess you could live totally organic, drink purified water, take cold showers, get a monthly hi-colonic, and switch to no-cook meals. Good luck to you!

Edited by mikeinfhaz on 12/11/2008 13:23:48 MST.

My dad used to drag a DDT bar behind the lawnmower, and all us kids would immediately play in the yard. And that might have been one of my better exposures to chemicals. So I'm not going to get too worked up about possible exposre to BPA, from a few days uses of a beer can pot per year.

Joe, your father must have been friends with my father. Mine used to light a barbacue with benzene. It looked like a shuttle launch when it first went up.

Have you guys seen http://www.dhmo.org. Scary stuff if you believe it.


-Tim-

Michael,

You have made my point better than I did. Exposure to "toxic chemicals" is almost unavoidable.

And yes, I am aware of the NON-link between aluminum and Alzheimer's. However, aluminum is toxic in an of itself- acting like heavy metals like lead. I doubt it is of much consequence to people without kidney disease, but some folks on this forum are quibbling over nanograms when toxicity is a trillion times that. So for them the possibility that a few atoms of aluminum are in their water and it could be toxic should be enough to keep them from using aluminum cookware.

-Mark

Edited by markhurd on 12/11/2008 18:23:36 MST.

>>So some of us trust Medline for our information while others go to "OurStolenFuture.com".

I bet you could find these articles on Medline:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/12/business/13wyeth.html?hp

I'm a researcher. I love science as much as the next guy. But science is a human endeavor and, to the extent that it is done in the America and the rest of the West, it is concerned predominantly with saleable ideas, not consumer protection.

I would also add that a lot of science in the west is done with the intent to promote certain social / economic / environmental agendas.

And worse, a lot of 'Science' is produced to create confusion.

The book 'Doubt Is Their Product' provides insight to 'science for hire'.

Dismal prospect, trying to determine what is real.

Hi Mark, you said (quote) "Which is true, but BPA is not very toxic especially in the amounts that might be in the hot water. A study at U of Cincinnati got something like 32 nanograms of BPA released/ hour of boiling in a polycarbonate bottle. It takes well over 3 gm/kg of body wt for a toxic dose which is roughly a trillion (10^9) time more than you get in a hour of boiling."(end quote)

I keep thinking about that statement and I keep wondering why the polycarbonate "Water Bottles" used by hikers and others, were taken off the store shelves and deemed unworthy of use. They were'nt even being heated. What or who was the determining factor that caused those bottles to be removed? Was it an alarmist? Explain if you would please. Thank You

"I bet you could find these articles on Medline:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/12/business/13wyeth.html?hp"

Dave,

You are definitely right that big business is involved in science ( or the bastardization of science ) for profit. As a researcher you are probably more aware than most of biased reports and unreported results. I am a physician and I have to base my care on the best facts I can get. We don't allow drug reps in the clinic because talk about biased...! I daily weigh the risks and benefits of various treatment options for my patients. Sometimes that means choosing between bad and worse. "Well yes, there is a remote chance that this cholesterol medicine can damage your liver, but there is a very high probability that you will have a heart attack if we don't do something about it." There is no perfect answer.

So I come back to my original post which was my reasoning for Jay's question on whether it was safe to use his beer can pot or not. I looked over the information, I did the math, and I came to my own conclusion that the amounts of BPA were basically negligible by a huge margin compared to the EPA recommendation which I will agree at this point are somewhat suspect, but not completely unbelievable. The alcohol in the stove and the fumes are far more toxic than the miniscule amount of BPA in the boiled water.

Risk verses benefit that is what my post was meant to be about. Spooky?Cultish? Maybe, or maybe it is a matter of degree.

Thanks for your comments.

-Mark

The statement of facts is quite reasonable.

> What or who was the determining factor that caused those bottles to be removed? Was it an alarmist?

I think you have two factors here.

One is that every now and then one particular subject captures the public (or media) fancy. The media LOVES alarmist scandals: they sell copy. You have only to read through Snopes.com to see how true thus is.

The other factor is the hazard presented, not by BPA, but by the American Tort Lawyers. It is getting so that no USA company dares take any position except the most ultra-conservative one, for fear that someone is going to sue them using a very high-powered lawyer. Even if you win the cost (time, worry and $) of the litigation is crippling. Fortunately the rest of the world does not have this disease quite the same.

Cheers

I am trying to come up with a good wood burning stove to work with my Heineken can. Has anyone made a good hobo variant that works well?

"I keep thinking about that statement and I keep wondering why the polycarbonate "Water Bottles" used by hikers and others, were taken off the store shelves and deemed unworthy of use. They were'nt even being heated. What or who was the determining factor that caused those bottles to be removed? Was it an alarmist? Explain if you would please."

Dan,

Do you have any old Nalgene or Platypus containers? I must have half a dozen. Do they every wear out or break? Occasionally but pretty rare in my experience- except for a Platy that I dropped in a lava field, but that is another story :-). So lets say you were in the business of selling these containers, but a lot of people already had all they needed and they never wear out. Lets also say that even though you thought your product was safe and dozens of international regulator agencies agreed with you, still you were getting request from customers who were concerned with trace amounts of BPA that might be present. OPPORTUNITY!! Change the formulation to eliminate the perceived bad chemical, look like you are really responsive to your customers, and sell a whole bunch of new containers even to folks like you and me who already have more than we need. Sales increase, profit increases, and you look like one of the good guys. Ah Free Enterprise! So the determining factor that caused those bottles to be removed was the company itself!

I would like to correct one misperception you keep restating and that is that the polycarbonate containers "were taken off the store shelves and deemed unworthy of use." In fact there was never a "recall." Nalgene let the existing stock be sold and replaced them with the new bottles. You can be excused for not knowing this because the headlines of articles on this all say "RECALL", but if you go to the Nalgene site listed below you will see that they did not recall anything. They had their cake and ate it, too.

http://www.nalgene-outdoor.com/technical/bpaInfo.html

Happy Trails,

-Mark

P.S. - I also agree with Roger.

Edited by markhurd on 12/12/2008 20:58:46 MST.

Dan's post of the information I posted on another forum was missing the links to the data. Someone asked for more info so here's the complete post again, this time with the links.

OK, here's what I know.

Pretty much any beer can is going to have an interior coating over the aluminum (pg. 26).

Waterborne coatings contain a polymer or resin base, water, and organic solvent. The
organic polymers found in water-based coatings include alkyds, polyesters, vinyl acetates,
acrylics, and epoxies, which can be dissolved, dispersed, or emulsified. The water acts as the
main carrier or dispersant, while the organic solvent aids in wetting, viscosity control, and
pigment dispersion.
...
Beverage can manufacturers use waterborne coatings extensively. Waterborne coatings
are used for 2-piece beverage can base coats, overvarnishes, inside sprays, and rim coats.

The interior coating of a beer can is not developed to withstand boiling water at 212 degrees (pg. 29).

In general, coatings must exhibit resistance to chemicals, flexibility, and adhesion to
the metal surface. Coatings for beer and certain beverage cans must be able to survive an
aqueous pasteurization cycle of 20-30 minutes at temperatures ranging from 140F to 160F

Heating plastics promotes leaching of toxins into the food.

Studies have shown when cans are heated in the manufacturing process, BPA leaches out of the linings. Foods are first sealed in cans and heated to kill bacteria in the food. Cans are heated to temperatures between 116 C and 121 C, and the length of time varies according to the type of food.
...
Note: This testing also included two beer cans and found they leached between 8 and 9 parts per billion of BPA. As well, a can of apple juice leached 18 parts per billion.

Ziploc freezer bags do not leach toxins so freezer bag cooking is OK (FAQs Page). And since Ziploc may be biased, here's a second resource stating that Polyethylene bags are safe.


My conclusion is that boiling water in just about any aluminum can is unsafe. If the makeup of the internal coating of Heineken 24oz cans can be determined and the coating is of safe materials that's great. But until then it is logical to assume that there is no difference between the Heineken 24oz cans and most other aluminum cans.
Freezer bag cooking, in contrast, is safe until proven otherwise.

Edited by epilektric on 12/12/2008 16:16:26 MST.