BPA Found in Canned Soft Drinks

Soda industry sponsorships seem to be everywhere, and that's no accident. Coke and Pepsi spend big money to keep health groups from taking a hard line against their products.

Does this can of sodapop contain BPA?

In case you needed yet another reason to avoid sodas, a Canadian study found Bisphenol A in canned sodapop and energy drinks.

[social_buttons]The Health Canada study tested 72 different canned beverages and found relatively low levels of the toxin, but even small amounts of BPA can be problematic. BPA is a hormone disruptor that’s been found toxic to reproduction and development. Many environmental and health groups are recommending extreme caution when it comes to the stuff.

Aaron Freeman of Environmental Defence spoke about the Health Canada findings on CTV, specifically addressing the “low” levels found:

The people who are drinking these beverages are mostly young people and the health effects particularly affect young people. The younger you are, the more vulnerable you are to the effects of bisphenol A.

If you take into account that a young person might drink one or two of these a day, the math is different.

BPA is especially harmful to infants and children, since their body mass is lower and their bodies are still developing. In fact, Canada has banned the use of BPA in baby bottles for this reason. Like with canned food, BPA is used in beverage can linings to seal it and prevent spoilage.

The worst offenders tested were two energy drinks, and fruit-flavored drinks tested higher as well.

What do you guys think about the results? Do the relatively low numbers mean this isn’t a problem, or are you concerned about any amount of BPA in your food or drink?

Image Credit: Creative Commons photo by scuddr

About The Author

7 thoughts on “BPA Found in Canned Soft Drinks”

  1. Would you mind posting the link to health Canada’s findings rather than a video of someone else talking about said findings?

    I don’t normally complain about lazy blogging, but the source you did link to also didn’t link to their source! And the source they mention published two magazines in the month of January. I’d rather not read both in their entirety because they are pretty dry.

    The journal is freely available on line: http://pubs.acs.org/toc/jafcau/58/2#d217052e331

    A quick search of titles didn’t reveal which article you might be referring to. Which one do you think you were writing about?

    While I’m against BPA in cans, It’s not helpful to quote quotes of quotes that don’t site sources. Journalists love making stories out of science. Unfortunately, they often get the facts of the studies completely wrong.

    I did love this quote from your source though:

    ‘ He said the average Canadian adult would have to consume more than 900 cans per day — drinking the worst soft drink measured for BPA — just to reach Health Canada’s tolerable daily intake, “which is still considered to be a safe exposure.” ‘

  2. Mystery solved. This story is a year old story, so the source sited was from Jan. 2009 and not Jan. 2010.

    Here’s the abstract of the research:

    Levels found: “0.027 μg/kg of body weight/day”
    Levels deemed safe: “25 μg/kg of body weight/day established by Health Canada.”

    It’s probably true that “safe” levels are inaccurate, wrong, or just completely worthless, but that’s another problem entirely.

  3. It still boggles my mind why anyone would pay to drink these toxic substances. There’s simply no benefit to any “soft drink.” You may be better off just drinking “hard” ones instead.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top