Beer Cans being used as cooking pots.

One thing which puzzles me about this thread is that when I have roughed up the inside of beer cans with emery paper to provide a key for glueing, I don't get any trace of plastic on the emery paper, just aluminium dust which shakes off. If there is a coating, it must be microscopically thin. Also, when I send flames up the inside of one of my beer can kelly kettles, there is no trace or smell of any peeling or burning plastic.

Are we sure the inside of beer cans are coated?

They are definitely coated Roger, it's just that, as you surmised, the coating is infinitesimely thin. So thin that I wouldn't be surprised if most of the BPA leached out in the first couple of boils, but I have no way of testing this! This is quite different to a drink bottle made from 100% polycarbonate. Such a bottle would have a much larger 'reserve' of BPA to leach.

As for Tinny's tactics, I have not been exposed to this, and I don't have video capability on my computer, so I will leave that subject alone, except to say that some of the comments at BPlite.com outright accused Tinny of knowingly and illegally selling toxic chemicals to the public. This is untrue IMHO. Uless you are going to promote the 'pots' for boiling infants formula, there is not much evidence that there is a health issue, and it's certainly not illegal where I live….

October 23rd, 2008

Bisphenol A Found To Have No Reproductive And Developmental Effects At Low Doses

Bisphenol A, a chemical predominantly used in the production of polycarbonate plastic and epoxy resins, has recently been the subject of public and scientific scrutiny regarding potential reproductive and developmental effects. People are exposed to minute levels of bisphenol A, mostly through the ingestion of food in contact with such products as water bottles, baby bottles, and food containers made of polycarbonate plastic and food and beverage cans coated with epoxy resins.

Recently, an expert panel led by scientists at Gradient Corporation in Cambridge, Massachusetts completed an extensive scientific review of the reproductive and developmental effects of bisphenol A. Based on its review of all the relevant scientific literature, the panel found no consistent evidence of reproductive or developmental effects of bisphenol A at typical human exposure levels. The review considered all studies published through July 2008 that examined reproductive and developmental toxicity in animals at low bisphenol A doses. No studies were excluded based on study design or source of funding.

According to Dr. Lorenz Rhomberg, the senior author of the review, "The hypothesis that the low levels of bisphenol A to which people are exposed could disrupt reproduction and development is not supported by coherent, consistent, or compelling evidence."

Government agencies from the US, the European Union, and Japan have also concluded that bisphenol A is not harmful at the low amounts to which people are normally exposed. Most recently, in a draft report, the US Food and Drug Administration concluded that the trace amounts of bisphenol A that leach out of food containers are not a threat to infants or adults. These conclusions are partly based on the results of several large studies of the effects of bisphenol A in rats and mice that were dosed with bisphenol A continuously over multiple generations. In these studies, animals were exposed during all life stages from conception through adulthood and reproduction. Bisphenol A had no effects on these animals at doses including those similar to human exposure levels.

There is agreement among these panels and government agencies that effects of bisphenol A only occur at exposures approximately 100,000 times higher than a person would typically ingest. In addition, people are better at excreting ingested bisphenol A than are rats and mice. In people, bisphenol A in the body is converted to a metabolite that does not have estrogen-like activity, and is rapidly eliminated in the urine. Despite the media attention suggesting otherwise, to date, the overwhelming majority of government and academic scientific panels have concluded that bisphenol A is safe at the very low amounts that people normally ingest.

The panel included Gradient scientists Drs. Lorenz Rhomberg and Julie Goodman, as well as Dr. Glenn Sipes of the University of Arizona and former president of the Society of Toxicology, Dr. Ernest E. McConnell, formerly of the National Toxicology Program, and Dr. Raphael Witorsch of the Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine. The full report has been published in the peer-reviewed journal Critical Reviews in Toxicology and is available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10408440802157839. A summary of the report is also provided in the most recent issue of the Gradient Risk Sciences Bulletin, available here or upon request.

Dr. Mark Hurd suggested that I must have accidently left out the next paragraph of the Canadian news article that informed us of the Canadian governments decision on BPA. I like Dr. Hurds' comments especially the one about Roy Rogers.

I think it prudent that I let you read the entire article that Dr. Hurd wanted you to read.
The article goes on to say "new evidence continues to pile up, pointing to the detrimental health effects of bisphenol A on adults."

Most Canadians "need not be concerned" about the health effects of bisphenol A, Clement said at the time. "This is not the case for newborns and infants."

The government's final decision will appear in the Canada Gazette, which publishes the official regulations of the government.

Rick Smith, executive director of Environmental Defence and co-author of the forthcoming book Slow Death by Rubber Duck: How the Toxic Chemistry of Everyday Life Affects Our Health, said the expected declaration is a "good start."

But he said new evidence continues to pile up, pointing to the detrimental health effects of bisphenol A on adults.

The latest research, the first large BPA study in humans published last month by the prestigious Journal of the American Medical Association, found a "significant relationship" between exposure to the ubiquitous estrogenic chemical and heart disease, diabetes and liver problems.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is under fire after determining last month in a draft report that BPA was safe for food storage. On Thursday, the Washington Post published an editorial arguing the FDA's final recommendation, expected this month, could be "seen as less than fully independent."

The influential newspaper cited the recent donation of $5 million to the University of Michigan's Risk Science Center from Charles Gelman, the retired head of a medical device manufacturing company and outspoken proponent of bisphenol A.

The acting director of the university centre is Martin Philbert, a toxicologist who is also head of the FDA advisory panel poised to deliver its risk assessment of BPA.

Philbert did not disclose the gift to the agency as part of the disclosure process when he was appointed to the panel; he told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel he did not need to, since he does not stand to gain from it. The FDA is looking into a possible conflict of interest.

You might be interested, a quote from bplite.com

More Heineken info
by hoz on Mon Dec 29, 2008 12:16 pm

I wrote Heineken Customer Care about using their cans as cooking/heating pots, this is theri reply:

Dear XXXX

Thank you for making Heineken aware of the use of our cans in a
nontraditional manner. According to our packaging engineers, the inner
lacquer coating of beverage cans are not intended to be used at high
temperatures. The specific coating in our beer cans is suited for contact
with beer only at pasteurizing temperature, which is well below cooking
temperature. We will be contacting this company directly but wanted to
share with you our instruction that Heineken cans should be recycled and
not re-used.

Regards,

Consumer Affairs – Heineken USA
Enjoy Heineken Responsibly

Please reply to heineken@qualitycustomercare.com

Dan,
Thanks for the info.
Good to know I can boil water without any problems.

what? i thought Pasturizing was much hotter than boiling. This makes little sense to me.

>But he said new evidence continues to pile up, pointing to the detrimental health effects of bisphenol A on adults.

First question worth asking is "who is Rick Smith", aside from the author of an very silly titled book and poltitical lobbyist? He certainly hasn't published anything in a PEER reviewed scientific journal about BPA, (or anything else health-related for that matter).

>"There's new science coming out on a weekly basis pointing to this chemical being a health concern for adults. Baby bottles are a good start, but the government now needs to take a look at getting this chemical out of the lining in cans."

We have already agreed that boiling your babies fromula in an empth Heine can is ill advised…

>The latest research, the first large BPA study in humans published last month by the prestigious Journal of the American Medical Association, found a "significant relationship" between exposure to the ubiquitous estrogenic chemical and heart disease, diabetes and liver problems.

Have you actually read and understood that JAMA article. Nowhere does it say that BPA causes metabolic disorders. It was merely an epidemiological study, and they didn't even have data for exposure to BPA. Also, the study could be more easily interpreted as "people who eat the most canned and processed foods are at most risk for metabolic disorder due to poor dietary choices", and even more condemning is the associated elevated GGT and ALP enzymes which are the classic markers of excessive alcohol consumption (can you say "too many cans of beer")? It may even be the case that people with alcoholic liver disease are less able to detoxify BPA from their beer cans, so they have higher levels than nonalcoholics. An association is a looong way from a causation, and Occam's razor, along with the complete lack of any causative studies in adults, would have me state there is categorically no *evidence* that you or I should be concerned. Of course, I am a scientist and not a lobbyist, so I guess if I had a different agenda I could put any spin I want to on a study.

All that aside, I still think it's a move in the right direction to find alternatives to BPA coatings, as the total load in the environment is a concern on many levels.

"What? I thought Pasturizing was much hotter than boiling."

You're probably thinking of sterilization. While sterilization's goal is to kill all the little bugs, pasteurization's goal is just to get their numbers down real low, so they won't be much of a problem. As a result, pastuerization occurs at a lower temperature than boiling. And since most folks cooking with a beer can pot are going to boil the water (not just get it warm), that's where the perceived problem lies, since it's these higher temperatures that would cause the lining to leach.

I personally don't think cooking with a beer can pot would have any appreciable health effect, as the coatings in the can would likely be removed after a few vigorous boils, which could be done before using it for actual cooking duty.

Folks should take alot of this info with a grain of salt. Some 20+ years ago I worked for a large chemical plant back east (one of them superfund cleanup sites you hear about), and I was privy to a bit of the results of their environmental testing (both onsite and independent testing). This company did extensive testing of their effluent (the stuff that got treated, diluted, and then pumped out into the ocean), to ensure it did not impact the environment. Election year. "What – you pump this stuff into the ocean?" the politicians cried (having known about it for the past 30 years), rallying public support to their cause. And rally the public did, with the plant ultimately closing from what I heard. The part that got very little attention was that the cities all along the shoreline were pumping 20 times as much sewage into the ocean, with very minimal testing/treatment. Many times the urgency of an issue has more to do with garnering support for a particular viewpoint, and not as much about a realistic and measureable impact from the issue.

If you think it's a legitimate risk, then by all means, seek an alternative cooking method. The alternative to these coatings could be spoiled beer – and we can't risk that, can we?

>You're probably thinking of sterilization. While sterilization's goal is to kill all the little bugs, pasteurization's goal is just to get their numbers down real low, so they won't be much of a problem. As a result, pastuerization occurs at a lower temperature than boiling. And since most folks cooking with a beer can pot are going to boil the water (not just get it warm), that's where the perceived problem lies, since it's these higher temperatures that would cause the lining to leach.

Correct. Sterilisation is not only *much* hotter than pastuerisation (121 celcius for sterilisation versus 72 celcius for example in milk), but also at higher pressure. Both these treatments could increase leaching of chemicals from the container.

>I personally don't think cooking with a beer can pot would have any appreciable health effect, as the coatings in the can would likely be removed after a few vigorous boils, which could be done before using it for actual cooking duty.

Totally agree. The lining of an individual can is microscopically thin. Does anyone know what the total amount of BPA is in a single Heine can. Not much is my impression, and most of that should leach out in the first boils. I don't hear anyone standing up to say that boiling water in unlined aluminum cans is any safer, and certainly unlined tin cans are not without peril, so this whole arguement smacks of bored people looking for a 'cause' that is no more a cause than any of the other now known to be nasty habits us humans indulge in. Again, I will wager money that the beer in the questionable cans is a greater endocrine disruptor (especailly to males) than any minor lining ingredient. It also happens to be a greater risk to family, social and driving injuries. And that's not just specualtion, but cold hard fact. Excess alcohol is a known and measurable killer. BPA lined cans are not.

>If you think it's a legitimate risk, then by all means, seek an alternative cooking method. The alternative to these coatings could be spoiled beer – and we can't risk that, can we?

Agree. You are the consumer and you make your choices, hopefully well informed. But my experiences indicate that most consumer choices are not well informed, and scare-mongering, intrigue, and speculation with little scientific evidence is so much more sexier to the average un-informed media/consumer relationship than evidence based science.

Plus there are alterantives to spoilt beer and other canned goods. Glass is considered to be a G.R.A.S. method of containing most things,at most temps, but I am not willing to accept that the risks from cooking in aluminum/titanium/stainless/cast iron outweigh the weight and fragility issues of carrying glass on my hikes.

We all balance our assesment of risk versus benefit. I happen to balance my risk by using as much evidence-based sience as I can get my hands on. As such, I will not be reading the rubber duckybook for my information source as it is not evidence based in humans in any relevant way except sensationalism. I will, however, continue to support moves away from adding potential edocrinic chemicals to our supply and rubbish chain as I am also a conservatationist greeny at heart. But I also take HRT, which gives me something around a billion more estrogenic molecules to my body than a very high dose of BPA would do. And my HRT is maybe 1000 times more potent than BPA. I am not worried about my Heine can!!!!!

it seems that other items we use also aid in the estrogen production/masking game. Some chemicals in certain Anti-Bacterial handsoaps will do it. Soybeans can do it. There are numerous foods we eat that cause overproduction of estrogen in fetuses and babies (oh my god what about the children!)
next time you go out with your trendy friends to the ultra hip Sushi bar, skip the edamame. It really isnt good for you.
but the cursing of beer cans while holding your $55 ti pot above the crowd like you know something we dont, well thats just fresh.

Michael,

Where did you find a Ti pot for only $55.00?

> speculation with little scientific evidence is so much sexier to the average un-informed
> media/consumer relationship than evidence based science

Take a bow, Allison!

Cheers

I agree with Allison.

I agree with rcaffin. Take a bow Allison

"But he said new evidence continues to pile up, pointing to the detrimental health effects of bisphenol A on adults.

"There's new science coming out on a weekly basis pointing to this chemical being a health concern for adults. Baby bottles are a good start, but the government now needs to take a look at getting this chemical out of the lining in cans."

The latest research, the first large BPA study in humans published last month by the prestigious Journal of the American Medical Association, found a "significant relationship" between exposure to the ubiquitous estrogenic chemical and heart disease, diabetes and liver problems."

Woo-hoo. Good to know it's that darn BPA causing the heart disease/diabetes instead of the poor food choices and lack of exercise. Now we can all be junk-food eating couch potatoes and not worry about it as long as we don't eat out of plastic lined cans???

LOL

>Michael,

>Where did you find a Ti pot for only $55.00?

Dennis, you must have missed out on the 40% off end of year BPL sale!

Urpp… Hey Bro, pass me another brewski!

I've wondered how long an item will continue to leach chemicals– is an older beer can safer as there is less left to leach? That lining is *thin*.

As others have said, there's probably more to worry about in the water than the can lining. I am certain that we all get more chemical exposure while driving to the trailhead than we ever would from the can lining. The stuff pouring out of the stacks on that 18-wheeler that just passed you going uphill is a LOT stronger than the BPA that *might* be in the cooking water, with very well documented health risks.

We're funny about things. We fret over things like the BPA, but we will happily climb into a car that pollutes the air and water, makes for all kinds of noise and dirt, kills 40,000 people a year in the US alone, and injures 250,000 more. You get in a wreck and how do you get home from the hospital? Yup, climb right back in a car.

Wear your seat belt, watch the booze, don't smoke, eat a decent diet and get some exercise. Get a physical once a year. Floss. You'll live a long time :)

Thanks Dale, always rational.

Dale's philosophy is sound to a certain extent. Here is a brief background to what is an "endocrine disruptor", as a prelude to why we may not worry too much about cooking in an empty can, but we definitely SHOULD worry about getting chemicals like BPA out of the environment.

Endocrine just means hormone. There are hundreds of different hormones in our bodies, and the balance of them controls practically everything we do and feel. Everything from insulin to dopamine to melatonin to estrogen and testosterone. These hormones can be disrupted in a variety of ways from outside influences. Some compounds destroy or deactivate the hormone. Some can cause a direct increase in our bodies own hormone production (insulin is a classic example). Some compete with the hormone for it's receptor binding site. This receptor competition can be antagonistic, that is to say the compound stops the receptor from acting. Other compounds are agonistic in that they mimic the natural hormone by stimulating the receptor. BPA is in this last category. Like a lot of known hormone agonists (as they are often called), many of these chemicals (including BPA) are MUCH weaker than your natural hormone. So if you have lots of your own hormone floating around, these weak agonists don't really get a lot of chance to do damage. So what's the problem???

Unborn and young animals often have very low to no level of these hormones floating around before puberty. In this situation, even though the agonist (BPA) is weak and at low concentration, it can have a large impact as it's basically a hormone that shouldn't be there at all until much later in development. And it's not just humans that are affected. Most of our hormones we share a lot in common with other animals, and sometimes even plants. So dumping billions of pounds of BPA into landfills to leach out into our waterways and soil is just plain bad ecological practice, as it can change the development and survival of unkown endangered organisms.

Trivial pursuits addendum: The biggest known endocrine disruptor in humans are processed carbohydrates and excess overall calories. Teenage males raised on a western high GI diet have testoterone levels twice as high as males raised on traditional low GI diets (think of the Masai as an example). This higher testosterone is a result of elevated insulin levels, and leads to higher estrogen (and a lot of other follow on hormonal effects such as acne and early puberty), not to mention tooth decay and often obesity and type 2 diabetes (which increases risk of cancer, heart diseases, kidney disease etc…). This is also true in women, though women convert more of their testosterone to estrogen, which may be why western women have higher rates of breast cancer, etc…Higher testosterone in women is also associatecd with our very high rates of PCOS, and obesity itself becomes a viscious cycle in that fat tissue generates it's own estrogen. So please, keep your children away from BPA, but also teach them good eating and exercising habits, as these really will make the biggest difference to their long term health.

Dale said:
"We're funny about things. We fret over things like the BPA, but we will happily climb into a car that pollutes the air and water, makes for all kinds of noise and dirt, kills 40,000 people a year in the US alone, and injures 250,000 more. You get in a wreck and how do you get home from the hospital? Yup, climb right back in a car."

Isn't this also akin to saying that because there are already so many toxic/dangerous things we have added to our lives, we should not worry about adding another?
Granted there are bigger risks to humans than BPA, no doubt, but why continue adding to the list? Combine one little chemical with all the other crap we spew out of our laboratories and put in our food and you do start having a problem.

This thread is about whether there are toxic chemicals in the beer can linings or not, not about its comparative risks to all other substances in the world.
If you think you its hype or you feel your too strong to be worried about it fine. But why tell or imply people like me who try to take care of our selves that we are somehow unreasonable or hysterical?
I dont (or try hard not to) eat any thing with artificial flavors, preservatives, or soy and whey isolates. I also try not to east anything with the "white death" i.e. refined sugars and flour. All of these things cause an increase in estrogen. The white death is another story.
increases in estrogen in men and woman cause cancers like prostate and breast cancer, obesity ,impotence, and overall crappy health.
Babyboomers have less testosterone than their parents and each generation is getting worst.
So go ahead, laugh at me- I laugh at you every time I see a viagra ad!

well i think its fair then, to consider any health risks that may be associated to boiling water in titanium… would you not agree?

I agree, please name them

"any health risks that may be associated"
this does not imply that there are indeed health risks, so how would I be able to name them?

fwiw, I dont think any agency is too concerned about any titanium health risks, there are far too few users of titanium utensils and cookpots. I dont know if the FDA or public college is going to spend possible Tens of thousands of dollars, perhaps much more, to study health effects on the miniscule amount of backpackers using ti pots. DO you?

Im really not jumping to a conclusion here man, just saying that IF science does indeed prove that titanium has either an immediate or a long term exposure health problem(s) then we will all know what's what.