Bisphenol-A, Campbell's Chunky Chicken Noodle Soup, and the Imminent Collapse of the Global Economy

Dear Denise Morrison, President and CEO of Campbell's Foods:

I am writing to warn you of a change in your consumer base that is bound to have grave repercussions for your company.

A recent Harvard study has revealed that concentrations of the chemical bisphenol-A rise around 1000 percent in people who eat one bowl of canned soup per day. Bisphenol-A is often used in the manufacture of plastics but your company and others who put food in cans apparently use it to make the material that lines those cans. I do not know exactly what this amount of bisphenol-A does in the human body and it appears that scientists do not exactly know, either, but they are making a lot of guesses that don't sound at all good. Apparently the chemical is an endocrine disrupter, which means it messes with one's hormones and has therefore been linked to cancerous tumors, birth defects, and other developmental disorders like learning disabilities, ADHD, and cognitive issues, as well as problems with heart disease, obesity and diabetes, and sexual development.

So far I have not noticed any tumors growing on my children but there is still plenty of time. And while I believe they are geniuses, I hate to think that they might have been just that much more intelligent, talented and well-behaved. It is not difficult to conjecture that, if my children had never ingested any canned foods, by now they might be working as highly paid child actors, like Dakota Fanning or Haley Joel Osment. We're talking about the loss of millions of dollars of family income here.

I have become convinced that canned foods are at the root of the disharmony suffered by many families as a result of the poor performance of the children. I do not know what Amy Chua, author of Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother, fed her children but I now suspect she wouldn't have have had to push them so hard to practise their musical instruments if she had completely avoided serving them canned food. Because they probably wouldn't have had to practise so much. I'm guessing that, by now, her children would be supporting her -- and she wouldn't have had to write that embarrassing book in order to put them through college.

Furthermore, although my current goal is to slow my own children's sexual development for as long as possible, there is a slim chance that, once I am dead, they may wish to begin dating.

The Harvard study I reference above and and others like it have have led me to finally make the decision to stop feeding canned goods to my children. This is the event that is bound to have dangerous financial consequences for your company. Currently, my children eat 13 trillion cans of Campbell's Chunky Chicken Noodle soup per week. This is an estimate, of course, but not a very rough one. Let's just say my children eat a lot of that soup. In fact, they do not eat much else – perhaps a bowl of Kraft dinner now and then, or the odd chicken nugget. (And I ask you, what chicken nugget is not odd? What part of the bird do these uniformly pale lumps come from, exactly? But I realize that this is not your area of expertise as your lumps of chicken are pinkish, blotchy and veiny and are not encased in a tidy bread-crumb coating.)

It may surprise you to know that my two small children, aged two and six years respectively, ingest so much of your product and, in fact, you may be doubly shocked when I inform you that the younger child, my daughter, eats only the carrots. My son, however, will deign to eat the broth and the noodles and the other vegetable-like substances you include -- but not of course the weird chicken, we give that to the cat -- so so you could say that between the two (or three) of them, they lick the platter (bowl) clean. Of course, not literally clean. Nothing has been clean in this house since they were born.

As you can probably tell from the fact that your company has not already gone bankrupt, I have not yet completely stopped feeding the children your soup as I anticipate a few possibly unsurmountable problems as a result of this move. First, I am unsure whether my children will ever eat anything else. As an experiment yesterday, I tried to feed my daughter real carrots, boiled to a soft consistency. Although to me they looked and tasted almost exactly like the carrots in your soup, she refused to eat them, perhaps because they did not have that faint undertaste of plastic to which she has become accustomed. I fully understand, though, that this is not your problem. I am also fairly confident that, as their mother, I can somehow manage to meet their nutritional needs in some other way, perhaps through the use of Flintstones vitamins mixed in with a barley-based pablum  in order to create the sensation of fullness.

However, I trust that you will share my concern about the imminent collapse of your company, once I stop my weekly purchases of approximately 13 trillion cans. And I am even more deeply concerned about the effect that the collapse of your rather large company will have on the already fragile global economy, which is why I am ccing the President of the United States, the Head of the European Union, and whoever is in charge of that weird hybrid of communism and capitalism in China. (I'll google it.) Because I plan to implement the radical change of no longer feeding Campbell's Chunky Chicken Noodle soup to my children THIS EVENING AROUND 5pm EST, I fully expect the world markets to tumble dramatically tomorrow morning. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the globe is plunged into a bleak economic (and mental) Depression, one to rival that of 1929, by Friday evening.

I am sorry. I realize that the Christmas season is an unfortunate time of year for bad economic news. But I have to bite the bullet here – the health of my children must come first. During the Great Depression, many people raised their own chickens and grew their own vegetables. I plan to do both. I assure you that I am not looking forward to the extra work, especially since I'll probably have to perform many other tasks I have never done before, like darn socks or even knit them from scratch. And I am determined to figure out how to grow noodles as well, so that I can make my children our own version of a Chunky Chicken Noodle Soup. Although it occurs to me as I am writing this, that while I'm making these changes for the sake of my children's health, I might as well attempt to raise slender chickens instead of chunky ones. At any rate, my version of Chunky Chicken Noodle Soup will not contain any Bisphenol-A.

I just wanted to give you a heads-up.  

Sincerely,

Stephany Aulenback

P.S. You could always start using cans that don't contain any Bisphenol-A and save both of us a lot of trouble. Apparently this company does. 

 

 

Comments

[S. Clark]

This is brilliant and so correct.

I just heard that all aseptic containers (boxes of soy milk, chicken broth, etc.) contain BPA.

And I've noticed that the canned foods labeled "BPA Free!" still contain some sort of plastic liner (you see it when you take the lid off).

It's almost like we have to resort to cooking our own food in order to be sure of what's in it. Even then, is it GMO, pesticide laden or otherwise bad for us?

The good news is I'm losing weight!

[sonyala]

I love this!

[Steph]

I'm sure it could've been more brilliant if I wasn't so full to the gills with BPA, S. Clark, but thanks. And not those boxes, too! What am I going to do?!

Thank you, sonyala. Please do pass it on in any form -- I have not yet heard back from Denise Morrison or anyone at Campbell's and it'd be lovely if this letter could make the rounds of the internet until someone there deigns to read it and respond.

[Susan Baranowsky]

Stephany, we can see that you are very passionate about providing your family with healthy and safe food. Campbell's primary consideration, now and always, is the safety of the consumers who purchase our products. Based on the science generated and reviewed by the world’s food safety organizations, we are confident that BPA is safe. Regulators the world over have confirmed this. If we thought BPA was unsafe, we would not use it. We know that many people care deeply about this topic. That’s why we continue to actively review the research on this subject.

Susan Baranowsky
Campbell Soup Company

[Stephanie Burgis]

Dear Ms. Baranowsky,

I've stopped buying any canned soup because of the BPA issue, and I know I'm not alone in that decision.

Just another voice added to Stephany's.

[Steph]

Susan, thanks so much for reading and responding to my letter. I suspect that your company is waiting for the FDA to decide on the use of BPA in March 2012 before making a change. This surprises me, since you say that you are so concerned about the safety of your consumers. It's only a matter of time -- you WILL have to make a change either because the FDA will force you to or consumers like me, who would love to continue using your products, will force you to, by refusing to buy them any more. In the meantime, your reputation as a health-conscious company is being sullied.

I hope your company makes the change before I start trying to grow my own noodles. Because I'm not sure where to begin -- I can't find any seeds.

[Susan Kirby-Smith]

Ms. Baranowsky,

Could you please provide the names, dates, and supporting institutions of the studies on which the regulators you trust are basing their regulations? Also, could you explain exactly why you do not trust the recent study by the Harvard School of Public Health?

Thanks very much,
Susan Kirby-Smith
Canned Soup Enthusiast

[PamJWM]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2010/10/13/bpa-toxic.html
Canadian authorities have declared BPA to be toxic. Maybe the Harvard researchers ate too much canned soup in their freshman years of college to allow their brains to function properly. Add me to the list of grocery shoppers no longer buying canned goods. My long-time family favourite recipe is based on your cream of chicken soup. It's actually a recipe from one of your ads years ago. But it simply has to go. Also, for those of you looking for tomato products in our local NS area, I've been buying the strained tomatoes lately, they come in a glass jar and have no added salt or sugar.
P

[Steph]

Thanks for that link, P. Yes, Canada is one of the many regulators that recognize that BPA is toxic. I'm surprised Susan Baranowsky does not know this.

Again, the link: http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2010/10/13/bpa-toxic.html

Once she has read that article, I am sure Susan will rush to Denise (her CEO) to tell her and since they are both so concerned about health and safety, I bet we can expect a massive recall by Monday morning and new safer cans by the end of the week. And, if she does this, I wouldn't be at all surprised if she gets a big Christmas bonus this year as thanks for saving the company -- and our kids!

Thanks so much in advance, Susan.

[Harmony Thomas]

Dear Ms. Kirby-Smith,

This has been widespread "knowledge" to many of us - for some time now. Further, are you aware of the (mostly) vested interests re:the "scientific research/conclusions" of many/most of these governmental/academic (corporate-funded and driven) entities?? Anymore, it is ludicrous to even ask a person to swallow such fallacy.

[Rebecca]

Hilarious!

[Matt]

I hope you realize that Susan person was just someone trolling. Which means he/she does not have any association with Campbells and was just messing with you. I don't know why the hell you would automatically assume they were legit but I guess that shows how stupid you are.

[Susan Baranowsky]

Susan, let me start off with apologizing for not answering your question sooner. There is a lot of available information and I wanted to make sure that I provided you with the information that would help answer your questions. BPA has been safely used for decades, and it has been the subject of many scientific studies. However, the issue is not the quantity of studies, but their quality and the scientific value they provide to consumers and the regulators. Numerous experts and regulatory agencies around the globe have conducted thorough reviews of the scientific evidence on BPA; including, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), the World Health Organization, the Japanese National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology and Health Canada. These assessments have ALL confirmed that food and beverage packaging utilizing BPA is safe. In fact, updated re-assessments by several organizations - including EFSA and Food Standards Australia New Zealand - taking the most current scientific data into consideration, have once again reaffirmed that foods in cans with linings that utilize BPA are safe. Even Health Canada, which made a recent, much-publicized announcement about prohibiting BPA in infant bottles, has confirmed in a recent survey that exposure to BPA from canned food products is very low and poses no health or safety concerns to the general population. The Harvard Study measures the amount of BPA that is ingested when people eat food that comes directly out of a can but does not offer any conclusions on the safety of BPA or what the results mean. I hope this information and the information that can be found on the Health Canada website is helpful http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/securit/packag-emball/bpa/index-eng.php. We are aware that FDA has recently indicated that it is pursuing additional research on BPA. We welcome this new research and will await the outcome of this research and any other pronouncements from FDA.

[Tonya Harmon]

Susan,

Apparently, the two studies that the FDA has depended on to ensure that BPA is safe were paid for by the American Chemistry Council, a trade association/lobbying group for manufacturers of BPA makers. Tyle, the lead scientist in these studies claims that the studies were flawed, and that the results DO NOT indicate that BPA is safe for humans. "They simply show no effects to the reproductive system of rats and mice that were exposed to the chemical at low doses, she said."

58 scientists from around the world feel BPA is NOT safe. "The group found that Tyl's studies failed to consider serious dangers posed by BPA. They include effects on behavior and the development of the brain and prostate. Those problems were identified in a National Toxicology Program report published last year."

http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/42858807.html

My father ran plastics manufacturing companies at Dupont for many years, and he claims BPA is unsafe and that the industry is well aware of it. He states that it leaches into our food and refuses to prepare or eat foods that have come into contact with it.

[Steph]

Tonya, thanks for that.

Susan, I appreciate that you're willing to come back and comment again. (And even if you are an articulate troll, as commenter Matt asserts, I'm still pleased. Talking to people who may or may not be real on the internet sure beats talking to myself all the time. As the mother of two small children I'm starved for adult conversation, especially as their minds may very well have been addled by all the BPA they've ingested. Just think, I could be acting out scenes from Shakespeare with Vivi right now instead of typing to you while she sits on the potty singing the Elmo theme song. And Matt, I blame my considerable stupidity on BPA.)

Unfortunately, Susan, I have to disagree with your assertion that bisphenol-A is safe simply because certain government safety regulators have allowed you to use it in the past and continue to do so -- and all the while horrifying evidence that it is in fact dangerous mounts up. Government regulators (especially the FDA) tend to allow food companies to use chemicals until they are definitively proven harmful instead of allowing them to use chemicals only once they have been proven safe for human consumption. Watch Robyn O'Brien talk about this problem during the TED conference: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rixyrCNVVGA&feature=youtu.be

For those who want links to more information about just how dangerous BPA is (and links to some of the studies that back this claim up) please visit http://www.change.org/petitions/campbells-stop-endangering-kids-health

And here is a disheartening suggestion from Tom Philpott about why the FDA may be dragging its feet on banning BPA in canned foods: lobbying from the chemical companies. http://motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2011/12/fda-bpa-cans

What I don't understand, Susan, is why Campbell's, as a supposedly health-conscious company, would want to ally itself with companies like that. Why aren't you folks at Campbell's using all the resources at your disposal to find a safer way to can foods instead of waiting to be told you HAVE to? If you made some changes NOW, you'd come out of all this with a terrific reputation. Instead, you're busily working away to develop a really awful, terrible reputation. What will you have to say to us at the point when absolutely no one will be able to ignore the vast piles of evidence that have accumulated and claim that BPA is safe? Whoops?

Campbell's is starting to remind me of the cigarette companies, only the cigarette companies haven't tried to claim that smoking is good for you since the 1950s or 60s.

[Steph]

And I just want to highlight some other companies, big ones, that ARE committed to removing BPA from their canned goods. Taken from here: http://planetgreen.discovery.com/food-health/bpa-canned-foods-best-and-worst-brands-out-there.html

"Hain Celestial* (A), whose brands include Health Valley, Earth’s Best, and Westbrae Natural, ConAgra* (A), which owns brands such as Chef Boyardee, Hunt’s and Healthy Choice, and H.J. Heinz* (A) are the highest-scoring companies in this report. Each of these companies has started using BPA-free can linings for certain products, is committed to removing the chemical from all of its packaging products, and has a timeline to achieve this transition."

[Steph]

From here: http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/34406849.html

"Bisphenol A was developed in 1891 as a synthetic estrogen. It came into widespread use in the 1950s when scientists realized it could be used to make polycarbonate plastic and some epoxy resins to line food and beverage cans.

With the advent of plastic products such as dental sealants and baby bottles, the use of bisphenol A has skyrocketed. The chemical is used to make reusable water bottles, CDs, DVDs and eyeglasses. More than 6 billion pounds are produced each year in the United States.

In recent decades, increases in the number of boys born with genital deformities, girls experiencing early puberty and adults with low sperm counts, uterine cysts and infertility prompted some researchers to wonder whether the prevalence of bisphenol A could be interfering with human development and reproduction.

Scientists began looking for a link between bisphenol A and spikes in cancer, obesity and hyperactivity. Others, such as Patricia Hunt, simply stumbled onto it.

Hunt, a scientist at Case Western Reserve University, was investigating the connection between maternal age and Down syndrome in 1998 when all of her laboratory mice, including those not treated in any way, began exhibiting chromosomal abnormalities.

Her investigation revealed that bisphenol A was leaching from the animals' polycarbonate cages, and it was the chemical that had caused the problems.

Ana Soto, a researcher at Tufts University, began noticing that her lab mice treated with bisphenol A were a lot fatter than her other mice."

[Steph]

From here: http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/29331224.html

"Chemical makers maintain that their products are safe. They point to government assurances and the millions of dollars they have spent on their own research as proof.

But a growing number of scientists are convinced the chemicals interfere with the body's reproductive, developmental and behavioral systems.

Hundreds of studies have shown that these compounds cause a host of problems in lab animals. They include cancers of the breast, brain and testicles; lowered sperm counts, early puberty, miscarriages and other defects of the reproductive system; diabetes; attention deficit disorder, asthma and autism - all of which have spiked in people in recent decades since many of these chemicals saturated the marketplace.

A Journal Sentinel investigation found that the government has failed to regulate these chemicals, despite repeated promises to do so. The regulatory effort has been marked by wasted time, wasted money and influence from chemical manufacturers.

The newspaper reviewed more than 250 scientific studies written over the past 20 years; examined thousands of pages of regulatory documents and industry correspondence; and interviewed more than 100 scientists, physicians, and industry and government officials.

Among the findings:

• U.S. regulators promised a decade ago to screen more than 15,000 chemicals for their effects on the endocrine system. They've spent tens of millions of dollars on the testing program. As yet, not a single screen has been done.

• Dozens of chemicals the government wants to screen first have already been tested over and over, even while thousands of untested chemicals are waiting to be screened.

• By the time the government gets around to doing the testing, chances are the results will be outdated and inconclusive. The government's proposed tests lack new, more sensitive measures that would identify dangerous chemicals that older screens could miss.

• As the U.S. testing process remains grounded, hundreds of products have been banned in countries around the world. Children's products - including some baby toys and teething rings - outlawed as dangerous by the European Union, Japan and Canada, are available here without warning.

• Lacking any regulation in the U.S., it's impossible for consumers to know which products are made with the dangerous compounds. Many companies don't list chemicals known to disrupt the endocrine system on product labels.

The government's efforts have been "an abject failure, a disaster," said Philip Landrigan, a pediatrician and chairman of the department of community and preventive medicine at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York."