Z Report on BPA: Infant Formulas

Please note: BPA information on this site is no longer being updated. See Z Recommends at our new location for all the current news and updates and see the ZRecs Guide to Safer Children's Products for the most up-to-date information on BPA in feeding products.

We've made a point of focusing our safety and health reporting on problems for which there are clear solutions, placing safer products and practices front and center in our research and posting. When it comes to BPA in infant formula packaging, consumers have fewer, and less ambivalent, solutions.

BPA in infant formula packaging and baby foods, in our view, is the next area in need of significant reform in reducing children's exposure to bisphenol-A. The Environmental Working group raised the alarm on the formula issue in December 2007, but many parents remain unaware that almost all infant formula cans incorporate BPA into certain parts of their canister linings, even for largely plastic or cardboard containers, or that the lids of jarred baby foods use a BPA-containing epoxy. We have been searching for reasonable accommodations parents can make to minimize their children's exposure to chemicals from these sources, and wanted to let readers know what we'd found. Today, we'll discuss infant formulas; in an upcoming post, we'll cover prepared baby foods.

A Widespread Problem
First, the bad news. BPA is almost everywhere in infant formula packaging.

Here's a quick rundown of how where BPA is likely to be present in the packaging of different formula types.

• Highest levels: RTF and concentrated canned formula.
  
• Moderate to low levels: The insides of metal lids of glass jarred formula (Nestle Good Start, Enfamil). The lids of powdered formula drums. Sometimes the BPA-containing epoxy layer is covered by another epoxy, thus theoretically reducing the formula's contact with the BPA still further. Some companies have told us that the epoxy is used solely around the edge of the top lid to prevent metal shards from falling into the formula when the peel-away metal lid is opened; the EWG reported on its use by at least some companies to cover the interior surfaces of both the lid and base of canisters.
  

BPA-Free Options
The BPA-free options we discovered were the following:

• "ready-to-feed" (RTF) formula in quart-size plastic containers by Similac; and
• single-serving powder packets by Enfamil and Similac.

These may be short-term solutions, but they are not sustainable for the industry. Powdered packets are fairly wasteful in terms of their packaging, and the 32-oz. jug (which is made of #2 HDPE plastic) is far more expensive to transport than concentrated liquid or powder, and thus has a pretty substantial carbon footprint. Consumers on tight budgets would be hard-pressed to pay this sort of premium for BPA-free infant formula, and we think that's unfair.

Yet, as we argued in our critique of the earlier EWG report, if your top priority is to offer your infant the formula that is most likely to be BPA-free, achieving this, without independent formula testing, at this point, is to use these relatively wasteful products.

Similac quart bottles are BPA-free because unlike Similac's other packaging, they have a soft foil lid, and so have no need for an epoxy lining.

Confuse the Customer: Half-Truths and Evasions
Nestle's rhetoric on BPA in their packaging is different, and it forced us to create a special "suspected" category for some of their products. While every other company we inquired at admitted that BPA was in the lining of their powdered formula drums - it is used to help prevent the pop-top cans from sending tiny metal shards into the formula, and Enfamil formula actually has been recalled in the past for just such a problem - Nestle very explicitly states that "all packaging that comes into contact with formula" is BPA-free, but will not go on the record regarding the epoxys used on their lid and will not state that their cans are "BPA-free."

This finding represents a slightly more detailed, but still somewhat confusing, version of the story they told the Environmental Working Group. Nailing Nestle down on this point - that the customer service reps' specific instructions dictated that they not state the words "our infant formula containers do not contain BPA" - took a lot of work, so there are probably many consumers out there who believe that Nestle formula cans do not contain bisphenol-A based on a cursory call to the company and an acceptance of their first "canned" response (pardon the pun).

We consider their unwillingness to make the claim a telling omission, and Nestle customer service reps function as a firewall we were unable to cross. We submitted several requests through customer service reps to be contacted by higher-level representatives with responses to specific questions customer service reps could not or would not answer, and never received a response.

Many companies also appear to be playing games with testing data, and we have not published the vague assertions companies made to us regarding the BPA content of their formulas themselves because we do not trust them. Z Recommends found that most companies are now referencing internal testing of BPA levels to buttress their claims of safety, and some companies even admitted to their tests revealing "tiny amounts of BPA" in their powdered formulas. Others stated that BPA was undetectable by their testing, but admitted when directly questioned that they were testing to 5 ppb, more than twice the level of current testing standards, which can detect BPA in quantities as low as 2 ppb.

The EWG has published general data about the presence of BPA in formulas themselves based on FDA testing. Findings ranged from 0 to 17 ppb, but specific company names associated with the different levels found were not made available.

Heads In The Sand
In our assessment, the infant formula market is the same house of cards that came falling down with BPA in bottles and sippy cups a month ago.

There are a variety of obvious alternatives to the use of BPA in packaging, none of which industry representatives will admit to having explored. A few options we'd recommend for concentrated formula, currently the area of greatest concern:

• Line cans with oleoresinous C-enamel. This corn-based sealant has been used in Eden Foods' canned beans. C-enamel is not a suitable coating for use with highly acidic foods (even Eden, as we learned in the course of this investigation, uses the industry standard BPA-containing epoxy for their canned tomatoes), but infant formula seems unlikely to pose such a problem.
• Line cans with an alternative epoxy. It seems highly unlikely that there is no safer substance with which a coating can be produced to line cans. More likely, in our view, is that companies have not yet investigated their options.
• Design a plastic container for dispensing concentrated formula. Use the material Similac uses for their RTF, with a wide-mouth packaging design.
• Use a carton with a BPA-free lining and a cap pour spout, like that used for Silk soymilk.
  

For powdered formula, companies could use something along the lines of:

• cardboard lids and bases and soft foil seals for powdered formula drums, like those used in instant oatmeal boxes;
  
• a box with a metal pour spout, like those used for baby cereal or dishwashing detergent; or
  
• carton packaging with a BPA-free lining and cap pour spout, like Beech-Nut baby cereal or Silk soymilk.
  

These are options two bloggers came up with in the course of a couple of days of off-and-on discussions here at Z Recommends. We are by no means experts in this area. Any of the above could be struck from the list because of a crucial detail in the formulation, packaging, or distribution of infant formula of which we are unaware. But we maintain that the only way all of them can be eliminated is if a company is committed to the idea that BPA is safe, that this issue will blow over and parents will stop caring, or that no one else is making changes, so their company has nothing to fear from advances made by their competition.

For now, that appears to be the game plan. No industry representative at any of the companies we contacted would admit to any studies or plans to eliminate BPA from any of their packaging, and all read from prepared statements about the safety of bisphenol-A. The closest we came to any acknowledgment of the issue was Earth's Best, whose Nutrition Manager stated that she was interested in learning about alternatives and that the company was always interested in responding to consumer concerns. Even they, however, have done no formal investigation into alternatives that she would admit to.

Instead, the Grocery Manufacturer's Association, a food and beverage industry trade group which counts among its members virtually all of the formula makers (Earth's Best's parent company, the Hain Celestial Group, appears to be an exception) first publicly advocated for increased FDA funding, then ominously testified that any increased manufacturers' fees would lead to higher consumer food prices. The GMA has also published a prehistoric and misleading document (PDF download) supporting the continued use of BPA anywhere and everywhere in plastics and in packaging. Meanwhile, the FDA has been under investigation by Congress for its questionable approval of BPA in formula packaging based on a biased selection of industry-funded scientific studies, and none of the companies we spoke with appear prepared to be the first movers on this issue.

Steps For Reform
One path towards reform is legislation, and there is the possibility that the FDA will decide to mandate a transition from BPA-containing epoxy to an alternative packaging solution within a given period. This will force companies to examine the types of options outlined above in a serious manner, and real solutions will undoubtedly be found.

We encourage parents to tell their Congressional representatives that they support a reclassification of BPA as a hazardous substance, as well as to contact the House Subcommittee on Energy and Commerce, which is currently investigating the FDA's approval of BPA in formula packaging. Letters can be sent to:

House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
Ford House Office Building, Room 316
Washington, DC 20515

But there is also an alternative route that does not rely on a government that has not yet shielded infants and children from BPA and should not be counted on to reliably do so in the future. This development will require the following elements to be successful:

• Calls to two specific companies by consumers like you. These companies include Nature's One, the manufacturers of Baby's Only organic formulas; and the Hain Celestial Group, makers of Earth's Best formulas. Call their customer service lines and tell them what you think - you can reach Nature's One at (888) 227-7122 and Earth's Best can be reached at (800) 434-4246. Tell them you expect more not from the industry as a whole, but from their company specifically. Tell them what brand of formula you are using, and how many people you know, including yourself, who would immediately switch brands if someone started producing formula in BPA-free packaging.
• The widespread distribution of information about BPA in infant formula packaging. Point friends and fellow parents to this post and to the EWG's infant formula report, stay abreast of the news in this area via ZRecs or other blogs you trust, and share information on forums and message boards.
• Immediate changes in industry practices while BPA-free packaging solutions are developed. This includes cold-filling canned formulas instead of with hot formula that then cools in the cans (a practice already adopted by Baby's Only), temperature-controlled shipping and warehousing, conservative sell-by and use-by dates, and storage instructions and warning labels on packaging.
  
• Independent testing of BPA levels in specific formula brands. We have been speaking here of BPA in packaging, and while the FDA has revealed that many brands expose infants to significant levels of migrated BPA, every company is off the hook until company-specific findings produced by independent testers are published for all to see. An organization with funding for such projects that could undertake such studies, accurately interpret results, and disseminate their findings to the media could have a big impact if individual companies were highlighted as the purveyors of the "most dangerous" products.

Easy Steps For Parents
At this point, your options are not as varied as we'd like them to be. Ensuring that a formula-fed infant has the minimum possible exposure to BPA means:

• Using Similac 32-oz. "ready-to-feed" (RTF) formula or Enfamil or Similac individual powdered formula packets, which are BPA-free, or powdered formula, which is likely to contain lower levels of BPA than canned condensed formula.
• Using BPA-free bottles.
• If you draw your water for formula from a water cooler, using #1 PET bottles or glass bottles rather than polycarbonate bottles. We're currently compiling research on BPA-free options.
  

We believe it is only a matter of time before this industry undergoes major reform, so we advise parents to demand better, use the best options available that make sense for their families, and understand that BPA exposure is not something we can reasonably expect to eliminate from our lives, but minimize as circumstances allow in order to provide our children with the safest environment we can.

Photo by Larsz, shared via Flickr.