Canned Beer, What about BPA?

Something is going get us al in the end, it most likely be the alcohol before any can lining in a lot of our cases... Not sweating it...

 

Here is an article from Mother Jones about the issue:
http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2015/02/no-i-cant-why-im-turning-away-canned-craft-beer

 

That's a rather misleading use of numbers—taking a number, basically dividing by zero and reporting a huge 'thousand-percent' increase without reporting the actual number is a meaningless report.

 

I prefer cans if it's a beer that makes sense to drink from the can, and if it's a beer that I'd rather pour I don't care. For example I will drink Nooner from the can but will always pour Old Chub into a glass.

 

Here's an old thread;
http://www.beeradvocate.com/community/threads/is-there-bpa-in-craft-cans.108311/

 

Less light exposure=better beer. I used to be all about bottles but I've gradually started liking cans more. As for the lining, I'm not worried. Apparently, everything in this world is toxic to you now-a-days.

 

Fuck they're going to find out that breathing is toxic soon enough.

 

Hmmm.... I wouldn't use the European Union as a source for science. These same folks also told us the water does not hydrate, and tried to ban to sight of olive oil in dipping bowls.

 

Technically, bpa is in the bottle cap, too.

 

I'm all for lowering my exposure to dangerous chemicals, but if you're concerned about tiny amounts of something like BPA that "may be harmful", perhaps you should evaluate your consumption of ethanol, which is "definitely harmful" and is actually proven to cause bodily harm.

 

I'm not saying BPA is good or BPA is bad, I have no idea. I've wanted more information about it, especially because I tend to prefer canned beer, but I haven't read enough info to date so I can't come to a conclusion yet (or possibly ever, given that measuring the impact of BPA could prove to be problematic). But that's not the point of my response here. My response is to laugh heartily at those who say, "Everything's bad for you" or "something's gotta to kill us in the end" or "one day something's bad for you, the next it's not, so who cares?" These responses are essentially saying that it is useless to be concerned with such things. While I agree that people can go way overboard with being concerned about health issues (in very scary ways), you can't lump all health concerns in as one big boogey man that a bunch of scared people are afraid of. Imagine if your kids' pediatrician was smoking Camel no-filters in the examing room, blowing smoke into your kids mug as they check her/his heartbeat. You'd be livid and would certainly say something. Would the doctor, a medical professional with more knowledge than most mind you, be justified in saying, "Hey, something's gotta kill us, right?" while s/he puffed away?

So if your pro-BPA or anti-BPA, that's cool. But don't hate on people who are interested in the debate. Just because you don't care, it doesn't mean it still isn't important to some (and it also doesn't mean the impact won't effect you).

I applaud the OP for starting this discussion. I do have some concerns about BPA, but I also prefer to drink from cans. So I am interested in the topic.

 

I read up on BPA after having kids. Seems like it is a much larger issue when the container lined with BPA is heated. I've stopped microwaving leftovers in the plastic tupperware type containers for the most part. I'm less concerned about a cold beer can. It hasn't affected my decision to buy a beer and when it comes to bottles/cans.

 

Here is a statement by one of the Brewing Companies that choosed to use cans as well as bottles. The seem to have done their due diligence before making a decision to can beer.

http://www.newbelgium.com/Community/Blog/08-06-19/Speaking-of-CANS.aspx

 

I don't share my beer with babies so I am ok with a little bit of BPA

 

OK.

I'll try to answer your question as to why people are blowing this off.

Ethanol is a group 1 carcinogen. [1]
BPA is not able to be classified as a carcinogen at this time, so it's Group 3. [2]
The dose makes the poison. The more you have the more dangerous it can be. The amount of alcohol in your beer is listed on the label, but if it's beer it's more than 4%.
Comparatively, BPA measures at 5 ng/mL in the liquid contained in a can that's lined with BPA. [3]

I hope that is a good summary.

1: http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer...cinogens/known-and-probable-human-carcinogens
2. http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol71/mono71-71.pdf
3. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/026520301446412#.VTWAGZOWPIU

 

I think you're giving people too much credit. They're likely blowing this off because it makes them use that thing that's at the top of their neck and just underneath their hair.

 

oh and I read the New Belgium response about how BPA is estrogenic.

It is. But hops are more estrogenic.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10372741

I guess the point is, again the dose makes the poison. The amount of beer you'd have to ingest to get enough bpa to endocrine disrupt or cause toxicity in your body is not attainable, because the beer would kill you itself, first from alcohol poisoning. The estrogenic effect of hops is probably cumulative, and worse than what you get from the bpa.

 

Well, I appreciate that you read my comment. It's interesting that you choose to comment on the quality of the posters who have chosen to comment to you, rather than the content of my post. Did my answer make sense to you? (also the 2nd part about estrogen).

 

Your comment made no sense at all to me, as I didn't ask about why "people are blowing this off." As for the content of your post, I appreciate the links to the information. Thanks. Additionally, I haven't commented on those who have commented on me, because no one has commented on me. I merely made a statement that I thought it was silly to dismiss this type of conversation.