Listening to talk radio yesterday and during the national news there was a report that bifenal (spelling) a product made my Bayer and other companies does not cause health problems in humans. Now I know about the controversy over BPA but now thay are saying it causes no problems. And they didn't ad the letter A at the end of the chem. name. Are they talking about the same thing? Whats the deal? I don't need the worry of growing an extra leg or something. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Blame Canada. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> (I've always loved using that line ever since the South Park Movie).

Seriously though, this whole episode has been badly overblown. The only winners are the folks at Sigg and Kleen Kanteen.

I think the correct spelling is 'biphenyl'. This would help you do web searches on the subject. My understanding is that biphenyl is used to soften the softer and more pliant sorts of plastics and has been a concern for soft plastic children's toys, such as teething rings and whatnot. Unless my memory is playing tricks on me again. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

It's Bisphenol A and it probably will never be shown to hurt any human.

http://www.webmd.com/parenting/news/20080815/bisphenol-a-safe-says-fda?src=RSS_PUBLIC

So tell us, on what facts do you base your comment?

On the fact that the entire Nalgene line disappeared from REI, replaced by overpriced metal containers that few people were buying, or had even heard of, before the BPA scare came out in the press. Nalgene has created a new line that is supposedly BPA free, but the price has increased. The consumer was frightened into buying new products they didn't need on faulty information churned out by the media.

The only winners in this scenario are the metallic bottle companies that would not have seen such an upturn without bad press on BPA.

While I quite sympathize with the qui bono (latin for: who benefits?) argument, in this case it is not a strong one, since those who are developing and spreading the information (Canadian researchers, the media) are not the ones who benefit from the outcome (metal bottle producers and REI-type vendors).

That argument would be much more persuasive if Sigg or REI had bankrolled the research.

“…since those who are developing and spreading the information (Canadian researchers, the media) are not the ones who benefit from the outcome…”

It seems they benefited big time. The only time I’ve given Canadian researches or the media attention is when they put out a big scare. Everyone goes to their websites; they buy their books; stocks go up. The scare could be true or false but profits went up. If it can be glamorized, more money can be made. Now if it’s proven false (oh well, that’s in the future. We’re getting money now!)…

The thing that does shock me about the bpa scare is that the European union didn’t buy into it and they buy into everything! I’m still confused on that one.

-Barry

BPA is as safe as lead paint, asbestos, cigarettes, and Agent Orange. The gov't knows what's best for you.