That was an interesting report, Barry, but even the EFSA is rethinking its findings in that study released in Jan of '07.
This from May 7th at vitabeat.com:
EU Mulls Banning Baby Bottle Chemical Bisphenol A May 7, 2008 - The European Union's food safety watchdog, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), may review the chemical bisphenol A, which is used in the manufacture of plastic baby bottles, after Canada banned the substance.
"EFSA is aware of the studies on bisphenol published in the United States and Canada. The agency will examine whether it should review its opinion on this product, which dates from January 2007," spokeswoman Anne-Laure Gassin said.
The Canadian government announced in April that it was seeking public comment on whether to ban baby bottles made using bisphenol, considered "potentially harmful." BPA is still permitted for use in food contact materials in EU, Japan and the United States. A US government report last month also found that bisphenol A could endanger reproductive health and the nervous system. EFSA is also expected to issue its latest stance on BPA.
EFSA said in its January 2007 risk assessment that a daily intake of 0.05 milligrams of bisphenol A per kilogram of body weight was tolerable, and that this amount was much greater than that ingested by infants in an average day.
Perhaps the cumulative effects of all that we ingest that has leached some BPA is what is the new concern, especially for infants and children. And one other note: some of the studies that have shown how "safe" polycarbonates and BPA are have been funded by the Polycarbonate / BPA Global Group of the American Chemistry Council. If we had relied on the smoking & health effects studies churned out by scientists on the payroll of Big Tobacco, things would be quite different today. We'd probably have a thread on My Favorite Trailside Smokes on this forum. (Interesting article on BPAs in Feb. Scientific Americanhere.)
Maybe that’s why breast-fed babies are healthier than bottle-fed! How’s that for a trolling statement Jim <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />?
I guess I will have to evoke an emotional response after that troll. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
So, that statement got me thinking....Now that I am at the age were most of my siblings, and my wife's siblings, and many of our friends are at the stage in life were they want to get pregnant, it seems there are many who are having problems getting pregnant. My wife and I have no problems, we look at each other funny across the room, and 9 months later the stork shows up with a surprise. But, my sister, and my wife's sisters have all had difficulty. We could also look at the number of women searching out fertility clinics. Is it rising? In my non-researched, non-fact based observation, I see the affluent needing more fertility services while the poor don't seem to have any problem popping them out. Is this because the wealthy generally bottle-feed and the poor breast feed, which in turn is related to BPA? Something to think about. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />
I've taken a vow of poverty. To annoy me, send money.
Just a couple of random comments - on animal studies, they can give much higher doses than they can to humans, so if there are problems with the substance being studied, it will show up much sooner in the animal studies than in the human ones.
Regarding the infertility question, there's also the phenomenon (as I see it anyway) that the more affluent tend to have their children later, which gets increasingly difficult for biological reasons. (Not to rule out the chances of effects of bottle vs breast feeding, though, on fertility or many other things.)
Why so quick to say it's the women having trouble concieving? One thing I know they have documented is that sperm counts and viability in humans has been going down. by a lot. Could be pollution, could be environment, could be all that backpacking and knocking 'em around slathered in body glide to keep 'em from chafing - or heck could even be all that tea drinking out of a nalgene bottle. Short answer is they don't know *why* in general it's dropping, but it is.
An interesting line in that Scientific American[/i] article was that when the polycarbonate plastics and epoxy resins made from the chemical are exposed to hot liquids, BPA leaches out 55 times faster than it does under normal conditions.
Tea drinkers should be aware of what they're heating their tea in, and others of what their drinking their hot coffee from.
I stopped eating chicken with hormones etc. But I had a vasectomy when I was in my mid twentys. I didn't want any more children. But it's funny that I keep trying to make babies anyway. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
This from yesterday's Washington Post article about a sweeping new European Union law that will require testing of products considered possibly harmful:
In the United States, laws in place for three decades have made banning or restricting chemicals extremely difficult. The nation's chemical policy, the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, grandfathered in about 62,000 chemicals then in commercial use. Chemicals developed after the law's passage did not have to be tested for safety. Instead, companies were asked to report toxicity information to the government, which would decide if additional tests were needed.
In more than 30 years, the Environmental Protection Agency has required additional studies for about 200 chemicals, a fraction of the 80,000 chemicals that are part of the U.S. market. The government has had little or no information about the health hazards or risks of most of those chemicals.
We don't test "old products" in new ways because they're grandfathered in. We don't pull products from shelves that might be deemed unsafe, since what were supposedly governmental regulatory agencies now "ask" or "suggest" that the products be pulled, making it "voluntary."
So they discount the suspect products on the dollar stores' and big-box retailers' shelves, ship the remainder to our foreign, poorer neighbors, where we can study the effects of the possibly carcinogenic or harmful chemicals on our nation's or the world's poor.
It was a great system for maximizing profits, but that new EU law might really hurt that bottom line.
So, what is safe anymore? I'm certainly not a chemist. I rely on media information that is probably misleading at best. I loaded my nalgean bottle with ice and tea to take with me. I drank it and left the bottle (forgot it) but it will stay till it hits the trash. You believe none of what your told and only half of what you see.
“A) Why would they still have the old bottles for sale?”
There will be no recall if they are safe to use. After years of extensive testing they have not proved harmful to humans—only to lab rats. Thus, they have a lifetime of proven human safety. Do not use these for your hamsters though!
“B) Why would they charge more (a little more, but still messed up), for a bottle that does not have the potential for harming you?”
Because BPA plastic is cheaper to produce (at least for clear). Plus we don’t know if the new plastics will harm us yet since they haven’t been through 40+ years of trial like BPA has.
We have a classic liberal scare. We’ve had scares throughout history and we will continue to have them. For example, ban Freon and use R14 instead. The replacement is more expensive and requires more energy to use and, in the end, it didn’t affect mother earth’s ozone <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />. This is funny to me because now we produce more liberal’s CO2 because of that specific ban.
There will always be scientists on both sides of the alley. Which ones do you listen too? I always like the adage “the proof is in the pudding.” A scientist starts out with a theory and then does extensive testing to see if the theory is wrong or right. I like to look at results and methods of all tests-- instead of relying on the media to interpret the results <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />.
The media keeps saying ‘test it again!’, ‘test it again!’, and the FDA will continue to do extensive testing again and again on BPA. Oh well; pacify the masses.
kevonionia has some important info. I'm no where close to as smart as him <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />
The store is Dick's (properly named <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />). I am kind of ashamed to admit to shop there, but I really don't feel like driving across town to a backpacking outfitter to pay the same price, maybe a buck or two cheaper for a water bottle.
I use my water bottle everyday on and off duty.
I take these "scares" seriously (thanks to kevon's info), and some of the info on BPA from a professor at the University I work at. I have a two year old, and to think I was possibly releasing BPA to my son when he was a infant with his bottles makes me sick to my stomach.
He used Playtex bottles years ago. I'm kinda afraid to research to see if they contained BPA or not. It really doesent matter much at this point if it did because turning back time is an option I seem not to have at the moment.
So lori (and everyone else), if you have a Dick's store and they are selling the old bottles call them out on it. They will probably not give a crap. The one near me didn't.
"Let's not miss the beauty of the forest by the ugliness of some of its trees." Bill W.
Our long-time Sponsor, BackcountryGear.com - The leading source for ultralite/lightweight outdoor gear:
Affiliate Disclaimer: This forum is an affiliate of BackcountryGear.com, Amazon.com, R.E.I. and others. The product links herein are linked to their sites. If you follow these links to make a purchase, we may get a small commission. This is our only source of support for these forums. Thanks.!