Print 92 comment(s) - last by lco45.. on Sep 23 at 5:24 AM

A variety of polycarbonate bottles, including the popular Nalgene shatter-free bottles contain the chemical bisphenol A. In sufficient quanitities the chemical is believed to disrupt hormones, but the FDA concludes in an early report that the levels in plastics are low enough not to be harmful.
FDA continues its insistence that the plastic is safe, says its studies on mice more accurate than recent human study

Last month, DailyTech reported that in a preliminary review, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration had declared the plastic Nalgene safe.  While Nalgene and other products contain the hardening agent bisphenol A (BPA), a known disruptive agent of human physiology, the FDA concluded that sufficient quantities of the chemical did not leach into the liquids stored inside the bottles to cause harm.  Critics blasted the ruling, pointing out that studies have indicated that small, but significant quantities did leach into the water.

Now the first major study on the effects of bisphenol A has been completed and it indicates a clear link between the compound and diabetes and heart disease.  In the study, researchers from Britain and the University of Iowa examined a U.S. government health survey of 1,455 adults who had given urine samples.  The adults were then split into different groups based on the levels of BPA found in their urine.  All the adults were within the "safe" levels of BPA, according to the FDA's standards.

The study discovered that in the highest BPA group there were more than twice as many people with diabetes and heart disease.  No correlation between BPA and cancer was shown.

While the study certainly seems to indicate a clear link between BPA and these diseases, it raises a chicken and egg sort of debate.  If the findings hold true in additional tests, there are two possibilities.  One possibility is that the disease came first and somehow raised the body’s absorption of BPA.  The other possibility is that the BPA came first and somehow interact with the patients' bodies, putting them at higher risk of diabetes and heart disease.

Despite the fact that the largest study to date now suggests a link between "safe" BPA levels and disease, the FDA is refusing to change its stance.  In a scientific review the FDA declared that BPA is "safe" within suggested guidelines.  Laura Tarantino, head of the FDA's office of food additive safety, states, "Right now, our tentative conclusion is that it's safe, so we're not recommending any change in habits."

Tarantino says that if customers want to voluntarily avoid the chemical; that is their decision.  She says that bottles bearing the recycling symbol 7 are BPA-containing, and that heating food in these containers helps to release the BPA.

Ms. Tarantino and the FDA also argued that the agency's own studies on mice were more thorough and extensive than the recent human study.  The American Chemistry Council, an industry trade group, agreed and was quick to blast the study, saying it was flawed, substantially limited, and "proved nothing".

Several states are restricting BPA use, and there is legislation that may soon ban BPA use in baby bottles in Canada.  On a national level in the U.S. and in the European Union, the government food and health agencies have suggested that the compound is safe.  The FDA has acknowledged in the past that its own studies indicate "some concern" of the possible effects of BPA exposure on the brain in fetuses, infants and children.  BPA is commonly used in baby bottles in the U.S. and EU.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Scientific Method?
By AntiM on 9/17/2008 10:20:34 AM , Rating: 2
Why take a chance? Why risk a baby's health? Ban its use in baby bottles and everyone will be happy. Adults have the option to choose whether or not to use products that contain BPA... babies don't. There's evidence that's it's harmful, no "proof". Just like there's no "proof" that cigarettes cause cancer in *humans*. (we know it does in mice though).

RE: Scientific Method?
By MrTeal on 9/17/2008 10:31:03 AM , Rating: 3
Don't most baby bottle include disposable plastic liners inside a hard shell?

RE: Scientific Method?
By pattycake0147 on 9/17/2008 12:27:28 PM , Rating: 2
While most bottles do, there are some that don't. The ones with the liners are specifically designed for infants and can be used by older babies as well, but the ones without the liner are typically used with only older babies.

RE: Scientific Method?
By BansheeX on 9/17/2008 1:13:30 PM , Rating: 2

If you're really concerned about chemicals leaching into your food/drink, get a stainless steel bottle. I have a sports one for working out, cleans better anyway. I'd avoid microwaving plastic as well, use ceramic or glass.

RE: Scientific Method?
By glennpratt on 9/18/2008 7:31:32 PM , Rating: 2
Just remember that many steel products, including water bottles and canned foods were/are lined with BPA.

RE: Scientific Method?
By cheetah2k on 9/18/2008 8:09:59 PM , Rating: 2
And stay away from Cling Wrap while we're at it. It also contains hormone disruptors, and should be used in moderation.

RE: Scientific Method?
By FITCamaro on 9/17/2008 11:49:52 AM , Rating: 2
Why go outside? A plane might fall out of the sky and crush you. Granted that'd kill you if you're in your home too. Better start building that bomb shelter.

And there is proof cigarettes can cause cancer.

RE: Scientific Method?
By jimbojimbo on 9/17/2008 2:13:08 PM , Rating: 2
And quit breathing! There are toxins in the air!

RE: Scientific Method?
By masher2 on 9/17/2008 11:52:18 AM , Rating: 4
> "Why take a chance? Why risk a baby's health? "

Easy answer. Because in a sufficiently large dose, **every** chemical compound is dangerous-- ncluding millions we consume naturally on a daily basis.

Ban everything that has some sort of potential risk, no matter how small, and you ban. . . everything.

RE: Scientific Method?
By Schadenfroh on 9/17/2008 12:01:53 PM , Rating: 3

So, feel free to drink 3 gallons of distilled water in about 5 minutes. So long as that distilled water is not in a PLASTIC bottle.

RE: Scientific Method?
By rcc on 9/17/2008 12:38:11 PM , Rating: 2
So, feel free to drink 3 gallons of distilled water in about 5 minutes. So long as that distilled water is not in a PLASTIC bottle.

You are aware that the military, and athletes, have had this specific problem on hot days?? Even when consumed over a longer period of time?

The human body needs it's electrolytes and minerals. Drinking a large amount of water, particularly when perspiring heavily, lowers these levels dramatically resulting in dizzyness, severe illness, and even death.

The plastic becomes the least of your problems.

RE: Scientific Method?
By Diesel Donkey on 9/17/2008 1:18:35 PM , Rating: 4
The plastic becomes the least of your problems.

I think that was the OP's point.

RE: Scientific Method?
By Lord 666 on 9/17/2008 1:27:44 PM , Rating: 4
Because in a sufficiently large dose, **every** chemical compound is dangerous-- ncluding millions we consume naturally on a daily basis

The disclosure of what really is a "safe" dosage or if a product contains a chemical in question is the issue. Hiding the potential risk, especially when it is used in products for children is demonstrating poor corporate social responsibility and is unethical. At least provide warning labels clearly indicating products contain BPA and not just going by if it has a #3 or #7 recycling label.

Warning labels on cigarettes - perfect caveat emptor. Nothing says it best by saying use of this product will cause death. Another good example is/was the saccharin warning labels.

Canada has a much better disclosure approach, even listing the amount of Nutrasweet in a can of Diet Pepsi.

From product liability perspective, if warning labels were used more often, wouldn't it reduce possible future tort claims?

RE: Scientific Method?
By omnicronx on 9/17/2008 12:03:33 PM , Rating: 2
I for one will take the chance.. why? Because this study is inconclusive at best. Does it really surprise anyone that someone with diabetes which puts a huge amount of stress on your kidneys(you know those things that filter chemicals from your body) could allow a chemical to be more common in your system? Does it not also seem kind of suspect that we have already made the connection between heart disease , cholesterol and kidney failure? (which once again would explain the results)

RE: Scientific Method?
By RussianSensation on 9/17/2008 12:14:04 PM , Rating: 2
FDA can argue all it wants....all sports bottles and any bottles with 'questionable chemicals' related to the article above have been officially banned for sale in all of Ontario. When an official governmental body bans a product in a developed country with strict rules and regulations such as Canada, there is a serious cause for concern.

RE: Scientific Method?
By clovell on 9/17/2008 2:49:12 PM , Rating: 1
Ontario != Canada.

I could point out the rest of the silliness in the post, but meh.

RE: Scientific Method?
By omnicronx on 9/17/2008 3:00:55 PM , Rating: 2
Funny you mention that, because it was actually banned in Canada for use in baby bottles.. not Ontario, our Premiere was just pushing it. And for those that wanted to know, you can still buy water bottles in ontario that contain BPA.

And how was his post silly?

RE: Scientific Method?
By clovell on 9/17/2008 3:18:27 PM , Rating: 2
Ah, see, I bit on the misinformation there.

Perhaps I misread, but I seemed to pick up on an implication that FDA isn't taking this seriously, and I think that's silly.

This was a post-hoc analysis of data collected from a study that was not designed to answer such a question. There doesn't seem to be a significant correlation, either.

RE: Scientific Method?
By menace on 9/19/2008 1:43:00 AM , Rating: 2
Correlation != Causation

Canada is pretty silly

It comes as no surprise a country with strict rules and regulations would ban something on a flimsy study. I'd be more concerned if a country with few rules and little regulation banned it.

RE: Scientific Method?
By rudolphna on 9/17/2008 12:14:28 PM , Rating: 2
because it is illegal to test on humans :)

RE: Scientific Method?
By theapparition on 9/17/2008 12:40:10 PM , Rating: 2
Why take a chance? Maybe because it's not necessary. Plastics, for all thier assumed ills, have provided levels of sanitary that trumps any "potential" problems.

For all our dangerous plastics, bad transfats, carcinogin sugar-substitutes, and bad pollution, and poisoned water supplies........fact is, life expectancies are still increasing.

Sound like you want a solution to a problem that isn't one.

"We’re Apple. We don’t wear suits. We don’t even own suits." -- Apple CEO Steve Jobs
Related Articles

Most Popular Articles5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
No More Turtlenecks - Try Snakables
September 19, 2016, 7:44 AM
ADHD Diagnosis and Treatment in Children: Problem or Paranoia?
September 19, 2016, 5:30 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM
Automaker Porsche may expand range of Panamera Coupe design.
September 18, 2016, 11:00 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki