Slashdot Mirror
BPA Leaches From Polycarbonate Bottles Into Humans
Linus the Turbonerd sends in the bulletin that BPA, a toxic chemical used in the production of polycarbonate, the plastic composing hard, clear water bottles, has been found to leach out of such containers, directly into the water that their users consume. "In addition to polycarbonate bottles, which are refillable and a popular container among students, campers and others and are also used as baby bottles, BPA is also found in dentistry composites and sealants and in the lining of aluminum food and beverage cans. ... 'We found that drinking cold liquids from polycarbonate bottles for just one week increased urinary BPA levels by more than two-thirds. If you heat those bottles, as is the case with baby bottles, we would expect the levels to be considerably higher. This would be of concern since infants may be particularly susceptible to BPA's endocrine-disrupting potential,' said Karin B. Michels, associate professor of epidemiology at HSPH and Harvard Medical School and senior author of the study."
Isn't this extremely old news? Companies have been making BPA-free plastic bottles now for a long long time, including baby bottles.
"In case of emergency, break glass. Scream. Bleed to death."
This could grow tits on a frog.
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
What a surprise! Who would have guessed that nasty stuff would leach out of plastic into the liquids in the bottles...?
This is one of many reasons I take my soda in the form of glass bottles. Vivà IBC!
Well, either that or the enriched uranium canisters that mountain dew comes in.
These bottles were banned two years ago, though not in the USA. This is hardly a bulletin.
Has it been over a year since you last donated to the Electronic Frontier Foundation
really really old. they have been illegal to sell in canada since last year.
Nalgene, one of, if not the biggest producers of the 'indestructable' plastic bottles with BPA, still does not acknowledge the health detriments even though they stopped producing those bottles. Probably because of liability reasons... http://www.nalgene-outdoor.com/technical/bpaInfo.html
has genistein
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genistein
genistein is a potent estrogen mimic
soy has been used in many cultures for thousands of years
where is the faux outrage about how soy is going to destroy the world?
not that i think we shouldn't get rid of BPA. get rid of BPA, please. the positives it enables are outweighed by the negatives. same with transfats, same with DDT: get rid of these substances form our food supply and our environment. just do it without the drama
but i don't see why this pantytwisted fear-addled panic is supposed to help anyone or anything
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I knew it, I knew it, glass bottled beer ftw.
BPA in plastic bottles was banned in Canada last year.
This is the justification of beast feeding that I've been waiting for. Now, if you don't mind, I'm off to find a tit.
Unitil I return, all the breast, to you and yours.
Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.
Can the US government finally get on the fucking ball and ban BPA? I'm sick of catering to business interests.
Great! I think we should all go back to lead plumbing and lead pewter cups.... After a couple of generations, we won't have all these fancy "scientific" reports.... Instead we will have... "wite paint tastyer than blu paint"
refinance cost
Vita-Mix.com, who have been making high-performance mixers with polycarbonate containers forever, deny any such adverse effects and encourage their customers to "mix" as long as it takes to make hot soups (that is, starting with a cold mixture, keep mixing until the liquid is hot). Rubbermaid, OTOH, has had on their website an interview with a Johns Hopkins University scientist who states that heated or boiling liquids will accelerate BPA extraction (quite obvious, if you think about it).
"One of the symptoms of an approaching nervous breakdown is the belief that ones work is terribly important." -BRussell
There was an interesting article on NPR recently where they looked at premature infants who were on heart-lung machines whose tubing all used such BPA. These kids had much higher levels than other kids in their systems. 15 years later there were no detectable problem with their reproductive systems. Granted the study size was small, but there is clearly no dramatic effect from significantly larger levels than adults get from using water bottles.
I know, eh?? For fucks sake, they haven't even banned dihydrogen monoxide yet!! Bunch of anti-science weirdos, if you ask me ...
Companies have been ditching BPA on their own...government intervention is unnecessary. If you wanna whine about government catering to business interests, you're definitely barking up the wrong tree.
http://2008.igem.org/Team:University_of_Alberta This project was about creating a synthetic organism that would be able to detect and destroy this stuff
Not anywhere near quickly enough, considering that the vast majority of polycarbonates still contain BPA. As long as the cost saving of BPA exceeds the sales lost, companies won't move a bit. Parents with young children tend to be hyper-vigilant, so sure, companies will remove BPA from baby bottles. But people don't pay as much attention to other products.
That the people most at risk (infants) happen to use them in the worst possible way (heated). Now it will be interesting (and scary) to see some studies on the long term effects of the exposure to the population. No wonder this generation will die younger than their parents!
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." --Mark Twain
first and foremost, you can suck it, FDA! suck it hard!
You knew this all along and you put us all in danger due to corporate influences.
We should now be able to see the FDA chief, who allowed BPA to continue in products, put in jail for gross negligence.
They're using their grammar skills there.
The linked report was less than useful, since the reporting was done in relative terms - e.g. "increased by two thirds". Okay, but two thirds over what? There are generally specific concentrations above which a chemical is identified as harmful by the government (or by a watchdog agency, if you don't trust the government). Why not say "BPA levels increase from the background level of xxxxxxx to a ppm/ppb of yyyyyy in individuals who drank from these bottles for one week"?
So really, even if the shift away from BPA plastics wasn't already well on, there's no indication from this report whether I should actually be concerned or not. And frankly, as someone with a science background, this sort of thing makes me LESS likely to be concerned. When I see fuzzy reporting, my first though is it was done intentionally because they can't support their case using objective numbers. I've seen this happen in honest-to-goodness scientific papers way too often to not notice.
#DeleteChrome
So what's the half-life of one of these bottles when full of water? Eventually, most of the BPA will be leached out, and the bottle will become safer. Does this take months, or years?
...and replace it with what, Genius?
My favorite quote doesn't fit into 120 characters. Now no one will like me.
From Nalgene... I've bolded the part I found interesting.
Question: Why is Nalgene transitioning from polycarbonate to other materials?
Answer: [Blah, blah, blah] Our decision to phase out production of the Outdoor line of polycarbonate containers is in response to consumer demand for products that do not include Bisphenol-A (BPA).
We are confident that the bottles which contain BPA are safe for their intended use. However, because of consumer requests for alternative materials, we have decided to transition our polycarbonate product line to Eastman Tritanâ copolyester. This product joins our family of bottles and containers made of various non-BPA materials such as HDPE, PP, LDPE and PET.
[Blah, blah, blah]
Based on the findings of the Food and Drug Administration, The Environmental Protection Agency, The European Food Safety Authority, The German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, The Japan Ministry of Health, Labor & Welfare, The American Plastics Council and other reliable sources from around the world, we continue to firmly believe in the safety of our products containing BPA. However, we intend to carefully monitor the results of the National Toxicology Report and the Canadian government's inquiry into this issue and any other relevant scientific information.
Now I'm not sure the Plastics Council is a group I'd want to get my info from, but the rest sound somewhat compelling. So what's the deal, yes it leaches, but it's not necessarily harmful? I wouldn't want to be a sucker for some company's BS, but what's the deal with groups above?
Most canned foods (soups, beans, etc.) have a BPA-laden liner too. There was one company whose name escapes me right now that used a safer natural* lining. It's for this reason I swore off any canned soup (even the so-called healthy ones) well over a year ago.
* If you like beans, beans and more beans, this was fine, but the company didn't make the chicken soup I wanted :-(
-- This
Yup. Fear of civil suits does far more than government regulation ever will. I really feel for the people who want the government to hold their hand through everything. They never see what the other hand is doing.
Uh...not sure where you're getting that idea. In addition to getting people a (hopefully) healthier product, selling BPA-free bottles is an excellent way for the businessmen to get people to replace their "indestructible" bottles!
http://sev.prnewswire.com/chemical/20090513/DC1672113052009-1.html
...
PR Newswire (press release) - âZMay 13, 2009
"This new Chicago law is contrary to the global consensus on the safety of BPA and ignores the expert evaluations of scientists and government bodies from around the world. These particular restrictions on the sale of baby bottles and sippy cups, intended for use by children under the age of three and which contain bisphenol A (BPA), are unwarranted. "
Really depends on your part of the world and if you have to wait a few more years or more
"'With regard to BPA generally, based on all available evidence, the consensus of regulatory agencies in the United States, Canada, Europe, and Japan is that the current levels of exposure to BPA through food packaging do not pose an immediate health risk to the general population, including infants and young children"
"Within the last few months government agencies in France, Germany, Denmark, Australia and New Zealand all have issued statements"
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
I wish I hadn't already used up my mod points, since this is one of the funnier things I've read today.
Most people here seem to think that the BPA in bottles and linings is harmful. I work in a lab that tests the low-dose exposure effects of BPA on mice. I personally drink from cans lined with BPA-laden plastics all the time, because the dose-response curves I've seen indicate that the risk of harm from BPA is negligible.
There are plenty of other estrogenic compounds that you all consume in much higher quantities, so if you care about your BPA intake, you are misinformed. I'd like to thank the science news cycle for that.
Now I'm not sure the Plastics Council is a group I'd want to get my info from, but the rest sound somewhat compelling. So what's the deal, yes it leaches, but it's not necessarily harmful? I wouldn't want to be a sucker for some company's BS, but what's the deal with groups above?
Well you could be right, from the summary it looks like the study found that BPA levels in urine increased, not that increased BPA levels in urine are harmful. What this means is that it looks like nobody has actually looked or performed a study to see if drinking from containers made with BPA is actually harmful but are instead infering a risk from the fact that BPA does indeed leach from the containers and that there is a plausable action for BPA to damage your health. The key here is that while people may have performed experiments where they pour a load of BPA on some cells or see if it reacts with some enzyme or something the summary doesn't actually mention any link with BPA and health issues. It has "endocrine-disrupting potential" but what exactly do they mean by potential? does it disrupt endocrines in real people in the levels that are associated with the leaching from drink containers? would you have to drink everything out of such a container to be at risk? does your health suffer imdeiatly after just one sip? basically this study doesn't tell you and you would need to look at studys conducted looking at how BPA levels effect health and then compare the effects to the levels leaching out of the containers.
So yes they are probably not very harmfull and the assessments of those organisations can be trusted so long as you can find out what they actually have to say on the matter rather than taking the companys word (they could be outright lieing/missinterpruting results in the press release). The only way to really be sure is to actually do some research and find the appropriate studys (which may or may not exist). Since the plastics companys don't seem that bothered about using alternatives suggests its not actually a big deal for them just to switch so probably there won't be much more research into BPAs if they are just phased out anyway, so we may never know.
I love the "...Into Humans" part of the byline. As if the chemical(s) in question do not leach out into the liquids if they are consumed by anything but humans. Leaching and ion exchange is a well known phenomena among chemists, which is why glass is still the most common container material when dealing with chemicals.
RFC2119
'We found that drinking cold liquids from polycarbonate bottles for just one week increased urinary BPA levels by more than two-thirds [from nearly zero to 1.6×nearly zero] . If you heat those bottles, as is the case with baby bottles, we would expect the levels to be considerably higher. This would be of concern since infants may be particularly susceptible to BPA's endocrine-disrupting potential,'
This is propaganda, not science.
I'm a Programmer. That's one level above Software Engineer and one level below Engineer.
I replace my mercury fillings for this?
"BPA is also found in dentistry composites"
I don't need pliability in my fillings.
I also don't need my fillings to be made in China, but I bet that's where they were made. Out of the reach of the legal system, so they don't have to worry about any pesky legal problems.
Keep outsourcing. Eventually everyone will realize that their food (melamine) , medicine (heparin), or building materials(dry wall) will be poisoning them. It's cool because you get 20% off.
Translation:
;-)
Don't expect to see a well founded anaysis with references here on Slashdot
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=leach+dictionary&l=1
Because it could never be the market's fault, ever, as it is more perfect than God herself, not that I am a theist. Also, analysis that stating the same thing over and over again gained their party popularity in the past and thus had a positive effect. Also, after 2000 election, there were various insults about Bush tossed about regularly and that made the Republicans lose in 2006 and 2008. Thus, the correct action to take is to say that, Obama iz ebil, more often than it is possible. Further analysis of any other causes is inconceivable and treason. Those are the only actions necessary to bring the Bachmann/Palin ticket to power in 2010 (yes, I actually intended to write 2010).
Impersonating Tycho from Penny Arcade since before there was a PA.
Could you please enlighten me here? The refinance joke whooshed over my head - I still can't figure it out.
Member of the 7 Digit UID Club
What kind of symptoms would someone experience or exhibit if poisoned by this?
8==8 Bones 8==8
Apparently I'm still an idiot, since I've been pointing out for well over a decade that all plastics leach toxic chemicals into whatever is stored in them.
If that happens to be food or drink, than it's not a good thing for the consumers.
It started in 1963 with two female researchers (can't find my sources right now), who presented information that the plasticizers in soft plastic containers leached into the contents, and they were laughed at and not taken seriously.
You need some serious study of the history of toxicology, because a common theme throughout that history is that the "messengers" are almost always "shot" for years before the common mind awakes to the realization that whats been said is actually true, disruptive as it may be.
And if you can open your mind enough you also might want to read this: Chemical Safety Bibliography -- Risk assessment and management and Chemical Exposure and Human Health, C. Wilson, McFarland.
Not to crash your party or anything, but have a look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisphenol_A#Health_effects
I know, eh?? For fucks sake, they haven't even banned dihydrogen monoxide yet!! Bunch of anti-science weirdos, if you ask me ...
Ban dihydrogen monoxide? Gee, that is SO original. Pretty sad how the same tired old crap gets brought up over and over, yet adds nothing to the discussion. I mean, from your post you are saying that all potential material safety dangers are akin to this laughable e-mail hoax, right? That seems quite an indefensible stance to me.
One of these days I'm going to cut you into little pieces. - PF
Who done the what now?
I didn't catch all that ... but, just to clarify, I'm rather upset over the governments constant kowtowing to Big Water over the DHMO threat. Maybe before worrying about what bottles are made of, we should worry about what's in them! People are putting this stuff INTO THEIR BODIES, and all because politicians keep bowing to pressure from lobbyists. It's gotta stop!
http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2009/0900604/abstract.html
How's that crashing his boat? Quoting the very first two paragraphs (emphasis mine):
There aren't any really good studies on the effect of long term exposure to low doses. Speculatively, there might be negative effects on fetuses, potentially on infants, and possibly on adults, with probability decreasing drastically from former to latter.
1mg = 1/1000 g = 1E-6kg Thus your Result is too high. Should be 0.26 kg i guess. Which would still be a lot of plastic to eat..
Take your bicycle out for a long ride on a hot day and tell me the water from bottle doesn't have a "plasticy" taste.
OK, considder the context of your study, and then don;lt takwe the numbers themselves for granted, compare the numbers to what's actually considdered safe and dangerous:
That was "simulated" dishwashing (using BOILING water), followed by brushing (physical aggitation of the surface), followed by rinsing in an alcohol solution (which may or may not have assisted in BPA extraction from the plastic).
The "dishwashing" included the use of BOILING water, which is significantly hotter than any dishwasher can achieve (typically 50C). The bottles were then filled with MORE boiling water, and allowed to sit for 24 hours before being tested... Does this sound normal for clear plasic containers?
Though they used BPA containing baby bottles (which I can't even find in a store at all) in this testing system, they admit IN THE ARTICLE that this would NOT be a close comparison to daily use, and the article even states this would be restricted likely to "cold weather outdoor activities such as alpine snow sports, climbing, and mountaineering" where hot beverages would be stored and consumed. Well, tell me what NON-insulated bottle you'd ever put hot liquids in for use outdoors, especially to keep for 2 days?!? Every thermos I've ever owned has been glass or metal inside, NEVER plastic.
Their simulated tests are evaluating the BPA levels in the bottles present after both cold and high temperature washing. It should also be noted they "immediately filled" the bottled with boiling water, meaning the bottles were still hot from washing when filled. In a REAL dishwasher, the extended exposire to heat would in fact cause the BPA to leach faster, yes, but that leaching would happen inside the machine, and the enzymes present in most modern dishwashing detergents (not used in this experiment) would have absorbed much of that BPA (they USED enzymes to COLLECT the BPA as part of their testing methodology), and the rest would have left the machine in the rinse cycle. The exposure to the hot water cleaning cycle for (in most machines) an hour (as opposed to a few minutes of hand washing with boiling water) would actually leach the BPA many times faster, greatly lessening the human impact over time. Further, those clean bottles would have typically been stored for some time before being filled. In my house, I don't know about yours, we rinse everything again before filling it. (do YOU want to drink something containing the dust from inside your cabinets?)
And again, as pointed out earlier, BPA in bottles, under normal use and cleaning, has been shown to increase BPA in urine by only 1/3rd (aka, less than half of the BPA you take in, even using NEW BPA plastic bottles DAILY, as did the study, would still be less BPA that you already take in now through other sources.
It should also be noted, the sample size was 3 BOTTLES!!!! 2 new and only 1 used, and there was NO CONTROL BOTTLE. Oh yea, the bottles didn't just sit there either, but were ROLLED CONSTANTLY BY A MACHINE for the duration of the incubation!!!
Here's some other data for you:
"The European Food Safety Authority in 2006 set a tolerable daily intake (TDI) level for BPA of 50 micrograms/kg body weight/day - but stressed that current exposure levels were just 30 per cent of the TDI."
OK, 50ng/kg of body weight is acceptible, most people are averaging 15ng/kg. In this experiment, used bottles added 0.7ng/ml after 7 days of incubation! Baby bottles are filled, used, and cleaned, and rarely stored except under refrigeration for more than 4 hours. Even a NEW bottle only gave up 1.0ng/ml after 7 days. Using boiling water and a 24 hour sample time, BPA only doubled to a hair less than 2ng. The BPA leaking per hour stored is 0.42ng.
Even to get to 30ng/day/kg of body weight, your baby would have to drink DOZENS of MICROWAVED BPA containing bottles, and this is still LESS than the prescribed safety limits set by the european government in 2006, AFTER all this BPA bullshit started.
This is FUD. Yes it's a slight risk, bu
There is no contest in life for which the unprepared have the advantage.
Wait a second, you're using logic to evaluate this and completely ignoring the proper response which is to panic and repeat the article's over-simplified bylines as if they were facts... :-)
I did notice that they have been focusing on the "percentage of increase" but not showing whether or not this impacts the amount we can reasonably tolerate. Even a large percentage increase is meaningless if it's still well below the amount that has an effect on us. But why bother with details when the sensationalist approach can be taken?
LOL, you need to be modded up. I'd spend my points to do so if I hadn't already posted a comment in this space...
There is no contest in life for which the unprepared have the advantage.
So that's why after drinking too much beer people start talking nonsense and have trouble driving.
Funny thing happened. Wikipedia changed.
Now ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bisphenol_A&oldid=292773107 ) most of what you've quoted is gone.
Also, most of the "Health effects" section is very worrying. (Note the Lang study from 2008 September.)
Plus, the lack of long term exposure studies doesn't disprove the short term ones.
I feel like I'm locked in a Monty Python sketch, except this guy isn't even contradicting me, just spouting some foul refuse. Again, just because some idiots fell for some email hoax encouraging a ban on 'dihydrogen monoxide' (water) does NOT mean that all materiel safety issues are baseless. And I think it is completely ignorant and irresponsible to make such an allusion, as you are obviously doing.
One of these days I'm going to cut you into little pieces. - PF