I thought I was being all Eco-friendly by drinking tap water from the danged thing, so you can imagine how peeved I was to hear that I was killing myself.
Anyway, I didn't believe her and asked how she knew. She couldn't remember the source (red flag) but told me any bottle with a number 7 on the bottom would give me cancer.
I thought, no big deal. I have a gazillion reusable water bottles at home. I'll just ditch this one. When I got home I realized that all of my reusable water bottles had a 7 on the bottom.
I thought "no way in hell am I throwing out all of my water bottles!"
So I turned to the Internet (because we all know how reliable it is) to get to the bottom of this.
Apparently the Bisphenol A (BPA) is the issue with reusable plastic containers like water bottles and BABY BOTTLES.
If you've never heard of BPA, it's a chemical used in the production of polycarbonate plastics which turn up in some food and drink packages like water and infant bottles and is also found in compact discs.
Anyway, here's a story on BPA from Bloomberg, which I found by reading an article from this treehugger web site. The treehugger article suggests scrapping Nalgene bottles (with BPA) for Klean Kanteen, Sigg or Camelbak (BPA-free) bottles.
But I began to wonder whether the entire scare wasn't a ploy by Klean Kanteen and others to kill its competitor - Nalgene.
I mean, the FDA says it's safe.
Then I read this in last week's Los Angeles Times:
"Sen. Carole Migden (D-San Francisco) has maneuvered a bill (SB 1713) onto the Assembly floor that would ban a suspect chemical -- bisphenol A, or BPA -- from baby bottles, formula cans, sippy cups and other products marketed for kids under 3.
BPA is an estrogen-like compound used to make hard plastic. The National Institutes of Health has reported "some concern" that the brains and reproductive organs of fetuses and babies are threatened by BPA, which leaches from beverage containers and can liners."
So I went to the NIH site and looked at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences page on BPA. And sure enough, The National Toxicology Program (part of the NIH) is evaluating BPA and said:
"The National Toxicology Program (NTP) concurs with the conclusion of the Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction (CERHR) Expert Panel on Bisphenol A that there is some concern for neural and behavioral effects in fetuses, infants, and children at current human exposures. The NTP also has some concern for bisphenol A exposure in these populations based on effects in the prostate gland, mammary gland, and an earlier age for puberty in females.
The scientific evidence that supports a conclusion of some concern for exposures in fetuses, infants, and children comes from a number of laboratory animal studies reporting that "low" level exposure to bisphenol A during development can cause changes in behavior and the brain, prostate gland, mammary gland, and the age at which females attain puberty. These studies only provide limited evidence for adverse effects on development and more research is needed to better understand their implications for human health. However, because these effects in animals occur at bisphenol A exposure levels similar to those experienced by humans, the possibility that bisphenol A may alter human development cannot be dismissed."
Never mind the fact that the research looks at BPA's impact on the development of infants and children, which could mean adults are not at risk.
In the end, I don't know which government agency to believe and honestly don't have time to figure out whether "some concern" means that I should keep all of my number 7 bottles or go to the hospital for cancer screening.
So .... I'm thinking that I'm going to buy a BPA-free bottle just in case. And if it turns out to be a marketing ploy, uh, let's just say it's working.
Posts
