Drinking From Plastic Bottles?

[MikeC]

Are You Drinking Water from a Plastic Bottle? Do You Know the Risks?
A wealth of medical research has revealed that a chemical used to make hard, clear plastics called bisphenol A (BPA), such as those found in baby bottles, food-storage containers and the lining of soda cans, has reached epidemic proportions in America.
Each year, over 6 billion tons of BPA are used to make plastics. The problem occurs when the plastic is heated causing the chemical bonds that BPA forms to unravel contaminating the water or food it is held in.

In addition, washing or exposing plastic to acidic foods can cause the BPA to leach out into the food...

Plastic Industry in State of Denial And while the plastic industry fails to see the need for alarm regarding the health impact of this chemical, researcher with no ties to the industry beg to differ.

Research Findings: Scientist studying BPA have found that BPA imitates the sex hormone estradiol (estrogen). It is well accepted that even small amounts of estrogen can induce profound changes in the body. This has raised a red flag and caused concern among the scientific community that even the lowest levels of BPA could have a negative impact on one?s health.

There is growing evidence (among mice and rats) that low doses of BPA can cause:

v Hyperactivity

v Early puberty

v Increased fat formation

v Abnormal sexual behavior

v Disrupted reproductive cycles

v Structural damage to the brain

Who is telling the Truth? You Be the Judge

Of the 115 published studies researchers reviewed on the low-dose effects of BPA, 94 of them reported harmful effects on mice and rats; 21 did not.

Coincidentally, none of the 11 studies funded by chemical companies found harmful effects caused by BPA, which the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has reported is detected in 95 percent of all patients tested.


On the other hand, more than 90 percent of the studies conducted by scientists not associated with the chemical industry [text in blue] discovered negative consequences.

 

[3MR]

Thats not true as written. It only occures when microwaving none microwavable plastics or re-using non reusable containers with something other than it was inteded to contain. Their was a big deal on MSN and NBC news about it a while back.

 

[Alice]

Oh great...something else from me to stress over...crud!

Alice

 

[3MR]

http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/cookplastic.asp

http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/petbottles.asp

 

[Alice]

Whew! I love Snopes.com!

Alice

 

[3MR]

Just happy to serve. 8)

 

[MikeC]

Just follow the money:

Bisphenol A: vom Saal and Hughes Respond
Frederick S. vom Saal


Division of Biological Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, E-mail: [email protected]


Claude Hughes


Department of Biology, East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina







The authors declare they have no competing financial interests.


See the letter "Bisphenol A and Risk Assessment" on page A16a.
Top
References
Our commentary describing the extensive new literature reporting low-dose effects of bisphenol A (BPA) in experimental animals (vom Saal and Hughes 2005) was written in response to a report from the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis (HCRA) by Gray et al. (2004), who concluded that "the weight of the evidence for low-dose effects [of BPA] is very weak." The HCRA report was funded by the American Plastics Council and involved a selective review of only 19 of a much larger number of studies that could have been reviewed. In our commentary we showed that a comprehensive review of the now extensive literature concerning studies in experimental animals that used doses of BPA within the range of human exposure led to exactly the opposite conclusion from that reached in the HCRA report (Gray et al. 2004), which was released 2.5 years after it was written.

At this time there are only two published epidemiologic studies showing a relationship between blood levels of BPA and diseases in humans. In his letter, Politch focuses his attention on a single study by Takeuchi et al. (2004) that describes a relationship between BPA in blood and polycystic ovary disease (PCOS) in Japanese women. In a second recently published article, Sugiura-Ogasawara et al. (2005) reported a relationship between blood levels of BPA and recurrent miscarriage in Japanese women. Politch seeks to deflect attention from the central issue of our review by focusing only on the study by Takeuchi et al. (2004) and stating that such studies "cannot address causal relationships" and suggesting that "appropriately controlled" human studies are required. We are certain that readers of Environmental Health Perspectives (EHP) realize that these are criticisms that can be directed at all epidemiologic studies, which can never achieve the control required in laboratory experiments. Additionally, there is always some risk in arguing the methodologic details of a peer-reviewed publication in one field of scientific research (epidemiology) when the commentator's core expertise (biopsychology) lies elsewhere. Most importantly, based on his criticism of the levels of BPA reported in the blood of women by Takeuchi et al. (2004), Politch appears to be unaware of the large literature concerning the levels of BPA in human blood, urine, and tissues from studies conducted in different regions of the world reporting virtually identical mean and/or median values. For example, in a recent study at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Calafat et al. (2005) found BPA in 95% of the human urine samples they assayed—in the same range reported in human blood in other studies (e.g., Schonfelder et al. 2002; Tan and Mohd 2003). All of this published literature is listed in a document available on the University of Missouri Endocrine Disruptor web site (Endocrine Disruptors Group 2005).

One point-of-view expressed by Politch that we strongly support is the proposition that human studies linking developmental exposure with adult disease are also required, based on the extensive evidence that the developing fetus and neonate are the most vulnerable to endocrine disruption. We hope that the planned National Children's Study will address this issue and begin to characterize which exposures are and are not consequential for human health. In the absence of such a study, which will take decades to complete, we rely on experimental studies in animals to make decisions regarding the potential hazards posed by chemicals.

Our comment that the epidemiologic evidence "adds to our concern" about the potential hazards posed to humans by BPA hardly qualifies as justification for the criticism that we "overstated the importance" of this or any other single study. Our concern about the potential hazards of BPA to humans is justified by the fact that the limited epidemiologic studies do follow and generally support findings from over 125 experiments with laboratory animals showing that low doses of BPA cause adverse effects on a wide range of outcomes. We also pointed out in our article (vom Saal and Hughes 2005) that 100% of the studies showing significant effects of BPA in laboratory animals were funded by government agencies, and 100% of the studies funded by chemical corporations conclude that the same low doses of BPA do not cause significant effects. What is crucial in relation to the critique by Politch is that the two epidemiologic studies relating BPA in blood to diseases in women are consistent with the findings from studies of the hazards of BPA in animals at doses that lead to blood levels in animals within and below those detected in human blood.

 

[3MR]

Come one, what does the fact the Government paid for it have anything to do with it. They will fund a study on the effects of studies if you word the project request right. Somehow I think the other group has their own agenda as well.

 

[milesvb]

There's just one thing I want to know. Do the plastic bottles some brands of whiskey come in pose any threat?

 

[Alice]

There's just one thing I want to know. Do the plastic bottles some brands of whiskey come in pose any threat?

Sacriledge! Of course not...nor do the plastic bottles that Miller Lite Comes in! 8)

Alice

 

[MikeC]

There's just one thing I want to know. Do the plastic bottles some brands of whiskey come in pose any threat?

The threat of "SERIOUS" intoxication. :lol:

 

[milesvb]

There's just one thing I want to know. Do the plastic bottles some brands of whiskey come in pose any threat?

The threat os "SERIOUS" intoxication. :lol:

I'll just have to take my chances. :lol:

 

[VanC]

While some may disagree, I'm not a mouse or a rat, so I'm good for now. Thanks for the heads up, though.