Chemical In Plastic Bottles May Be Toxic

Bisphenol A, Used In Many Shatter-Proof Containers, Liked To Hormone Issues, Tumors

(CBS/AP)  A chemical used to make baby bottles and other shatterproof plastic containers could be linked to a range of hormonal problems, a preliminary government report has found.

The report was greeted by some environmental groups as confirmation of their warnings, while chemical makers latched on to the report's preliminary nature and its authors' warning against drawing overly worrisome conclusions.

The federal National Toxicology Program said Tuesday that experiments on rats found precancerous tumors, urinary tract problems and early puberty when the animals were fed or injected with low doses of the plastics chemical bisphenol A.

While such animal studies provide only "limited evidence" of bisphenol's developmental risks, the group's draft report stresses the possible effects on humans "cannot be dismissed." The group comprises scientists from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Institutes of Health.

More than 90 percent of Americans are exposed to trace amounts of bisphenol, according to the CDC. The chemical leaches out of water bottles, the lining of cans and other items made with it.

The American Chemistry Council, which represents manufacturers, said the report "affirms that there are no serious or high level concerns for adverse effects of bisphenol on human reproduction and development." Among the manufacturers of bisphenol are Dow Chemical Co. and Germany-based BASF Group.

The group said it supports additional research to determine whether adverse effects seen in animals "are of any significance to human health."

Environmentalists, meanwhile, hailed the report as the first step toward reassessing a chemical they believe could contribute to cancer and other health problems.

"We're hoping this decision will force FDA to recognize the toxicity of this chemical and make manufacturers set a safety standard that's protective of the most vulnerable populations," said Dr. Anila Jacob of the Environmental Working Group.

The toxicology group's findings echo those of researchers assembled by the National Institutes of Health, who in August recommended more research on bisphenol in humans.

The FDA said in November there is "no reason at this time to ban or otherwise restrict its use." The agency on Tuesday did not immediately have any comment about the new report.

Growing misgivings about the chemical have pushed many consumers toward glass alternatives, and triggered investigations by state and federal lawmakers.

Democratic Rep. John Dingell urged FDA on Tuesday to reconsider the safety of bisphenol, saying the toxicology report's findings "fly in the face of the FDA's determination."

Dingell, who chairs the Energy and Commerce Committee in the House of Representatives, issued letters this year to seven companies that make baby formulations questioning whether they use bisphenol in the lining of their cans and bottles.

The companies included Hain Celestial Group, Nestle USA and Abbott Laboratories.

A spokeswoman for the International Formula Council, which represents baby food makers, said Tuesday, "The overwhelming scientific evidence supports the safety" of bisphenol, adding that no foreign governments have restricted or banned its use.

The National Toxicology Program will take public comments on its initial report through May. A final version will be issued this summer.

State lawmakers in New Jersey passed a bill this month that would ban the sale of all products containing bisphenol in that state.

Canada's health agency also is examining health risks of bisphenol and is expected to issue its findings in coming days.

However, three of Canada's major retailers said Tuesday they were pulling bottles that contain the controversial chemical, in anticipation of Health Canada labeling it a dangerous substance.

The Forzani Group, Canada's largest sporting goods retailer, and Hudson's Bay Company, which includes Bay and Zellers stores, announced they're removing products containing bisephenol, including water and baby bottles, from their shelves.

Several other Canadian retails had already moved to take the products out of stock or to offer refunds on items already sold.

[ralan40]

...note to self...stop freebasing plastic...

[usbrit-2009]

erasmus6 - the nipple is just natural latex - probably no added chemicals. Now, of course, being "natural" the latex contains certain proteins that can cause an anaphylactic shock response in sensitive people. A not insignificant number of people have died because of latex allergies.

[erasmus6]

The glass bottle solves one problem but what about the nipple? I hate to think what is in it.

[jstbngmyslf0]

I am a 1st time grandmother to a 4-1/2 month old and just spent the last hour looking for glass bottles. Yes, better safe than sorry as my cpr class I had today told me. If you can not find glass baby bottles, your baby juice bottles will allow you to use the nipples on them, the only place I found them out of Fred Meyers, Bi-Mart, Big lots, Goodwill, and Toys R Us was at the later, Toys R Us, Yes I bought the last 2 8oz pkgs, there were more 4oz pkgs there, I somewhat remember seeing some at Wal-Mart but don''t know if I am remembering correctly. Cancer, all types run through my family and the less risk my granddaughter has the better!!!

[erasmus6]

Also most countries so called "socialized or universal" medical system isn''t necessarily the same as another country.

[erasmus6]

"...and leads directly to the greatest dread of all - Socialized Medicine." Posted by USBrit

I just don''t get it. I think that for some reason people have a completely distorted view of our medical system. I hear people calling it "socialized medicine" and "universal Medicine". Is there a difference? I mean it is like people freak right out at the thought. Someone told me once that they didn''t want someone telling them when they could go to the doctor or what doctor they could go to and I said it isn''t like that at all. They have a totally distorted view. If anything that is the way the U.S. system is, not ours.

[usbrit-2009]

Posted by erasmus6

You''ve got to remember erasmus that the people in the US don''t think they should pay the government for anything, let alone "National Insurance." They''re happier paying a private insurance company three times as much as they would for NI because NI''s another tax, and leads directly to the greatest dread of all - Socialized Medicine.

[erasmus6]

"An advantage of having your government pay your medical." Posted by lochlan

Where do you people get this stuff? It would be nice if they did but they don''t. WE pay for our medical in payments every month. We just aren''t being overcharged and sucked dry by big corporations and a corrupt government.

[usbrit-2009]

That''''s my point... trace amounts add up to what? How much is harful? Isn''''t that the only important thing? Vitamin A can kill you, so do you stop taking it? Drinking too much water can kill you. Do you stop drinking water? It''''s all about the amounts...

Posted by s1ckd09

I did a quick check of MSDS''s on bisphenol A and found solubility in water to be an unilluminating 0.1% - that 1000 ppm. Bisphenol A has been the main ingredient in polycarbonates for years. Wikipedia does a pretty good job of describing polycarbs, though, obviously there are text books written on the subject. Not sure how much unreacted BA is allowed in the polycarb used for bottles. (The only leechate would be from unreacted BA - the BA chemically bonded into the polymer can not be leeched out). My initial thoughts are, given how much water is drunk from polycarb bottles there''d be plenty of direct evidence there was something wrong if it were that dangerous.

As a Ph.D. chemist, I have used some pretty icky things in my time. Most of these trace chemical stories turn out to be crying wolf. My problem is that too much crying wolf leads to complacency. At that time warnings about truly dangerous chemicals - pesticides, for example are ignored and people get hurt. Hope this helps.

[lochlan-2009]

"We will have eliminated at least one source of contamination. That means less people and animals dying or getting sick."

An advantage of having your government pay your medical. Our government hopes we get sick, more money for the heavily lobbied medical field.

[erasmus6]

"So... you feel better that Canada is doing something, regardless of whether it makes a difference. No thanks... I would rather live in society ruled by facts and not by fear." Posted by s1ckd09

You don''t even make sense. If Canada is stopping all contaminated goods from entering the country, it obviously is going to make a difference. We will have eliminated at least one source of contamination. That means less people and animals dying or getting sick.

A society ruled by facts and not fear? The fact is that plastic IS a toxic chemical. Do I live in fear? NO, because I know my government is looking out for my best interests.

On the subject of a society that is living in fear, isn''t that you? Isn''t that why a lot of you carry GUNS because you live in fear of someone getting you? I don''t need that gun because I do not live with that fear.

[s1ckd09]

I live in Canada and have to say that I am proud that our government is actually doing something. Also, I have said this a few times now but Canada is also starting to fine companies for bringing in tainted foods and stuff with toxic chemicals in it, from China.

------------------

Posted by erasmus6 at 12:40 PM : Apr 16, 2008

So... you feel better that Canada is doing something, regardless of whether it makes a difference. No thanks... I would rather live in society ruled by facts and not by fear. And I suppose all of the injuries and possible deaths related to glass breakage will be worth it raised against the possibility, although unproven despite 95% of people using plastics everyday, of kids possibly going through puberty early? Do you forget WHY plastics replaced glass?

[rf35]

I think I''ll buy stock in a glass bottle manufacturing corp. Whether this bisephenol scare is warranted or not, I have a feeling several companies may switch over, especially if other contries start enacting restrictions.
The thing is, nothing is safe anymore. First it was aluminum cans, then it was the diet soda IN the cans, now it''s the plastic bottles. Wait long enough and I''m sure there will be something wrong with glass.
Something is going to kill you, so why worry over something that is so subtle that it has gone unnoticed for decades? Concentrate on the the thing that''s staring you in the face, like petrolium emissions or tobacco smoke. Living in fear of everything is no way to exsist. Based on this report, even living in a plastic bubble could be harmful. You can''t escape all toxins, so just focus on avoiding the nastier ones.

[barbaraf4]

"Chemical In Plastic Bottles May Be Toxic"

Great....now they tell us.

[yongamerica]

Well, DUH! The indivual chemicals that make up plastic are extremely poisonous to living creatures. The plastic matrix stabilizes them, but free radicals do escape the matrix and are mixed within the foodsstuff housed in the plastic container. This has been known for as many years as plastic has been made.
In layman terms it''s called OUTGASSING.

[mgb1unc]

Just a bunch of whiney sissys.

[erasmus6]

Another thing I have said a few times is that the government of Canada DOES listen to it''s people.:)

[erasmus6]

"The difference between Canada and the U.S. is quite apparent by the actions each goverment. Canada seems to cares about the effect on its people health, while the U.S. seems to care about the effect on its corporations profits." Posted by lochlan


I live in Canada and have to say that I am proud that our government is actually doing something. Also, I have said this a few times now but Canada is also starting to fine companies for bringing in tainted foods and stuff with toxic chemicals in it, from China.

[s1ckd09]

When everything is in plastic these days, all those trace amounts add up, don''''t you think?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by erasmus6 at 12:02 PM : Apr 16, 2008


That''s my point... trace amounts add up to what? How much is harful? Isn''t that the only important thing? Vitamin A can kill you, so do you stop taking it? Drinking too much water can kill you. Do you stop drinking water? It''s all about the amounts...

[s1ckd09]

What an idiotic statement.
Do you drive a Hummer too knuckle-head?

No, but I do read A LOT about GW, and not just the stuff I want to believe. I read the arguments for and against, and I see what is confirmed, what is proven false, what is purely conjecture, the accuracy of predictions based on models, and also how much is still not known about how our climate works. I have seen misleading reports (like the falsehood of the Antartic losing ice) and reports that treat predictions as facts. I look at periods of history longer than just time periods that support one view and see an expected climate change like we are experiencing. Can you name ONE thing that any of the global warming alarmists have predicted that has come true, or even evidence that it MAY become true? Look at the price of corn, and what has been done to the food supply because ethanol was supposed to be the cure. Have you looked at the amount of water it takes to produce biofuels and how much water would be required to produce enough biofuels to make a difference? Have you considered what the effect of the increased demand of water (40-100 times more than the amount used to process fossil fuels, btw) will cause? Have you heard a definitive statement on the effects of clouds on climate? I can go on and on and on, but I''ve only got 1500 characters.
So how is my statement idiotic? I suggest you look at the other point of view, and see which side has more holes in their opinions and science like I have done.