Do You Need to Worry About BPA in Plastic Bottles?

A recent study released by the Journal of the American Medical Association raises a concern about the chemical bisphenol-A, (BPA) in plastic bottles, metal cans and various food packaging, as well as in all those eco-friendly reusable water bottles we’re all carrying around.

Based on a health survey, the study found that those who had higher amounts of BPA in their urine were more likely to report having heart disease and diabetes. Of course the research presents no information that says the BPA caused these conditions, and the study authors agree that you can’t rule out the possibility that people who already have heart disease or diabetes are more vulnerable to having BPA show up in their samples.

True to form, NBC’s Today Show aired a report earlier this year that glossed over the facts and highlighted a fearful danger – needlessly worrying millions of us who’ve fed our children from clear plastic baby bottles and sippy cups, who’ve tried not to add to the world’s pollution by switching to re-useable water bottles.

The story had us turning over our plastic containers in search of numbers (resin ID codes #3, #6 and #7) that it turns out, don’t have anything to do with a product being made from BPA, the chemical bad guy of the piece.

The “Consumer Alert” (inaccurately) said:

- There is no safe level of BPA, when in fact the chemical has been studied for many years and found to be safe, especially considering that the levels we ingest are thousands of times lower than the rats that have been studied.

- Plastics containing BPA aren’t safe in the microwave, yet a Dutch study that focused on BPA migration after microwaving found no evidence of any such thing.

- Codes on the bottom of a container can tell you if it’s safe. Wrong! These resin ID codes are intended to aid in recycling facilities, and have nothing to do with identifying bottles that have BPA. Any item intended to be used for food must pass tough FDA guidelines before its ever allowed on the market.

All this flies in the face of 40 years of science, according to a statement released by the American Chemistry Council a few days after the Today segment aired. Another thoughtful piece by Gilbert Ross, M.D. of the American Council On Science And Health (who also appeared, very briefly in the report) came out and called the Today report what it is – junk science.

Not only that, the in-studio guest, Dr. Leo Trasande of Mount Sinai Medical Center was given ample time during the six minute long segment to convey his message, while Dr. Ross had only 6 seconds to tell viewers that, “The toxic effects found on rats were done at thousands of times higher than we are exposed to in the environment.”

Not so “fair and balanced” now is it?

The media mis-information comes as the result of a report by the National Toxicology Program that was a follow up from an expert panel review completed in 2007. Both the expert panel and the NTP reports similarly concluded a low-rate risk, or negligible concern, for adults and some concern for infants and children.

”That is the third-lowest ranking on NTP’s five-level scale. Yet the media has mischaracterized the conclusions as suggesting a new direction is being given by NTP about the use of BPA. This is inaccurate,” says Sharon Kneiss, vice president of the products division of the American Chemistry Council (ACC).

Until the science is sorted out, there is no way to tell if a bottle you’re using is made with BPA. If you’re especially concerned, you might want to avoid warming or microwaving food or beverages in plastic containers until more research on the leaking of the chemical can be completed.

In the meantime the FDA is having a second scientific panel give an opinion on the safety of BPA in plastic bottles and other packaging, though the agency has confidence in its own research, more carefully designed and thorough than the human studies that seem to be causing all the concern.

Tagged as: About, Bottles, Need, Plastic, Worry