
Are your plastic bottles BPA
This back-to-school season we’re urging you to BYOB: ban your old bottles.
If you’ve got kids school age or younger, then chances are that you’ve got water bottles, plastic cups and perhaps baby bottles kicking around your house. For years, many of these bottles and cups marketed for children and babies were made of a hard, transparent plastic that contained the chemical bisphenol-A, or BPA. In recent years, numerous scientific studies have confirmed the bad news about BPA: it leaches out of the plastic into the beverages, and this has many negative health impacts for humans, particularly children.
In addition to its chemical properties that help make plastic hard, clear and shatterproof, BPA is also an endocrine disrupter that can interfere with normal body functions. Early onset of puberty, reproductive abnormalities, and a heightened risk of breast and prostate cancers have been linked to BPA exposure, along with increased rates of heart disease and diabetes. Children and babies, whose bodies are still developing, are particularly vulnerable.
Many manufacturers are now offering BPA-free baby bottles, sippy cups, and reusable water bottles, and you should be able to easily find them at most major retailers and sporting good stores. Companies were pretty quick to pick up on the fact that consumers wanted BPA-free kids’ products, so they’ll likely be well-labeled.
The bad news, however, is that we’re pretty much on our own to investigate safer options and search the shelves for BPA-free products. It’s still perfectly within a company’s right to manufacture bottles that contain BPA, and it’s at the discretion of a store owner whether or not to sell them. Recently though several states – seven so far – have taken matters into their own hands and passed legislation banning BPA from certain children’s products (Washington and Vermont also banned it from reusable sports bottles). But the real showdown is likely to happen at the federal level next month, when the Senate is expected to begin debate on a bill to overhaul our food safety system. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) plans to propose an amendment that would impose a national ban on BPA in baby bottles, sippy cups and baby food containers. We support her efforts, and think that all consumers deserve the protections that so far have been made available only in the seven states that have passed laws. We’ll keep you posted as the bill progresses.
In the meantime, take a few minutes to do a quick check on the beverage containers your kids are using. One general rule of thumb is to check the bottom of the bottle or cup for the recycling number. Historically a number 7 meant that it was made of hard polycarbonate that contained BPA. However, there are now containers labeled with a number 7 that also are BPA-free. But if you don’t remember when or where you got them, or whether they came with a ‘BPA-free’ label, the safest thing to do is chuck them and get new ones.
A word of caution on water bottles: a metal bottle doesn’t mean it’s safe, as some have plastic liners that contain BPA. Aluminum Sigg bottles, especially popular with kids for their small sizes and colorful designs, had plastic liners that contained BPA until 2008. Sigg bottles now sold at stores are BPA-free, but the ones from a year or two ago floating around your house probably are not. Another option is stainless steel water bottles (such as Kleen Kanteen) which do not have any kind of plastic liner and are BPA-free.
Bottom line: we now know enough about BPA to be worried about its health effects, especially when it comes to kids. Kick this school year off with a quick safety check of the water bottles and other containers your kids are using. If there’s any question, follow the basic rule of ‘if in doubt, throw it out’ and BYOB for some newer, BPA-free models. If you can’t find BPA-free products, feel free to ask stores and manufactures why they don’t carry them, and when they plan to do so.
Consumers Union is an expert, independent, nonprofit organization whose mission is to work for a fair, just, and safe marketplace for all consumers and to empower consumers to protect themselves.
Can you tell us what bottle numbers are safe to use long-term?
It’s time to ban toxins in kids’ products
BPA is also found in very high levels in the receipts from stores in gas stations if they are using thermal printers, which most do. Pregnant especially should avoid handling them.
What??? No way to fax aor e-mail Congress about this? Guess you don’t want it fixed very badly!!! You don’t even ask us to take some form of action!!! :«(
@EddieW: we love your enthusiasm (and we most definitely DO share your passion for fixing this problem!). As mentioned, we’re looking forward to a vote on the food safety bill when Congress returns to DC in a couple of weeks. Once the bill is introduced and Senator Feinstein can propose the amendment to ban BPA in kids’ products, we promise you’ll be hearing from us! We just wanted to give you the ‘heads up’ that it’s coming. More soon on this – promise!
@E.A.Macdonald: bottles with the number 7 are the only ones we know to contain BPA, and even some number 7′s are now BPA-free. Once you confirm that the bottle you’re using is BPA-free, we can’t assure that one plastic is necessarily safer than another. If you’re in the market for water or baby bottles, make sure that whatever you buy has a label or tag that says ‘BPA-free’. You might also opt for non-plastic alternatives, such as stainless steel or glass.
BPA is also used in the protective coating that lines almost all tin cans. And please do some research into soy, which is loaded with endocrine distrupting phytoestrogens. There’s an excellent article about this on the Mothering Magazine site, written by Kaayla Daniel, author of The Whole Soy Story (the responses to this article, most of which are saying why she’s wrong, are all from people who either work for, are funded by, or have a lot invested in soy products). BPA sippy cups and baby bottles is just one piece of the endocrine distruption story.
http://mothering.com/food/whole-soy-story
Check the science before passing on trash like this.
Ingested BPA is metabolized and excreted within just a few hours in the digestive system. There is NO toxicity risk when BPA is ingested.
All the science that says it is a problem is when BPA is in the tissues – but it doesnt get there from anything you eat, drink, or otherwise put in your mouth.
Check it out at stats.org
Every discussion of this type attracts at least one, and often several responses like the one above. Why I pointed out the responses to the soy article. With regards to the Stats.org site, one should always be skeptical of sites that dismiss the potential harm of chemicals in the news, as these articles or sites are often put up by a trade association or other guard dog for that industry, or receives funding from them. This can be difficult to impossible to spot. For example, Bisphenol-a.org, which explains why BPA isn’t dangerous, is run by the American Chemistry Council, but you have to click on the Press Room or copyright and privacy links to discover this (and often, it’s just the latter). Stats.org doesn’t say who funds them, but their response to BPA certainly benefits industry more than consumers. However, their “sister” organization, The Center for Media and Public Affairs’, About Us page has a very unobtrusive link to their funding sources, worth looking at before accepting what Stats.org has to say as fact. Although you probably won’t get the significance of who’s on this list (unless you follow the last two links below).
According to “Our Stolen Future,” BPA was researched as birth control in the 1930s, and only rejected because DES was “more powerful” (this, and virtually all birth control, HRT, and other endocrine research done in the US in the ’20s and ’30s appears to have been funded by the Rockefeller Foundation). So, BPA’s potential was well known long before deciding to use it in tin cans (starting in the ’50s), let alone baby bottles and sippy cups. And that “not enough research has been done” to know if it’s an endocrine disruptor is simply untrue.
http://www.ourstolenfuture.org/newscience/oncompounds/bisphenola/bpauses.htm
The TEDX site,.founded by co-author of the above book, offers a wealth of info and a growing database of supporting research.
http://www.endocrinedisruption.com/home.php
This Bill Moyers interview with the science reporters who broke the BPA story includes discussion of the American Chemistry Council’s efforts to block its publication.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/05232008/watch2.html
Good practical advice on BPA and related subjects by a mom, for moms.
http://www.thesmartmama.com/
For those willing to journey down the rabbit hole, see the last item they funded in 1913, then look this and the Foundation up on Wikipedia and follow the cross references.
http://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/who-we-are/our-history/1913-1919
I stumbled across the above while researching the history of soy, and after reading the article below (on the site of an industry-respected historian), looked up John Harvey Kellogg on Wikipedia.
http://www.soyinfocenter.com/HSS/john_kellogg_and_battle_creek_foods.php
@RICK the dangers being described are to the infants, newborns, and children who are exposed to BPA, it can cause some health defects for them even in small amounts. the CDC and other agencies doing studies on BPA has found these results. Though the risk is not as severe with adults and it is secreted through the urine it is still dangerous to the children and younger generations.
What about BPA in baby toys which babies may suck or chew on? Are such toys equally dangerous, or are they a bit less so because the plastic is not soaking in a liquid that’s consumed?
Good question. Polycarbonate (the type of plastic that may contain BPA) can be used in toys, although it is probably less so now. The U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services (HHS) addresses this question on their website, stating that “In general, children’s toys are made of plastics that are not made with BPA.” Teethers and toys designed for sucking could have small amounts of BPA (as well as phthalates, another known group of endocrine disrupters) but concerns have driven the market to offer many BPA- and phthalate-free options so read labels when buying.
But it’s worth noting that any interesting-looking household item can become a ‘toy’ or teething item to a baby or toddler, and hard, transparent plastics (clear or colored) could be made of polycarbonate that contains BPA. Parents may want to keep these kinds of products out of reach until the child is past the chewing phase.
Stop using oil for making plastic.
[...] to share the Buy Safe Eat Well’s viewpoint on the equipment kids are bringing with them…BYOB: Ban Your Old Bottles…In recent years, numerous scientific studies have confirmed the bad news about BPA: it [...]
We only care about babies? (That mindset, that adults don’t matter – it is SO rethuglicon!)
BPA is harmful to all humans; last I checked, that includes adults.
The bill does not go far enough: the stuff needs to be banned from ALL food products, and from products from which the chemical may be transferred to humans (e.g. baby teething products, toys that may be sucked on, etc.)
Couldn’t agree more! This blog just covered certain child and baby products in honor of the back-to-school time of year. BPA exposure for adults comes in many other forms (as several of these comments reflect) – from the plastic linings in canned goods to the powder coating on receipt paper. We also focus here on children’s products since they are specifically addressed by Senator Feinstein’s amendment, which could come up as soon as next week. (Take action on that here). We too wish the amendment went further to include a BPA ban in all food products – but this would be a good first step. Watch for more info coming as we address BPA in a range of consumer products.
[...] Union has an article about BPA and its impact on human health, including BPA being “an endocrine disrupter that can [...]
How about just not using plastic? That would be the best idea.