Bottles with #7 to be banned?

Plastic Bottle Ban?
Manufacturers, retailers, and regulatory agencies consider eliminating a potentially harmful chemical from plastic sport and baby bottles.
By Lisa Farino for MSN Health & Fitness
Responding to growing consumer concern, sports-bottle maker Nalgene announced today that it will be phasing out the use of the chemical bisphenol-A (BPA) in its plastic containers over the coming months.

BPA is a common building block of hard polycarbonate plastics (such as sports bottles, baby bottles, and eye glasses) and is also found in the resin lining of metal food and beverage cans.

Because BPA mimics estrogen, there has been increasing concern that exposure, especially by fetuses, newborns, and infants, may cause long-term health impacts such as early puberty in girls, reproductive problems, and cancers later in life.

Nalgene currently makes about a half-dozen different sports bottles, including ones made from stainless steel and also BPA-free plastics. Only one of its six bottle types includes BPA. Customers who wish to buy BPA-free sports bottles before Nalgene’s phase-out is complete can visit the Nalgene Choice website to learn more about Nalgene’s current BPA-free options.

Canada Plans BPA Ban

Across the border, retailers throughout Canada have been releasing plans to remove BPA-containing sports and baby bottles from their shelves. On Wednesday, Wal-Mart Canada announced that it would immediately stop selling baby bottles, sippy cups, pacifiers, food containers, and water bottles that contain BPA.

Many of these retail changes followed an anonymous media leak earlier this week that Health Canada would declare BPA to be toxic.

The official announcement came today as Canada’s Minister of Health, Tony Clement, declared that the Canadian government is taking action to reduce BPA exposure, especially in newborns and infants.

“We have immediately taken action on bisphenol-A (BPA) because we believe it is our responsibility to ensure families, Canadians and our environment are not exposed to a potentially harmful chemical,” said Clement.

The Government of Canada is proposing a ban on polycarbonate baby bottles and strict limits on BPA in infant formula cans. The government is also seeking to work with industry to develop alternative food packaging. A 60-day public comment period on the proposal will begin tomorrow.

Will the US Follow Suit?

On Tuesday, the National Institute of Health’s National Toxicology Program (NTP) released its draft brief on BPA, which found that current levels of exposure to the chemical did pose “some concern” for fetuses, infants, and children. The main concerns were that exposures in these groups could potentially cause neural and behavioral problems, impact the prostate and mammary glands, and contribute to earlier onset of puberty in girls.

There are no immediate plans in the U.S. to regulate BPA in food and beverage containers.

The report wasn’t intended to make recommendations, says John Bucher, Associate Director of the National Toxicology Program. Rather, the goal was to pull together the literature on the subject, conduct a thorough scientific analysis, and make that information available to regulatory agencies.

“All we can do is point out where the exposures are coming from,” said Bucher. The two biggest culprits he identified were polycarbonate baby bottles and the linings of infant formula cans.

On Wednesday, The Washington Post reported that congressional Democrats were pushing for the FDA to regulate the presence of BPA in food containers and beverage bottles.

Although no regulatory agencies are required to take the report’s findings into account, Bucher says that some agencies—such as the FDA, the EPA, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission—could choose to use the NTP’s findings on BPA. Most likely, these agencies will, at the very least, wait until the draft report has been through a peer review process, which is scheduled for June 11, 2008.

Meanwhile, the NTP is accepting public comments about the BPA report.

What Should I Do?

While the NTP does not make specific recommendations about how other agencies should regulate BPA, they did offer the public some tips for reducing personal exposure if they were concerned. These included:

Don’t microwave polycarbonate plastic food containers. Polycarbonate is strong and durable, but over time it may break down from over use at high temperatures.
Polycarbonate containers that contain BPA usually have a #7 on the bottom.
Reduce your use of canned foods.
When possible, opt for glass, porcelain, or stainless steel containers, particularly for hot food or liquids.
Use baby bottles that are BPA free.

I got this info from MSN couldn't copy and paste the web address for some reason.

yep its the War on #7. Pretty soon they will need to find other reasons their snowflake is a fat/lazy/irresponsible POS. Its not thier fault they are never home working 2 jobs to support their H2 and 4000sqft house.


tad bit of a rant there

MikeFlynn74 said:

yep its the War on #7. Pretty soon they will need to find other reasons their snowflake is a fat/lazy/irresponsible POS. Its not thier fault they are never home working 2 jobs to support their H2 and 4000sqft house.


tad bit of a rant there

Click to expand...

Having a bad day?

No- I saw this and the closing of something like 800 Astro turf fields in the same scare tactic way

Given the fact that I have an 18mo old girl, this is a little scary. I'm not one to follow the paranoid public but I will be checking out her bottles when I get home. Not that there is much I can do about it now.

Given the fact that I have an 18mo old girl, this is a little scary. I'm not one to follow the paranoid public but I will be checking out her bottles when I get home. Not that there is much I can do about it now

Click to expand...

While I do understand that- We always used either the plastic baggies that fit in the bottle or glass bottles. 2 glass bottles = no trash

MikeFlynn74 said:

the closing of something like 800 Astro turf fields in the same scare tactic way

Click to expand...

I know. What a waste of money.

I thought it was the roids they put in the meat that caused early puberty.... and weight gain.... and (insert third thing)

Not to mention HFCS.....

I thought it was the roids they put in the meat that caused early puberty.... and weight gain.... and (insert third thing)

Not to mention HFCS.....

Click to expand...

Same with GH in Milk or whatever they want to blame these days.

Something is causing early puberty. They use to say that it was the pesticides that mimic hormones. Who knows? But it does seem like we are guinea pigs sometimes. And everything is always considered safe until proven otherwise.

Coffee was bad for you, then it was good for you, then it was bad for you. Too much wine can kill you. Too much water can kill you. Too much sun can kill you. Perhaps they will ban water and the sun. We all need to be nannied since we are all such stupid people who cannot make responsible choices in life. The gubmint needs to do it for us.

EdWort- I like your style.

The less the Govt does to protect me from myself the better.

MikeFlynn74 said:

The less the Govt does to protect me from myself the better.

Click to expand...

You mean like they do in China, right?

I mean, it's only a few dead babes from putting funky stuff in toothpaste - no need for Gubmint involvement.

(sometimes the government *should* be involved...)
-keith

I mean, it's only a few dead babes from putting funky stuff in toothpaste

Click to expand...

I didnt see a single article where any real harm was done. Not that I dont agree in some cases.

About the dead babies -
I was referring to an instance where a Chinese toothpaste factory used antifreeze (polyethelene glycol) in it's toothpaste because the managers wanted to cut costs and not use a food-safe sweetner. About 12 infants/toddlers died from poisoning.

Point being, sometimes you *do* want the government watching your back. Other times, maybe not.

I don't know if this is one of those cases - BPA being harmful or not, that is - but for the government to not even look into it? I don't think that's wise.

As far as homebrewing is concerned - isn't PET (1 on the recycle symbol) supposed to be the best for inertness and non-permeability?
-keith

I always knew that babies should stick with those nippled 12 oz cornies...

In June 2007, counterfeit Colgate toothpaste imported from China was found to be contaminated with DEG, and several people in eastern US reported experiencing headaches and pain after using the product.[20]. The same occurred in Spain with a false Colgate toothpaste, which contained 6% of DEG. The tainted products could be identified by the claim to be manufactured in South Africa by Colgate-Palmolive South Africa LTD; they are 5oz/100ml tubes (a size which Colgate does not sell in the United States) and their packaging contains numerous misspellings on the labels. Colgate-Palmolive claims that it does not import their products from South Africa into the United States or Canada and that DEG is never and was never used in any of its products anywhere in the world. These counterfeit products were found in smaller "mom and pop" stores, dollar stores and discount stores in at least four states. [21]
In July 2007, diethylene glycol was found in counterfeit Sensodyne toothpaste, on sale at a car boot sale in Derbyshire, England [22]

Click to expand...

Diethylene Glycol, but reading through about 20 articles I dont see a single reported death.

I think that if #7 water bottles are banned, it would be a good thing. All those 5 gallon water bottles would need to be made out of something else, probably PET. Evidently a couple of companies are already using PET for their bulk water bottles.

Cheap Better Bottles!!!

Quilyn

I doubt it...From the FDA:

The Agency is aware of several reports stating that BPA has estrogen-like activity. However, there are other reports that appear to dispute any reason to expect harm at the low exposures that humans experience. A March 2007 report from a consumer group included studies showing the levels of BPA found in canned foods and migrating out of PC baby bottles and included claims that these levels are unsafe. FDA scientists have reviewed the available information from this report and have concluded that the BPA levels found in canned foods or migrating out of PC baby bottles are not significantly different than the very low levels previously found by FDA chemists and other laboratories, levels that result in a dietary exposure that is orders of magnitude below the levels known to not cause toxic effects in animals.

The agency has been actively reviewing the safety of BPA and has completed a review of the available data obtained from animal studies, and migration studies. Based on the results of the migration studies conducted by FDA chemists, we have determined that the dietary exposure to BPA is low (3.7 ppb), the level that is orders of magnitude below the levels known to cause toxic effects in animals. Considering the low dietary exposure and the fact that BPA had not demonstrated adverse effects when consumed by animals in amounts of much higher (orders of magnitude) than humans would consume, FDA sees no reason at this time to ban or otherwise restrict the uses now authorized. Our conclusion is based on our ongoing review of all available data. We will continue to monitor data on BPA to determine if its use would raise a safety concern. If such a concern exists, FDA will take the appropriate post-market regulatory action.

Click to expand...

Also, #7 is the recycling code for "other" which does include polycarbonate, but also includes mixtures/blends of other plastics. All this study showed is that if you feed a rat a year's worth of BPA in a couple of days, and you keep this up for several weeks....by golly, the rat gets all messed up...

From what I understand this is really all about nothing. I hear someone would have to ingested a HUGE amount of this chemical everyday for their entire lives for it to have an effect.

I think most of the deaths from toothpaste happened in Panama. Further inquires found more in other places.

I don't know much about #7 bottles but I never really liked very hot food or liquid in plastic.

BuffaloSabresBrewer said:

From what I understand this is really all about nothing. I hear someone would have to ingested a HUGE amount of this chemical everyday for their entire lives for it to have an effect.

Click to expand...

That is basically it...kinda like the craziness that went on with nutrasweet. They have been using BPA for 50 years, and they want to ignore all of the research done in that time that shows it is harmless in small quantities.

I think most of the deaths from toothpaste happened in Panama. Further inquires found more in other places

Click to expand...

Then you are referring to this-

In recent years, deaths from medicines adulterated with diethylene glycol have been reported from South Africa, India, Nigeria, Argentina, Haiti, and Panama. In Haiti in 1996, 85 children died due to glycerine contaminated with diethylene glycol in a paracetamol syrup produced by Pharval Laboratories, a Haitian company, which did not use standard quality assurance procedures to verify the purity of the glycerine (which was supplied by a Dutch company, Vos, from a manufacturer in China, but the point of contamination with DEG was never determined).[5]

Click to expand...

funny how some stories get twisted around to what they are.

BuffaloSabresBrewer said:

From what I understand this is really all about nothing. I hear someone would have to ingested a HUGE amount of this chemical everyday for their entire lives for it to have an effect.

Click to expand...

I would agree. I work with toxic chemicals every day. Remember that all chemicals can be harmful if the dosage is high enough, table salt can be deadly. If you are consuming 3 ppb and the toxic dosage for a lab animal is magnitudes greater, scale that up to the body mass of large mammals like humans and the possibility of a dangerous dosage is virtually nil.

Not to poke a hole in my own argument, but I do not see anywhere that tells me if the exposure is cumulative over time. If the material is slowly adding up in your system over months, years, decades, then there could definitely be a long term problem.

I found this news on Better Bottles. I'm glad the ban and BPA problems do not exist with these fermenters.

Better-Bottle® Products for Home Winemaking & Brewing are BPA-Free

Health Canada and the United States National Institutes of Health (NIH)
have issued reports describing BPA as dangerous.

Wilmette, IL (April 16, 2008) —

Better-Bottle uses special polyester terephthalate (PET) plastics to make its products.
These plastics are safe, pure, environmentally friendly, easily washed and sanitized,
and contain no Bisphenol A (BPA). Details are available at www.Better-Bottle.com (See
the Technical Pages).

BPA has been known as a nonsteroidal estrogen hormone since the 1930's. Better-
Bottle has never used materials containing BPA to make its products, precisely
because hormones act at very low concentrations and have the potential for causing
serious health problems and genetic changes – effects that may last for many
generations. This week, Health Canada and the United States National Institutes of
Health (NIH) have issued reports describing BPA as dangerous. The NIH concluded
that people in developed countries typically have measurable blood, tissue, and urine
levels of BPA that exceed the low levels known to cause biological changes in animals.

BPA is an inexpensive chemical that been used for many years to make a great variety
of plastic materials, for example: 1) As an antioxidant in plasticizers; 2) As a
polymerization inhibitor in PVC; 3) To make the epoxy resins that line nearly all metal
food and beverage cans, including liquid and powdered infant formula; and 4) As the
monomer that is polymerized to make polycarbonate (PC) plastic.

PC is made by polymerizing BPA in the presence of sodium hydroxide (a strong
caustic) and phosgene. All manner of food and beverage containers are made from
PC, many of them intended for reuse; however, caustics and even hot water can
reverse the polymerization of PC to release BPA. This is reason for serious concern,
because these are the very conditions used to wash and sanitize PC products. Many
widely used dish washing detergents and sanitizers, like sodium hypochlorite (bleach),
are caustic. Moreover, people often fill their PC bottles with hot drinks, coffee for
example.

Businesses are moving rapidly to discontinue the use and sales of PC bottles and US
and Canadian governmental agencies are considering restrictions on the use of BPA.

For more information about Better-Bottle, contact Erich Gibbs, president, Better-Bottle
Division of High-Q, Inc. at P.O. Box 440, Wilmette, IL 60091 or call 1-847-853-9166 or
visit www.better-bottle.com. High-resolution files of most of the images on the Better-
Bottle Web site are available on request.

Click to expand...

Earth Day celebration here at work. The company has a lot of displays telling all about how we are going Green. They are even giving out free drinking water bottles to everyone. The bottles are of course.......... wait for it................ Number 7!

The International Bottled Water Assosiations official statement is as follows:

IBWA said:

Bottled Water Products in Polycarbonate Plastic Containers are Safe for Consumer Use





Recent media stories and a statement issued by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) have raised questions about the safety of polycarbonate plastic bottles due to the presence of a substance known as bisphenol A (BPA). Polycarbonate plastic is used in a wide variety of consumer products, including food and drink containers. Many 3- and 5-gallon bottled water containers are made of polycarbonate plastic and consumers can remain confident about the safety of these products.



· Bottled water is comprehensively regulated as a food product by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Plastic food and beverage containers, including polycarbonate plastic made with BPA, must meet or exceed all FDA requirements. FDA clears all food-contact plastics for their intended use based on migration and safety data. The clearance process includes stringent requirements for estimating the levels at which such materials may transfer to the diet. FDA's safety criteria require extensive toxicity testing for any substance that may be ingested at more than negligible levels. This means FDA has affirmatively determined that, when cleared plastics are used as intended in food-contact applications, the nature and amount of substances that may migrate, if any, are safe.

· Polycarbonate plastic has been the material of choice for food and beverage product containers for nearly 50 years because it is lightweight, highly shatter-resistant, and transparent. During that time, many studies have been conducted to assess the potential for trace levels of BPA to migrate from polycarbonate bottles into foods or beverages. The conclusions from those studies and comprehensive safety evaluations by government bodies worldwide are that polycarbonate bottles are safe for consumer use.

· The April 14, 2008 NTP Draft Brief on BPA confirms that there are no serious or high level concerns for adverse effects of BPA on human reproduction and development. Steven G. Hentges, Ph.D., of the American Chemistry Council’s Polycarbonate/BPA Global Group, states that the “findings in NTP’s draft report provide reassurance that consumers can continue to use products made from bisphenol A. Importantly, this conclusion has been affirmed by scientific and government bodies worldwide.”

· The NTP Draft Brief confirms that human exposure to BPA is extremely low and noted no direct evidence in humans that exposure to BPA adversely affects reproduction or development. The limited evidence for effects in laboratory animals at low doses primarily highlights opportunities for additional research to better understand whether these findings are of any significance to human health.

· For more information on this issue, visit the American Chemistry Council’s website at www.factsonplastic.com or www.bisphenol-a.org





# # #



The International Bottled Water Association (IBWA) is the authoritative source of information about all types of bottled waters. Founded in 1958, IBWA's membership includes U.S. and international bottlers, distributors and suppliers. IBWA is committed to working with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which regulates bottled water as a packaged food product, and state governments to set stringent standards for safe, high quality bottled water products. In addition to FDA and state regulations, the Association requires member bottlers to adhere to the IBWA Bottled Water Code of Practice, which mandates additional standards and practices that in some cases are more stringent than federal and state regulations. A key feature of the IBWA Bottled Water Code of Practice is an annual, unannounced plant inspection by an independent, third party organization. Consumers can contact IBWA at 1-800-WATER-11 or log onto IBWA's web site (www.bottledwater.org) for more information about bottled water and a list of members' brands.

Click to expand...

No matter how you feel about it, it doesn't look like we will be seeing super cheap better bottles all over the place soon.

Tonedef131 said:

The International Bottled Water Assosiations official statement is as follows:
No matter how you feel about it, it doesn't look like we will be seeing super cheap better bottles all over the place soon.

Click to expand...

That does make sense that since Better Bottles are no impacted by the ban that there would be no need to reduce prices.

I am a happy camper that that's the case. My back is even happier.

I agree that the price of "Better Bottles" may not drop. But if Canada bans the use of #7 plastic with BPA and if consumers become concerned, then bottled water companies may shift to PETE. The price of "Better Bottles" may even go up in the short run. In the long run however I believe the availablility of large PETE bottles may increase and the price may very well drop. As to whether or not the company that markets PETE bottles under the name "Better Bottles" raises or lowers their price. If Wal-Mart starts selling 5 gal. PETE bottles like they now sell 5 gal. #7 plastic bottles. I think it's a pretty safe bet the price of "Better Bottles" will drop if they wish to remain in business.

As to whether or not BPA is harmful and at what level it may become so.
Certain people can smoke tobacco for 60 years without getting cancer while others may simply be exposed to second hand smoke and get lung cancer. Many studies also have an agenda. There are usually no easy and simple answers to complicated questions unless you are a political candidate looking for a sound bite that is soothing to people with IQ's of 100 or less.

Our neighbors to the north have a far greater incentive to keep people healthy than the USA does due the different health care systems we have. In the USA the emphasis is on treating disease where in Canada it is more on prevention of disease, since prevention is much cheaper. In the USA every new cancer case adds to the GDP. And a rising GDP is considered a good thing. I believe the Canadian govt and people see health care a little differently.

Seriously! When did Nalgene become the freaking "Gubment"? You all (Ed and Mike) don't want to know about anything that may be harmful?(YES baby bottles are heated and re-heated, and do you think that those little baggies are anything but cheap #7????) What you don't like babies???

There was thought to be nothing wrong with thalydamide either, not that this is even remotely close, but to be insulted by people expressing concern over something that may be harmful because some baseball fields (or whatever) replaced their fake turf??? WTF?

And I happen to BE an 18 month old girl. I am so pissed off that I am menstruating. Damn I need a bigger bra.

cheezy

For over 10 years where no one single case has anyone experienced any ill effects and 50 years in the case of the turf. Its all someone with a cause that has no true validity.

Possibly. Maybe asbestos would have been a better example. For well over ten years nothing was thought to be wrong with that wonderful fire retardant stuff.

If something might be bad for my kids, I want to know about it.

I respect your right to your opinion, and I agree that what is now so wrong with our country is that "news" programs are ratings driven and benefit from sensationalizing things. But to quote the late great Kurt:

"Just because you're paranoid, don't mean they're not after you"

I agree that what is now so wrong with our country is that "news" programs are ratings driven and benefit from sensationalizing things.

Click to expand...

Thats really my biggest beef- That and the Gov acts on what the media reports no matter how wrong.

Doesn't Igloo and Rubbermaid use #7 plastic on all of their cooler liners?

Maybe we'll get lucky and the usual morons will link this to bottled water.

Teewinot said:

Doesn't Igloo and Rubbermaid use #7 plastic on all of their cooler liners?

Click to expand...

No. I'm pretty sure it's #2 HDPE.

#7 plastic is usually clear or clear with a slight tint.

abracadabra said:

No. I'm pretty sure it's #2 HDPE.

#7 plastic is usually clear or clear with a slight tint.

Click to expand...

I was joking actually. But that is great info to know for sure!

So... They've announce a health hazard. The government need not ban anything, the public can choose to act or not.

If government is the answer, you're asking the wrong question.

abracadabra said:

Our neighbors to the north have a far greater incentive to keep people healthy than the USA does due the different health care systems we have. In the USA the emphasis is on treating disease where in Canada it is more on prevention of disease, since prevention is much cheaper. In the USA every new cancer case adds to the GDP. And a rising GDP is considered a good thing. I believe the Canadian govt and people see health care a little differently.

Click to expand...

abracadabra -- I think you make a really good point here. I never thought of it this way before, but I believe there is some real truth to what you are saying. Public-funded health care definitely lends itself to stronger emphasis on prevention. That could be a strongly divisive social factor when comparing Canada and the US.

I also get the impression that while Canadians dislike their politicians more than Americans, they have a stronger trust in their government. Nobody I have met in Canada has had any problem with the BPA ban (most think it is a good thing), but there appears to be some serious outrage about Health Canada's move by some Yanks on the board here. It always fascinates me how similar yet different our societies are. Mind you, Canadians grow up in the shadow of American society, so it is hard for us not to make those comparisons. I doubt anyone outside of Michigan or North Dakota has much interest in what goes on in our modest country.

Can you tell I am procrastinating? Gotta write the BJCP exam for the first time here soon, and I hate studying (spent too much of my life doing that already)!

I also get the impression that while Canadians dislike their politicians more than Americans, they have a stronger trust in their government. Nobody I have met in Canada has had any problem with the BPA ban (most think it is a good thing), but there appears to be some serious outrage about Health Canada's move by some Yanks on the board here. It always fascinates me how similar yet different our societies are. Mind you, Canadians grow up in the shadow of American society, so it is hard for us not to make those comparisons. I doubt anyone outside of Michigan or North Dakota has much interest in what goes on in our modest country.

Click to expand...

No most of us dont want to work until July to pay for substandard healthcare that will be abused by the obese and the welfare society.

Both the Obese and Welfare are self created issues, I know. But The reason for outrage at the Healthcare is it limits options, raises cost while lowering quality and increasing Gov.

Also the BPA ban is not necessarily a bad thing- Its just the American politicians act on every little thing that little to zero real evidence. Legislating on public opinion is avery very bad thing.