Backcountry Beacon

A year or two ago, there was a lot of chatter about BPA (deadly? slightly harmful? no big deal?). Then SARS, anthrax, lead paint on toys, and most recently, H1N1, stole the spotlight, and BPA was unceremoniously shoved to the sidelines.

Perhaps that was for the best, since sometimes you have to give these issues time, let the studies themselves get more specific, and then reassess. So what’s the latest?

Since our first report on BPA, things have changed. The FDA just put out an updated report this past January (2010), and yes, the agency is concerned. So is the EPA. Read on, and spread the word.

Brief History

BPA is an abbreviation for bisphenol A. It’s a chemical used to make epoxy resins and polycarbonate. In the 1960s, the FDA approved the use of BPAs in consumer products like water bottles, baby bottles, and food containers. BPA is in a lot of other things, too—CDs, DVDs, eyeglasses—the difference is that most of us don’t lick our eyewear all day long, so people aren’t too concerned about those products.

In ’08 and ’09, the FDA, the National Toxicology Program, chemical companies, and independent scientists tested and assessed whether exposure to BPAs was bad. Some results showed that exposure was harmful, some studies showed that it wasn’t, and some were inconclusive.

What did the harmful results say? That BPA was linked to an array of diseases (cardiovascular, intestinal, reproductive). That it disrupts the body’s endocrine system and is harmful to the development of fetuses and young kids. Naturally, people started to take a second look at their baby bottles, food containers, and reusable plastic water bottles.

2010 Update: Is the FDA worried about BPA now?

Yes. As a result of some of the recent studies, the National Toxicology Program at the National Institutes of Health and the FDA are concerned.

The FDA’s January 2010 report states:

Studies employing standardized toxicity tests have thus far supported the safety of current low levels of human exposure to BPA. However, on the basis of results from recent studies using novel approaches to test for subtle effects, both the National Toxicology Program at the National Institutes of Health and FDA have some concern about the potential effects of BPA on the brain, behavior, and prostate gland in fetuses, infants, and young children. [1]

The FDA’s National Center for Toxicological Research is now carrying out more in-depth studies to clarify what’s going on with BPA.

So, in the meantime, should we treat all BPA-infested products like a zombie plague?

Don’t be silly; BPA doesn’t have any ties to zombie plagues.

OK, the report says ‘some concern’ … what does that mean?

The National Toxicology Program uses a five-level concern scale. The scale goes: negligible concern, minimal concern, some concern, concern, serious concern. So, it looks like we’re … in the middle.

One of the reasons it is hard to pin down the results and to just say it’s good or bad is because most of the studies are done on animals. A very small number of studies look at the effects of BPA in humans, so it’s hard to reach for-sure conclusions (as in, would BPA affect humans in the same way it affects animals?).

What is the FDA doing about it?

The FDA is taking steps to reduce exposure to BPA, like supporting a more comprehensive framework for the oversight of BPA and supporting efforts to replace BPA or minimize the levels in the linings of food cans.

The FDA is also taking steps with regards to baby bottles and infant formula cans that contain BPA. Over the past year, major manufacturers of infant bottles and feeding cups have stopped selling the products that contain BPA.

Is EPA getting in on the action, too?

Yup, the EPA just released a plan (on March 29, 2010) to examine the environmental impact of BPA. The EPA is also concerned about potential health impacts, and it wants to figure out what the environmental impacts are.  So it’ll start testing concentrations of BPA in surface, ground, and drinking water. In December, the EPA announced that it will use its authority under the Toxic Substances Control Act to list chemicals that may be risky for health or the environment (which is something the EPA hasn’t done before). BPA might end up on that list.

What was that Sigg water-bottle controversy about?

In August of 2009, Sigg announced that the linings in its bottles manufactured before August 2008 were not BPA-free. Sigg’s bottles now have an EcoCare liner that does not contain any BPA. Not sure which lining your Sigg bottle has? Look inside—the EcoCare liner has a beige color (unlike the metallic-looking old liner).

What do the numbers on plastic containers mean again?

The majority of #7 bottles (the numbers are the recycle codes on the bottoms of the bottles) contain BPA. The #2, #4, #5, and #6 bottles and containers are unlikely to contain BPA.

BPA-free bottle options

If you like aluminum water bottles, look through some Laken and Sigg choices (all the Sigg bottles Backcountry.com now carries have the EcoCare liner).

If you’re not into how the aluminum bottles dent when you sneeze near them, check out some stainless steel Klean Kanteens or Stanley bottles, thermoses, and mugs.

Thrilled with BPA-free  plastic? Look at the Nalgene Tritan bottles and CamelBak’s Better bottles.

What should concerned parents do?

For parents who are concerned about baby bottles, infant formula, plastic toys, and pacifiers, check out the US Department of Health & Human Services’ BPA info and guidelines for parents.

Links

Check out the full version of the FDA’s January 2010 Bisphenol A Update report.

Interested in report history? Review the National Toxicology Program US Dept of Health and Human Services’ BPA report in Sept 2008.

Check out the EPA’s page on existing chemicals and what is being done about them.

[1] See Update on Bisphenol A for Use in Food Contact Applications: January 2010

Related Posts:

• BPA Bottles: Plastic or Poison?
• A Touch of Green
• More Outdoor Giving

Tags: bpa, environment, safety, technology, water bottles