Canada Bans Plastic Bottles Tied to Health Concerns

[ladycat]

The Canadian government moved Friday to ban polycarbonate infant bottles as it officially declared one of their chemical ingredients toxic.

The move by the departments of health and environment is the first action taken by any government against bisphenol-a, or B.P.A., a chemical that mimics a human hormone and that has induced long-term changes in animals exposed to it through tests.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/18/bu...tml?8au&emc=au

[BobK]

http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/newsI...ews_detail.asp

The claims that increased amounts of BPA are released by heating or washing bottles may be technically true, but the amount released is still way, way below any limit set for such exposures by the FDA or in Europe.

If we believed all these scare stories about chemicals, what recourse would we have? In fact, the same rat studies that show that synthetic chemicals are "carcinogenic" and "toxic" show exactly the same toxicities from a host of natural substances we eat in our food every day. So, to avoid such "carcinogens," the only salvation is to go back to living in caves and cooking over an open fire, I guess. But even that is risky, if you believe all the scare stories. Nothing is safe enough, it seems.......

..........Once again, the sky is not falling. This message never gets the same airplay, though, as "the sky is falling" does -- but it's true, nevertheless. Let's hope that just this once, responsible journalists don't bite at the bait and spread the scare stories, causing parents to dispose of their reliable baby bottles. Runners, don't allow these fringe groups to make you go thirsty, and don't throw out the baby bottles with the bathwater......

[ladycat]

Originally Posted by BobK

http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/newsI...ews_detail.asp

The claims that increased amounts of BPA are released by heating or washing bottles may be technically true, but the amount released is still way, way below any limit set for such exposures by the FDA or in Europe.

If we believed all these scare stories about chemicals, what recourse would we have? In fact, the same rat studies that show that synthetic chemicals are "carcinogenic" and "toxic" show exactly the same toxicities from a host of natural substances we eat in our food every day. So, to avoid such "carcinogens," the only salvation is to go back to living in caves and cooking over an open fire, I guess. But even that is risky, if you believe all the scare stories. Nothing is safe enough, it seems.......

..........Once again, the sky is not falling. This message never gets the same airplay, though, as "the sky is falling" does -- but it's true, nevertheless. Let's hope that just this once, responsible journalists don't bite at the bait and spread the scare stories, causing parents to dispose of their reliable baby bottles. Runners, don't allow these fringe groups to make you go thirsty, and don't throw out the baby bottles with the bathwater......

The NIH is concerned.

NTP Draft Brief on Bisphenol A
http://cerhr.niehs.nih.gov/chemicals...F_04_14_08.pdf

Submission to the Federal Register
http://cerhr.niehs.nih.gov/news/fedr...pr2008_508.pdf

[FUNKY PIONEER]

We don't use any plastic in out house and haven't for years.

[BobK]

Originally Posted by FUNKY PIONEER

We don't use any plastic in out house and haven't for years. Bob sure was quick to jump on the vitamins are bad wagon but, its a scare tactic with plastic. I wish I would live in lala land like that.

actually that stance is that for the general population vitamin supplements are useless and a waste of money......the fact that in a subset ofg the populationthey they have been linked to increased morbidity and mortality is an added bonus not to take them.....

..as for BPA the actions taken are based on the precautionary principle which if it is to be applied equally across the board should also address the results of carcinogenicity testing with the same animal species.....

.....now that you brough up lala land how is medical school going for you these days?

[FUNKY PIONEER]

Right so why do they add vitamins to food, tell pregnant women to take them etc? Oh and is if my education is any of your business, I haven't been in school for some time, due to a precarious pregnancy. I didn't know they had schools in lala land Bob, but I suppose that makes sense after reading your posts its about the only way to explain your thought process.

[BobK]

The NIH and National Board of Toxicology has made the correct conclusion and that is that there is 'some' concern and that the available data in many cases represent dose regimes that were between 3,500-160,000 times the amount that a human is ever exposed to and that the low-dose studies are insuffcient to draw any conclusions.....basically what they are saying is that while we can't rule out effects neither can we rule out no effects based on the available data.....in other words they opt for the precautionary principle based on limited and inconclusive data


from the NIH draft:
Overall, the current literature provides a collection of findings that cannot yet be easily interpreted for biological or experimental consistency or for relevance to human health. Part of the interpretive difficulty lies in reconciling findings of different studies that use different experimental designs and different specific behavioral tests to measure the same dimension of behavior.

NTP Conclusions The NTP concurs with the conclusion of the CERHR Expert Panel on Bisphenol A that there is some concern for neural and behavioral effects in fetuses, infants, and children at current human exposures. The NTP also has some concern for bisphenol A exposure in these populations based on effects in the prostate gland, mammary gland, and an earlier age for puberty in females. The scientific evidence that supports a conclusion of some concern for exposures in fetuses, infants, and children comes from a number of laboratory animal studies reporting that “low” level exposure to bisphenol A during development can cause changes in behavior and the brain, prostate gland, mammary gland, and the age at which females attain puberty. These studies only provide limited evidence for adverse effects on development and more research is needed to better understand their implications for human health. However, because these effects in animals occur at bisphenol A exposure levels similar to those experienced by humans, the possibility that bisphenol A may alter human development cannot be dismissed.

The NTP has negligible concern that exposure of pregnant women to bisphenol A will result in fetal or neonatal mortality, birth defects or reduced birth weight and growth in their offspring. In laboratory animals, exposure to very high levels of bisphenol A during pregnancy can cause fetal death and reduced birth weight and growth during infancy. These studies provide clear evidence for adverse effects on development, but occur at exposure levels far in excess of those experienced by humans. Two recent human studies have not associated bisphenol A exposure in pregnant women with decreased birth weight or several other measures of birth outcome. Results from several animal studies provide evidence that bisphenol A does not cause birth defects such as cleft palette, skeletal malformation

[BobK]

Originally Posted by FUNKY PIONEER

Right so why do they add vitamins to food, tell pregnant women to take them etc? Oh and is if my education is any of your business, I haven't been in school for some time, due to a precarious pregnancy. I didn't know they had schools in lala land Bob, but I suppose that makes sense after reading your posts its about the only way to explain your thought process.

depends on which vitamins you are speaking about....the posted Cochrane review was quite specific on which vitamin supplements were studied and found useless......so to have any meaning you should try and be specific about which vitamins you wish to discuss.....

...for instance there is very good data and rational on why the addition of folic acid to breads has great benefit....and that would be prevention of neural tube defects....

sorry you had to drop out of medical school given how close you were to graduating and going into residency as per some posts you made previously......

[sheepish]

A lot of metal cans are lined with bisphenol-a. I avoid storing and heating food in plastic and plastic water bottles, but I can't tell which cans have it, so I am glad that it will be removed.

[DixyDoodle]

I would be more concerned with what people are eating inside those containers than what is surrounding the food. Obesity is a major killer of people and I think in the grand scheme of things, drinking that Pepsi will make you unhealthy or kill you faster than the plastic bottle that surrounds it.

I am also concerned with outright poisonous substances, but feel that drinking water from a plastic bottle is safer than drinking a sugar- and chemical-laced soft drink out of a "safer" can. Remember that with experimentation, those rats are often exposed to ultra-high doses of those chemicals, which may have some relevence when comparing to a bottle that leeches out minute quantities in comparision.

Like BobK said, unless you go back to the cave, you will never be totally rid of all ingestion of something foreign.

(Hey, did I just say I agreed with BobK?)

[rb.]

Originally Posted by BobK

don't allow these fringe groups to make you go thirsty, and don't throw out the baby bottles with the bathwater......

The Canadian government and Health Canada are fringe groups?

Actually, the scientists on the news were commenting on how an adult body can take a whole lot, but a much smaller infant's body is smaller, and developing, and therefore the effect is greatly multiplied. The concern also had to do with what was released from the plastic when it was heated, like when boiling water is poured in to mix formula in the bottle. I don't believe there is as much concern when cold water is placed in water bottles of the same plastic. I am, however, tossing any water bottles we have that are "cheapies", and checking into whether our Rubbermaid juice boxes contain this chemical. Our kids use those daily for their lunches.

[ladycat]

Originally Posted by rb.

The Canadian government and Health Canada are fringe groups?

They are to the people who don't agree with their findings.

[Tracy Rimmer]

There has long been links between plastics and their effects on the people who are exposed to them through their food, etc. As far back as the eighties they were talking about pseudo-estrogens from plastic and the links between that and declining sperm counts in men.

Bob is right in that it's silly to remove ONE thing, like plastic baby bottles, and ignore the fact that most processed food comes in contact with plastic at many points through the cycle from ingredient to product sitting on the store shelf. However, he's wrong in as much as it CAN be avoided without living in a cave.

If people would eat locally as much as possible, fresh or home preserved, preferably organic, and cook from scratch with unprocessed ingredients, they would have little contact with plastic, and still not have to be living in a cave. One *CAN* eliminate plastic from their life, to a great degree. And every little bit helps, trust me.

It can be done, because our family has done it. There are few plastics in my home. There is no commercially processed food in my home. I know 90% of the producers of the food we eat, and very little of it comes from commercial producers. There are things you cannot avoid, and those things are where issues creep in. You can eliminate those, too -- if you are willing to go without certain things, but I tend to judge each thing on it's own merits. For instance, I cannot control what has been done to coffee beans before they enter my home. I cannot grow them myself, and there aren't many coffee plantations in Manitoba . I *CAN* choose to not buy them -- but I don't. I buy them and accept the risk.

It's all about controlling what you can (glass baby bottles can be bought, so why wouldn't you, if plastic is a concern for you?) and accepting what you can't.

And no, Health Canada is not a "fringe group", Bob, as much as some would like to label them as such. I don't always agree with everything they come out with, but most people need all the help that they can get, and aren't as well read or well educated as others who can take the knowledge they've gained from other sources and apply it. Some people are rather busy trying to just get through the days, and health guidelines from a national health agency can be rather helpful to them.

[ladycat]

Originally Posted by Tracy Rimmer

he's wrong in as much as it CAN be avoided without living in a cave.

It's not easy to completely avoid plastic, but I'm minimizing exposure as much as possible.

Most of my food comes in paper, cardboard, enamel lined cans, and glass.

I don't heat anything in plastic in the microwave. I almost never even use the microwave.

[BobK]

And no, Health Canada is not a "fringe group", Bob, as much as some would like to label them as such. I don't always agree with everything they come out with, but most people need all the help that they can get, and aren't as well read or well educated as others who can take the knowledge they've gained from other sources and apply it. Some people are rather busy trying to just get through the days, and health guidelines from a national health agency can be rather helpful to them.

sometimes....no actually most of the time....... it is beneficial to actually read the posted links.......the article I linked to at the ASCH website mentioned finge activist groups, i.e., EWG, that are the driving forces behind much of the hsyteria presented in the media about the chemical of the day......these fringe groups proclaim the evils of <insert evil chemical of choice here> based on a selection of animal studies yet ignore other studies which should trigger equal alarm if you are going to apply theirt concerns equally across the board......but that doesn't happen because it does not fit their agenda....for example do you know who funds the EWG? Once you know that you can easily figure out the agenda they are touting......

....so before you go on and on proclaiming that I have labeled Health Canada or the National Toxicology Program as fringe groups go and actually read the posted links so you can keep things in proper context.....

[BobK]

Originally Posted by ladycat

It's not easy to completely avoid plastic, but I'm minimizing exposure as much as possible.

Most of my food comes in paper, cardboard, enamel lined cans, and glass.

I don't heat anything in plastic in the microwave. I almost never even use the microwave.

enamaled lined cans are also treated with vinclozolin ( a fungicide) that has also been shown in animal studies to have estrogenic effects, e.g., feminization of male rats........and all plastics are not created equally there are many forms out there which do not use BPA in their production and contain zero amounts of this chemical....

[ladycat]

Originally Posted by BobK

enamaled lined cans are also treated with vinclozolin ( a fungicide) that has also been shown in animal studies to have estrogenic effects, e.g., feminization of male rats........and all plastics are not created equally there are many forms out there which do not use BPA in their production and contain zero amounts of this chemical....

Then it's fortunate I don't open and use very many. Maybe 1 or 2 a week.

[Tracy Rimmer]

Originally Posted by BobK

sometimes....no actually most of the time....... it is beneficial to actually read the posted links.......the article I linked to at the ASCH website mentioned finge activist groups, i.e., EWG, that are the driving forces behind much of the hsyteria presented in the media about the chemical of the day......these fringe groups proclaim the evils of <insert evil chemical of choice here> based on a selection of animal studies yet ignore other studies which should trigger equal alarm if you are going to apply theirt concerns equally across the board......but that doesn't happen because it does not fit their agenda....for example do you know who funds the EWG? Once you know that you can easily figure out the agenda they are touting......

....so before you go on and on proclaiming that I have labeled Health Canada or the National Toxicology Program as fringe groups go and actually read the posted links so you can keep things in proper context.....

Yes, but the ORIGINAL POST was about Health Canada. When one dismisses something put forward by a NATIONAL HEALTH ORGANIZATION as "fringe", just because another group that may well be considered "fringe" also says it, it suggests that you're dismissing ALL sources of the information.

[Tracy Rimmer]

Originally Posted by BobK

enamaled lined cans are also treated with vinclozolin ( a fungicide) that has also been shown in animal studies to have estrogenic effects, e.g., feminization of male rats........and all plastics are not created equally there are many forms out there which do not use BPA in their production and contain zero amounts of this chemical....

I've always been suspicious of anything tinned, but honestly I have to admit I did NOT know this.

The reasons for my suspicions were more the extreme temperatures that the tinned foods were treated to, and the fact that I've been in a cannery, and honestly, could not bring myself to eat much from a tin after that.

Thanks for this info, Bob -- I'm off to find out more about this process. Do you have any sources you'd recommend?

[BobK]

Originally Posted by Tracy Rimmer

Yes, but the ORIGINAL POST was about Health Canada. When one dismisses something put forward by a NATIONAL HEALTH ORGANIZATION as "fringe", just because another group that may well be considered "fringe" also says it, it suggests that you're dismissing ALL sources of the information.

hmmmm...I thought the OP was about the banning of products which contain BPA and that Health Canada was used as an example as was the National Toxicology Program's draft report.......and the point....which was clear if the link was read...was that in many cases there are political underpinnings in the decision making process which are often driven by fringe activist groups.....lobbyists so to speak...

....and I don't think I've dismissed ANY information but rather I think I've tried to put the issue in perspective as to the veracity of the findings.....which in the words of the NTP in this case is in no way shape or form definitive.....which the NIH draft (written by members of the NTP) makes very clear about the difficulties of extrapolating both the high- and low-dose animal studies to any potential effects on humans.......I don't have a problem with using the precautionary principle in some instances and with this issue there are plenty of alternatives available.......take some time and read the NIH link....it is only about 35 pages or so of text with the rest as figures and references.....it provides a very good perspective on the issue....