BPA in plastic bottles: alarmism or not?

[Darth Wong]

I know it's not conclusive yet, but it certainly does give one pause, doesn't it? The industry's defensive argument is that it must be safe if it's been widely used for 50 years. That's a rather flawed argument, to say the least. One could have said the same and more about tobacco.

http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2009/0 ... ttles.html

Elevated BPA levels in people drinking out of plastic bottles, study finds
Study first to measure urine concentrations
Last Updated: Monday, May 25, 2009 | 12:46 PM ET CBC News

Participants in a recent Harvard university study who drank only out of plastic bottles containing bisphenol A for a week showed an almost 70 per cent increase in concentrations of the chemical in their urine.

Bisphenol A (BPA) is a chemical used to make many everyday products such as water flasks, children's toys and food containers. Researchers, government bodies and the plastics industry have in recent months engaged in a much-publicized debate on the health effects of the chemical.

Previous studies have shown BPA can leach from a container to its contents. But the Harvard researchers say their study, published Thursday in online version of Environmental Health Perspectives, is the first to show an increase in urinary BPA after drinking solely from receptacles containing the chemical.

The researchers tested 77 students who were initially told to drink all their cold beverages out of stainless steel containers for a week. The aim of this "washout period" was to minimize the students' exposure to BPA, which was not found in the stainless steel containers.

The students had their urine tested in two of the final three days of this period.

They were then given hard polycarbonate bottles that contain BPA and told to drink cold beverages out of them for a week. Throughout the duration of the two weeks, the students did not change their routines in any other way.

Their urine was collected and tested towards the end of the trial period. Compared to the initial tests, the students' urinary BPA concentrations went up by 69 per cent to levels comparable to those found in the U.S. population.
Inconclusive evidence

While the study shows a significant increase in BPA among the participants, the evidence on the long-term effects of BPA on humans remains inconclusive.

Recent animal studies have linked BPA to early sexual maturation, decreased sperm production and altered development of mammary glands. Among humans, elevated levels of BPA has been linked to cardiovascular disease and diabetes, although causal relationships have not been firmly established.

The plastics industry has defended the chemical, noting it has been used widely for 50 years.

Nevertheless, in October 2008, Canada became the first country in the world to ban the import and sale of polycarbonate baby bottles containing BPA. The basis for the ban was a Health Canada review of studies that examined the health effects of BPA exposure.

The review showed the main source of exposure of BPA for newborns and infants is through the use of polycarbonate baby bottles when they are exposed to high temperatures, and the migration of bisphenol A from cans into infant formula.

But Health Canada has maintained that for most people, BPA does not pose a risk, as negative health effects only occur at levels of bisphenol A exposure much greater than those currently found.

The federal government has said it would devote $1.7 million over three years to study the chemical.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has said it does not consider normal exposure to BPA to be a hazard. However, on Apr. 14, 2008, the U.S. National Institutes of Health released a report that concludes that there is some concern that fetuses, infants and children exposed to BPA may be at increased risk for early-onset puberty and prostate and breast cancer.

Personally, while I acknowledge that the science is inconclusive at this point, I don't like the idea that if you drink out of type-7 plastic bottles you are ingesting enough plasticizer chemicals to show up in your urine.

[Akhlut]

My developmental biology textbook says that BPA is a hormone mimic that was originally synthesized for that very same purpose. It was supposed to mimic estrogen for biological studies on the effects of hormones.

Hell, if you let water sit in a polycarbonate bottle for a week, it can accumulate enough BPA to reverse the sex of a frog. BPA can cause all sorts of problems with sexual cell division and can cause problems in development of sex organs as well as behavioral changes.

Further, the effects of hormone mimics can be much greater than one would expect if mixed together; instead of eight compounds mixed together having only the additive effects of those eight compounds, it can be many times greater.

So, yeah, while we don't have a case that is 100% ironclad for harm in humans, the fact that there is probably enough BPA already in the environment to start causing sex changes in animals without sex chromosomes (such as amphibians and reptiles), I'd say that completely banning the chemical from use in common plastic bottles is a great idea.

[Broomstick]

I'd think a more important measure is how much lingers in your body - if it's in your urine is your body excreting 40%, 60%, 99.999999999%...?

It clearly shows that you're being exposed to more of a particular chemical, it doesn't show that the chemical is either harming you or building up in your body.

That said - probably better to avoid running such chemical through you in the first place, but I wouldn't react by refusing every to drink out of plastic again.

[Darth Wong]

I'd think a more important measure is how much lingers in your body - if it's in your urine is your body excreting 40%, 60%, 99.999999999%...?

It clearly shows that you're being exposed to more of a particular chemical, it doesn't show that the chemical is either harming you or building up in your body.

That said - probably better to avoid running such chemical through you in the first place, but I wouldn't react by refusing every to drink out of plastic again.

Let's not forget that it undermines the entire marketing concept of bottled water, which is that it's pure and guaranteed clean. If it turns out that bottled water is actually full of shit, I don't think it's a viable defense to say "Yeah, but nobody has yet conclusively proven that the shit will hurt humans even though it's known to hurt animals".

[Akhlut]

I'd think a more important measure is how much lingers in your body - if it's in your urine is your body excreting 40%, 60%, 99.999999999%...?

It clearly shows that you're being exposed to more of a particular chemical, it doesn't show that the chemical is either harming you or building up in your body.

As hormone mimics, though, that it is being removed isn't necessarily the entirety of it; it is still going through your bloodstream and passing through the brain-blood barrier and is having an effect on you (general you, not you in particular). It is still having time to bind to receptors and do stuff before being removed by your kidneys.

[The Spartan]

As hormone mimics, though, that it is being removed isn't necessarily the entirety of it; it is still going through your bloodstream and passing through the brain-blood barrier and is having an effect on you (general you, not you in particular). It is still having time to bind to receptors and do stuff before being removed by your kidneys.

To ask a rhetorical question, do we really need yet one more thing for our kidneys to have to filter out of our bodies?

Does BPA have any effect on the liver? Seems to me that if we're having to filter it out of our blood that it will increase the work load on the liver in addition to the kidneys.

[Sea Skimmer]

Literally hundreds of industrial chemicals can be detected in every human being in the developed worked, and quite a few even in people in remote parts of the world now. Its pretty clear most of these chemicals cannot be particularly harmful given how much life expectancy has risen in step with our increased use of synthetic compounds. Unless they can specifically show the compound is harmful, I’m not seeing much reason to get nervous.

I’d want to see the actual results (going from 1 part per trillion to 1.7 parts per trillion for example would be a 70% increase, but still not much at all) and know more about how the body handles BPA before I got alarmed. A chemical merely in the urine is going to be less harmful then a chemical which the body stores in fatty tissue or deposits on the bone structure, allowing for a continuous increase in total concentrations.

[Broomstick]

Let's not forget that it undermines the entire marketing concept of bottled water, which is that it's pure and guaranteed clean. If it turns out that bottled water is actually full of shit, I don't think it's a viable defense to say "Yeah, but nobody has yet conclusively proven that the shit will hurt humans even though it's known to hurt animals".

Good point. But then, I never bought the idea that bottled water was any healthier than tap water, at least not in the US. For that matter, I drink well water, which you'd think by people's reaction is poison buy hey, nobody and nothing has been shitting in my well whereas Lake Michigan (where a lot of tap water around here is from) not only has industrial pollutants but everything shits in the water, leading to the beaches being closed several times a year due to E. coli contamination levels.

Maybe that's another reason I don't freak out about this stuff - I'm all too aware that perfectly natural hazards like organic sewage can be found in drinking water. Nothing short of distilled water kept in clean glass is pure.

[Akhlut]

Literally hundreds of industrial chemicals can be detected in every human being in the developed worked, and quite a few even in people in remote parts of the world now. Its pretty clear most of these chemicals cannot be particularly harmful given how much life expectancy has risen in step with our increased use of synthetic compounds. Unless they can specifically show the compound is harmful, I’m not seeing much reason to get nervous.

Bear in mind how much of that increase in life expectancy is due to the elimination of acute diseases in the early-mid 20th century with the advent of antibiotics like penicillin and sulpha-drugs. The importance of those drugs in the reduction of formerly fatal infections cannot be overstated.

Also, cancer rates are higher and, yes, while there is a significant amount of that being due to people not dieing from acute infections, there is likely still an important amount of it due to the increase of synthetic compounds.

I’d want to see the actual results (going from 1 part per trillion to 1.7 parts per trillion for example would be a 70% increase, but still not much at all) and know more about how the body handles BPA before I got alarmed. A chemical merely in the urine is going to be less harmful then a chemical which the body stores in fatty tissue or deposits on the bone structure, allowing for a continuous increase in total concentrations.

BPA is a hormone mimic and a powerful one at that (able to induce sex changes in frogs and reptiles at mere hundreds of parts per billion) and, honestly, we don't really know what effects it has on humans and to what extent. Infertility seems to have spiked significantly in the past few decades, as has transsexuality, and other reproductive problems. Can the blame be laid solely at BPA? Probably not, but it is difficult to separate the effects of our thousands upon thousands of industrial products and it is almost certainly not a bad idea to try and keep them from entering the biosphere, especially when they are known hormone mimics.

[Broomstick]

I don't think anyone is arguing that BPA in the water is a good thing, and I'm all for reducing it to absolute minimums or, better yet, eliminating it altogether. That said, there's no reason to panic over it.

[Commander 598]

So, plastic bottles are made of hazardous chemicals and aren't very good at recycling? Basically shit already known. Can we go back to glass bottles now? Things always tasted better in glass bottles...

[Darth Holbytlan]

The researchers tested 77 students who were initially told to drink all their cold beverages out of stainless steel containers for a week. The aim of this "washout period" was to minimize the students' exposure to BPA, which was not found in the stainless steel containers.

The students had their urine tested in two of the final three days of this period.

They were then given hard polycarbonate bottles that contain BPA and told to drink cold beverages out of them for a week. Throughout the duration of the two weeks, the students did not change their routines in any other way.

Their urine was collected and tested towards the end of the trial period. Compared to the initial tests, the students' urinary BPA concentrations went up by 69 per cent to levels comparable to those found in the U.S. population.

In other words, these students received 45% more BPA exposure from living in a BPA-laden society than they did from directly drinking from BPA-laden bottles. If this stuff really is bad for us, it sounds like it may be hard to avoid without a full ban.

Edit: Used a calculator to improve my accuracy a bit.

[FSTargetDrone]

So, plastic bottles are made of hazardous chemicals and aren't very good at recycling? Basically shit already known. Can we go back to glass bottles now? Things always tasted better in glass bottles...

I think at this point, merchants and shipping companies would rather deal with plastic bottles which are lighter and stronger unless there was some great consumer demand or regulation for glass bottle options.

I can't even remember the last time I saw glass bottles for anything (other than a few things like tomato sauce, soy sauce or IBC root beer!) in the supermarkets around here. If I want to buy Coca~Cola in glass bottles (which does taste better!) I have to go to a beverage store and even then they don't always have it. It's also more expensive.

Incidentally, when I was in Mexico back in the early 90s, my relatives there would have a case of Coke delivered every morning, just like how milk bottles used to be dropped off at people's doors. It was in glass bottles with tops that required bottle openers (!) and when the bottles were all empty, they would put the case of empty bottles by the door and it was collected with a full case left in its place. The Coke also tasted much better because they used (and still do use, last I saw) real cane sugar instead of high-fructose corn syrup as the sweetener.

[Stark]

That's interesting; I've noticed 'real sugar' soft drink is, at least in Australia, a luxury, 'premium' product these days.

[FSTargetDrone]

That's interesting; I've noticed 'real sugar' soft drink is, at least in Australia, a luxury, 'premium' product these days.

(EDIT) If I could have Cherry Coke delivered in glass bottles here in the US, hell, once a week, I'd be happy.

In any case, I buy it by the case in cans, so it's second-best.

Anyway, there is a option for people who want "BPA-free" plastic bottles. One of the biggest markets for that seems to be baby bottles, for obvious reasons.

(Edit the second for those who are interested: Mexican Coca~Cola and cane sugar)

[Tsyroc]

I think at this point, merchants and shipping companies would rather deal with plastic bottles which are lighter and stronger unless there was some great consumer demand or regulation for glass bottle options.

I can't even remember the last time I saw glass bottles for anything (other than a few things like tomato sauce, soy sauce or IBC root beer!) in the supermarkets around here. If I want to buy Coca~Cola in glass bottles (which does taste better!) I have to go to a beverage store and even then they don't always have it. It's also more expensive.

Incidentally, when I was in Mexico back in the early 90s, my relatives there would have a case of Coke delivered every morning, just like how milk bottles used to be dropped off at people's doors. It was in glass bottles with tops that required bottle openers (!) and when the bottles were all empty, they would put the case of empty bottles by the door and it was collected with a full case left in its place. The Coke also tasted much better because they used (and still do use, last I saw) real cane sugar instead of high-fructose corn syrup as the sweetener.

Some of the local convenience stores stock Coke in glass bottles. It's from Mexico and also contains real sugar instead of high fructose corn syrup. It is more expensive. I don't know that I would say it tastes any better but quite often taste is a matter of what you are used to. In this case I think the formula that the Mexican bottler uses might be different from the one our local bottler uses in more ways than just what sweetener is used.

I had coke in a glass bottle in Hong Kong once and that stuff was frickin' awesome, but then I hadn't had any soda in ages and i was also really thirsty.

That's interesting; I've noticed 'real sugar' soft drink is, at least in Australia, a luxury, 'premium' product these days.

I've noticed that here as well.

One of our national drug store chains (Walgreens) has been carrying an exclusive brand of soda in several flavors that is sold in glass bottles and is made with real sugar. The flavors are a bit old school. Rootbeer, and an orange/creme soda flavor that's pretty good.

Also, Pepsico has recently been selling Mt Dew and Pepsi throwbacks. These two items are still bottled in plastic but they have retro logos and are made with real sugar like both drinks used to be made. They also cost about 10¢ per bottle more than the regular stuff. I didn't think either tasted any better than the current stuff, in fact I thought they weren't as good, but that could be just a familiarity thing and not anything real. I've experienced this before in that I am kind of addicted to Mt. Dew but got that way drinking it from aluminum cans and plastic bottles. Drinking it out of glass bottles or steel cans just doesn't taste right. The steel can thing I can understand since IMO cans have always impacted the taste of beverages but it was a bit of an eye opener for me when I actually liked Mt. Dew less in glass bottles than I did in cans or plastic bottles. I'd always thought things tasted better when stored in glass.


Back on topic of plasticizers leaching from plastic containers. I think it was last year that I saw an article about a similar topic. In that one it specifically stated plastics with certain recyclable numbers on them should not be reused at all. At that time my employer had recently given all the employees these hard plastic drink bottles with the recyclable number 7 on the bottom. That number turned out to be one of the types of plastic that the article warned about leaching plasticizers.

I've also seen articles that state that plastic containers with specific recyclable numbers are not meant to be reused and shouldn't be. Some of these are especially bad if you use them in a microwave. They don't necessarily melt during a couple of minutes of microwave use but they might be prone to releasing plasticizers into the food you are microwaving. I don't remember the specific numbers on these items but I think an example was the plastic tubs that butter/margarine comes in. The bran Country Crock comes to mind but that might just be because I had a few of those containers around.

[Darth Wong]

I really don't like the idea of microwaving plastic tupperware containers. When I pack a lunch for work, I use a glass tupperware container (I have a full set). The lid is plastic of course (you need the flexibility), but that doesn't come in contact with the food while it's being microwaved.

[Akhlut]

Not to go too off-topic, but Mexican Coke is made from a mix of half cane sugar and half high fructose corn syrup. Still tastes better than American Coke, but it isn't entirely sugar.

[Edi]

Hmm, interesting article and some cause for concern. Never did like plastic bottles as much as glass ones, even if they weigh a lot more.

As far as the sugar/corn syrup thing, corn syrup sweetened drinks taste like shit. We have real cane sugar used as sweetener here all the way and the couple of cans of some special imports I tried that aren't bottled in Europe had corn syrup. Bleargh! I have no idea how anyone can stand that shit. Then again, the diet versions of soft drinks that are sweetened with things like aspartame and other artificial sweeteners also taste like shit. Some people don't notice any difference, but I never fail to tell a diet version from the real thing on that basis. I guess my taste buds are a bit more sensitive to that particular thing.

[Acidburns]

Here in Scotland at least soft drinks in glass bottles are readily available. While the big chain supermarkets only carry Barr's products in plastic bottles you are never more than 5 minutes walk from a local shop that carries their soft drinks in 750ml bottles. They cost £1 but you can return the empty bottle to the a shop and you get 30p back. The bottle gets cleaned and re-used.

[Phantasee]

BPA isn't a knock against bottled water. BPA is used in those hard water bottles, like the Nalgene ones that are supposedly indestructible (tested by a friend of mine with a C7, not true! ). Plastic bottled water uses that thin plastic that bends if you look at it funny.

I don't see what the big deal is with water bottles, it lets me take my tap water everywhere I go. How else would I be able to keep hydrated while working outside all day? Anyway, it's not an issue in Canada anymore. BPA bottles are banned in Canada, and almost everyone I know has switched over to using stainless steel bottles (which improves the taste of the water, IMO, but not as much as glass would), or BPA-free bottles. I just got one a couple days ago that is BPA-free, plastic, with a stainless steel base and cap (it's easier to put the cap on because it goes around the outside - with the stainless steel bottles, the cap is plastic that has to go into the bottle. Like trying to put a key in a keyhole, which isn't easy while driving).

[Knife]

As hormone mimics, though, that it is being removed isn't necessarily the entirety of it; it is still going through your bloodstream and passing through the brain-blood barrier and is having an effect on you (general you, not you in particular). It is still having time to bind to receptors and do stuff before being removed by your kidneys.

To ask a rhetorical question, do we really need yet one more thing for our kidneys to have to filter out of our bodies?

Does BPA have any effect on the liver? Seems to me that if we're having to filter it out of our blood that it will increase the work load on the liver in addition to the kidneys.

I don't think it would. The liver breaks down toxins, so if this BPA is a hormone mimic, I don't see why the liver would see it as a toxin and thus break it down putting wear and tear on the liver. Also, for the kidneys, unless they are large molecules, I don't see any way they can inherently affect the kidneys either. As long as they are water soluble and aren't too big are jagged and sharp to fuck up the nephrons and tubules.

[Melchior]

Another factor might intervene in mitigating the effect of this substance: the immune system. When it wasn't possibile to replicate human insulin in engineered bacteria, it was extracted from various animal, chosen because the chains of their insulin where really similar to ours (IIRC, less than a handful of different AAs); despite this, it was often a necessity to change, after some time, the kind animal donor for a patient, since a resistance could still be built up. Is this compound even more analogous?

[Knife]

Another factor might intervene in mitigating the effect of this substance: the immune system. When it wasn't possibile to replicate human insulin in engineered bacteria, it was extracted from various animal, chosen because the chains of their insulin where really similar to ours (IIRC, less than a handful of different AAs); despite this, it was often a necessity to change, after some time, the kind animal donor for a patient, since a resistance could still be built up. Is this compound even more analogous?

As I understand it, it is the individual cells that become resistant to the insulin molecule, not the immune system attacking the hormone.

[Melchior]

As I understand it, it is the individual cells that become resistant to the insulin molecule, not the immune system attacking the hormone.

The functional parts of the molecule are completely identical, so I don't see how this could happen, but I'll check.
...
For example, pubmed link. It seems that I recalled correctly.