San Francisco Chronicle/Victoria Colliver, 3/9/14. "BPA-free plastics may be less safe than those with chemical."
| Thousands of plastic chemicals have not been tested |
| The plastic bonus is not so good |
Those chemicals, acting a lot like BPA, have a disruptive effect on the body's naturally produced hormones, raising the same concerns for the health risks associated with BPA - that exposure to them may lead to cancer, diabetes, reproductive problems, early development and obesity, especially in young children. The research isn't definitive, but a growing number of studies, mostly done on animals, have raised those suspicions.
The alternatives: There are many nonplastic options available by various companies in other materials, such as glass or stainless steel. They can be adapted to be toddler-friendly by placing a silicone sleeve over the glass or attaching a spout. Sources: Center for Environmental Health, Chronicle research" Read article.
Reference - Center for Environmental Health, Oakland, CA, University Texas Health Science Center research. Related articles and videos - Mother Jones/Environment/Mariah Blake, March/April, 2014 Issue. " ... "It reported that "almost all" commercially available plastics
that were tested leached synthetic estrogens—even when they weren't
exposed to conditions known to unlock potentially harmful chemicals,
such as the heat of a microwave, the steam of a dishwasher, or the sun's
ultraviolet rays. According to Bittner's research, some BPA-free
products actually released synthetic estrogens that were more potent than BPA." See WN.com video #5, "Democracy Now" (Amy Goodman interview with Marish Blake), 12.21 minutes. WN.com icludes multiple educational video links and articles related to plastic leaching chemicals." Quick articles - Shape, and csr331jevans.
Note photographs: woman looking at food from Shape article (above), eating at desk from Mobile Youth.
Posted by Kathy Meeh
22 comments:
Figure the visiting blog environmentalists know a whole lot more about the toxins associated with plastics than those of those of us who favor city progress. We should learn.
After this article went into draft last week, I prepared the evening meal. From the market: vegetables in plastic, cheese in plastic, leftovers in plastics, juice and water in plastics. Had there been meat, that might have been wrapped in plastic as well. Yikes, as one Anonymous has too often said, "we're doomed."
Now do you see what I'm saying?
And don't touch ATM receipts. Seriously.
Yes, and don't touch those toxic bills. Call me and I'll handle that part.
And don't breath the air, or drink the water, or eat food. You can spend your life worrying about all the little things and have no life. Ever notice how the health nuts look so unhealthy and sad?
We and our parents grew up with lead paint, lead in gas, plastic wrap and a lot worse.
Relax and stop worrying so much, THAT will add years to your life.
Bisphenol A (BPA) Found Not Harmful, Yet Again:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2012/10/31/bisphenol-a-bpa-found-not-harmful-yet-again-so-why-did-so-many-reporters-and-ngos-botch-coverage-yet-again/
8:56
And considering most moms drank and still smoked while pregnant. That didn't effect too many Pacifican's.
So now Forbes is the place to go for health and science? Of course, you can expect Mother Jones and Prevention magazines to warn of the dangers of BPA, but how about Scientific American:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/just-how-harmful-are-bisphenol-a-plastics/
The article explains why the standard models for toxicology don't work for endocrine disruptors. We know there is an epidemic of disease related to endocrine problems: diabetes, breast cancer, ADHD, etc. It would be foolish to assume that it doesn't have something to do with these chemicals.
And for the record, the health nuts I know look... healthy!
I get all my health advice from Forbes.
Dr. Anon is my guy/gal.
Sorry if that destroys your beliefs Ian. There is absolutely no scientific evidence that BPA's cause ANY problems. Just like with GMO's all the hype is just that. But you hippies love to believe this crap with no real scientific evidence.
Ok you don't like Forbes how about the Food and Drug Administration Ian?
FDA released a draft report finding that BPA remains safe in food contact materials.
http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodborneIllnessContaminants/ChemicalContaminants/ucm166145.htm
745, not so fast, the government bureaucracy moves slowly, but another FDA information link (bottom of the page) advises how to limit exposure to BPA: "Plastic containers have recycle codes on the bottom. Some, but not all, plastics that are marked with recycle codes 3 or 7 may be made with BPA. Do not put very hot or boiling liquid that you intend to consume in plastic containers made with BPA. BPA levels rise in food when containers/products made with the chemical are heated and come in contact with the food. Discard all bottles with scratches, as these may harbor bacteria and, if BPA-containing, lead to greater release of BPA."
The NCSL website includes a list of States with BPA restrictions, including CALIFORNIA. "California AB 1319 (2011) prohibits the manufacture, sale or distribution of bottles or cups which contain BPA at a detectable level above 0.1 parts per billion if the containers are designed to be used by children three years of age or younger. Requires manufactures to replace BPA in these products with the least toxic alternative and prohibits them from replacing BPA with certain carcinogens or reproductive toxicants. California’s restrictions took effect July 1, 2013." Many other COUNTRIES ban BPA as well. If interested, search Google "BPA banned in Countries".
From the Wn website videos, #13 "Which plastics are safer", listed by recycle numbers: 1) Safer 1,2,4,5; 2) Not safe 3,6,7.
Ian's 1133 "Scientific American" article is of further interest, because the Patricia Hunt research over decades is suggesting that some LOW exposure of plastics may be insidious and harmful, and some plastics may be more toxic than BPA.
The Forbes article appears comprehensive, but may be not that open to research and inquiry. Example link, the National Library of Medicine/National Institute of Health, 4/4/11 (abstract). The Committee assurance that "overall" BPA researched findings are not "noteworthy" is currently questionable, isn't it? Maybe some of the linked information is older, or a little too stuck on status quo or vested interest. This is not a "hippie" issue, its a science and health issue.
I really wish I could believe the FDA, it would be so much easier! Here's an illuminating excerpt from "The real story behind Bisphenol A":
"Of the more than 100 independently funded experiments on BPA, about 90% have found evidence of adverse health effects. On the other hand, every single industry-funded study ever conducted -- 14 in all -- has found no such effects.
It is the industry-funded studies that have held sway among regulators. This is thanks largely to a small group of "product defense" consultants -- also funded by the chemical industry -- who have worked to sow doubt about negative effects of BPA by using a playbook that borrows from the wars over tobacco, asbestos, and other public-health controversies."
http://www.fastcompany.com/1139298/real-story-behind-bisphenol
If you want to trust the 10% of independent studies that say it is safe, be my guest! But I'm going with the 90% on this one. but keep this in mind, BPA has been shown to have transgenerational effects on mice. So it's possible your future grandkids could be impacted by your exposure to BPA today. Just sayin'.
(that scary tidbit is courtesy of the National Institues of Health)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24100195
What kind of junk have you linked to Ian?
You DO understand the difference between a "conclusion" and a peer reviewed scientific study that had been duplicated and verified?
There are none on BPA's that prove they are harmful.
And follow the money. Just as you don't believe in studies that the "industry" has done. Be wary of ones funded by groups that have an agenda.
So sure limit your exposure, but don't go crazy worrying.
Here this will blow your mind http://www.aei.org/article/health/bisphenol-a-bpa-found-not-harmful-yet-again-so-why-did-so-many-reporters-and-ngos-botch-coverage-yet-again/
1040, the references from Ian 1258, are from 1) Fast Company, progress business (the future), and 2) US National Library of Medicine, National Institute of Health, Nov, 2013 abstract, updated, established USA government science.
Your reference is from American Enterprise Institute, a neoconservative, pro-business (without much regulation, protecting the past), right-wing think tank. Who are you going to believe, science or the right-wing, pro-greed wackadoo?
Hey 1050 maybe take your own advice and follow the money. Or do you think your neo-con friends at AEI are just out to educate rather than protect corporate bottom-lines from those pesky consumer protections.
My comment, 1217, timeline corrections 1) Anonymous 1040 should be 1050; Ian 1258 should be 1256.
Can you point to one peer reviewed study that has been verified proving BPA's are harmful?
Just like with GMO's.
No.
You can not react to every study that comes out. Ever hear the ones saying coffee is bad, then the next one says it's good? You can get any results you want with a small group of test subjects.
Sorry but I'll listen to the FDA.
It cracks me up that some people all worried about organic GMO's, BPA's, cell phone towers etc, smoke cigarettes or are morbidly obese.
538, I'm sure you're right that toxins will not harm you or anyone you know. You questioned where there was any individual research available. Of course, abstracts previously linked are reports of some of these studies. But since you seem to be more interest in individual research, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) has a linked list of 208 individual BPA studies they have funded, (publications 2010-2/2014). Knock yourself out!
As you mentioned, smoking may be good for your health, and residually good for everyone around you. Some say plastic is forever, so imagine how really good non-biodegradable plastic may be in trace hormone elements throughout your body.
Thus, no reason to be concerned about BPA or other eatable or infused plastics whatsoever-- just another item to add to your "what me worry" list.
I didn't mean that the way it sounded. I was trying to say that people that smoke cigarettes and/or are overweight should worry more about that than some unproven theory that BPA's are dangerous.
And since no one can link to ONE (just one not a list of inconclusive papers) peer reviewed verified independent study showing BPA's are proven to be dangerous to humans then I'll have to believe what the FDA says.
That said I think it's still prudent to limit BPA exposure to pregnant women and infants.
1111 Quit while you're behind. I'm sure you didn't mean exactly what you wrote in that last sentence.
This comment is directed to:
"We and our parents grew up with lead paint, lead in gas, plastic wrap and a lot worse.
Relax and stop worrying so much, THAT will add years to your life."
Maybe because of the toxins you were exposed to, you fail to grasp why it might not be in child's best interests to capitulate to industry and government.
If you were a good person, you'd demand your government hold these corporations accountable. You'd demand the establishment of laws preventing the dissemination of poisons into the food supply and environment. But you are not; you are someone who affirms the tyranny of the present over the future. Why?
Do you own stock in these companies? Cancer drugs? In other words, what is your interest here, mocking the desire for your fellow countrymen for an environment free of unnecessary harmful chemicals in the environment?
Please explain why it is in OUR best interests to allow this kind of thing to occur.
Please explain why it is in the NEXT generations' best interests to have these chemicals accumulating the bodies of their parents and their landscapes.
I am waiting to hear your reasons, sincerely, because I know this type of pathological thinking is the last refuge of a certain group of people that have always been with us, and I've never once heard the argument to convince anyone of that conclusion in terms of their best interests other than: be ignorant, and therefore happy.
I think Kathy nailed it. No need to get sanctimonious about it with all that bad people/good people claptrap.
Post a Comment