![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-643587-100x100.png\")
but it tastes so good...
...I guess its only horrible if the disease causing agent is an organic chemical, but heaven forbid it is a food substance that leads to heart disease and obesity - then The Government MUST regulate it. all that other stuff? naw
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-568700-100x100.png\")
I chucked by Nalgene bottle when I found it had that stuff in it and replaced it with a BPA-free one. I think I paid maybe a dollar or two more, but that might have just been the difference in prices between different retailers. I really wish for once that manufacturers would just step up and say \"you're right, we'll switch\" without all the legal stuff.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/css/images/default.gif\")
How long ago was this? Nalgene has plenty of BPA free products on the market now. I remember awhile back when all the BPA fear first started and I couldn't find a single Nalgene bottle in stock at the local REI because they had pulled all the BPA bottles and where in the process of bringing out the new product.
I needed a bottle at the time so I picked up a BPA free bottle from Camelbak, but almost all of Nalgene's line is BPA free now from what I gathered last time I ordered from their online store.
@downwithmonstercable: If you were able to buy a BPA-free bottle, I don't quite get what the issue is.
You had a desire for BPA-free plastics, some mfr anticipated that need and brought the product to market. You bought it... the system works!
By the way, how can I get a BPA-free plastic bottle? Do they make them in < 1 liter sizes? Isn there some other dangerous plastic solute you still have to worry about in the non-BPA bottles
@ludwigk: The point, I think, is that downwithmonstercable was able to buy a BPA-free bottle for about the same price as a BPA bottle. So the BPA industry argument that banning BPA would lead to baby starvation and/or substantially more expensive bottles is preposterous.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-473526-100x100.png\")
@ludwigk: It is an issue when the manufacturer sells you something that they claim is safe and harmless and it is not. If we applied your logic then no dangerous products would be pulled from the market. BPA is not a lifestyle \"choice\" it's a public health issue.
@downwithmonstercable: If they say that and switch, they're afraid that they'll get sued. It's a Catch-22. Switch and get sued. Don't switch and convince people that it's safe and probably still get sued.
Switching a product because there was a problem with your old one does not in and by itself admit guilt or leave you open for liability. If that were the case no one would put carpet/mats down in hallways after someone slipped the on tile floors.
If you *knew* about the problem and carried on anyway, THEN you're liable. But if you honestly had no idea BPA was going to cause problems, then you can defend yourself.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-288368-100x100.png\")
The Post quotes from the notes...
/Dr. Seuss.
The easiest way for them to get people to use their products again is to circulate an email filled with official sounding jargon and names that won't pass even a cursory Google Search against the competition. Everyone knows that if Oprah or an Email says it, the people will buy it. I have relatives who still believe that sponges contain Agent Orange, Fabreeze kills pets, you won't get sick if you see a Chiropractic 3x a week, etc...
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-10718-100x100.png\")
The more I hear about this, the more I worry about my kid, who spent a solid year drinking from BPA bottles.
Just man up and get rid of it already, manufacturers! It'll cost less than the massive lawsuit you're setting yourselves up for.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-386753-100x100.png\")
@juri squared: You and me both. Not only did my first kiddo spend a year drinking out of bottles with BPA, but I was exclusively pumping (long story, but he wouldn't nurse), so his milk was STORED in them, too. We switched to glass when he was around a year old.
@juri squared: We've been using Born Free glass bottles. I've dropped them from 3-4 feet and they have not broken.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-101046-100x100.png\")
\"...the great things that BPA can do for her and her baby.\"
Well, this study [www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov] says that average levels of BPA in humans are at or above the levels which were shown to cause harm to animals. And seeing as how BPA leaches from containers into food...
But it's from the same people who brought you DDT, MTBE, etc. How can you not trust these fine folks?
I've recently gotten me a stainless steel water bottle for the gym. Just sayin'...
@doctor_cos: DDT is actually quite safe. It's replacement was more dangerous, and not as effective, which led to many deaths.
@OGH!_GitEmSteveDave: Not really. By the time DDT was banned in the US, it had been so overused that not only were bird populations crashing, pest insects were developing substantial resistance.
In terms of its effects on human health, it's been linked to diabetes, and it acts as a neurotoxin in fetuses and developing babies. The workers who apply it are at a greater risk of developing asthma.
Frankly, the junk-science \"DDT is teh AWESOME!\" crowd is part of the reason we had to ban it - people were, and are, way too enthusiastic about its use to use it safely, responsibly, and effectively. The false impression that it is completely safe and can't be misused promotes its misuse.
@crashfrog: agreed, just because its supposedly not as bad as what we have now, doesn't mean we should go back to it.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-16563-100x100.png\")
@doctor_cos: I'm sort of wincing as I type this, but I've used a recycled Gatorade bottle for carrying my gym water for ages. I clean it weekly (wash, boiling water then freeze) but here I am.
Is this bad, worth switching to a BPA-free labeled one?
(Forgive my laziness, but there are only so many Poison Train items to track and this is one that's slipped past my radar)
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-22777-100x100.png\")
@doctor_cos: MTBE has been replaced with ethanol, arguably worse for both the environment, and for people, than MTBE ever was.
@Shadowfire: True and not true. Ethanol doesn't leach into (and poison) groundwater, but producing ethanol in any quantity has many toxic (and flammable) byproducts.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-148301-100x100.png\")
Anyone know of the best way to dispose of about a dozen BPA-infected Nalgene bottles? I don't want to dump them in the trash, can they be recycled?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-98787-100x100.png\")
@packcamera: As long as the recycling number matches whatever the bin you are recycling allows, you should be fine. The plastics should get sorted at the recycling center if certain plastics can't be recycled the same way as others.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-570288-100x100.png\")
I would be more worried, but the booze I drink out of my Nalgene is probably much worse for my health.
@calquist: Ditto for me. No more BPA items for storing the drippings from my crystal meth distillery!
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-68654-100x100.png\")
does anybody here know how you can tell if the plastics you are using have BPA in them? as far as i can tell, if the bottle is categorized as a \"7\" (OTHER), it has BPA. PET or PETE (#1), HDPE (#2), LDPE (#4) are all supposed to be BPA-free, but can anyone that actually knows something about this stuff confirm or deny that?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-134603-100x100.png\")
2, 4 and 5 are generally considered safe. 1, 3, 6 and 7 are unsafe.
7 \"OTHER\" plastics includes all kinds of stuff, everything that isn't 1-6, including some things that don't contain BPA (like nylon).
It just happens that polycarbonate, one of the worst products for BPA, is a #7 plastic. On those products, you'll sometimes see \"PC\" written under the 7 symbol.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-350835-100x100.png\")
So industry is running another great experiment... again on ourselves and our children.
When are we going to wake up and realize that corporations are not looking out for the well being of the people... They focus only on the bank balances of their execs and shareholders.
How long are we going to allow this sort of abuse to continue? Drugs brought to market too early, before they have proven themselves safe and effective... Vehicles sold to people with obvious flaws (pinto anyone?)... Foods brought to market with a high risk of killing the people who eat them (Peanut butter anyone?)... Toys sold for kids with lead paints (go China go!)... This is too easy there are too many examples!
Hey, new idea! Let's hold the stock holders personally responsible for the actions of the corporations they own. I know they already get punished when a controversy makes the press and the stock price drops... But that's not enough. How about we attribute shared liability to anyone who owns more than say 1/10 of 1% of a companies stock at the time the damage is done.
Now, I know you are thinking this will kill all stocks and corporations will not be in a position to raise necessary funds to operate. Not quite... you see if the corporation comes forward the moment anyone who should know suspects a problem and does the right thing... well that is good so the stock holder doesn't share liability. But, if the corporation thinks about the stock value first... well F'em!
@GreatWhiteNorth: So peanut butter has a high risk of killing people? Someone should let the Chinese know, as they ingest a lot of peanut products.
@crashfrog:
Foods brought to market with a high risk of killing the people who eat them (Peanut butter anyone?)...
Hundreds of cases out of how many jars? Not really a \"high\" risk. Almost par for the course, if you think about it. Probably well within statistical noise.
@OGH!_GitEmSteveDave: What's the acceptable level of risk for fatal contagions in our foods? Keep in mind you have to eat the same foods.
I put a bullet in a revolver and spin the chamber. How many chambers have to be in the revolver before you'll play this game, if the only reward at the end is you get to eat a meal? One in one thousand? One in a million?
Go on, tell me what the acceptable level for fatal food infections is.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-268564-100x100.png\")
@crashfrog: Well. It's not zero, I'll tell you that. There's a point at which preventative costs outweigh the gains (see: diminishing returns).
The \"acceptable level\" looks like it's the one at which you consume products despite knowing this. Get off the soapbox for a second, hmm?
@crashfrog: That's more a case of neglect for facilities cleanliness than it is for adding a potentially dangerous chemical that, at best, is known to leach into the foods the containers hold. Peanut butter, in and of itself, and when handled in a clean environment, is only dangerous if you're allergic.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-6173-100x100.png\")
\"Ban Poisonous Additives Act\"
I see what you did there, Congress! Way to sock it to BPA.
Well, let me play Devil's Advocate here.
First, the \"BPA = bad\" links are inconclusive.
Second, just because something shows harm in clinical situations doesn't mean it's harmful in real life. We've known that Saccharine's caused cancer in rats for over a generation, but we only recently learned that it does bupkus against humans because humans, surprise, are not rats.
Third, how dangerous is the alternative? We live in a world where it's beaten into us like a drum to consider holistically the consequences of our consumption. I'm guessing the reason BPA is used is because it's cheaper and/or easier to manufacture than the alternatives. We ban BPA and use the alternatives, perhaps all we're doing is shifting the problem from an (unproven) cancer risk to a cost-ineffective manufacturing process that wastes energy (read: carbon). Congratulations, you don't have to worry about \"killing\" yourself because you just trashed some Third World city, or worse, the planet.
That last point may strike some as irrelevant, but remember, we make tradeoffs all of the time-- and not every tradeoff appears to make rational sense. For instance, how many lives were \"saved\" by banning DDT when considering how many lives were \"lost\" from malaria?
Obviously, BPA isn't in the category of a life-saving pesticide, but I'd feel a lot more comfortable with more science on this issue before everyone freaks out even more. BPA could be really bad-- or it could just be the Alar scare all over again.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-125641-100x100.png\")
@Daveinva:
No, human life is more important than selling a particular chemical. There are alternatives to BPA, BPA might be harmful to humans, so BPA should not be used. It's really that simple. If it's proven safe, then it can be used, but not before.
A government ban on something that might be dangerous sounds like overkill, but the sad reality is that there's an industry that's hell-bent on pushing as much BPA as possible down everyone's throats, poisonous or no, in the name of generating profits. So unfortunately it's necessary for the government to step in.
@vladthepaler: I'm just going to totally disagree with your statement - what about booze? scissors? heck, everything is dangerous. Where do we stop? Not that certain things shouldn't be restricted in their use, but your sweeping statements above are just too general to be taken seriously.
Sorry
@Daveinva: just because something shows harm in clinical situations doesn't mean it's harmful in real life.
No, but isn't that an indication that we should:
1) Be more cautious with our use of these kinds of materials
and
2) Put the burden on manufacturers to prove that they are safe, instead of making govt regulators prove that they are *not* safe?
I'd rather err on the side of severely limiting things that end up being safe than go the other way - letting things out into products & the environment and then retroactively figuring out what's going on.
@Daveinva: What crashfrog said.
When you obviously have no fricking idea what BPA is, but you can still produce an intelligent, reasonable-sounding opinion justifying its use...you have a future as a \"Republican strategist.\"
p.s. BPA is a building block ingredient of polycarbonate, among other plastics. It's not the end product like you seem to think.
Wow. I think Consumerist jumped the shark a while ago, but this killed it for me. Daveinva is right on the mark as he's attempting to play devil's advocate, and crashfrog & theodicey - you both mouth off at gigitygoo like a couple of highschoolers. Criticizing what he didn't say? Bringing up American politicks?? WTF?
Interesting that the same jackassery happened on BoingBoing just about the same time..
Oh well, I'm out.
@Dan Allard: Criticizing what he didn't say?
Sorry, no; I'm criticizing what he didn't know, specifically that he didn't know what he was talking about.
A comment predicated on ignorance cannot be said to be \"well reasoned.\" Playing \"devil's advocate\" isn't an excuse to not know what you're talking about. You can hardly make the claim that BPA is less harmful than the alternatives when you don't even know what it's used for, and therefore what the alternatives could possibly be.
And you think it's unreasonable to point that out? Good riddance; you're not wanted here.
@crashfrog: Sorry, no; you're criticizing something he's *not even talking about*. Sure, you can say all you want that he doesn't know what he's talking about when it comes down to the science or whatever, but until he says one thing or the other about it, you have no grounds to make that comment.
But hey, it's the internets.
@Dan Allard: orry, no; you're criticizing something he's *not even talking about*.
WTF does that even mean? Do you not see up there where he's talking about whatever \"alternatives\" there are to BPA, and whatever downsides they might have?
His implication is that they're probably worse, somehow. Well, if he knew what he was talking about, he'd tell us about the alternatives and we could judge for ourselves. Instead, he's simply left us with the implication - because it's a lot easier to imply downsides than actually research them.
He doesn't know what he's talking about. That's the only thing I've criticized.
Anyway, weren't you leaving? Or was that just internet histrionics?
@crashfrog: I left and I came back. Did I say I wasn't coming back? Sorry to disappoint but this thread is actually kind of fun now. You like to put words in peoples' mouths, don't you.
You are clearly misreading the post. You say he is making a terrible argument 'for' BPA. He *isn't making an argument for or against BPA*. He's making an argument 'against' random internet pseudoscience and the lot. or maybe it's best said that he's making an argument 'for' actually following through and researching issues. What he's saying is that there is a heck of a lot of chaff on the internet, and not a lot of wheat.
You, on the other hand, are criticizing his apple pie for not having any meat in it and thus being a terrible sandwich. Does that make it any clearer? You are criticizing his argument when you're clearly in the wrong sub-thread. I don't think he had any intention of actually discussing BPA, just random internet 'facts' that people take for granted without researching. YOU MAKE A TOTALLY VALID POINT, crashfrog, just not in the right place.
[en.wikipedia.org]
Also, this thread reminded me of this xkcd comic:
[xkcd.com]
@Dan Allard: He's making an argument 'against' random internet pseudoscience and the lot.
I don't see where he's doing that, and again, the way you argue against pseudoscience is by knowing what you're talking about, and it's obvious he doesn't.
or maybe it's best said that he's making an argument 'for' actually following through and researching issues.
Hrm, did he call for more research? Did he call for restraint of opinion? Or, rather, didn't he say:
Third, how dangerous is the alternative? We live in a world where it's beaten into us like a drum to consider holistically the consequences of our consumption. I'm guessing the reason BPA is used is because it's cheaper and/or easier to manufacture than the alternatives. We ban BPA and use the alternatives, perhaps all we're doing is shifting the problem from an (unproven) cancer risk to a cost-ineffective manufacturing process that wastes energy (read: carbon).
Well, gosh, why not find out if that's what we'd be doing? Step one might be - what is BPA and what is it used for, which will tell you what it's possible alternatives could be.
But, no, it's much easier to make an evidence-free argument that's basically \"you're probably overeacting\" and call it playing \"Devil's Advocate\", as though that's an excuse for not knowing what you're talking about.
You, on the other hand, are criticizing his apple pie for not having any meat in it and thus being a terrible sandwich.
No, I'm criticizing his argument for not having any facts in it. Saying you're playing Devil's Advocate isn't an excuse to not know what you're talking about.
@crashfrog: Here's the thing though: you're criticizing an argument that he's not making. Your position that his argument doesn't have any facts (relating to *your* argument) in it is fine - he's just using BPA as an example, saying that people shouldn't fly off the handle 'til they actually know what they're talking about. Nothing more, nothing less. His intended implication is not that BPA or any other chemical is good or bad, it's that people tend to fly off the handle when they read things on the internet.
You say \"Well, gosh, why not find out if that's what we'd be doing?\". Umm.. you do realize that this is a thread on the internet, right? I'd bet a dollar that less than five people in this thread actually thought about going down to the local university to run chemical tests on their nalgene bottles.
Quoting Daveinva directly: \"I'd feel a lot more comfortable with more science on this issue before everyone freaks out even more\".
I find it amusing that you do not understand this. His argument is not that BPA is bad or good, just that people tend to mob stories like this with useless information. It's a comment about our culture and society, not BPA. Your insistencec on including facts about BPA would have no bearing on this comment.
One could argue that the creation of 'chaff' by non-scientists & pseudoscientists obscures factual information on a socio-cultural scale, but this is a far more complex discussion than I think anyone wants to get into in this thread.
Are you, like, a troll or something? Did I get pwned? I'm expecting Rick Astley to pop up on my screen at any moment now.
P.S. Daveinva, thanks for the original post. I assume I'm way off and that both crashfrog and I sound like twits.
@Dan Allard: he's just using BPA as an example, saying that people shouldn't fly off the handle 'til they actually know what they're talking about.
How does he know they don't, when he doesn't?
Umm.. you do realize that this is a thread on the internet, right?
Yes. A quick Google search could tell you what BPA is, what it's used for, and what the alternatives are.
It is relevant to his argument, after all.
I assume I'm way off and that both crashfrog and I sound like twits.
It's just you.
OK. I give up. Clearly you and I disagree on the substance of the original post.
I believe that the idea of the original post was basically
\"Take news/reports like this with a grain of salt: Firstly, because pseudoscience deliberately masquerades as science, and sometimes even real science can be used by pseudoscientists and cranks to make stuff up.
Secondly (and thirdly), because some things are only really dangerous if you're particularly vulnerable and some others might be better than all the alternatives (from a holistic point of view, or in regards to unintended consequences).\"
Quoting directly;\"I'd feel a lot more comfortable with more science on this issue before everyone freaks out even more\"
You obviously read it differently. Could I ask you to paraphrase the argument you saw in the original post which so urgently required your attention? Seriously. Succinctly and without resorting to name-calling (as opposed to self-deprecation).
Thanks
Dan
@Daveinva:
+1
Well reasoned analysis. It's nice to see a post that's more insightful than the usual emotional knee-jerk reaction.
@giggitygoo: \"Well-reasoned\"? For starters, a well-reasoned analysis might have begun with what BPA is, and what it's used for. Hint - it's not a material out of which things are made.
Secondly - the idea that DDT bans caused malaria deaths is absurd. DDT isn't the only pesticide, nor is it the best, the cheapest, or the most effective. It was simply one of the first, and it's been the most misused.
@Daveinva: Wow, one would think you couldn't simply claim whatever expertise you wanted on the internet where no one can check.
Again, all I'm cautioning against is hysteria
I don't see much hysteria. I see a lot of people wondering \"is there BPA in my baby's food, since exposure to BPA by infants is developmentally damaging?\" But, hey, I suppose a few stunted babies is better than the alternative - whatever it is, who the hell knows? Not you, apparently.
@Daveinva:
But it wouldn't be the Consumerist without the occasional herd-mentality \"public heath\" panic every now and then, would it? I simply gave up long ago thinking or caring about the every-growing list of things that are supposed to kill me.
The \"public health\" hysterics need to remember a few thing:
1) The poison is in the dose.
2) As mentioned above, there are no solutions to problems, only tradeoffs.
3) The point of life is that it be savored and lived, not extended. (Though I'd like one of them to explain to me why, if we're apparently being poisoned by everything under the sun, up to and including our water bottles, why we continue to live longer and longer.)
@carlos_the_dwarf: The point of life is that it be savored and lived
Oddly enough, the things worth savoring are the things that'll probably extend your life. But I have a feeling that you're the kind of person for whom \"savoring life\" means \"cheeseburgers at McDonalds.\"
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-100023-100x100.png\")
And the conservatives continue their \"let the market decide\" and deregulation mantras.
As if corporations would ever do anything in the interest of the consumer if it cost them a single penny in the short term.
The first water bottle I ever drank out of was a nalgene. My mother worked in a lab for 30 years and would order extra nalgenes to use when we went camping, back before you could buy them outside of the lab. One of the studies she did actually consisted of injecting fish with varying amounts of BPA's and studying them. So ive seen pictures of male fish genitalia converting into female during puberty because the BPA's were such strong synthetic hormones (this is why the emphasis is on BPA's in baby bottles). Shortly after i chucked my nalgenes and switched to glass and stainless steel. I highly recommend mason jars with handles =) Anywho, when the BPA controversy hit i was enrolled in a 600 student organic chemistry class. Here in seattle, the birthplace of REI, everyone carried nalgenes. I always sat in the back of the lecture hall, and one day the professor pulled up some documents on BPAs and we went over the structure and suspected effects on humans. Within a week, not one nalgene could be seen in the whole room.
Car companies complained when first forced to install airbags, credit card companies complained when forced to reform, plastic industry complains when government wants to ban BPA.
Yet somehow the world keeps spinning.
\"the great things BPA can do for your baby\"
Like the nutrients that they leech into your food that is good for you? I can think of things that your baby couldn't have without plastics, but nothing it can't have without BPA.
Alex,
Which three canned food producers use BPA-free linings?
I've also got a baby who's going to be starting on solids in a month, so I've been going crazy trying to find BPA-free baby food brands that are available locally. Gerber has a BPA-free line, but the full range of their offerings aren't available in those containers.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-879037-100x100.png\")
Next in line: Phtalates!
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-20312-100x100.png\")
@MissPiss: I would love to see the day. I have terrible eczema problems if I wear, or even if someone touches me, with plastic gloves.
so long as you dont microwave the bottles, it's not all that big of an issue
that said, just dont use BPA-containing stuff in food containers and the problem's solved
I really hope that the government doesn't get it in their heads that they need to ban it completely - I prefer shatter-proof lenses and windows, to name a couple BPA-containing things
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-929652-100x100.png\")
Because Industry is always looking out for our best interests...
Who wants to bet that 50 years from now the \"BPA is A-OK\" advertising will be bandied about just like the cigarette ads from the 1950's?
@durkzilla: Or the \"you know what they say about HFCS\" ads from a few months ago.
@durkzilla: I should go ahead and share it right now on Facebook so I can be the first to have this as a \"ha ha, they were so backwards\" posts.