Readers of this blog are all-to-familiar with the issues surrounding the estrogenic chemical <"http://www.yourlawyer.com/practice_areas/toxic_substances">bisphenol A, or BPA, as it is more commonly called. BPA is a plastic hardener that can be found virtually everywhere, including the urine of well over 90 percent of the American population.
With all the negative press BPA has been receiving in recent months, itâ€™s shocking to learn that a popular manufacturer of so-called â€œsaferâ€ alternatives to water bottles is now admitting that some of its products contained the chemical that many experts consider dangerous at any level.
Earth911 reports that SIGG announced that bottles it made prior to August 2008 were actually lined with a product that used what are described as â€œtrace amountsâ€ of BPA. When news of BPAâ€™s potential dangers became more widely known, consumer flocked to find alternatives products, and many considered SIGG bottles to be safer, especially given that there were no disclosures made regarding the BPA it used in its manufacturing processes. Now, said Earth911, many SIGG product users feel duped.
According to Steve Wasik, CEO of the Swiss company, SIGG kept the information under wraps to protect its linerâ€™s â€œproprietaryâ€ formula, continuing to sell the product with the liner containing BPA, without ever disclosing that the so-called safer bottle was, in fact, made with the controversial chemical. SIGG claims that bottles manufactured with its new â€œEcoCareâ€ linerâ€”as of August 2008â€”do not contain any BPA and argues that even though its older bottle products contain the chemical many believe to be dangerous, lab tests do not indicate the material leaches, said Earth911.
Regardless of how Wasik and SIGG feel about â€œtraceâ€ amounts of BPA, study after study is finding connections to negative health events. For instance, Environmental Health News reported that menopausal women exposed to BPA tend to be likelier to suffer BPA-related health effects, such as inflammation and oxidative stress, over women who are still menstruating and men. Another study found BPA might â€œimpairâ€ female reproductive cell growth and function, according to the University of Illinois. Two months ago we wrote that research conducted by the North Carolina State University and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), found BPA to significantly effect reproductive health at levels that are either the same or even lower that those believed not to cause adverse effects, citing Science Daily.
BPA has been connected to a wide variety of other adverse effects, namely: Increased risks of brain, reproductive, cardiac, and immune system diseases and disorders; problems with liver function testing; interruptions in chemotherapy treatment; links with serious health problems based on over 200 studies which found it to have negative effects at doses lower than the FDAâ€™s current standards; retention in the body longer than was previously believed; leeching into liquids being held in containers regardless of the containersâ€™ temperature; and longer lasting damage, which can be passed to future generations.
The topic is so controversial and the evidence against BPA so compelling that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is taking another hard look at the chemical and is planning on announcing its findings at the end of November.
BPA has been banned in Schenectady County in upstate New York; a similar measure was recently passed by Albany County legislators and takes effect January 1. BPA is banned in Connecticut, Minnesota, Chicago, and New Yorkâ€™s Suffolk County. Wisconsin became the third state to introduce a bill to ban BPA-containing baby bottle and sippy cup sales for children and California voted on a similar bill that is in the Assembly. Twenty-four states have bills in the works to restrict the toxin; Canada was the first country to announce plans to ban BPA, calling it a toxin.