Make your own BPA-free reusable water bottle

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

What do you mean? I can hear you think and ask. How can I make my own reusable water bottle? Simple, I tell you, and it will not cost you a cent.

The only true and guaranteed BPA-free reusable water bottle is made but from one substance, namely glass, and you can easily make your own. No, not glass or the bottle by blowing your own glass bottle and all that jazz. That is complicated and requires a great deal of skill. We are talking here reuse of what you would, otherwise, toss into the recycling bin.

Yes, that Snapple® bottle that you are just about to toss, washed out and label removed (if you want – I do) and then filled with tap water makes a real good reusable BPA-free (as it is glass) water bottle.

But, I hear you say, glass is breakable and therefore plastic and stainless steel bottles are much better, and lighter. Yes, it is true that glass is breakable and glass bottles will break if handled incorrectly but most plastics contain plasticizers that are hormone disruptors though some are free from it and stainless steel is the best choice when it comes to wanting an unbreakable bottle. However, if you want a BPA-free one for, well, free then reusing a glass bottle of one sort or another is a much better way to go. It is also better for the Planet as it is reuse.

There are many reusable water bottles on the market now that are but tarted up bottles similar to the ones that you can easily make yourself by reusing the likes of Snapple® bottles or other drink ones or even glass tomato ketchup ones. I have done it and so can you and with a little soft cozy made from some thick cloth they can be protected easily against breakages.

So, go for tap water with your own reused reusable water bottle. Please do not think about reusing plastic bottles (PET bottles) for this purpose as they are leaching BPA and other phthalates, and those all are hormone disrupting chemicals.

So-called BPA-free plastics also are not harmless as scientists have recently found and while some plastics are fine glass, especially if it costs you nothing, is much better for you and the Planet.

© 2014

FDA rejects petition to ban BPA from food packaging

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

The controversial plastic-hardening chemical bisphenol A can continue to be used in food and beverage packaging in the U.S., despite studies that raise concerns about the substance, hormone disruption and long-term effects of exposure.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration let current practices stand today, when it rejected a petition from the Natural Resources Defense Council, which sought to eliminate BPA from all food packaging.

There is no compelling scientific evidence, said the agency, to justify new restrictions. Sorry, are they reading the same journals and scientific papers or not? Answer is: obviously not. The plastics industry wins again.

But why am I not surprised considering that the FDA is deep in the pockets of the industry and most of America actually knows that, and that about in the same way as the USDA is in the pockets of Monsanto.

That view of the FDA is being strongly disputed by the NRDC and other environmental health advocates.

“BPA is a toxic chemical that has no place in our food supply,” Dr. Sarah Janssen, senior scientist in the public health program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said in a statement.
“We believe FDA made the wrong call,” said Dr. Janssen’s statement. “The agency has failed to protect our health and safety – in the face of scientific studies that continue to raise disturbing questions about the long-term effects of BPA exposures, especially in fetuses, babies and young children.”

“The FDA is out-of-step with scientific and medical research. This illustrates the need for a major overhaul of how the government protects us against dangerous chemicals.”

The organization and public health advocates say that research strongly suggests that the hormone-disrupting chemical is linked to cancer, obesity and other health problems.

The widely used substance can be found in toys, tools and containers of all types. Use in food and beverage packaging includes the lining in some, if not most, cans, and that not only in America. Often those cans contain acids foods and drinks and the acid causes chemicals – and not just the offending BPA – to leach into the food and drinks.

Reusable drinks bottles made of alumunin, such as those made by SIGG and GAIAM, plus many of the hard plastic ones made from polycarbonate, all contain – or contained – BPA and while some companies have removed it other have not.

Studies indicate that BPA is present 90 percent of U.S. and Canadian citizens, though mostly at low levels.

The NRDC has long pressed the FDA for a ban on BPA in any material coming in contact with food. The advocacy group filed a petition to the agency in 2008. After receiving no response, the NRDC sued and sought a court order that would force the FDA to respond. In a consent decree last December, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York gave the FDA until March 31 to rule on the petition.

In reaching its decision on the eve of that deadline, the agency said that research on the subject is open to question: In some cases the sample sizes were too small. In many others, the studies involved rodents and other lab animals.
“While evidence from some studies have raised questions as to whether BPA may be associated with a variety of health effects, there remain serious questions about these studies, particularly as they relate to humans,” the FDA said.

The Breast Cancer Fund also took exception to the FDA’s claim that research does not support a ban of BPA in food and beverage packaging.
“Indeed, there is plenty of evidence showing harm – evidence that has been mounting for years and years,” the Breast Cancer Fund said. “The public should be able to count on the FDA to take decisive action to protect everyone. The FDA needs to stop waiting for more and more evidence of harm and get BPA out of our food packaging.”

The NRDC noted that the FDA said its move does not constitute a final decision on the safety of BPA.

The long-running debate on BPA has led to a phaseout of the substance in baby bottles and regulations in some states that bar the chemical from being used in any vessel that holds liquids consumed by babies. Some food companies and makers of beverage containers have voluntarily removed or pledged to remove BPA from their products.

The problem is that the FDA has no intention to act as they are, as an agency, in the pockets of big business and in this instance the plastics industry, the latter which has no intention of phasing out BPA as alternatives are more expensive and thus cut into their profit margins. It is all about money, not about people and their health.

For the same reason the FDA rules against herbal remedies and immediately goes haywire when some true claims even indicate that a herb or a food could be used or seen as having medical benefits, prescribing it then as a drug and stopping its use.

With a regulatory agency like that people do not need enemies...

© 2012

Dismay over EU decision not to ban baby bottle chemical bisphenol-A

Unlike Canada, for instance, the EU decides not to ban BPA – WHY?

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) says that there is no convincing evidence to cause it to ban or further restrict exposure to the controversial chemical bisphenol-A used in plastic bottles and containers.

Health campaigners have reacted with dismay after EU officials decided against restricting or banning bisphenol-A (BPA), despite evidence of links to breast cancer and other health issues.

BPA is a synthetic chemical used to make plastic drinking bottles, baby bottles and storage containers as well as the lining of some food and drink cans. It is applied as a coating to the insides of food cans, which can then be heated to kill off bacteria without the metal in the can contaminating the food contents.

European food safety officials say the current evidence does not provide convincing evidence of the toxicity of BPA. It is amazing, however, that Canada banned it and other countries consider doing the same on the evidence the Canadians have. The Canadian government health department seems to be having evidence which the EU just tosses aside. Or is there more to this?

Is there, maybe, just maybe, something else behind this. Could it be that the origins of BPA are found in one or the other EU member states and that big bucks are made by the chemical companies making it?

The re-assessment came after new studies reported adverse effects on animals exposed to BPA at low doses, including on their nervous system, immune system and susceptibility to breast cancer.

There have also been studies suggesting a link between exposure to BPA and coronary heart disease and reproductive disorders.

Earlier this year, an alliance of groups, including WWF, Breast Cancer UK and The Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL) backed an open letter sent sent by 21 scientists to EFSA saying they feared exposure to BPA could damage health, particularly among vulnerable groups such as babies and pregnant women.

The National Cancer Institute in the US has also recently called for the use of BPA in consumer products to be more tightly regulated.

However, in a statement issued this week, Efsa said: 'These studies have many shortcomings. At present the relevance of these findings for human health cannot be assessed, though should any new relevant data become available in the future, the Panel will reconsider this opinion.'

A spokesperson for HEAL said it was shocked and dismayed by Efsa's decision, which comes despite other countries such as Taiwan, Canada, Denmark, Sweden and France all pronouncing BPA as toxic and hazardous to health.

Breast Cancer UK said it would be continuing to push for a ban on BPA being used in baby bottles.

'We will continue our No More BPA campaign until this public health issue has been acknowledged and we call on the UK Government to ignore EFSA and take the initiative by banning the use of BPA in baby and toddler products throughout the UK,' said chair Claire Dimmer.

It is astonishing that the European Union, generally always in the forefront of banning anything that just remotely could be a problem, has decided against banning BPA despite evidence to its dangers and other countries having banned the substance or intending to ban it. I smell something rather fishy in this here.

© 2010

Bisphenol A may make you stupid and depressed

According to a new study BPA may interfere with learning and with memory and remembering

by Michael Smith

Bisphenol A, found in hard plastic containers, may interfere with how we learn and remember, researchers at the University of Guelph have discovered.

Coinciding with the release of the National Toxicology Program report on BPA, a new study reports that researchers from the Yale School of Medicine and Guelph University exposed African Green monkeys on the Island of St. Kitts to low levels of Bisphenol A for a month. They found that even low doses of BPA slow down the synapses in the brain.

"It dramatically impairs the formation of synapses in the regions of the brain important to learning," biomedical science professor Neil MacLusky of the University of Guelph said.

"These findings are worrisome”, he said, “because BPA is one of the most widely-used chemicals in the world."

Researchers say there is a possibility that BPA might be a factor in brain diseases such as Alzheimer's, depression and schizophrenia. Oh cheers, pal!

According to Medical News Today, This synaptic loss may cause memory/learning impairments and depression, according to study results published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

"Our primate model indicates that BPA could negatively affect brain function in humans," said study co-author Tibor Hajszan, M.D., associate research scientist in Yale Ob/Gyn. "Based on these new findings, we think the EPA may wish to consider lowering its 'safe daily limit' for human BPA consumption."

Hajszan said that although daily exposure of an average person to BPA usually does not reach the level that was applied in this study, human exposure to BPA is not limited to a single month, but rather is continuous over a lifetime. "The negative effect of BPA may also be amplified when estradiol levels are naturally lower than in healthy adults. That is why exposure to BPA may particularly be risky in the case of babies and the elderly."

BPA is used in plastic water bottles, some baby bottles, dental prostheses and sealers,
the lining inside of food cans, and probably other applications we may not even aware of publicly as yet. The chemical can leak from the products and be absorbed through eating or drinking.

At least, as far as water bottles are concerned there are now 100% BPA free ones available such as the “We Want Tap” water bottle recently reviewd in the pages of this journal.

While the government of Canada has banned BPA, a move which forced Nalgene to remove all its sports bottles and other water bottles from the shelves, the US Federal Drug and Administration is perfectly happy with industry funded research that states that the chemical is safe and the FDA basically says that BPA is safe for babies and everyone else.

The worrying fact is that despite more than 100 published studies by government scientists and university laboratories that have raised health concerns about a chemical compound that is central to the multibillion-dollar plastics industry, the Food and Drug Administration has deemed it safe largely because of two studies, both funded by an industry trade group. May one ask how much bung money has come the agency's way to accept such findings?

So much for an organization that is supposed to be protecting the health of the nation. With organizations as reliable that them in place the American people sure do not need enemies.

© M Smith (Veshengro), September 2008
<>