Plastic Water Bottles: ARE THEY SAFE?
We are becoming buried in emails, articles, and mailings with reference to the safety of the chemical "Bisphenol A" (BPA) which may or may not be resident in products we offer. First and foremost, our concern is with our clients' health and well-being; if a client orders water bottles, we will ASK if they want BPA-free plastic bottles. If a client specifies "No BPA," SHOWLINE will specify in our purchase orders to the manufacturers that the plastics will NOT contain any BPA. We are not making a judgment on the safety of plastics containing BPA; we will simply specify that it will not be an ingredient in a particular order of plastic containers.
Plastic bottles have a recycling stamp and usually a resin code on the bottom, either within or next to the triangular recycling symbol. These codes are numbered 1 through 7. We were told at an industry trade show that, as a rule of thumb, products with the resin codes 1 [Polyethylene Terephthalate or PET], 2 [High Density Polyethylene or HDPE], 4 [Low Density Polyethylene or LDPE] and 5 [Polypropylene or PP] were free of BPA, and that products showing resin codes 3 [Polyvinyl Chloride or PVC], 6 [Polystyrene or PS] and 7 [OTHER, which may be a combination of several resins] may NOT be free of BPA.
I Googled many files from the American Chemistry Council. One entitled "Plastic Packaging Resins" lists the seven resin codes and descriptions, properties, applications and products made with recycle content for each. Nowhere is BPA mentioned. http://www.americanchemistry.com/s_plastics/bin.asp?CID=1102&DID=4645&DOC=FILE.PDF
From MedicineNet.com I read this article on BPA: http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=88802 In the article it notes: "Polycarbonate plastics that contain bisphenol A usually have a No. 7 on the bottom...." I am bewildered, because it does not mention resin codes 3 or 6.
In the May 2008 issue of Consumer Reports (tm) appears a feature "Recalls & Safety Alerts," specifically entitled, "A new focus on plastic ingredient [sic] in bottles and cans." This article summarizes the agreements and disagreements of governments and health organizations around the world. The next-to-bottom line reminds me of the O.J. Simpson trial, with lawyers and prosecutors arguing over "what OUR experts say is...", "Well, OUR experts say...." Offered in conclusion, CU suggests that we avoid polycarbonates with the recycling code 7 or the letters "PC," or both. However number 7 bottles made with BPA-free PES (polyethersulphone) will NOT have the "PC" marking. So this means what to me? I can safely offer a number 7 bottle with no marking other than the number 7? Furthermore, other BPA-free plastic alternatives include polyethylene, which may be marked with codes 1, 2, and 5. There is no mention of resin code 3 (polyvinyl chloride) which we have elsewhere been directed in so many words to avoid.
From the Polycarbonate/BPA Global Group I read an article about human safety and BPA. This, as you might imagine, is very Pro-BPA. However, it seems to indicate a miniscule risk of BPA doing any damage to humans: "Consumers would have to eat more than 500 pounds of food and beverages in contact with polycarbonate plastic or epoxy resins every day of their lives to exceed exposure levels determined to be safe by the European Food Safety Authority and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency."
There are additional papers from the Polycarbonate/BPA Global Group of which may be found on the web.
When word came out about BPA possibly being found in the liners of baby bottles, suddenly BPA became hot press; the mention of "leeching" and "baby bottles" in the same breath meant becoming glued to the television, awaiting the further details. The news seldom makes any mention of what the presence of BPA in a plastic actually means. They WILL say "unsafe", but that is an opinion, not a fact. Sadly it seems that "BPA" has become a buzzword that a vast majority of the public doesn't understand. This is not unlike "airline safety" or "handguns", or if you will go back forty years or so, "cyclamates." Before that, "fluoridation."
In the hundreds of manufacturers' special offers we receive each week, one entitled "No BPA Water Bottles!!!" caught my eye. The offer is for a "new soft squeezable co-poly water bottle, with sparkling clarity, high gloss and quality." The bottle is noted as #6 Recyclable. What? I thought a 6 was on the list to avoid.
SInce mid-2007 our purchase orders have carried this disclaimer: "In accepting this order, you are certifying that products contain no lead-based materials; that products will pass current federal tests for flammability; and that products contain no chemicals, exposure to which has been dertermined to be hazardous to humans." It is unfortunate that we cannot call a vendor of sport bottles and ask: "Are these BPA-free?" and expect from most any more than an answer, "Uh... what?" Eventually we can get a definitive answer, but this should be an up front "Yes/No" from anyone in customer service.
I am not one who is convinced that BPA at the levels to which we humans are exposed (without being force-fed gallons of heated liquid in a laboratory) is dangerous. Most of the negatives I find deal with heated liquids in water bottles, and most people I know carry ice water in their bottles. (For coffee tumblers and travel mugs, we suggest stainless liners.) Nonetheless, someone is going to HAVE to get the governments or the United States and Canada, the plastics industry and the advertising specialties industry squared away soon. Very soon. And this, as we enter our huge plastic water bottle sales season.
Permit me to assure you that for the time being, if you DON'T WANT BPA, then you WON'T GET BPA.
-Later, you-
No comments:
Post a Comment