Baby bottles found to leak chemicals, California may ban them
Most parents discourage their kiddos from ingesting known toxics, so a new study from green group Environment California is a bit of a bummer: when run through a simulated dishwasher 50 to 75 times, name-brand baby bottles leach the chemical bisphenol A, or BPA, in levels that have caused reproductive abnormalities in lab animals. Baby-product representatives spun the bottle, calling the report "sensational and biased" and arguing that their products meet federal standards, which really is far from comforting. Feeling un-comforted, California Assembly member Fiona Ma (D) has introduced a bill to ban children's products containing BPA or toxic plastic softeners called phthalates in the state, mirroring a current San Francisco law. And a group of experts convened by the National Institutes of Health will meet next week to review data and conclude whether or not BPA poses health risks to humanfolk -- but the findings, according to an NIH spokesperson, will "not necessarily" be adopted by the feds.
straight to the source: San Francisco Chronicle, Jane Kay, 28 Feb 2007
straight to the source: CNN Money, Reuters, 28 Feb 2007
see also, in Grist: Rubber Ducky, You’re Not the One
Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success
‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science
Comments
View as Flat
wren7 Posted 5:28 am
01 Mar 2007
I've read a fair amount about bisphenol A and phthalates and personally try to avoid them as much as possible by not buying canned foods that are lined with that white-looking plastic stuff (contains BPA) and buying only plastic containers labeled 1, 2, 4 or 5. I've also thrown away most of the cosmetics and body care products I used to use (most contain phthalates disguised under the ubiquitous "fragrance" label) and carefully reading ingredient labels on the products I've replaced them with, most bought at Whole Foods. However, since these chemicals are in most electronics products, it's almost impossible to avoid them completely.
The San Francisco Chronicle article states: "Representatives of the bottle companies said their products meet federal standards and argued that exposure from plastic bottles, cups and other food containers doesn't pose any known risk to human health." Oh yeah, right. I for one so trust our government and the corporations that run it to keep us all safe. In our dreams.
Permalink
raevynn Posted 2:09 am
02 Mar 2007
Seriously, babies really, really, really need to be breastfed.
From obesity, to lower IQ, to dental problems, to allergies, to asthma, to lactose intolerance, there is such a range of things that are linked to bottle/formula feeding our young.
Breast is best. Perhaps the survival of our species will depend on it.
Permalink
Julia Olmstead Posted 2:34 am
02 Mar 2007
Under ideal circumstances, breast is best, but not everyone can do it. We need to be sure there are safe systems for feeding formula (or juice or water or whatever, because even my breastfed son drank/drinks things other than milk from bottles and cups) to our babies.
We use small Sigg aluminum bottles (they come in cute kid-friendly designs) to avoid plastic. But for all I know, there are probably issues with the aluminum as well.
Permalink
audipostales Posted 3:36 am
02 Mar 2007
What is the best alternative???
Permalink
willa Posted 6:48 am
04 Mar 2007
Raevynn, it's nice that you're committed to breastfeeding, but saying there's no other way is a fairly aggressively reactionary stance that's not responsive to the rights of mothers not to surrender their whole being to their children. Some women have to or want to work, and some women would afford the time not working if it were just that but can't afford the lifelong career stagnation that often results from taking a two-year break. Also, some women are on medications that would be toxic to their babies, so they can't breastfeed, or have other health/pain issues that prevent it.
Permalink