Certain plastics have been linked to a laundry list of ills, from cardiovascular disease to cancer. But now some scientists believe that substances in our environment—like the chemical bisphenol A (BPA) common in many water bottles—may be contributing to America’s obesity epidemic as well.
Federal agencies have been inconsistent on the issue of BPA use. In its ongoing investigation, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported on Feb. 14, 2010, that government regulators have repeatedly bowed to industry officials regarding BPA safety, despite hundreds of studies linking the chemical to health problems, including obesity. On March 3, Wisconsin became the third state to ban BPA from children’s products, following similar bans by Maryland, Minnesota and the city of Chicago.
In studies looking at its effect on obesity, chemicals like BPA behave like hormones and are thought to act on genes during early development to turn precursor cells into fat cells, which stay for life. They may even impact metabolic rate, causing the body to stockpile calories rather than burning them.
As reported last year in Newsweek and in scientific journals, scientist Retha Newbold of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), National Institutes of Health, says there is growing evidence that poor food choices and lack of exercise are not the only reasons for being overweight. Exposure to environmental chemicals during development may be contributing to the obesity epidemic, especially in those under the age of 50. She believes exposure to the compounds may be the reason some people gain weight although not eating more or exercising less than their slimmer counterparts.
The BPA-obesity theory was teed up by a Scotland scientist in 2002 and is supported by laboratory research in Japan. Newbold’s own research found that after exposure to low doses of hormone-mimicking chemicals, mice were 20 percent heavier and had 36 percent more body fat than unexposed mice only six months later. Newbold says the overweight mice were not eating more than the control mice, nor were they less active.
BPA has also been linked to other ills, including heart disease and cancer. You can reduce exposure by choosing glass or steel bottles, or those made from corn-based materials. Check the recycling symbol on all plastic bottles. Those with #2, #4 or #5 are safest. Water is usually sold in a #1, which is only recommended for one-time use. Leaching is more prevalent as plastics age, so don’t refill it. Recycle it and choose a safe, reusable water bottle.
Comments
PETE plastic, the kind used for soft drinks, teas, power drinks, and water bottles does not contain BPA's. PETE plastic does not leach harmful chemicals. The problem with PETE is that it is very durable and doesn't go away for hundreds of years. PETE can be made to be biodegradable and that is what ENSO bottles has done. If we do away with water in bottles the alternative will be for us to drink more soda drinks and then I will agree we will become fatter. Plastic bottles that contain soft drinks isn't a healthy alternative to bottled water but that is what will be used when one is one the run and water can't be found.
Max
www.ensobottles.com
"Bottles for a Healthy Earth"
Thanks for your comment. While PET bottles--not the only plastic used--may not contain BPA, they do contain similar chemicals that mimick hormones. Environmental Health Perspectives in November 2009 presented evidence that PET may yield endocrine disruptors under conditions of common use. Possible mechanisms include leaching of phthalates as well as leaching of antimony. The risk of leaching appears to increase as a function of storage temperature and duration. This is why I recommend #1 bottles--those containing PET--be used once only. As reported also on www.medicine.net, Recent studies have shown that reusing bottles made of PET can in fact be dangerous. PET was found to break down over time and leach into the beverage when the bottles were reused. The toxin DEHA also appeared in the water sample from reused water bottles. DEHA has been shown to cause liver problems, other possible reproductive difficulties, and is suspected to cause cancer in humans.
I also wanted to address your comments about substituting soda for water. Obviously, you are not getting away from the plastic, so I am unsure why you believe that to be the obvious alternative for someone wishing to avoid harmful hormone-like chemicals in plastic water bottles. Also, people who drink water for the health benefits are not likely to find soda an acceptable alternative. Investing in reusable water bottles made of safer materials and filling them with filtered tap water is the best alternative. Also, I was going to mention in my other comment that in addition to still containing chemicals which recent studies are now indicating may still be leached, many would also point out that PET is still made from oil and still carries with it a long travel footprint, so it still has a long way to go to satisfy those looking for a more environmentally friendly option. Again, a safe reusable container would be the answer.
I occasionally use a metal bottle (but that's not the perfect ecological answer either) and if on the road and unable to find clean water I opt for water in a bottle. Staying hydrated is important to me. Reality is what I'm discussing here.....when water bottles are banned....they are often replaced by other drinks which are less healthy and ironically, packaged in the same type of plastic as water.
As an environmental company we wanted to do something about the billions of bottles not being recycled and entering the waste stream. The ENSO biodegradable bottle will biodegrade in landfill environments, producing humus and biogases.....biogases which can and are being captured to produce clean energy.
Max
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!