Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

NYT editorial: That Plastic Baby Bottle (on the dangers of BPA)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-06-08 08:24 PM
Original message
NYT editorial: That Plastic Baby Bottle (on the dangers of BPA)
Editorial

That Plastic Baby Bottle

Published: September 6, 2008

What do you do when one arm of the government says everything is O.K. and another tells you to watch out? That is what is happening with bisphenol-A — a chemical used in many plastics and epoxy resins now found in baby bottles and liners for canned goods. The answer is a truism in every family rulebook — when in doubt, especially when it comes to children, err on the side of caution. That means it is a good idea to keep the young away from bisphenol-A, or BPA.

The Food and Drug Administration said last month that the small amounts of BPA that leach out of containers and into food or milk are not dangerous. Then this week, the National Toxicology Program, the federal agency for toxicological research, reported that their research shows “some concern” about the effects of BPA on the brain development and behavior of fetuses and young children.

A new study by the Yale School of Medicine is cause for even more concern. In tests on primates, researchers found that BPA “causes the loss of connections between brain cells” that could cause memory or learning problems and depression.

John Bucher, the associate director of the toxicology program, said there is still considerable uncertainty about whether the changes seen in animal studies are causing the same problems in humans. “But we have concluded that the possibility that BPA may affect human development cannot be dismissed.”

more


The Kid-Safe Chemicals Act, S. 3040, was introduced into the Senate on May 27, 2008 by Sen. Frank Lautenburg and was co-sponsored by Sens. Boxer, Clinton, Kerry, Menendez and Whitehouse. It is currently in the Environment and Public Works Committee. This represents landmark legislation to fix holes in the Toxic Substances Control Act that went into effect in the 1970's.

Another bill, S. 2928, was introduced on April 29, 2008 by Sens Schumer and Kerry and specifically seeks to ban bisphenol-A in children's products. It is currently in the Senate Commerce Committee. More on this bill and the dangers of bisphenol-A here.

Report of the FDA findings on bisphenol-A.

Counter-argument on why BPA is not safe.


h/t TayTay



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-06-08 08:30 PM
Response to Original message
1. The Preventative Principle is needed NOW
MORE THAN EVER

Glass bottles are infinitely safer for babies than bottles.

And now formula comes inside rather thin plastic wrap - a far different scenario than the plastic baby botles of two or three decades ago.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kittycat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-06-08 08:39 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. But the BPA bottles are cuter, and
you can't tell me how to parent my baby.

*bangingmyheadonthefuckingwall*
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Obamanaut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-06-08 08:30 PM
Response to Original message
2. I remember glass baby bottles and cloth diapers. I'm old. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kittycat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-06-08 08:40 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. I use glass bottles & cloth diapers.. My kids are 18m & 4.5yo
Edited on Sat Sep-06-08 08:41 PM by Kittycat
:rofl:
We did BFing, Glass & BPA free everything in this house.
And let me tell you - Cloth Diapers ROCK these days. Even gDiapers absorb more than crapers (AKA Pampers).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fumesucker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-06-08 08:42 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. I remember breast feeding...
I'm really damn old.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jhain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-06-08 10:29 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. But young people can still do that one!
and save THOUSANDS of dollars and protect the baby's and the mother's health for decades there after.
And, man is breastfeeding "Green'!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fumesucker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-06-08 11:48 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Nah, breasts are just for looking at these days....
I don't think silicone is all that great for babies anyway. ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-07-08 07:21 AM
Response to Reply #6
9. Green breast milk....EEEEEEWWWWWW!!
:spray: & :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vanlassie Donating Member (826 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 10:46 PM
Response to Reply #5
13. HAHAHAHAHA!!!! Me Too!!!!
"It's not nice to FOOL Mother Nature!"
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carolina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-07-08 08:02 AM
Response to Reply #2
10. me too
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shallah Kali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-07-08 03:50 AM
Response to Original message
8. I am sure with all the self proclaimed Pro-Life people out there the anti-bpa bills will pass
Oh wait! I forgot! Most are only pro-Pregnancy! actually ensuring that the life being formed is healthy and stays healthy after birth doesn't matter! :banghead:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 03:23 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. I think we need to realize that we COULD hang them on their own petard
They want DRACONIAN anti-choice legislation in place - Great - when they force it that way, let's force back.

Make them ensure that the Pregnancies ARE HEALTHY, and that there isn't a lot of MSG in their packaged corporate foods, and that pesticides are reduced, and that products are safe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shallah Kali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 10:39 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. Exactly!!! Start with healthcare free for all kids up to 18 plus pregnant women
Ensure a living wage so all those "pre-pregnant", pregnant women, & kids can afford to buy actual vegetables and fruit instead of living on cheap crap that has had every nutrient that sustains life processed out of it and is preserved by toxic chemicals.

If all the self-labeled pro-life people were TRULY Pro-Life they would support laws that reduce mercury which reduces IQs starting in the womb.

If they were TRULY pro-life there would be stronger laws against lead in products such as baby bibs and lunch boxes.

If they were TRULY Pro-Life they would support laws to reduce particulate air pollution - http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/1216-01.htm

Air Pollution Harmful to Babies, Fetuses, Studies Say
Smog is linked to stillbirths, infant deaths and low birth weight


More than a dozen studies in the United States, Brazil, Europe, Mexico, South Korea and Taiwan have linked smog to low birth weight, premature births, stillbirths and infant deaths.

SNIP

A study by scientists from the Harvard School of Public Health and the University of Basel in Switzerland concluded that as many as 11% of infant deaths in the United States--about 3,000 per year--may be a result of microscopic particles in the air.

The study, which has yet to be published, expands on earlier research by the EPA and Centers for Disease Control that looked at 4 million infants in 86 metropolitan areas and compared the incidence of mortality with fluctuating rates of particulate pollution.

That study concluded that as particulate matter increased in the air, the infant mortality rate rose by 10% to 40%.


Common Chemicals Pose Danger for Fetuses, Scientists Warn
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/05/25/1445/

Convening in the Faroe Islands in the North Atlantic, toxicologists, pediatricians, epidemiologists and other experts warned that when fetuses and newborns encounter various toxic substances, growth of critical organs and functions can be skewed. In a process called "fetal programming," the children then are susceptible to diseases later in life - and perhaps could even pass on those altered traits to their children and grandchildren.

snip

The scientists are particularly concerned that the newest animal research suggests that chemicals can alter gene expression - turning on or off genes that predispose people to disease. Although the DNA itself would not be altered, such genetic misfires in the womb may be permanent, and all subsequent generations could be at greater risk of diseases too.

snip

For centuries, the basic rule of toxicology has been "the dose makes the poison." Now, the scientists say "the timing makes the poison" - in other words, when a toxic exposure occurs is as important as the amount people are exposed to.

snip

Among the risky chemicals they named are bisphenol A, found in polycarbonate plastic food and water containers; the pesticides atrazine, vinclozolin and DDT; lead; mercury; phthalates used in some cosmetics and soft plastics; brominated flame retardants; arsenic, which contaminates some water supplies; and PCBs, banned but ubiquitous, particularly in fish.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lydia Leftcoast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 11:00 PM
Response to Original message
14. If there is a rise in autism (and not just better diagnosis)
could plastic nursing bottles be a contributing factor?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ilsa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 11:06 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. Not with my autistic son. He had maybe two bottles. Nursed for the next
three years. Yeah, years, not months.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 02nd 2024, 12:46 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC