BPA Linked to Heart Disease, Study Confirms

Heer's another reason to steer clear of food and drink packaging containing BPA -- it's been linked to higher rates of heart disease.

In a sampling of U.S. adults, those with the highest levels of BPA in their urine were almost twice as likely to suffer from coronary heart disease than those with the lowest concentrations of BPA.

Read more: BPA Linked to Heart Disease, Study Confirms

The original reason to avoid BPA? Hormonal changes in fetuses, babies and children that might affect their brain development and cause reproductive abnormalities.

Daily Trash: How to Reduce It

One day this month when I was on my own (sans family), I weighed all my trash -- both garbage and recycling. It amounted to 2.48 pounds and consisted in the main of packaging. At that rate, I'd waste a staggering 10 tons in 25 years.

In Trashy Habits, my November issue of This Green Life, I pick through the trash from that day and offer ideas for reducing it.

Have you been successful in cutting back on your waste? Please share your tips!

Are Brita and Pur Water Pitchers BPA-free?

My family has used a Brita pitcher for years to filter our water and make it safer to drink and I have always insisted our kids use it, rather than drink directly from the tap. Recently, though, I began to wonder if the pitcher itself might contain a dangerous chemical -- bisphenol A (BPA) -- that could leach into the water.

So, a couple of months ago, I used the contact form on Brita's website to ask. I didn't mention BPA directly. I simply asked what kind of plastic the different pitcher parts were made of.

Since Pur makes a similar pitcher, I decided to submit the same question to them. As Pur claims that its pitcher reduces pharmaceuticals from the water -- which would be wonderful if true -- I also asked what drugs the pitcher filters and how.

Following are the answers I received from each, and below that, an assessment.

Brita's Response

Dear Ms. Eisenberg,

Thank you for contacting us.

The pitcher lids and filter housings are made of Polypropylene plastic. The reservoirs and pitchers are made either from NAS (a Styrene based plastic) or SAN (Styrene Acrylonitrile). The soft-touch handles are made from an elastomer called Santoprene (not to be confused with Latex or Neoprene). Our products do not contain any bisphenol A and are all tested by the NSF (National Sanitation Foundation) for safety and wetted contact. Unfortunately the pitcher materials are not recyclable, and therefore do not have a plastic number. Please contact us at any time if you have additional questions.

Again, thank you for contacting us.

Sincerely,

Candy Thoma
Consumer Response Representative
Consumer Services

Pur's Response

Dear Ms. Eisenberg,
Hi Sheryl,

Thank you for contacting Pur.

There is no BPA present in any PUR pitchers/dispensers or lids. Pur pitcher/dispenser bodies are manufactured from an acrylic-based polymer classified as recycling code #7. Pur pitcher/dispenser lids are manufactured from polystyrene, code #6. Pur pitcher/dispenser filters are made from polypropylene, code #5, and also contain no BPA.

All Pur pitchers/dispensers undergo independent safety testing by NSF International, a not-for-profit certification agency for water treatment and other products. Our products meet all industry standards and specifications for material safety and chemical extraction. I’ll share your comments with the team.

Pur water filtration system is the first leading brand to claim reduction of pharmaceuticals identified in U.S. tap water. The new research shows that Pur Water Filtration Systems remove more than 99 percent of pharmaceutical compounds from America’s tap water using the Pur faucet filters and more than 96 percent with Pur pitchers.

Pur effectively reduces five different categories of medication including:

Hormones: prednisone, prednisolone, progesterone, testosterone and cortisol.

Antibiotics: ciprofloxacin, administered in tablet form to prevent certain infections caused by bacteria,as well as sulfamethoxazole and trimethoprim, which are administered intravenously to treat a wide variety of bacterial infections including pneumonia, and urinary tract and intestinal infections.

Antidepressants: fluoxetine, prescribed to treat a variety of conditions, including depression and other mental/mood disorders.

Anti-anxiety medication: meprobamate, a treatment used to relieve nervousness or tension that exceeds stress of everyday life.

Painkillers: ibuprofen and naproxen.

Thanks for writing.

Jim
Pur Team

My conclusions

Brita: Neither polypropylene nor the styrene compounds used in Brita pitchers contain BPA, so I feel comfortable that the company's BPA-free claim is true. Styrene is a worrisome chemical in its own right, but I feel reassured in this regard by the statement that the pitchers are tested by the NSF for safety and by NRDC's and EWG's comments on the subject. I am continuing to use our Brita pitcher at home.

Pur: As far as I know, acrylic does not contain BPA, so the Pur pitcher would also seem to be BPA-free. That said, I did not find the statement about Pur products meeting "industry standards and specifications for material safety and chemical extraction" at all reassuring. Industry standards are rarely stringent enough. (Sadly, even the standards of the FDA, which continues to allow BPA in food and beverage containers, are not high enough to protect people's health.)

On the question of how Pur's pitcher reduce pharmaceuticals -- there was no answer at all, only a vague assertion that "the new research shows" pharmaceuticals are reduced. My feeling is that Pur would have been more specific if it had convincing, independent research to back up its claim. I would therefore not put any stock in it.

BPA-free water bottles

Are the new breed of clear, hard "BPA-free" water bottles made with Tritan -- from Nalgene, Kor, Camelbak, Thermos and others -- safer than the polycarbonate bottles they replaced?

Not necessarily.

To assess their safety, we would need to know what chemicals are in the bottles, not just that BPA is not. After all, other toxins are used to make plastic, including, sadly, FDA approved ones.

In the case of Tritan, the chemical ingredients are unknown. Neither the bottle-makers nor the Eastman Company, which manufactures Tritan, will disclose them.

The same is true of Sigg's aluminum bottles. They are lined with a mystery material whose ingredients Sigg will not reveal.

In the absence of information, a reusable plastic water bottle made with HDPE, LDPE or PET would be a safer choice. (Nalgene actually offers bottles made with these materials, too, as do many other companies.)

Or, if you're worried that plastics, in general, have not been adequately tested, use a stainless steel bottle. Both Klean Kanteen and New Wave Enviro offer stainless bottles with a choice of plastic or stainless tops.

For more, read my latest This Green Life column : "Plastic Water Bottles: Is BPA-free the Same as Safe?"

Which plastics are microwavable?

The answer may be none.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, which has been investigating chemicals in consumer products in an award-winning series called "Chemical Fallout," tested 10 food containers that are labeled "microwave safe" or are marketed for infants. All 10 products leached BPA after normal heating in the microwave or oven.

What I found especially interesting in these results is that some of the products were plastic containers with the plastic identification numbers 1, 2 and 5. Anyone who's been following the news this past year knows that plastics with these numbers are supposed to be BPA-free. (Only #7 is said to contain BPA.)

So, how can that be?

The purpose of the plastic identification system is only to facilitate the sorting of discarded containers to aid in recycling should a recycling program be in place.

It is not intended to ensure consumers that a container actually is accepted for recycling -- let alone that it is BPA-free, does not leach chemicals or is in any way safe. Indeed, the usage guidelines from The Society of the Plastics Industry (SPI), which developed the code in 1988, explicitly states that manufacturers should "[m]ake the code inconspicuous at the point of purchase so it does not influence the consumer's buying decision."

However, health and environmental advocates have seized on the numbers as the only way of advising the public on which plastics to avoid.

If the U.S. had adequate safety standards in place for food packaging -- or even adequate labeling requirements -- this wouldn't be necessary. As it is, you really don't know what's in plastic containers and packages -- or what might migrate from them into the food and beverages you consume.

This is why Frederick vom Saal, the University of Missouri researcher who has been studying BPA for more than a decade and oversaw the tests for the Journal Sentinel, said, "There is no such thing as safe microwaveable plastic."

Similarly, the Environmental Working Group, which focuses on environmental health issues, especially for babies and children who are particularly vulnerable to endocrine disruptors like BPA, recommends that you never microwave plastic.

Your thoughts about "paper or plastic"

This Green Life Readers: Please let me know what you think of my latest column on paper vs plastic bags -- and how you deal with the problem in your own life. You can also pose questions here, so I, NRDC staff and other readers can respond.

I'd also love to hear how many disposable bags you use on average when you visit the market.

I'll go first and reveal all to make it easy: my average is two disposable bags per trip to supplement the two reusable bags (a knapsack and a canvas bag) I usually bring with me. I generally shop by foot, which is why I only need four bags altogether. How about you?

Reusable bags gaining ground?

This weekend, I found myself at a supermarket in foreign territory (New Jersey) with an unwonted form of transportation (a car). My husband and I were stocking up on our way back to Manhattan after a visit with my mother.

"Paper or plastic?" the young woman at the check-out asked, which triggered a conversation among her, my husband and myself about which was worse.

I said it was a toss-up, which always surprises everyone, especially now that the tide has begun to turn against plastic.

Granted, paper is grown from a renewable resource where plastic is made from petroleum. And yes, it is heavily recycled and biodegrades in the environment instead of littering the landscape, clogging sewers and choking animals who eat it, as plastic does. But paper takes more energy and water to produce, and generates more greenhouse gases.

Environmentally speaking, the only good choice is reusable bags -- which my husband and I, embarrassingly, had none of that day.

The check-out person cheerily noted that lots of her customers had started bringing reusable bags. When I pressed for numbers, she hazarded 30 percent. Really??? Well, 30 percent including those who said they forgot to bring them...like us.

That still sounded like progress to me. Intention isn't the same as action, but surely must be a precursor.