Baby Bottles and Platics with BPA

WickedLou9 · 09-27-2007, 01:14 PM

So there is this new craze or scare or trend or whatever you want to call it, regarding a chemical called BPA that is present in alot of plastics. It's not toxic persea but it very closely mimics a female sex hormone, they say it's "estrogen-like" and it has been shown to have similar effects to estrogen in lab tests with fish and other animals. There does seem to be some validity to this latest scare about unsafe products... BUt aparetly this crap is everywhere. We are practically swimming in it. Something like 95% of the adults tested had it in thier system to some extent. Some people even think that this chemical could have something to do with the trend we are seeing where girls are going through puberty at younger and younger ages.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/entert...2909205.column

Although they say in the article that if can cost you between 50 and 100 bucks to replace all of your baby bottles if you have the kidna which contain BPA. Where do they buy bottles? I can get a 3 pack of bottles for like 12 dollars.

Anyway. So my wife has sent me out to try and find other bottles that aren;t made of the poly carbonate plastics that contain BPA. We tried the glass ones but the nipples and venting systems on those things are not very good and Hannah doesn't like them. So now I bought some of the PLaytex ones that have drop in liners. the liners are made of the number 4 plastics which are supposed to be safe. Who knows.

Jury Still Out on BPA/Plastics Risk

Are Baby Bottles Safe? - Healthy Kids and Pediatrics - health and medical information produced by doctors

The Problem With Plastic - US News and World Report

Roonie · 09-27-2007, 01:19 PM

is your daughter developing breasts already?? I heard it was from all the hormones in cow's milk.

WickedLou9 · 09-27-2007, 01:26 PM

Originally Posted by Roonie

is your daughter developing breasts already?? I heard it was from all the hormones in cow's milk.

No she isn't... She's only 8 months old. There are other problems with it too I guess like some forms of cancer and some other diseases involving the reproductive organs and stuff. But yeah there are alot of theories out there about alot of things.. so I am not entirely sure how much credit I give this particular one.. but there does seem to be research that supports it.

7960 · 09-27-2007, 01:26 PM

Safe or not, activists will organize and turn it into another Alar scare where "kids will get cancer if we continue its use!!!" even though it's a completely lie.

WickedLou9 · 09-27-2007, 01:29 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

Safe or not, activists will organize and turn it into another Alar scare where "kids will get cancer if we continue its use!!!" even though it's a completely lie.

The free market at work Am I rite?
Anyway.. most of the concerns are not as serious as cancer though

A panel of 38 BPA researchers recently issued a report saying they are "confident" that:
Low doses of BPA have biological effects.

BPA is everywhere -- in the water, in the air, and in the ground. Estrogen-like effects now seen in wild animals are similar to those seen in lab animals exposed to low doses of BPA.

BPA levels commonly seen in humans are higher than those that cause adverse effects in lab animals.

BPA has different effects at different stages of life.

BPA "reprograms" genes -- meaning that toxic effects may show up long after exposure.

The National Toxicology Program's expert panel says there's "some concern" that fetal exposure to BPA affects a baby's brain and causes later behavioral problems.
However, the panel also found:
"Minimal concern" that BPA affects the prostate

"Minimal concern" that BPA accelerates puberty

"Negligible concern" that BPA causes birth defects

"Negligible concern" that BPA causes reproductive problems in adults

The American Chemistry Council supports the panel's findings. The Environmental Working Group, a watchdog group that presses for BPA regulation, blasts the report.

7960 · 09-27-2007, 01:32 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

The free market at work Am I rite?

Not exactly.

When you have a product and I organize a bunch of people to protest it with claims that it causes cancer at "50 times the rate allowed by the FDA" even though it's a lie, it's not exactly the free market at work.

Anyway.. most of the concerns are not as serious as cancer though

Yet........... wait, it'll work its way up the list as the activists get more desperate.

WickedLou9 · 09-27-2007, 01:35 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

Not exactly.

When you have a product and I organize a bunch of people to protest it with claims that it causes cancer at "50 times the rate allowed by the FDA" even though it's a lie, it's not exactly the free market at work.

Yet........... wait, it'll work its way up the list as the activists get more desperate.

If some group forms to check the safety of consumer products and they think that there is a risk from some product and tell people... that is definately a function of the free market. It's certainly not government regulation, although sometimes it may spur government to regulate. We are free to reject or accept the warnings of this group and there is no legal rammifications to thier advisory. This is EXACTLY what free market advocates use as an example as to how the freemarket can regulate it self.

7960 · 09-27-2007, 01:41 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

If some group forms to check the safety of consumer products and they think that there is a risk from some product and tell people... that is definately a function of the free market. It's certainly not government regulation, although sometimes it may spur government to regulate. We are free to reject or accept the warnings of this group and there is no legal rammifications to thier advisory. This is EXACTLY what free market advocates use as an example as to how the freemarket can regulate it self.

I disagree. In regards to Alar they outright lied and then extorted/blackmailed the manufacturer into shutting up. That is not in any free market model I've ever read.

The makers of Alar didn't sue (in my opinion) because the publicity would have been bad. The opponents kept claiming Alar caused cancer at "50 times the rate allowed" and they were wrong and knew it but kept saying it anyway. When it was pointed out Alar "possibly contributed to 5 cancers per MILLION people" the activists' answer was "so which 5 people are you picking to give cancer to?"

The manufacturer is in the business of (basically) making chemicals. To get the "they make cancer" tag would have ended their business so they dropped Alar (but not really) and the "scare" ended (even though Alar is still being put on apples, just under a different name and slightly different formulation).

Roonie · 09-27-2007, 02:06 PM

Here is another study to consider.

WickedLou9 · 09-27-2007, 02:09 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

I disagree. In regards to Alar they outright lied and then extorted/blackmailed the manufacturer into shutting up. That is not in any free market model I've ever read.

The makers of Alar didn't sue (in my opinion) because the publicity would have been bad. The opponents kept claiming Alar caused cancer at "50 times the rate allowed" and they were wrong and knew it but kept saying it anyway. When it was pointed out Alar "possibly contributed to 5 cancers per MILLION people" the activists' answer was "so which 5 people are you picking to give cancer to?"

The manufacturer is in the business of (basically) making chemicals. To get the "they make cancer" tag would have ended their business so they dropped Alar (but not really) and the "scare" ended (even though Alar is still being put on apples, just under a different name and slightly different formulation).

It's a failure of the freemarket system actually. Because there is no government regulation there are no requirements that these groups don't raise alarms unless they have enough proof. They can raise whatever alarms they want. A free market advocate would say that eventually people would not trust this group because they always cry wolf and the group would go away. That's the very defintion of free market. The free market does not prevent people from making bad decisions or hurting others. it merely punishes those who do... eventually.

Ardentfrost · 09-27-2007, 02:20 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

It's a failure of the freemarket system actually. Because there is no government regulation there are no requirements that these groups don't raise alarms unless they have enough proof. They can raise whatever alarms they want. A free market advocate would say that eventually people would not trust this group because they always cry wolf and the group would go away. That's the very defintion of free market. The free market does not prevent people from making bad decisions or hurting others. it merely punishes those who do... eventually.

The same can be said about government regulations. No regulation in the history of man has been written preemptively, only reactionary and always WAY after some huge bad thing happened.

Ardentfrost · 09-27-2007, 02:21 PM

Oh, and every regulation ever written was also way after the free market had started to take care of the problem anyway. Free market response to some big bad thing is immediate, regulation takes time.

WickedLou9 · 09-27-2007, 02:47 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Oh, and every regulation ever written was also way after the free market had started to take care of the problem anyway. Free market response to some big bad thing is immediate, regulation takes time.

Eh yes and no. Sometimes there is no good mechanism in a free market to right a wrong. When you have a poor area with a company putting out pollution into the area, there is no mechanism to prevent that. Those people are not participants in the economy for the most part. It would require other people to actually care about the pollution even though it did not effect them. This might happen to some extent, but in many cases people don't care. They want whatever luxury good that it is. Child labor in taiwan or china? People still buy it.

The aim of government regulation is also to prevent the bad thing from happening again in the future by imposing regulations and inspections and direct penalties. Yes it's reactionary, but it also reflects a failure of the market to regulate itself to a sufficient degree. Without Sarbanes Oxley for example, there would be nothing to prevent Worldcom or Enron from happening again. The goal of those people was to get rich and they did. In a free market system there would be nothing to stop top executives from doing that sort of thing, making insane amounts of money and then bailing leaving everyone else holding thier nuts in thier hands. Government fines, penalties, jail time, etc, is the only thing preventing that sort of thing from happening again. Or at least decreasing the likelyhood. I'm not saying that all government regulation is good or even necesary but some of it is.

Ardentfrost · 09-27-2007, 03:04 PM

No methods used by the government other than FORCE cannot be used by the consumer market, and it's been proven many, MANY times that non-forceful methods are at least AS effective as force, and oftentimes more effective. I refuse to rewrite all the stuff I did about the mining industry last year, but it's a great example of what the free market can do, and what the government can do (if it wants to) to help the free market along without force. The mining industry didn't have a single police-style regulation on it til the 60's, and for the 50 years prior to that, when the government simply kept track of accidents and disseminated the information to interested parties (like insurance companies, workers, and the companies themselves), mine related deaths had reduced by a factor of 10, and showed little slowing in the rate at which it was falling.

As for your example of how a company can pollute a poor area with little fear of recourse since those people aren't their customers, I ask you a few questions: 1. Ever see Erin Brokovich? Ever since that happened, communities (no matter how poor) are very wary of pollution happening nearby. What could they do without the existing regulation? Sue the company, inform the public of what's happening, etc... There needn't be police-style regulations to keep a company like that in check. 2. Do you not think that the company's customers, no matter who they are, are sensitive to environmental issues? I'm pretty sure that everyone in America (at this point in time) cares about industrial impact on the environment, even if the impact is in a very small area. People care, and have long before environmental regulation (although that is the one example I've ever read up on where public awareness wasn't there long before regulations were written).

As for child labor in foreign countries, I'm not convinced that everyone is against it. Not that it is or isn't bad, but if there are a lot more jobs than there are people in the work force of a foreign country, and the people are quite poor, then I don't see why the children shouldn't be allowed to get jobs. It's not slavery, because they are getting paid, and that payment goes to help their families live. The getting mad at child labor in foreign countries thing is a very snooty American thing. One of the big reasons we don't have it here anymore is because our job market had too many workers.

WickedLou9 · 09-27-2007, 03:22 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

As for your example of how a company can pollute a poor area with little fear of recourse since those people aren't their customers, I ask you a few questions: 1. Ever see Erin Brokovich? Ever since that happened, communities (no matter how poor) are very wary of pollution happening nearby. What could they do without the existing regulation? Sue the company, inform the public of what's happening, etc... There needn't be police-style regulations to keep a company like that in check. 2. Do you not think that the company's customers, no matter who they are, are sensitive to environmental issues? I'm pretty sure that everyone in America (at this point in time) cares about industrial impact on the environment, even if the impact is in a very small area. People care, and have long before environmental regulation (although that is the one example I've ever read up on where public awareness wasn't there long before regulations were written).

I think your unquestioning faith in the freemarket is misplaced but honestly it's a discussion for it's own thread. I was really trying to bring attention to a possible health risk in baby bottles for the other parents on the board.