Plastic Water Bottles Won’t Hurt You
Ignore the junk science and follow the facts.
October 28, 2010
John Stossel
Canada has announced it will ban the chemical bisphenol A—known as BPA—which is used to make plastic water and baby bottles.
The head of the Canadian environmental group Environmental Defence is thrilled:
“Kudos to the federal government. … We look forward to seeing BPA legally designated as ‘toxic’ as soon as possible.”
But the evidence doesn’t actually show that BPA is toxic. Europe’s equivalent of the FDA concluded: “(T)he data currently available do not provide convincing evidence of neurobehavioral toxicity.”
Richard Sharpe of the University of Edinburgh explained:
“Some early animal studies produced results suggesting the possibility of adverse effects relevant to human health, but much larger, carefully designed studies in several laboratories have failed to confirm these initial studies.”
The initial studies injected BPA into animals, rather than giving it by mouth, which is how we humans are exposed. Since BPA degrades in the gut when we consume it, very little gets to our cells.
Yet many people are sure BPA causes not only breast and prostate cancer but also obesity, diabetes, attention deficit hyperactivity, autism, liver disease, ovarian disease, disease of the uterus, low sperm count, and heart disease. When a chemical is said to cause so many disorders, that’s a sure sign of unscientific hysteria. But a documentary called Tapped says it’s true. It quotes experts claiming “BPA may be one of the most potent toxic chemicals known to man.”
Nonsense. Not only is there no good evidence that BPA locked into plastic can hurt people, it actually saves lives by stopping botulism.
“Since BPA became commonplace in the lining of canned goods, food-borne illness from canned foods—including botulism—has virtually disappeared,” says the American Council of Science and Health.
You never hear the good news about BPA in the mainstream media. Fear-mongering gets better ratings.
Tapped also asserts that other dangerous chemicals poison bottled water. In the film, toxicologist Dr. Stephen King says that we should be “horrified” at all those chemicals. But when we called King, he sent us a study saying “testing” reveals a surprising array of chemical contaminants in every bottled water brand analyzed—at levels no different from those routinely found in tap water.
Tapped claims cancer rates are up because of these chemicals, but that’s another myth. Cancer incidence rates are flat. They would have declined if not for new screening methods. Life spans are up, too.
Not every mom has fallen for the BPA scare. “Truth or Scare,” the blog of a woman who calls herself “Junk Science Mom,” recently called out one of the people behind the anti-BPA campaign: scaremonger/hustler David Fenton:
“If you believe what you see and hear in the media, those fighting an unnecessary battle against bisphenol-A (BPA) are altruistic individuals concerned about health and safety. … But there is an ugly truth behind the scenes that you will never hear about in the media. Greed, propaganda, political agendas, profits, lies and scams. And it all can be tied to one person and one powerful PR firm. David Fenton and Fenton Communications.
“He is the puppet master, and we moms are his puppets. He orchestrates the scare, and we, being fearful for our children, unknowingly carry out his plan for him. He comes out a winner, and we are duped into wasting our time, money and energy fighting a battle that never needed to be fought.”
Good for you, Junk Science Mom, whoever you are. “Truth or Scare” is a wonderful addition to the debate.
But if BPA isn’t toxic, why will Canada ban it? And why have Connecticut and Minnesota already done so? Because scientifically illiterate legislators are quick to panic. When the media sensationalize, legislators respond. Two FDA scientists—Ronald J. Lorentzen and David G. Hattan—note the bias toward sensationalism: “The disquieting public invocations made by some … about the perils of exposure (to BPA) … galvanize the public debate.”
When even notoriously risk-averse FDA scientists speak out against the BPA panic, the scaremongers must have gone absurdly far.
John Stossel is host of Stossel on the Fox Business Network. He’s the author of Give Me a Break and of Myth, Lies, and Downright Stupidity. To find out more about John Stossel, visit his site at johnstossel.com.
What’s Coming
From Your Tap?
By ANJALI ATHAVALEY
August 19, 2008; Page D1
America’s latest drinking problem isn’t about alcohol.
Concerned about the cost of bottled water — and its environmental consequences — many people are turning back to tap water to quench their thirst. But as evidence mounts of contaminants in public systems, unease about the water supply is growing.
Engineers say that U.S. water quality is among the world’s best and is regulated by some of the most stringent standards. But as detection technology improves, utilities are finding more contaminants in water systems. Earlier this year, media reports of trace amounts of pharmaceuticals in water across the country drew attention from U.S. senators and environmental groups, who are now pushing for regulation of these substances in water systems.
Of particular concern, experts say, are endocrine-disrupting compounds — found in birth-control pills, mood-stabilizers and other drugs — which are linked to birth defects in wildlife. Also alarming are antibiotics, which if present in water systems, even in small amounts, could contribute to the rise of drug-resistant strains of bacteria, or so-called super bugs.
Many pharmaceuticals taken by humans are excreted into urine, or are flushed intentionally down the toilet. Even though wastewater is treated, trace amounts of the drugs are often not eliminated. Also, drugs found in the waste of animals treated with hormones and antibiotics can eventually end up in groundwater.
The actual health effects of drugs in water systems are unclear. The levels that have been detected are relatively small compared with those of other regulated contaminants, such as mercury and benzene. A 2008 study funded by the Denver-based Awwa Research Foundation — a nonprofit research group that was established by the American Water Works Association — concluded that it is “highly unlikely” that pharmaceuticals will pose a threat to human health.
But many medical experts argue that more studies need to be done — and note that the amount of drugs in the water matters less than who drinks it. Some drugs, even in small amounts, can be especially harmful to infants, pregnant women or those with chronic health conditions, for example.
The publicity has frightened many consumers. Laura Pfeil, 39, a stay-at-home mother with four sons in Mason, Ohio, says it does concern her, “especially when thinking of my children’s welfare.”
She says she started using bottled water at home 15 years ago when she was pregnant with her eldest son because she thought it was safer than tap water. Three years ago, though, her family switched to a PUR Water Filter System, made by Procter & Gamble Co., to save money and to reduce the waste resulting from plastic bottles. (Environmentalists also point to the energy wasted in transporting bottled water.)
Now, says Ms. Pfeil, she has concerns about consuming trace amounts of pharmaceuticals that the filter may not eliminate. A spokeswoman for P&G;’s PUR division says it “cannot confirm the reduction of pharmaceuticals in water with carbon filters.”
Sales of PUR filters are at an all-time high, says the spokeswoman, an indication of tap water’s new popularity. U.S. consumers spent $16.8 billion on bottled water in 2007, up 12% from the year before, according to Beverage Digest, a trade publication. But growth has slowed over the last three years.
Drugs are only one category of contaminants found in tap water. A 2005 study released by the nonprofit Environmental Working Group, a Washington-based research group, found that tap water in 42 states is contaminated with more than 140 unregulated chemicals, including MTBE, perchlorate and industrial solvents.
Protesting a Disinfectant
Even chemicals used to clean and disinfect drinking water are causing worry. Citizens’ groups in states such as California, New York and Vermont are protesting the increasing use of chloramine — a combination of chlorine and ammonia — to disinfect drinking water. Utilities are using chloramine because of Environmental Protection Agency limits on chlorine byproducts.
Citizens Concerned About Chloramine in the San Francisco Bay Area, an activist group, says that hundreds of residents have had reactions, such as rashes and respiratory problems, to the disinfectant. Some byproducts of chloramine can be more toxic than chlorine byproducts, says Michael Plewa, a professor of genetics at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign who has studied disinfection byproducts.
The EPA says chloramine is safe in drinking water and has been used for decades.
In the absence of federal regulation of certain chemicals in water systems, some states have stepped in. California, for one, has set standards for various compounds that are not regulated by the EPA, including perchlorate, an ingredient used in rocket fuel that was spilled into groundwater during the Cold War and has been found in many water systems. Massachusetts has set standards for perchlorate and requires that water utilities in the state test for MTBE, a gasoline additive.
“What you see in many states is a reaction to the lack of action at the federal level,” says Suzanne Condon, director of the Bureau of Environmental Health at the Massachusetts Department of Public Health.
Tap Versus Bottled
Health concerns extend to bottled water, says Sarah Janssen, a science fellow at the Natural Resources Defense Council, or NRDC, a nonprofit environmental advocacy group based in New York. “A lot of bottled water is actually tap water, so there is no assurance that what is coming from the bottle is any safer than what is coming from the tap,” she says.
In fact, experts say tap water is held to more stringent standards by the EPA, and tested more often, than bottled water, which is regulated by the Food and Drug Administration.
Utilities are required by law to send annual reports to their customers detailing contaminants found in water systems and whether they exceed levels set by the EPA. They are not required to list unregulated contaminants in these reports.
If a contaminant exceeds the EPA’s “maximum contaminant level,” the report should detail the potential health effects of the contaminant and a summary of actions the utility is taking. If you do notice a contaminant that exceeds EPA levels in your utility’s report, consider installing a tap-water filter, experts say.
Water that is tested by utilities is generally tested at the plant. It still has to travel through your pipes to get to your tap, so if you have pipes that are a couple of decades old, it may be a good idea to get the water from your tap tested in a lab — especially if you are pregnant, nursing or have small children, says the NRDC’s Dr. Janssen. People who get their water from private wells should have their water tested annually.
Water filters aren’t foolproof. Those that are certified by NSF International — a nonprofit group that tests food and water products — can get rid of unwanted chemicals to EPA’s standards, but consumers should be aware that trace amounts of chemicals may still be left in their water.
Carbon filters, which come in the form of a faucet mount or a pitcher, are the most commonly used and cost about $30, says Rick Andrew, operations manager of the drinking water treatment unit program at NSF. These can be fairly effective in removing many contaminants, but need to be replaced about every two months.
Other options — such as reverse-osmosis systems, which use a semipermeable membrane to remove contaminants, or ultraviolet light treatment, which prevents micro-organisms from reproducing — can be more effective, but they cost hundreds or even thousands of dollars. Some consumers have found the cost is worth it, especially if members of the family have certain health conditions.
Last April, Elizabeth Beyer, 47, purchased a Kinetico Inc. K5 Drinking Water Station for her father, who had a liver transplant in February. Doctors had advised him to drink only filtered water. The system, which cost $2,100, is meant to remove contaminants ranging from lead to chlorine sediment using reverse-osmosis technology and two additional filters.
Ms. Beyer, who lives in Venice, Fla., says it was worth it. Her water is clearer and crisper. “I can definitely taste the difference,” she says. “You can see the difference.”
London, Ont., bans water bottles sales in city hall -ON
August 19, 2008
Canwest News Service
LONDON, Ont. – Council members from the southwestern Ontario city of London voted late Monday to eliminate the sale of water bottles in all municipal buildings and facilities, making it one of the first cities in the country to enact such a ban.
Water bottles will stop being sold at city hall by Sept. 1, with other city-run facilities such as arenas, community centres and golf clubs to phase in the ban by next spring.
The city plans to replace the water bottles with newly built water fountains.
The move is part of an attempt by the city to cut down on 20 million plastic bottles that wind up in the local landfill each year.
Last month, Vancouver also passed a motion banning water bottles from being sold inside city hall. Other Canadian cities, including Ottawa, are looking at implementing similar bans.
Don’t buy into bottled water bans
August 21, 2008
It never ceases to amaze us how once crusaders for fashionable causes get a particular bogeyman in their heads, there is just no shaking it. It becomes a symbol for all they distrust about the modern world: corporations, the marketplace and consumerism. In battling it, they see themselves striking a blow for the public good, the environment, social justice, fairness and more. The current trendy bete noir is bottled water, the evils of which are being blown all out of proportion.
British Environment Minister Phil Woolas has recently insisted that drinking bottled water is “morally unacceptable.” Giles Coren, restaurant critic for The Times of London, calls bottled water “hell in a handcart” because of its “billions of unnecessary food miles, non-biodegradable waste [and] millions
of tonnes of greenhouse gases.” He even insisted that “drinkers of bottled water are the new smokers,” and should be similarly socially vilified.
From Los Angeles to Santa Barbara, Ann Arbour to Seattle and Salt Lake City to San Francisco, a growing number of American cities are banning city departments from buying individual-serving water bottles, mostly citing concern for the environmental damage caused by discarding hundreds of millions of plastic bottles each year.
Chicago is raising US$21-million from a 10¢-a-bottle tax on water, yet it is putting the proceeds in the city’s general fund rather than earmarking it for environmental spending. Even next week’s Democratic convention in Denver is officially a water bottle-free zone.
In Canada, the United Church — never one to pass on whatever cause-of-the-month comes floating by — has declared itself officially anti-bottled water. Meanwhile, this week, the city of London, Ont., decided to forbid the purchase of bottled water by city departments and its sale at city venues. And next month Vancouver will launch an aggressive marketing campaign to encourage residents to drink tap water and to bring their own reusable water bottles to public events.
But bottled water is not bad for the environment; throwing plastic bottles in the trash is. Of course, environmentalists may obsess about the carbon footprint generated by bottling spring water in some foreign locale, then transporting it here. But these are people who have recently convinced themselves that buying an apple grown more than 100 miles from one’s home is a crime against humanity.
The truth is, in Canada about two-thirds to three-quarters of water bottles are recycled. While that rate could be better, it is hardly reprehensible or threatening. And if it is plastic bottles that are the problem — rather than what is in them — why are environmentalists focused solely on water bottles? Why not plastic pop and juice bottles, too? Why not order city employers not to bring microwaveable meals to eat at lunch? Their plastic trays are at least as bad for the environment as plastic bottles.
Business writer Kevin Depew insists this comes from a “psychological need to vilify the old signs of overconsumption.” We think it’s simpler than that: The pack mentality of politicians and activists prevents them from thinking through the implications of their symbolic crusades. For instance, an obvious consequence of municipal water bottle bans will be to force civil workers and visitors to choose sugary soft drinks while at municipal events because water won’t be available, thereby adding to North America’s obesity problem.
The irony is that the impetus behind the bottled water craze came from many of the same people who are now trying to have the vessels banned. In the 1980s and 1990s, when they were in their nagging, know-it-all health fanatic phase, many of today’s nagging know-it-all environmentalists urged people to hydrate properly and switch from glucose laden beverages to water. They also spent a lot of time disparaging consumption of municipal tap water. Now their first movement has come back to haunt them in their current campaign.
Another irony is that Europeans, whom North American environmentalists look up to as “green” role models, consume three to four times as much bottled water as we Canadians do, and they are less diligent about recycling their empties.
There is nothing wrong with tap water. Never has been. And if you don’t count the billions spent by taxpayers building municipal water collection, treatment and distribution systems, tap water is even cheaper than the bottled stuff.
There are plenty of reasons to choose tap water over the bottled variety, but saving the environment is not one of them.
Doctor: Drinking Bottled Water Can Have Same Effect On Face As Smoking
May 16, 2008
Showers ‘may damage your brain’
