There’s nothing official about BPA in the U.S. (yet), and there’s no legal reason (again, yet) for a company to refund or replace any products that have BPA in them. But with Canada’s newly awarded “toxic” status on the chemical last week, and the subsequent announcements by Nalgene and Playtex that they would stop using BPA in their products, what do you think other companies should do? At least one reader who’s now stuck with some BPA baby bottles thinks they should offer a refund.
Hello Consumerist,
After reading your articles on Canada banning BPA filled baby products and hopefully soon the US, I did some research and was shocked to find the ever popular “First Year’s Breastflow” baby bottles I bought for myself last Christmas at Target were not BPA free. Nor has the “First Year” company done anything to remedy the BPA in their wide variety of baby products. Thank goodness my little girl hasn’t been born yet and the bottles still sit in her nursery waiting to be used.
I figured they’d own up if confronted about it and provide a refund since A) they haven’t been used and still sit in their original boxes and B) they should feel some sort of remorse for not making BPA free baby products. I know Target isn’t going to care since it’s been 90 days and who knows where the receipt is anyways. I don’t think it necessarily needs to be solely Target’s issue anyways, “First Years” needs to take responsibility for selling products with the BPA chemical and hopefully if more parents catch on and email in, they might actually recall their products and start making safer items for our kids.
So I sent in an email to customer care and got this bs canned response about how they don’t care. Any advice on how I can get this taken care of and actually read by someone of importance? Thanks!
Sincerely,
Portia
From: CustomerService
Date: Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 7:39 AM
Subject: Re: Care and Safety Question or Feedback for LearningCurve.com Customer Care
Thank you for your inquiry,
If you are unhappy with your purchase, the company has established return policies with retailers who buy our products directly. Please return the product along with your receipt to the place of purchase for an exchange or refund. The exchange is subject to the discretion and return policies of the individual retailer.
Thank you,
Consumer Services
RC2, the company behind Learning Curves, still has no official statement on its recall page.
From a strictly PR perspective, we think this is a prime moment to jump in and shore up some goodwill from consumers—first movers in the market who go BPA-free and make a big deal about it can claim to “really care” about you, which translates to brand loyalty and blah blah blah. We also imagine that the faster a company moves to address the issue, the less likely they’ll be stuck with any sort of viable class action lawsuit, which you know is only moments away from emerging, like a magical money dolphin only lawyers can see.
On the other hand, BPA hasn’t been banned or labeled toxic in the United States, and there’s still a possibility it won’t be proven harmful to humans. (In Canada, chemicals can be labeled toxic for being proven harmful to animals; in the U.S., only humans count.) And the companies who sold the products had no way of knowing, when they initially produced BPA products, that the chemical might turn out to be bad news.
What’s the general opinion on how a company should proceed?
In the meantime: if you’re concerned about BPA, take matters into your own hands. Hit up the website Z Recommends for an exhaustive list of companies that produce baby products—it ranks them from excellent to poor and gives you pretty much all the info you need to shop wisely for your baby. They even have a free text message service (which we wrote about here) so you can query them from your phone while you’re in the store.
Added bonus: here’s a good summary article on BPA—what it’s found in, what the studies have shown, and what the real risk is once you get past the wall of newscycle hype. (One big takeaway is that you should probably stop using any plastic in the microwave because there haven’t been anywhere near enough tests on what chemicals, if any, are released.)
RELATED
“The Z Report on BPA In Children’s Feeding Products, Third Edition” [Z Recommends]
“Get Info On BPA-Free Baby Products Via Text Messaging”
(Photo: Getty)







@nardo218: there’s conclusive evidence, but it has nothing to do with “BPA is terrible.” If anything, I’d say those falling onto the slippery slope of paranoia are to blame for slowly forcing an excellent plastic out of the market when most of its applications are completely harmless.
@nardo218: If you are concerned about the environmental blight from bag fight for stronger anti-littering legislation. Plastic bags use less energy to transport to stores and manufacture than paper, therefore paper is actually more harmful to the environment from a “carbon” output stance. Additionally the reuse rate of plastic t-shirt bags is quite high, whereas paper is low. I reuse all of my bags as wastebasked liners, as do a lot of people. Additionally cutting all the plastic bags out of the economy would devastate paper bag supply chains and eventually lead to increasing deforestation. Fight the one throwing the bag in the street, not the bag.
@chicagocooper: i have 3 nylon bags. i’ve had them for a year and don’t plan on throwing them away any time soon.
@Claystil: /hands Claystil a cookie… j/k. That’s good but society isn’t going to run out and buy reusable bags if plastic ones are banned, they will just switch to paper.
Am I the only one who sees this as baseless scaremongering from the media? I did a quick pubmed search, found the original paper and looked at the next few papers that cited that one.
From the papers I’ve skimmed, researchers have determined that under typical use polycarb will leach miniscule amounts of BPA, a chemical which weakly mimics the hormone estrogen. The effect is so small that researchers only noticed it when they were doing sensitive experiments in combination with old (1) cages that had been regularly sterilized with high temperature (2) and harsh chemicals (3). The researchers concluded that there was ***no statistically significant difference*** between the mice kept in polycarb cages versus the mice kept in polypropylene cages. To quote the paper:
Finally, BPA exposure as a result of being housed in used polycarbonate cages produced a 16% increase in uterine weight in prepubertal female mice relative to females housed in used polypropylene cages, although the difference was not statistically significant.
If you have one especially fat mouse in the polycarb cage, it’ll skew the average. However, unless there’s a trend, the difference won’t be *** statistically significant***. The media looks only at the 16% and ignores that fact that if you’ve got 5 mice, odds are one of them is going to be ‘that fat one’
My bad. I didn’t follow the citation train long enough. There’s seems to be strong evidence for in vitro effects, but the in vivo effects aren’t as convincing. Especailly when authors try to extrapolate invivo effects from cell studies.
@chicagocooper: A lot of people would switch to paper, I’m sure, but it’s clear that a lot more people are using reusable bags now than a few years ago. A simple way to encourage their use further would be to charge a small price for disposable bags. Pretty simple, really.