You can reduce the amount of BPA that gets into your drinks by making sure the contents are never allowed to get warmer while in the plastic container. The transfer of heat across the boundary between the plastic and the liquid also carries a small amount of chemicals with it, including BPA. Reversing the thermal transfer will reverse only a tiny fraction of the contamination.

Try it. Buy some bottled water. Keep that water at the same temperature as distributed. Drink some from one bottle and verify the taste is OK. Now let the water heat up, such as being inside a closed up car in the heat of summer for a few hours. Now taste the water (both the originally opened bottle and another bottle not previously opened). The chemical taste will start to be in there. Do this more and you get more of it.

The release of the BPA could be reduced if the filling, distribution, storage, and store display of these drinks was held at a constant never changing temperature.

If you refrigerate your drinks, leave them in refrigeration until you drink them. Don't let them warm back up.

Why exactly is it unfortunate? What does the science say? Is there evidence of harm?

@NeverLetMeDown: Start your research here: [en.wikipedia.org]

@Skaperen: I think I'll pass on using wikipedia for research when arguing about what public policy ought to be. Thanks though!

@Skaperen:

definitely do NOT start your research at wikipedia.

Try something a bit more established first.

You could've looked at it before just ignoring it because of your irrational fear of Wikipedia. There's an entire section on what research has been done on BPA (with citations).

@Parapraxis: Notice the 94 pages of references at the bottom of the wikipedia article. Seems like a GREAT place to start.

@Parapraxis: I did not say to take the Wikipedia article verbatim. It's a STARTING POINT. Use the citations to proceed further to the "more established" documentation. For 99.999% of topics covered by a Wikipedia article, starting there gets you to the good places a lot more quickly than if you try to sift through all the noise from a search engine (even from Google).

@Josh Saint Jacque: And what will you use instead? Google?

Glass is BPA free. Next year a study will be released exposing something in the glass bottles that will also kill me.

@NeverLetMeDown: Y'know, sometimes reading the article is a good first start. Failing that, there are these underlined phrases that follow the article. They're called "links". And by clicking them, they take you to a different area on the internet, called a "page" that has more supplementary material, called "words" or sometimes "sentences".
These "words" and "sentences" sometimes provide more information.
You might want to try this approach. I hear this "reading" is very helpful!

@Parapraxis: Fine.
Cite the errors that are so glaring to your exquisite sensibilities and awesome knowledge then.
We'll wait!

@Brendan Long: Yeah, they're sorta amusing, missing the point of Wiki so fundamentally, then displaying this ignorance so ostentatiously.

@henrygates: Like the little shards that appear when you bite in to it.

@HIcycles: I usually just eat the food and drink inside, not the glass, so I think I'm good.

@Trai_Dep:

My comment was based on the article, which seems to take as a given that a BPA ban would be a good thing, without providing any evidence as to that.

"What's BPA? It's in plastic, and it's not very good for humans."

That's a bit on the fear-mongering side. As long as you don't microwave it, not much at all leaches out of it. The problem is that customers microwave it.

Also, BPA's really only in polycarbonate (in terms of food containers), not all plastic.

@NeverLetMeDown:
"Ten years ago, Consumers Union (publisher of Consumer Reports and owner of Consumerist) warned us all about the potential danger from bisphenol A (BPA) leeching from plastic containers into our food."

"Never meant to be ingested, BPA has potential links to an array of human health problems, including diabetes, heart disease, cancers, infertility, obesity, and neurological disorders."

"And a recent study suggests that BPA stays in the body longer than previously believed."

"Babies and young children may be particularly vulnerable because they may metabolize BPA more slowly than adults."

"Several government and non-governmental scientific bodies have assessed the safety of BPA, and indicated concerns, while the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not yet."

"Since 2007, Congress has questioned whether the BPA industry has been unduly influential in FDA's assessment of scientific studies of BPA."

There. Thats most of the article in quotes up there. Thats why a ban on BPA is a good thing.

@unpolloloco:

BPA isn't IN polycarbonate, it's turned INTO polycarbonate. Saying a PC bottle is full of BPA is like saying any carbon-containing compound (so, most any food) is full of charcoal and diamonds.

"BPA has POTENTIAL links to an array of human health problems ... a recent study SUGGESTS that BPA stays in the body longer than previously believed. Babies and young children MAY BE particularly vulnerable because they may metabolize BPA more slowly than adults." (emphasis added)

This looks like a whole lot of nothing to me. If the cigarette companies can come up with studies that let them say "cigaretts do not cause cancer," then why the heck can't the anti-BPA lobby come up with something that does more than "suggest" the "potential" that there "may be" a problem associated with ingesting BPA.

I know, I'm trolling. But seriously. This sounds like a bunch of nothing to me. It has more in common with the "Vaccines cause autism" argument than any other argument I've heard lately.

I'm not saying that BPA isn't bad. It "may" be bad. There's certainly a "potential" that's "suggested" by some studies. But as of this point, if these hints and conjectures are the best that people can come up with, I'm not ready to ban the substance outright. We're having enough problems with our economy without purposefully squashing entire industries because people are freaking out over something that seems to have very little basis in reality.

If we legislated every substance that might possibly be bad for your out of existence, we'd all be sitting on rocks and banging sticks together for fun....

Oh, nevermind, most rocks have "dangerous" substances in them. We'd be sitting on the ground.

some small traces of the BPA remain in the polycarbonate after production. But of all the chemicals used in plastic resin production or compounded into plastic, BPA is minor. @Stephen Schenck:

@Skaperen: good tips, but you could also just choose to use containers that are BPA-free & avoid the risk altogether. there are plenty of alternatives on the marketplace.

@flipnut: So it's an issue with quality control, not with the compound itself. Sounds like they just need a sequestering agent to grab any unpolymerized BPA.

@NeverLetMeDown: I swears to Gods, every single day it seems there are more and more big-business apologists simply playing the devil's advocate without giving any actual insight into the topic at hand. Swears. To. Gods.

@henrygates: Except for the fact that glass has been in use since 1500BC, yet BPA was discovered only a little over 100 years ago. It's only been about 50 years since it manufacturers actually began using it. So knowing that, the likelihood that a study will be released saying glass is dangerous is highly unlikely. They are just figuring out what the hell BPA is.

@youbastid: *subtract "it" from "since it manufacturers actually began..."

@henrygates:

Fine crystal has lead in it! Think of the children!

If this website broke the news that DDT was dangerous 60 years ago, there'd have been 50 commenters talking about how sensationalist the headlines were. It's pretty outright obvious that this shit should not be so overwhelmingly present in consumer products. The doubters will realize this soon enough.

@NeverLetMeDown: the way i see it, the only people that seem to be supporting the use of BPA in food containers are the people responsible for producing it & marketing its use.

now, one could argue that the move to ban BPA is simply a move by competing industry to capture marketshare, but the people lining up against BPA aren't exclusive to industry groups that might profit from a BPA ban.

i dunno about you, but i think i'll stand over here with the doctors & scientists that say the existence of high levels of a chemical in food storage products probably isn't such a good thing.

anyway, here's an excellent summary report complete with source material, if you really want to read the studies for yourself.

@mac-phisto: forgot link. [www.ewg.org]

Chlorine is a poison of the worst sort. Taken directly, even a small amount can make you sick, or even kill you.

Yet, it's an integral chemical component of a substance that is absolutely necessary for human life ... salt. Yes, salt is itself bad for you in very large amounts, but if you never take in any, you won't live too long.

Same with bisphenol A. When it's chemically integrated into plastics, it becomes very different from what it is on its own, just as you are not going to get chlorine poisoning from table salt.

@unpolloloco: it's also used as a liner in many metal containers, so simply forgoing plastic won't eliminate your exposure.

Leaching is the word you want there, not leeching. Leaching means leaking out, leeching means sucking up, like a leech. I'd ignore this on some random personal blog but you're a big grown-up company now.

Six of the largest makers of plastic cups, bottles, containers and more have stopped using Bisphenol-A, a chemical added to plastic bottles that contain items such as Coca Cola, water and more - as it was found to do harm to living things after long periods of exposure to it.

Sure its a minor thing for those occasional soda breaks, but it may be better in the long run for people to turn to companies such as Simply Green Solutions for a reusable canteen instead.

BPA masks as estrogen in the body. That's why it is blamed for a whole host of diseases including cancer.
And while heating or freezing BPA containers of food/drink will cause a massive amount of leaching, the studies show that even microscopic amounts of BPA are too much. Sadly enough, it's very difficult to avoid BPA. The liner in food cans contains BPA.

We did our best with our son. Glass bottles, glass dishes, homemade baby food (the jar tops in baby food have BPA) but I know we can't avoid it entirely. I wish the FDA wasn't so useless.

@plamoni: it seems to me that there's a whole lot more to this than you know (or are willing to admit). perhaps this review will change your mind: [www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov]

Crap, I've been using plastics for 25 years. Guess I'll go ahead and pre-write my obit.

While I appreciate the gov't trying to look out for me, have there actually been any reported illness or even deaths directly related to the use of BPA? I'm not trying to start a flamewar or anything, but perusing the articles posted by other users didn't mention anyone actually getting sick from BPA poisoning.

If anyone has a link to that info I'll gladly clam up, I just don't have time to look before headed out to work.

@FooSchnickens: Here are a couple of articles I've written on BPA and it's effects. You will not find anything about death from BPA poisoning, that's not how it works. But it acts like a weak estrogen, potentially increasing cancer cases,like mine, diagnosed with stage III breast cancer at age 38, no family history and a clean mammogram at age 35.

It has also been shown to interfere with the effectiveness of chemotherapy, a double whammy.

[www.aftercancernowwhat.com]
[www.aftercancernowwhat.com]

And if you really want to get mad you can read the minutes from the packaging association meeting where they are trying to figure out how to put a positive spin on BPA.

[scienceblogs.com]

@youbastid:
It's happened anyways; there are people out there who say that the proper use of DDT would save many lives from malaria in Africa.

By effective, they mean controlled spraying around building entranceways and such, not soaking whole fields with the stuff.

DDT is cheap and safe in limited quantities, so targeted spraying wouldn't go wiping out bird populations.

@jenjen: That there is one of the quick paths to the ban-hammer, my friend.

@FooSchnickens: Several billion people have died since the introduction of BPA into the food storage industry. I'm not trying to start a flamewar or anything, but can anyone prove they DIDN'T die because of BPA poisoning? If anyone has a link to that info I'll gladly clam up, I just don't have time to look it up.

See how dumb that line of reasoning sounds now?

@mac-phisto: Okay, so from reading the abstract and part of the study. It looks like this is basically a meta-study that concludes that another meta-study should be done that might conclude that the previous meta-studies were incorrect (possibly due to conflicts of interest).

I'm not entirely sure what I was supposed to learn from this. Before I read it, I thought that we needed more evidence before taking action. Then, to "change my mind," you sent me to a study that concludes that more study is needed. Which is exactly what I said.

I'm also not quite sure what you mean by, "or are willing to admit"... I promise you I don't work for the plastics industry and I don't have 50 dead babies killed by BPA buried in my back yard that I'm not telling anyone about.

As I mentioned before, this whole thing reminds me too much of the vaccine nonsense. There were a lot of "studies" done that "showed" that vaccines caused autism. And the government (correctly -- amazingly) realized that every one of them was a bunch of nonsense put together by litigious goons looking to make a buck off of severely handicapped children. Which is a pretty awful thing to do.

Don't get me wrong here. I'm not arguing that BPA is A-OK. I'm saying that it's a bit odd that the anti-BPA lobby can't come up with anything better than "BPA 'may' cause problems"

@Stephen Schenck: It's a reversible reaction - at high temperatures, the BPA and phosgene will separate, releasing small amounts of each from the container. It's not just a matter of unpolymerized BPA - it's depolymerized BPA as well. That said, eliminate polycarbonate in food containers, and all's good in the world again.

@mac-phisto: It's a polycarbonate liner in the bottles to protect you from excessive aluminum exposure. Anyway, PLASTIC is not the problem - POLYCAROBNATE (a plastic) is.

@plamoni: did you read thru the part entitled: "Factors Accounting for the Absence of Significant Effects in Low-Dose BPA Experiments"?

i found it particularly interesting that of the 115 studies of the effects of low-dose BPA referenced in the article, 94 show evidence of harm. 21 show no evidence of harm. 100% of industry-funded studies show no evidence of harm (11 studies), whereas only ~10% of government-funded studies show no evidence of harm.

i referenced the review b/c it provides a wealth of information without having to read thru a few hundred pages of scientific research. if you feel inclined to read that research, the citations for the studies referenced in the review are at the bottom.

yes, more research is needed. & i get it. you're of the "wait & see" opinion. when it comes to our food supply, i have more of a "err on the side of caution" opinion. BPA isn't necessary for food storage - there are alternative storage methods that exist. perhaps they don't work as well or aren't as inexpensive, but if they are safer, aren't they the better option?

@plamoni:
BPA and phthalates are endocrine disruptors. They mimic the body's natural hormones. For instance, phthalates behaves like estrogen in the body. Hormones follow a "U" shaped curve. This seems counterintuitive-- low doses are more dangerous than high doses. Low doses are more similar to the expected levels of natural hormones in the body.

Oddly, phthalates are used to make PVC soft, and PBA is used to make polycarbonate hard. If you purchase a polycarbonate bottle that is advertised "BPA free," keep it away from heat!! It will melt in the sun, and dissolve in the dishwasher. I use stainless steel water bottle.

@unpolloloco: Good to see so many people are so close. Yours is the closest. Polycarbonate doesn't simply separate into the original BPA and phosgene at high temperatures. Phosgene is a compound with chlorine, which isn't in the final polymer (it's removed during the polymerisation reaction.) At high temperatures, polycarbonate can react with water, splitting into BPA and carbon dioxide. (It's a very good thing there's no phosgene, that's nasty stuff. It was used as a weapon in WWI.)

@youbastid:

Actually, the stuff really isn't that dangerous. If you bother to look up the science, all that stock footage of people hosing down kids with DDT solution wasn't really as insane as it seemed. Yeah, hosing down kids with bug spray is probably not a good idea, but it didn't kill anybody. The main reason why it was banned was because of it's effects on some wildlife. Toxicity in humans at the concentrations they used back then is relatively low for humans. Not to say that we should be bringing this stuff back. We've got much better insecticides now than back then, more effective and less harmful to wildlife (ok aside from the bugs).

great to know BPA is transferred from heat too. Im in iraq where my drinking water source is water bottles that sit in the 100F+ sun all day, no wonder it tastes funny. well just another thing thats gonna give me cancer by 30