Cancer Scare Causes Nalgene to Pull Plastic Bottles
by Allie Comeau on April 23, 2008 
9 comments
Nalgene recently announced they are pulling their hard-plastic bottles from shelves nationwide in the next few months. The polycarbonate plastic bottles, made with bisphenol A (BPA), have been found to cause cancer and increase risks of other serious health problems.
Yet another very good reason to stop using that plastic water bottle.
Like many outdoor enthusiasts, I had been a faithful user of Nalgene plastic bottles up until I first heard the news about these health risks. Traditional Nalgene (and other polycarbonate water bottles) leach BPA into the drinking water they contain and get worse with age as they begin to crack.
While Nalgene continues to insist there is little evidence that the low levels of chemicals leached from the containers cause cancer, critics point to studies that show increased incidence of cancer and obesity (among other things) in animals when exposed to BPA.
Steve Casimiro from National Geographic Adventure Blog alerted me to an informative post he wrote concerning the health effects of BPA. Here’s an excerpt…
What’s more, a study from California published in April shows that BPA directly alters genes in breast cells so that they resemble cancer cells and, while couched in cautious scientific language, the study implies BPA can actually cause aggressive cancers. Earlier this year, in the first direct test for bisphenol A migration in water bottles, University of Cincinnati scientists found that BPA leaches from polycarbonate containers at room temperature whether the bottle is old or new. More alarming, when the bottle has hot water in it, the chemical is released up to 55 times faster.
Scary stuff. I drank from my Nalgene daily… for years.
To replace the BPA-leaching polycarbonate bottles, Nalgene is now making BPA-free bottles. And all of Camelbak’s water bottles are BPA free now. Stainless steel or aluminum water bottles are the best option, however, in my opinion. I absolutely love my Sigg. Water tastes noticeably better, stays colder longer, and contains absolutely no BPA. It’s a little heavier than a plastic bottle, but hey — I’m worth it. And so are you.
April 24th, 2008 @ 10:06 am
[…] from: Sierra Blogging Post […]
April 24th, 2008 @ 10:37 am
[…] as that of 75 or more percent of the collegiate and camping population, the company has decided to recall its hard plastic bottles within the next few […]
May 12th, 2008 @ 9:24 am
Okay, let’s take a deep breath here and start asking ourselves where the scientific proof of a problem is and not run off of anecdotal evidence and hearsay. If you’d like to get some real information you may want to visit this site that I just found: http://www.bisphenol-a.org/whatsNew/20080205.html. Also, the FDA, just a couple of weeks ago, stated that they will review BPA but that they could not find a study that showed any harmful levels of BPA in plastic bottles whatsoever and were not introducing any types of recalls. Once again, myth runs amok.
May 13th, 2008 @ 7:34 am
Hi Bill,
Thanks for your comment. I read the link that you sent and appreciate the info.
However, I’ve seen different studies on the subject from equally-as-respected scientists. While the plastics and chemical industries, of course, say that BPA is safe - I’m not sure I believe them.
Dr. vom Saal, a Ph.D. at the University of Missouri, had this to say in an article on The Green Guide:
According to its critics, BPA mimics naturally occurring estrogen, a hormone that is part of the endocrine system, the body’s finely tuned messaging service. “These hormones control the development of the brain, the reproductive system and many other systems in the developing fetus,” says Frederick vom Saal, Ph.D., a developmental biologist at the University of Missouri. Endocrine-disrupting chemicals can duplicate, block or exaggerate hormonal responses. “The most harm is to the unborn or newborn child,” vom Saal says.
I suppose BPA being dangerous is like anything controversial. Say global warming, for example. There are people who will go to great lengths to try and disprove it. Then there are the people who are sure it’s true and they try to prove it as well. Both sides always manage to come up with data that reinforces their positions. Somewhere in the middle are the people like myself. I think there’s truth in it. I see it all around me. But to what extent, I’m not entirely sure. It’s hard to decipher the truth these days because of all the conflicting information. But even if there was just a small chance that it’s true, which there is, I would choose to do my part in trying to slow it.
In the case of BPA, I choose to limit my exposure to it as much as possible. When I have children, I will limit their exposure as well. Why wouldn’t I? Many studies and scientists say it’s bad for you. I also think consumers deserve to hear about it - it isn’t hearsay, there’s scientific evidence that BPA is harmful to human health.
Here’s an additional excerpt from the article reference above…
Vom Saal counters that the studies showing BPA is safe are “profoundly flawed and in some cases exhibit outright fraud.” Last year, he published a paper showing that 100 percent of the industry-funded studies, 11 in all, found no harmful effects from BPA, while 90 percent of government-funded low-dose studies, 104 in number, found harmful effects. “Among people who have actually read this literature there is no debate, just an illusion of controversy,” he says.
Meanwhile, new studies continue to reveal the potential for harm. A January 2006 study indicates that BPA may enhance the risk of developing Type II diabetes. Angel Nadal, Ph.D., and his team at the University of Miguel Hernández de Elche in Alicante, Spain, found that BPA altered the function of mouse pancreatic cells, which produce insulin. Unhealthy diet, a lack of exercise and a genetic predisposition are the main factors in triggering diabetes, says Nadal. “However, our feeling is that these factors could be exacerbated by the presence of environmental pollutants such as bisphenol A.”
Thanks again for your comment, Bill. There are two sides to every story. But when it comes to my health, I will air on the side of caution every time. Apparently, so will many Americans. Nalgene did pull their BPA bottles from the shelves, after all.
Best regards,
Allie Comeau
May 18th, 2008 @ 6:28 pm
I can’t say that with all the studies out there linking alluminum from many things like deodorant, make-up, and yes even water bottles with various forms of alzheimer’s and soft tissue disorders that I would be more inclined to drink from a Sigg than from a Nalgene.
May 18th, 2008 @ 6:29 pm
sorry about the spelling error: aluminum
May 19th, 2008 @ 7:24 am
Hi Jessica,
I understand your concern about aluminum. I don’t use traditional antiperspirant any longer for that very reason. I did some research and this is what Sigg has to say on their website. They claim there is 0% aluminum leaching from their water bottles…
SIGG bottles have been thoroughly tested both in Europe and in the USA to ensure 0.0% leaching – so absolutely no migration of either the liner or the container into the beverage. Having been in this business for nearly 100 years, you can trust SIGG Switzerland to produce products of the highest quality and safety standards in the world.
“According to the results of our evaluation, use of a SIGG bottle does not add to the beverage any particles and/or components which are harmful to human health.”
– Dr. Ulrich Nehring, European Institute Nehring
You concern is valid - but I think name brand bottles like Sigg and Klean Canteen are completely safe to drink from. Your water will also taste better and stay cooler much longer than in a plastic bottle.
Thanks for commenting!
June 12th, 2008 @ 10:14 pm
To better understand the health hazards of food containers one must first understand the manufacturing process. The hazards of Nalgene products were discovered due to a better understanding of their manufacturing processes.
With continued focus on this issue and review of manufacturing of alternatives to Nalgene products, reveals similar concerns.
The lead content of stainless steel products activated by heat and cold extremes reveals that they are as safe as eating the chipped paint from a 1930’s home. Resorting to glass or porcelain products exposes the user to formaldehyde levels of a pickled high school frog.
As a molecular engineer from California Institute of Technology at Pasadena, I fear that my duty to inform consumers nationwide of the fraud that is being perpetrated in replacing one hazardous material with another.
June 18th, 2008 @ 8:21 am
Thanks for your comment.
I appreciate you taking the time to send your thoughts. I haven’t been able to uncover any information about glass, porcelain, or stainless steel that would verify what you said, however. I’m not entirely sure I understand.