Bisphenol-A not banned in UK?

The evidence against BPA is significant and growing, quite why risks are being taken when there are alternatives is puzzling.

If packaging/products that use this chemical had to be labelled we'd see a much more proactive approach from manufacturers. As it stands, consumers don't really have the information they need to make an informed decision other than go without completely.
 
Last edited:
Some baby bottles are marked BPA free, I choose those. However, I don't recall seeing much news about BPA risks so I guess that the public often seen 'BPA free' and dont have a clue what it means.
 
kibblerok said:
The evidence against BPA is significant and growing, quite why risks are being taken when there are alternatives is puzzling.
Click to expand...

Maybe the industry funded tests that found no problems (every single one of them compared to the non-industry funded ones which found problems in 90% of cases) paid a paltry 250k to 'ave a word with Cameron? Or maybe it's that the people who should be checking on the safety in this country on the effect on neonates were content to measure excretion rates in 20 (yep super large sample size) adults.
 
Xordium said:
Maybe the industry funded tests that found no problems (every single one of them compared to the non-industry funded ones which found problems in 90% of cases) paid a paltry 250k to 'ave a word with Cameron? Or maybe it's that the people who should be checking on the safety in this country on the effect on neonates were content to measure excretion rates in 20 (yep super large sample size) adults.
Click to expand...

Fairly sure the majority of the tests relating to BPA have been carried out in mice, delivering a life-time exposure in a significantly reduced space of time, which frankly is about as useful as not doing the research at all.

I wouldn't be surprised if there is a meta-analysis somewhere collating any human studies, in fact that may be where the heart and diabetes link has come from. For such a harmful substance, the research is surprisingly lacking.
 
im worried when i see posts from people who are willing to risk harm to themselves or their children. even the slightest chance should infuriate people. after all the will to survive is central in human nature.
 
PermaBanned said:
So if i told you that bananas increase the risk of cancer would you avoid them completely?
Click to expand...

Not personally, but when a company that produces the stuff adopts a policy of refusing to sell it to producers of goods intended for use with children under 3, taking into account the probability of it being a marketing gimmick, I take a bit more notice.
 
int said:
Fairly sure the majority of the tests relating to BPA have been carried out in mice, delivering a life-time exposure in a significantly reduced space of time, which frankly is about as useful as not doing the research at all.

Also, a law firm that represents people trying to claim vaccinations caused their children to develop autism, despite the overwhelming evidence showing the opposite.
Click to expand...

if you think tests on mice are useless then what do you think of this? :confused: why woudnt vaccines cause harm being used like this?

Jackie Fletcher, from the vaccine damage support group Jabs, said: "Trials of this jab have mostly been on adults, so we don't have any idea of the long-term effect on children."

Dr John Oakley, a West Midlands GP, said the trials for Gardasil had been so limited that the children taking it would be like "guinea pigs".
Click to expand...

Article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1567698/Cervical-cancer-drug-Gardasil-linked-to-deaths.html
 
Last edited:
Pshaw. Back in my day, babies were fed off lead bottles. Literally.

(although this is a joke, it was probably true at some time in the past but my point is that in the last couple of hundred years, baby bottles and the like were made of worse and more toxic stuff)
 
jakesnake said:
the "you only live once" "live fast die young" mentality is very recent which makes me wonder how and why its being socially engineered to the youth these days.
Click to expand...

no it's not.

We're a lot less hedonistic than we used to be, plus we don't tend to have as many people willing to go and die for king and country these days.

I mean we hardly have any pistols at dawn stuff any more.
 
int said:
Fairly sure the majority of the tests relating to BPA have been carried out in mice, delivering a life-time exposure in a significantly reduced space of time, which frankly is about as useful as not doing the research at all.

I wouldn't be surprised if there is a meta-analysis somewhere collating any human studies, in fact that may be where the heart and diabetes link has come from. For such a harmful substance, the research is surprisingly lacking.
Click to expand...

My point was in context to the post it was addressing "why has this continued in this country":

1) Industry lobbying with evidence based upon their position of no harm. The trials they financed showed no harm whilst the non-industry ones found harm in 90% of cases
2) That the advisory group found BPA to be safe for usage in the neonatal group based upon a trial on 20 adult humans (not mice). Do you really think adult and neonatal excretion capacities are interchangeable?!?

The association in heart disease came http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/300/11/1303 and this http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/300/11/1353
 
jakesnake said:
Article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1567698/Cervical-cancer-drug-Gardasil-linked-to-deaths.html
Click to expand...

The CDC sees the vaccine as safe the adverse effects are well within the range that you would expect to see from any vaccine or medication (yes even Calpol will have listed adverse effects as all associations have to be reported no matter how spurious) and the best the Telegraph could do is to get a quote from a private GP who has the least busy practice one could ever see (he lives just around the corner to me and I pass his place 3-4 times a day) in fact in over 3 years I have yet to see anyone bar him and his wife actually enter or leave his premises. The trials were performed on girls 16+ initially then younger but stopped for ethical reasons when it was quite clear the efficacy of Gardasil was so apparent that not giving it would be "wrong". So the article there is wrong on quite a few points and is leading us down the MMR path again which the media has never really accepted their responsibility for in propagating untruth.
 
Last edited:
Tefal said:
Yet we glorify noble self sacrifice above all.
Click to expand...
jakesnake said:
the "you only live once" "live fast die young" mentality is very recent which makes me wonder how and why its being socially engineered to the youth these days.
Click to expand...

That isn't noble sacrifice, it isn't even close. Noble sacrifice is like a soldier falling on a grenade to save his comrades or a stone age hunter defending his family group.

It's ancient and it's about survival.
 
Natwee said:
or alternatively, just breastfeed therefore avoiding the harmful ingredients in both the bottles, and the formula.
Click to expand...

not really 100% feasible for many people. also, my wife cannot breast feed due to medication she is on.

ive never heard about this but i will look out for the bottles witout it from now on
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom