Plastic Water Bottles: Should You Avoid the Disposable Kind, Too?

Reader Comments
Back to blog

I found this comment while researching water bottles. Sorry, there's no link I had already clipped and pasted it while researching. I would definitely confirm this somewhere else before taking it as factual:
"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."

Steven Lewis of NM 5:20PM March 31, 2009

Plastic bottles marked with a No.1 plastic code are manufactured out of polyethylene terephthalate (PET or PETE). PET is approved by the FDA and virtually every other world regulatory body for safe use in food and beverage packaging.
The study on endocrine disruptors in bottled mineral water seems contrary to the established facts, as it uses misleading statistics and makes scientifically dubious claims. There remains no credible scientific data to suggest that PET, or any substance that may be released from PET, have estrogenic, or any other endocrine modulating activity.
PET is a high-molecular weight polyester synthesized from a class of chemicals referred to asterephthalates. There is no evidence that any developmental or reproductive health effects are produced by terephthalates. In fact, a variety of studies have been conducted on the effect of terephthalates on reproduction and development. Exposure of male and female laboratory animals to terephthalates during all phases of the reproductive cycle have shown no developmental or reproductive effects in the test animals or their offspring (Faber et al. 2007, Faber et al. 2007)
The original and ongoing research on the safety of PET for the past three decades has revealed no issues or reasons for concern. The PET industry stands on its record of safety and reliability as a packaging material.
For more information on PET (No. 1) plastic water bottles, please visit www.petresin.org.
-Ralph Vasami, Esq., PETRA, North American PET Resin Manufacturers Association

Ralph Vasami, Esq., PETRA - North American PET Resin Association of NY 2:04PM March 20, 2009

Go look at the paper it reports that water "naturally" contains up to 75 ng/L EEQ. Did you know soy baby formula contins 1,500 ng/L EEQ. Beer, wine, milk, vegtable juice, you name the food it reacts in that yeast test.

Jim of TN 6:45PM March 18, 2009

They put MILK in a carton (BOX), JUICE,SOUPS & WINE......
Why not have WATERr sold in CARTONS.....

Grammy Sue of TN 7:05PM March 13, 2009

Name what isn't. That doesn't mean I'm going to stop living a productive life and enjoying some of life's vices such as ice cream (bad for heart), cellphones (bad for brain), alcohol (bad for a lot of things), and television news (bad for one's attitude). Plastic containers is one of my lesser concerns compared to things like air/water/ground pollution - deforestation, species extintion, Internet spying by employers and criminals, data-mining your wireless laptop by Microsoft (permitted per the Vista EULA), the recession/depression and the recovery plan and so on. Life has gotten very complex and filled with uncertainty... I guess stone aged people only had to worry about being able to start and maintain a fire, finding water and something they could hit over the head so they could have BBQ. But that was the simpler happier times.

Tony Lee of CA 4:22PM March 13, 2009

"Relax" is only partially correct. We can't obsess over every potential hazard, but this one is definitely worth being alarmed over. There's a good chance that the endocrine disrupting compounds that are ubiquitous in plastic, which is EVERYWHERE, could end up posing a universal health hazard like the lead that used to be in gasoline. I'd rather see caution on this issue, banning or greatly restricting these types of compounds, than wait until it's deadly obvious that we've been slowly poisoning ourselves.
It doesn't take a huge amount of these chemicals to make a big difference. The body is exquisitely sensitive to tiny amounts of estrogen-like compounds and other endocrine disruptors--in fact, there's evidence that the tiny amounts that industry scoffs at as insignificant could be terribly harmful. The usual toxicity tests used by regulatory agencies assume that a smaller amount of something is less harmful. But extra-large amounts of these kinds of chemicals actually shut down the body's response, while extremely tiny amounts are able to infiltrate the endocrine system and mess things up.
There's an article in the August 2008 Scientific American that gives a really good overview of the whole issue. If you want to find more information, do a search for the terms "Patricia Hunt," "BPA," and "Washington State University." That will get you closer to the most detailed and reliable information about the topic.

Ing of WA 1:27PM March 13, 2009

There have always been environmental hazards and there always will be. Of course we can try to reduce or remove threats when found where possible, but those who are overly obsessive about their health also add stress to any real or imagined risks.

JW of TX 12:12PM March 13, 2009

WHAT ABOUT ORANGE JUICE THAT YOU BUY IN PLASTIC CONTAINERS.

HESTER WEBB of VA 11:33AM March 13, 2009

Great subject but I'd like more detail. You said that, "plastic bottles had high amounts". What's considered "high" and who made that judgment. You don't even say what specific chemicals were found. Did the chemicals found come from the plastic bottle or were they already in the water. Your article infers that both are true. It would be nice to see a link to the original study.
Without the detail on the chemicals and exact levels found, there is no information to make an intelligent risk assessment. I expect a lot more from US News!

Scott of WI 9:31AM March 13, 2009