There have been murmurings about Nalgene bottles being bad for your health for seemingly as long as Nalgene bottles have been around. The odd part of that message has always been the fact that the “Nalgene crowd” was usually the type of person that was opting to reduce use of plastic bottles and… reuse their Nalgene bottle.
The Nalgene crowd was an aware crowd.
Not aware enough it turns out…
The issue has always been a chemical that was rumored to be toxic. Bisphenol-A. Turns out that the rumors were accurate, this is a nasty chemical, linked to tumors and hormonal changes.
The National Toxicology Program said “… possibility that bisphenol-a may alter human development cannot be dismissed.”
A good, solid overview of the issue can be found in a NYT piece here.
The money quote is “Based on all available scientific evidence, we continue to believe that Nalgene products containing BPA are safe for their intended use… however, our customers indicated they preferred BPA-free alternatives, and we acted in response to those concerns.” Steven Silverman, the general manager of the Nalgene unit.
Um, are you serious?
Of course your customers don’t want products laced with chemicals that are linked tumors and other horrible health side effects.
Would you knowingly let your kids play with toys covered with lead paint? Ahhh… no. Of course not. We should have known the rumors were true when Patagonia stopped selling Nalgene bottles a year or so ago.
What’s worse than selling people products that are linked to health issues is the fact that a notable percent of products using this chemical were infant water bottles.
Want an alternative? Sigg.
Comments
One Comment so far. Leave a comment below.This is a good example of someone with very limited knowledge overextending themselves.
Your singling out Nalgene is a stellar example of the piety that continues to stunt the environmental movement as a whole.
By your own admission, customers who use Nalgene related products are environmentally “aware.”
In a day and age when we see pharmacuetical companies fighting to keep drugs like Rofecoxib on the market, you’d think that the decision to voluntarily remove a product from market in response to concerns over a chemical that is still approved by the FDA would be lauded.
So why the rush to see their “last gasp”
What is your agenda?
If your desire is to truly rid the world of BPA’s, then why not instead focus on the fact that according researchers the majority of BPA contamination found in humans comes not from bottles, but canned food that makes up the 17% of the average American diet.
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/04/bpa-danger-from-cans.php
No one is debating that BPA’s, DHE’s and other chemical additives aren’t bad. But the trouble with casting stones, is that you can never throw them far enough.
Case in point, how do you explain the fact that Surfrider Foundation sells polycarbonate travel mug?
I’m just saying…