I know the research may seem unbalanced but there is strong research that shows that BPA is particular dangerous in terms of estrogen and has been shown to interfere with chemotherapy. As a cancer survivor, anything that interferes with chemo gets my attention.  InDecember 2008 the FDA admitted that "it's statement that BPA is safe may be incorrect".  I've written multiple articles about BPA on my blog if they are of any help to you.  

Have I thrown out every piece of plastic in my house? No, but I  have made choices and will replace items with non BPA as they need replacing. 

Kate

I blog at http://www.aftercancernowwhat.com 

This all just makes my head hurt. I've decided to avoid plastics because no one can seem to decide if they're safe or not. Or what kinds are good and bad. So when I have a choice in packaging I go with glass or avoid it altogether. And when I'm buying something new I try to avoid plastic.

Maybe BPA is totally safe. Maybe it isn't. But I would rather not use my kids as the guinea pigs.

~ Amber

www.strocel.com

I've gotten rid of all water bottles and such in my house that may contain BPA and replaced them with safer models.  However, none of this was a concern when my kids were little and I just have to remember there isn't much I can do with knowledge I didn't have back then.

"Scientists, regulators, politicians in Europe, Australia, and Japan
have all rejected the evidence that the chemical is harmful as
methodologically flawed..."

 Well, I mean, as long as the POLITICIANS agree then. Let's all buy us some plastics! (WTF?)

 (Sticking with the glass bottles anyway. You shall never take my tinfoil hat, politicians!)

This is not about safety (it never is).  It's about the POLITICS of MAKING MONEY, nevermind the dangers.  It's disgusting, really. 

http://thesoftlandingbaby.com/2009/06/02/bisphenol-a-manufacturers-switch-to-fear-inducing-strategy/

From http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/blog/twisting-the-concern-over-bpa:

"According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 95 percent of Americans have BPA in their bodies.

Hentges, the executive director of Polycarbonate/BPA Global Group of the American Chemistry Council, criticizes the study for not showing what BPA actually does in the body at the low levels found. He says the levels may not necessarily be harmful and is quoted: "What the authors didn't really talk about is what that means .... Their BPA exposure was below the average for the US population."

A low dose does not mean BPA is unequivocally safe. Mr. Farrell should have told readers that many epidemiology and animal studies show potential health risks (heart attacks, type II diabetes, brain disorders, prostate cancer, breast cancer, miscarriages – and many more) associated with low-dose BPA exposure. 

A big concern of finding another certain source of BPA is for newborns, infants and young children. They drink water and milk from similar types of plastic bottles that were tested in the study. They have higher exposures due to their small body size yet cannot breakdown BPA as well as adults. Pregnant women are also considered a vulnerable population to BPA's effects.

Speaking for the American Academy of Pediatrics, previous president Renee Jenkins, says the Academy is "deeply concerned" about the issue and the lack of scientific evidence that would help “to draw accurate conclusions about the safety of exposure to BPA.”

This confusing quote leaves doubt as to what Jenkins means. Either, she's supports the point that not enough is known to ban BPA-products, or she's making the point that even though more research is needed, there's enough evidence to act on what's available.

One has to assume the later – and that she and the reporter are not intentionally misrepresenting the Academy's position – given that the American Academy of Pediatrics supports limiting BPA exposure for infants."

If you haven't already, read Slow Death by Rubber Duck. Persuasive and scary stuff. Even if there isn't always 100% evidence of how dangerous something is or isn't, there is enough evidence of companies being sneaky and disregarding human health for profit that I am VERY cautious now. I am also planning to pick up a copy of @thesmartmama's book at BlogHer, which apprently has great solutions in it for families that want to reduce their exposure to dangerous chemicals. 

PhD in Parenting - http://phdinparenting.com

BPA safe or not, I think we'd all be better off with it not being in our bodies. 

I've written a few posts on the topic:

Ways to reduce plastic use in your home:

http://www.purenaturaldiva.com/2009/06/diva-guide-ways-to-reduce-plastic-use-in-your-home/

A simple guide to understanding plastic numbers:

http://www.purenaturaldiva.com/2009/06/guide-to-choosing-safe-plastics/

And - when you need to use plastic, use them as safely as possible:

http://www.purenaturaldiva.com/2009/06/diva-guide-the-safest-way-to-use-plastics/

I hope you find these helpful!

I have a difficult time with Stats, but I won't belabor that here.

The National Toxicology Program (NTP) has given bisphenol A (BPA) a 3 on its 5 point scale for certain exposures and certain health endpoints. The population it believes is at risk includes fetuses and young children. If any organization is unbiased, I would think it would be the NTP.

Given that there are alternates to the products that contain BPA, why not avoid it as much as possible? Granted, you probably don't need to worry about exposure from a polycarbonate plastic helmet, but why use a polycarbonate plastic bottle to store food or canned foods?

Jennifer Taggart

http://www.thesmartmama.com/bg