# Are poisonous water bottles an urban myth, marketing tool, or...? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [May 3, 2010, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-poisonous-water-bottles-an-urban-myth-marketing-tool-or/538187 "2010-05-03T18:19:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Superhal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Superhal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superhal)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2010, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-poisonous-water-bottles-an-urban-myth-marketing-tool-or/538187/1 "2010-05-03T18:19:29Z")
It’s a well-known (or, at least, oft-repeated) fact that bottled water in plastic bottles is not safe to drink after a few months or years, because PCB leeches out of the bottles into the water. Personally, I’m beginning to think this is BS. My questions: 1. Why would the FDA allow this? Of all the government agencies, I think the FDA is the best thing to happen since sliced bread. If there was any chance that the container of any food item is harmful to people, why on earth would they allow it to be used? 2. Is it an urban legend perpetuated by the water companies (or stupid people) to prevent people from re-using the bottles with tap water or filtered water and thus be forced to buy more bottled water? Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![JKilez](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e5b9ba/32.png) [@JKilez](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JKilez)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2010, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-poisonous-water-bottles-an-urban-myth-marketing-tool-or/538187/2 "2010-05-03T18:32:43Z")
> [@Superhal](#): > > It’s a well-known (or, at least, oft-repeated) fact that bottled water in plastic bottles is not safe to drink after a few months or years, because PCB leeches out of the bottles into the water. I never heard this. Do you have some reference that makes this claim? ---
**Author:** ![hogarth](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hogarth/32/1773_2.png) [@hogarth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hogarth)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2010, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-poisonous-water-bottles-an-urban-myth-marketing-tool-or/538187/3 "2010-05-03T18:36:59Z")
> [@JKilez](#): > > I never heard this. Do you have some reference that makes this claim? Here’s one: > **[Estrogenic chemicals in bottled water - UPI.com](https://www.upi.com/Health_News/2009/03/27/Estrogenic-chemicals-in-bottled-water/UPI-85521238211685/?feature=global_water)** > > Plastic mineral water bottles contaminate drinking water with estrogenic chemicals, researchers in Germany said. EDIT: Actually, that doesn’t say anything about leaching over time, as mentioned in the first post. ---
**Author:** ![MeanOldLady](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/meanoldlady/32/10737_2.png) [@MeanOldLady](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MeanOldLady)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2010, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-poisonous-water-bottles-an-urban-myth-marketing-tool-or/538187/4 "2010-05-03T18:41:18Z")
True story: I’ve seen these warnings on bottles too, so I got up to grab a friend’s bottle of Aquafina and transcribe the warning, but it’s not there! So I went to another bottle, and another and the warning is nowhere to be found! She theorizes it’s because they’re using these new-fangled thin bottles that use less plastic, therefore now the chemicals are somehow okay(?). So in other words, I don’t have an answer to your question, Hal. Sorry. Edit: Actually, even though I’ve seen the “Do Not Reuse” warnings, I don’t recall them ever saying anything about why they are not to be reused. That’s the answer I’ve always gotten from people when I ask why I’m not supposed to reuse the bottles. ---
**Author:** ![JKilez](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e5b9ba/32.png) [@JKilez](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JKilez)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2010, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-poisonous-water-bottles-an-urban-myth-marketing-tool-or/538187/5 "2010-05-03T18:42:49Z")
Yeah, I assumed it was just some email spam thing, but I did look it up after posting. Snopes claims that there are both true and false elements to the claim, depending on what type of bottles are being referenced. Here is the [Snopes link](http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/plasticbottles.asp). ---
**Author:** ![Great\_Dave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/46a35a/32.png) [@Great\_Dave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Dave)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2010, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-poisonous-water-bottles-an-urban-myth-marketing-tool-or/538187/6 "2010-05-03T18:47:09Z")
You seem to be under the impression that the FDA actually knows everything that is harmful to us. If only that were true, and if only companies were allowed to only use chemicals that are proved to be safe. ---
**Author:** ![Nametag](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nametag/32/406_2.png) [@Nametag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nametag)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2010, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-poisonous-water-bottles-an-urban-myth-marketing-tool-or/538187/7 "2010-05-03T18:50:53Z")
You have the story garbled. Many water bottles and other plastic containers are made of polycarbonate, a plastic which incorporates bisphenol-A in its structure. Trace amounts of bisphenol-A can leach from these bottles during long-term storage, or during heating. BPA is an endocrine disrupter, and has numerous known health effects in animals, but its toxicity in humans is not well characterized. BPA is ubiquitous in modern society, as it’s also used in the plastic linings of canned foods, the coatings on carbonless copy paper and thermal paper, and in many other applications. And the FDA allows it because they’re reluctant to disrupt such huge sectors of the economy without more clear and convincing evidence. Both FDA and EPA have expressed concern about BPA, and many states have banned BPA or are considering it. ---
**Author:** ![robby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robby/32/11048_2.png) [@robby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robby)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2010, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-poisonous-water-bottles-an-urban-myth-marketing-tool-or/538187/8 "2010-05-03T19:10:33Z")
> [@Superhal](#): > > It’s a well-known (or, at least, oft-repeated) fact that bottled water in plastic bottles is not safe to drink after a few months or years, because PCB leeches out of the bottles into the water. [PCB](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polychlorinated_biphenyl)s have been banned in the U.S. since 1979. While PCBs were used as plasticisers in paints and cements until such open use was banned in 1973, I’ve never heard of PCBs used for plastic water bottles. Oh, and the word is “leaches.” [These](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leech) are leeches. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2010, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-poisonous-water-bottles-an-urban-myth-marketing-tool-or/538187/9 "2010-05-03T19:34:55Z")
First, to be clear, recent concerns of plastic bottles and “PCBs” involve [polycarbonates](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycarbonate), not [polychlorinated biphenyls](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polychlorinated_biphenyls). The former are legal in the United States, but [now banned in Canada](http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/04/health-minister-canada-bans-bpa.php); the latter have been banned in the U.S. and elsewhere for years. “PCB” has apparently been used in some circles as an abbreviation either for “polycarbonate” or perhaps “polycarbonate bottle.” > [@Superhal](#): > > Why would the FDA allow this? Well, the FDA is [not immune to political pressure](http://reproductiverights.org/en/press-room/federal-court-rules-fda-must-reconsider-plan-b-decision). Sometimes the science is just inadequate, and establishing adequate science is itself a process subject to political pressure. In the case of [bisphenol A](http://www.niehs.nih.gov/news/media/questions/sya-bpa.cfm), used in polycarbonate bottles as well as plastic linings of cans, the FDA said in 2008 that [BPA was safe](http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/86/i34/8634notw9.html). The political environment has since shifted, and the science has progressed a little as well: the [FDA now says](http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/PublicHealthFocus/ucm197739.htm) there’s cause for “some concern about the potential effects of BPA on the brain, behavior, and prostate gland in fetuses, infants, and young children,” and that the “FDA is supporting a shift to a more robust regulatory framework for oversight of BPA.” The FDA is a big bureaucracy, and as such is going to be slow to change direction. They tend to follow the science eventually, but their official pronouncements at any given time are going to be the most conservative, non-boat-rocking interpretations of where the science is at that time. Away from the official FDA pages, the people leading the ongoing investigation [recommend avoiding it](http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/79111742.html). ---
**Author:** ![Moonshiner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@Moonshiner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moonshiner)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2010, 12:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-poisonous-water-bottles-an-urban-myth-marketing-tool-or/538187/10 "2010-05-04T12:20:44Z")
To say that Polycarbonates have been banned in Canada is a bit of a reach. From your link: _Canadian Health Minister Tony Clement announced yesterday that Bisphenol A would be listed as a toxic substance and banned the use of **polycarbonate plastic baby bottles**._ ---
**Author:** ![lazybratsche](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ba8739/32.png) [@lazybratsche](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lazybratsche)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2010, 12:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-poisonous-water-bottles-an-urban-myth-marketing-tool-or/538187/11 "2010-05-04T12:38:04Z")
Except that the OP wasn’t (primarily) referring to polycarbonate bottles. He was referring to bottled water, which are made out of PET (polyethylene terephthalate). These sorts of plastics also use pthalates as a plasticizer, and there’s some concern that phthalates can act as endocrine disruptors. Manufacturers have voluntarily removed phthalates from products for small children (like pacifiers and bottles), partly as an act of goodwill to stave off further regulation in other products. Of course, even if some particular plasticizer is identified as harmful (be it phthalates or BPA), it’s not like plastics manufacturers can simply remove it and have a useful product. Without the plasticizers, you get extremely brittle products, which would be simply useless. So a manufacturer will replace BPA with some other plasticizer. But we don’t know what the effects of the new plasticizer will be, so we’re trading a known small risk for an untested unknown… I’m not sure this exactly the wisest approach. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2010, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-poisonous-water-bottles-an-urban-myth-marketing-tool-or/538187/12 "2010-05-04T14:06:15Z")
> [@Moonshiner](#): > > To say that Polycarbonates have been banned in Canada is a bit of a reach. You’re right, that was sloppy on my part. :smack: More accurately, the Canadian government has _officially designated BPA as a toxic substance_, which is a legal precursor to various potential regulations. The first of these regulations was the ban of polycarbonate baby bottles; more regulations to eliminate other applications of BPA are expected over time. (FWIW, a number of sites have condensed this description to the one word “[ban](http://www.newsinferno.com/archives/19868),” but we strive to do better.) > [@lazybratsche](#): > > Except that the OP wasn’t (primarily) referring to polycarbonate bottles. Well, I was addressing the part about “PCB,” which is the part that has had research and regulatory action in the news lately. > [@lazybratsche](#): > > Of course, even if some particular plasticizer is identified as harmful (be it phthalates or BPA), it’s not like plastics manufacturers can simply remove it and have a useful product. Without the plasticizers, you get extremely brittle products, which would be simply useless. So a manufacturer will replace BPA with some other plasticizer. But we don’t know what the effects of the new plasticizer will be, so we’re trading a known small risk for an untested unknown… I’m not sure this exactly the wisest approach. The OP mentioned the FDA–why would something potentially dangerous be allowed? The FDA’s approach to foods and food packaging is fundamentally different than the approach to drugs. Drugs are supposed to be proven “safe and effective” before they are allowed to market; this often requires years of testing (the time and cost of this research is typically presented as the justification for the high price of patented drugs). Food additives and food packaging are essentially the opposite; though there is an “approval” process, there is really nothing like the testing that drugs undergo (and most additives are cheap from the industry’s point of view). The real science on food additives and packaging, if it happens at all, comes _after_ the general public has been exposed. Industries already using the substances under examination typically seek to challenge and obscure the process, because at that point the only possible outcomes are _no change_, or a _change that costs money_. Now, process challenges on the basis of scientific methodology ([as has happened with BPA](http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100421/full/4641122a.html)) _can_ be helpful in that they can lead to better science–but after something is already on the market and making money for somebody, it’s harder to tell the difference between legitimate science questions and simple obstructionism. If the research had to be done _first_, and particularly if there were a few similar contenders for approval at a time, the food-processing and packaging industries would have a better incentive to support good science and identify the best alternatives during a time when there was no current profit line to weigh against. So, an argument could be made that it’s the regulatory process itself which needs to be changed–that “untested unknowns” in general should be kept from the market _until_ some good science on them is established. Of course, that’s a political battle, and if there’s a shift in that direction–toward the FDA actually doing what many people imagine it already does–it will be years in the future. For concerned individuals, the safest (and most “green”) course now available with respect to _this_ issue is to avoid use of _all_ types of plastic water bottles, in favor of durable, highly reusable stainless steel (such as [these](http://www.amazon.com/Klean-Kanteen-Stainless-Steel-Bottles/dp/B0012AL5YC/ref=pd_sim_sg_2)). ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2010, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-poisonous-water-bottles-an-urban-myth-marketing-tool-or/538187/13 "2010-05-04T14:39:12Z")
How do Nalgene bottles fit into all this additives/chemical wise? Because these have always been my favorite type of plastic bottle/food containers for camping and boating. Now, of course I don’t let liquids/food sit in em for weeks leaching stuff out so my exposure is very probably negligble but just curious. ---
**Author:** ![johnpost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f17d59/32.png) [@johnpost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/johnpost)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2010, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-poisonous-water-bottles-an-urban-myth-marketing-tool-or/538187/14 "2010-05-04T14:52:37Z")
> [@billfish678](#): > > How do Nalgene bottles fit into all this additives/chemical wise? Because these have always been my favorite type of plastic bottle/food containers for camping and boating. Now, of course I don’t let liquids/food sit in em for weeks leaching stuff out so my exposure is very probably negligble but just curious. they have products that contained Bisphenol A (BPA) and some that don’t. they have phased it out of the polycarbonate products in 2008 according to their claims. ---
**Author:** ![Colophon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f05b48/32.png) [@Colophon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colophon)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2010, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-poisonous-water-bottles-an-urban-myth-marketing-tool-or/538187/15 "2010-05-04T15:38:57Z")
Could someone explain the logic of this to me? It seems pretty badly thought out, even as internet myths go: It’s OK to drink factory sealed bottled water, which typically has a shelf-life of as much as 3 years, so could well have been sitting on a shop shelf for a year or more before you even drink it… …but it’s not OK to refill the bottle from the tap and drink it, presumably within a day or two? Surely if anything is going to leach out of the bottles, it’s far more likely to cause problems with sealed bottles that are hanging around for ages, rather than a refilled bottle you drink out of within a short space of time? ---
**Author:** ![johnpost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f17d59/32.png) [@johnpost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/johnpost)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2010, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-poisonous-water-bottles-an-urban-myth-marketing-tool-or/538187/16 "2010-05-04T16:06:47Z")
the age of the plastic affects the leaching. ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2010, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-poisonous-water-bottles-an-urban-myth-marketing-tool-or/538187/17 "2010-05-04T16:11:16Z")
I had always assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that the warnings against refilling was because of the potential for bacterial growth. ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2010, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-poisonous-water-bottles-an-urban-myth-marketing-tool-or/538187/18 "2010-05-04T16:32:26Z")
> [@](#): > > I had always assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that the warnings against refilling was because of the potential for bacterial growth. I always assumed the warning against refilling was because the water bottlers don’t want to lose profits. After all, why else would sports stores sell plastic water bottles? of course, the plastic is different. The canteen I bought several years ago is High Density Polyethylene. I’m not sure what the Nalgene bottles are. Commercial soda and water bottles are Polyethylene terephthalate (PET). Now I notice they’re going back to plain metal. Which is what my old Boy Scout canteen was – no liner. ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2010, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-poisonous-water-bottles-an-urban-myth-marketing-tool-or/538187/19 "2010-05-04T16:35:28Z")
[The myth](http://environment.about.com/od/healthenvironment/a/plastic_bottles.htm): > [@](#): > > **Even Plastic Water and Soda Bottles Should Not Be Reused** > Health advocates also recommend not reusing bottles made from plastic #1 (polyethylene terephthalate, also known as PET or PETE), including most disposable water, soda and juice bottles. According to The Green Guide, such bottles may be safe for one-time use, but re-use should be avoided because studies indicate they may leach DEHP—another probable human carcinogen—when they are in less-than-perfect condition. [The facts](http://www.plasticsinfo.org/s_plasticsinfo/sec_level2_faq.asp?cid=705&did=2839): > [@](#): > > **Will a plastic bottle leach harmful substances into water if I reuse it?** > Most convenience-size beverage bottles sold in the U.S. are made from polyethylene terephthalate (PET). The FDA has determined that PET meets standards for food-contact materials established by federal regulations and therefore permits the use of PET in food and beverage packaging for both single use and repeated use. FDA has evaluated test data that simulate long-term storage and that support repeated use. > > The toxicological properties of PET and any compounds that might migrate under test conditions have also been well studied. The results of these tests demonstrate that PET is safe for its intended uses. (For details, see The Safety of Polyethylene Terephthalate.) > [@](#): > > **What about the student project that claimed to have found unhealthy compounds in water samples from reused bottles?** > The subject of a widely circulated e-mail hoax, these claims stem from a University of Idaho student’s masters thesis that was promoted in the media but was not subject to peer review, FDA review or published in a scientific or technical journal. > > While the student project may have been suitable work for a masters thesis, it did not reflect a level of scientific rigor that would provide accurate and reliable information about the safety of these products. Fortunately for consumers, FDA requires a much higher standard to make decisions about the safety of food-contact packaging. > [@](#): > > **But I read that the student’s project found carcinogens?** > The student’s thesis incorrectly identifies di(2-ethylhexyl) adipate (DEHA), a plastics additive, as a human carcinogen. DEHA is neither regulated nor classified as a human carcinogen by the U.S. Occupational Safety & Health Administration, the National Toxicology Program or the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the leading authorities on carcinogenic substances. > > In 1991, on the basis of very limited data, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency classified DEHA as a “possible human carcinogen.” However, in 1995, EPA again evaluated the science and concluded that “…overall, the evidence is too limited to establish that DEHA is likely to cause cancer.” > > Further, DEHA is not inherent in PET as a raw material, byproduct or decomposition product. DEHA is a common plasticizer that is used in innumerable plastic items, many of which are found in the laboratory. For this reason, the student’s detection of DEHA is likely to have been the result of inadvertent lab contamination. This is supported by the fact that DEHA was detected infrequently (approximately 6% of the samples) and randomly, meaning that the frequency of detection bore no relationship to the test conditions. > > Moreover, DEHA has been cleared by FDA for food-contact applications and would not pose a health risk even if it were present. > > Finally, in June 2003, the Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Testing and Research conducted a scientific study of migration in new and reused plastic water bottles from three countries. The Swiss study did not find DEHA at concentrations significantly above the background levels detected in distilled water, indicating DEHA was unlikely to have migrated from the bottles. The study concluded that the levels of DEHA were distinctly below the World Health Organization guidelines for safe drinking water. ---
**Author:** ![NinjaChick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/71c47a/32.png) [@NinjaChick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NinjaChick)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2010, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-poisonous-water-bottles-an-urban-myth-marketing-tool-or/538187/20 "2010-05-04T17:06:00Z")
If you’re consuming PCBs, then you’re probably chowing down on decades-old industrial waste, so, uh, yes, there will probably be some serious health problems, but they can be avoided by not eating decades-old industrial waste (and, you know, don’t eat the dirt at Superfund sites, etc). If your concern is BPA, then first be aware that BPA is used in far more than reusable water bottles - if you’ve bought a can of food in the past decade or so, you’ve probably bought a can that is internally lined with BPA, and it may or may not be in your metal water bottle. The NIH, which tends to be a bit freer from political influence, [says](http://www.niehs.nih.gov/news/media/questions/sya-bpa.cfm) that for adults who do not work in industrial settings with a very high level of exposure, there’s negligible concern. There’s _some_ concern that it could have an effect on children and infants - which is why in Canada you can (I assume) still buy a water bottle with BPA in it, but can’t buy a baby bottle with BPA in it. It’s something to be aware of with kids, but if you’re fully grown you don’t really need to worry about yourself. > [@Darwins\_Finch](#): > > [The myth](http://environment.about.com/od/healthenvironment/a/plastic_bottles.htm): > [The facts](http://www.plasticsinfo.org/s_plasticsinfo/sec_level2_faq.asp?cid=705&did=2839): I’m not saying that the linked information isn’t true, but [plasticsinfo.org](http://plasticsinfo.org) is run by the American Chemistry Council, which is basically a lobbyist group for the chemical industry. Again, I don’t necessarily doubt their general statements, but be aware that it’s hardly coming from an objective source. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-poisonous-water-bottles-an-urban-myth-marketing-tool-or/538187.md?page=2)