Health Canada released the full results of their Bisphenol-A testing of non-polycarbonate baby bottles and bottle liners last night, emphasizing as they did that the trace amounts of BPA detected were not of concern to them. Here's our first take on everything new we now know.

Just how little BPA is in non-PC baby bottles?

To understand the scale of differences here, the non-polycarbonate bottle that had the highest BPA detected was Dr. Brown's polypropylene bottle, which was reported as containing 0.91 parts per billion after ten days. When Health Canada tested polycarbonate bottles as they were contemplating a BPA ban, they detected levels in PC bottles of up to 59.92 parts per billion in the same period - sixty-five times as much.

A clarification

We also received a direct response from Health Canada regarding our concerns about the study's apparent lack of a control group. Media Relations Officer Gary Scott Holub wrote:

There was a control group in this study. It was a water blank in a glass bottle that was taken through the exact procedures that each sample underwent: incubation, extraction, and subsequent analysis. If and when there was any BPA found in the blank, we subtracted that value from the rest of the samples tested at that time.

We hadn't gathered this from the phrasing of the study itself, and are glad to hear it. We also appreciate the accessibility and direct responses we received from Health Canada throughout this process - it was quite different than what we've experienced in dealing with several U.S. government agencies.

There appear to be some other sources of confusion or concern about the study that demand replication to validate the findings - more on that after a peek at the results.

BPA detected in non-polycarbonate bottles in 10% ethanol

A 10% ethanol solution is a better mimic of the behavior of a fatty liquid like breastmilk or formula.

BPA detected in non-polycarbonate bottles in water

Testing in water offers a different standard of comparison.

Questions remain

At the heart of issues surrounding this study - the source of its surprising findings and of the challenges to it - is the testing methods used, which claim to enable researchers to detect Bisphenol-A at previously unthinkable levels in chemical analysis. If these methods are sound and prove their worth through replicated testing that yields consistent results, the science of BPA detection will have shifted firmly from parts per billion to parts per trillion. But it is unclear both whether these methods are sound and whether these levels matter.

At least one bottle maker has stepped forward to challenge the validity of the results. In Sarah Schmidt's excellent story on the released test results, Shelley Aronoff of Green to Grow wonders why her company's bottle samples are claimed to have yielded BPA in detectable quantities of 0.0014 part per billion after two hours, but none in samples that were left for 94 hours. Other companies are likely to raise questions of their own as they grapple with the claims of BPA in their "BPA-free" products.

Only one company's products were found by Health Canada to be "non-detectable" for BPA at all phases of the study. Although we believe that any of the "BPA-free" bottles, even with these trace amounts, should be assumed to be safe for use, we'd be remiss if we didn't mention that this company was Thinkbaby - the one company we have confirmed as using biologic testing as well as chemical testing. Thinkbaby sells bottles, a sippy cup, and a feeding set, all of which we've given high marks both for their functionality and the company's commitment to advanced testing procedures and materials selection. It may be (although I haven't done a thorough check) the only BPA-free company we've given five stars to in the ZRecs Guide for every product they sell. We still use our Thinkbaby feeding set, and think it's one of few feeding products that makes innovative use of materials to provide the safest product possible. (We're playing with another startup's feeding set right now that meets that same goal in a different and surprising way, and can't wait to tell you what we think of it.)

A step in a process

The BPA found in these products, if its presence can be validated, was in amounts so small they were likely contributed by difficult-to-monitor environmental conditions at the manufacturing facilities that produced them. There is BPA in water, toilet paper, and many other surprising parts of our lives, as well as many other chemicals we don't want there. That's part of the chemical world we live in. Our position has always been that there is no purity to be achieved, just minimization of exposure. And we believe all of these "BPA-free" products aced that test.

But can they still call themselves "BPA-free"? Pete Meyers at Environmental Health Sciences thinks not, and we think his position is ludicrous - but more on that later. We see this study as part of an evolving public and regulatory awareness of the issue of Bisphenol-A, and other suspect chemicals, in our lives. In the days to come, we'll discuss where we think these findings mean for those in the BPA-free industry, and how our own government's regulatory agencies, thus far still asleep at the wheel when it comes to BPA regulation, can adjust course based on this information.

Like what we do? ZRecs' research, consumer advocacy, and independent product reviewing is supported primarily by readers' online shopping through ZRecs links. If you have shopping to do on Amazon.com or Amazon's Canadian portal, Amazon.ca, we'd love your support of our work while you shop!