Still, if you want to spread the love, Trader Joe’s is a great chain!

References (note: “very low dose” means levels far below EPA exposure limits):

Very low dose BPA affects male germ cell proliferation: http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/members/2009/0800367/0800367.html
Very low dose BPA triggers pancreatic cell DNA transcription factor: http://www.fasebj.org/cgi/reprint/16/12/1671.pdf
Very low dose BPA triggers chemotherapy resistance in estrogen and non-estrogen dependent breast cancers: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2649216/
Summary of how extremely low doses of BPA can trigger cancer-promoting effects: http://www.ehhi.org/reports/plastics/bpa_health_effects.shtml

And now I have a question for you:
I can’t help noticing that your language is a tad caustic (”lie” “mendacity” “flagrant lies”) so I have to ask — do you work in the chemical or plastics industries, or have you been hired to blog/write/opine on behalf of a corporation or trade group? To put it another way: are you commenting entirely on your own, or on behalf of a third party? No problem with the latter, but since this blog is all about sharing information, I’d ask that you identify your affiliation.

I assume that your comment of BPA “having a much stronger effect than a woman’s natural estradiol” is taken from the absurd commentary by Consumer Reports, in which they flat-out lie about the results presented in an EPA funded study, published in Toxological Sciences.

In the study, researchers fed BPA to female rats during pregnancy and lactation at dosage levels approximately 40 to 4,000 times above estimated median human consumption, and the female offspring were studied for effects on behavior and reproductive function. In contrast, the well-known estrogen ethinyl estradiol had significant effects on the rodents, demonstrating the sensitivity of the study and the validity of the results for BPA.

In a pathetic effort to dismiss these results, Consumer Reports reported on its blog that the rats used in the study were insensitive to the very estrogen used as a control, which—as stated above—actually caused significant effects on the animals. Bereft of any argument, they turned to mendacity.

BPA has been tested countless times, and has been determined safe by essentially every government organization in the Western world.

Sad to say, the fear entrepreneurs are now resorting to flagrant lies to scare the public, and keep the checks coming in.

But, that’s soy phytoestrogen. The estrogen mimics found in chemicals like BPA are a whole ‘nother matter. For starters, no one understands how potent they are. Originally, BPA was believed to be a very weak estrogen, but a recent study found that, once bound to a certain type of receptor, it can actually have a much stronger effect than a woman’s natural estradiol. Secondly, no one knows the dose that anyone in this country is actually exposed to for any one of these chemicals, let alone the whole chemical soup we’re exposed to daily. Until we begin to answer those questions (and we have not even begun), people need to understand that they are playing with fire. Or, more accurately, playing with carcinogens. Nothing wrong with personal choice (smokers play with carcinogens, as do people whose work or hobbies involve exposure to gasoline, oil paints, turpentine, etc. etc.). The problem is: people are taking these risks UNKNOWINGLY, because someone whose sole interest was profit made the decision for them, based on grossly inadequate safety information. That’s where we have a problem.

I guess you better also stop eating soy and all vegetables, which contain very potent endocrine disruptors, as well.

BTW–ERs are not necessarily a bad thing, either, as soy is protective against breast and prostate cancer.

http://www.healthnewsdigest.com/news/contributing%20columnist0/Another_Stake_Through_The_Heart_Of_Phthalate_Fears.shtml

http://www.healthnewsdigest.com/news/contributing%20columnist0/Disrupting_The_-Endocrine_Disruptor-_Hypothesis.shtml