KEY POINTS:
Test question: Ever heard of Bisphenol A or BPA? What, you didn't get the email? You know the one.
It's the one my mother - and probably yours - has sent five times, warning not to put plastics in the microwave or freezer because it will turn us all into a Barry Manilow-singing triffid or something.
I stopped pressing the delete button when the Canadians enacted a law last month to get BPA out of the hands of babies.
You can sometimes identify plastics that have BPA with the number 7 and "PC" as recycling tags on the bottom, though not always.
BPA, and a whole host of other oestrogen-mimicking chemicals, are ubiquitous in our lives. We just don't know it.
Why should you care? Maybe you don't need to - or maybe by ingesting this stuff you could be changing what diseases your child might have some day.
You find BPA especially in clear, hard plastic containers like baby bottles, canned food with that white lacquer-looking lining, computers, eyeglass lens and dental sealants. More importantly, over the last handful of decades, it's now found more and more in our bodies - and that's the problem.
Scientists can't yet agree if it is reasonably safe or the cause of a whole host of nasties. The list isn't pretty. Some research has linked it to early puberty, diabetes, obesity and prostate and breast cancer. And listen up, boys: it may even be a factor in why men's sperm count has declined about 50 per cent in the past 40 years.
This isn't just about one bad plastic. This is about a whole family of unregulated chemicals called endocrine disruptors that may be scrambling the signals that cells normally receive during prenatal and early childhood development. It's a tricky bugger, too, because it's one chemical that the more you have in your body doesn't necessarily mean the effect will be worse. More important is when you were exposed to it.
Being exposed to BPA in the womb or as an infant may be a lot more harmful than exposure as an adult because these chemicals may be actually changing the way genes are expressed, says Canterbury University's Ian Shaw.
The potential effect on the entire reproduction system is staggering. Even tiny amounts of this chemical may affect the prostate, sperm production, sex behaviour, aggression, the way animals behave toward their infants, and even when we enter puberty and menopause, says University of Missouri researcher Fredrick vom Saal.
The Canadians aren't taking any chances. For a start, they are leading the world by outlawing baby bottles that contain BPA.
The Americans have just gone back to review all the research, too, after throwing out many studies that didn't meet their strict criteria. That could take a year or more.
So what are we doing about it here? Waiting, mostly. We are basing our "it's safe" tag on what the Europeans have ruled. Because of our size, health officials here often rely on foreign research before they make the call. Until somebody like America's FDA announce they agree with Canada, it's wait and see.
Meanwhile, that slow, lumbering science train could take years before the official line trickles down to our tables.
But be warned, BPA won't go away without a fight. For giants like Dow Chemical, Shell Oil or General Electric, billions of dollars are at stake.
One 2005 study noted that 100 per cent of industry-funded studies found no harmful effects, while 90 per cent of Government-funded studies found harmful effects. Shades of smoking research circa 1965, eh?
Dr vom Saal commented: "Among people who have actually read the literature, there is no debate, just an illusion of controversy. This is a phenomenally potent chemical."
We're not talking about this nearly enough in this country because the official line is it's safe until we hear otherwise. It is not Plunket policy to offer information on using BPA-free baby bottles because they follow NZFSA guidelines. That should change. Let new mothers decide.
You can choose to wait for a worldwide consensus, or proactively try cutting down on your use of hard, clear (or coloured) plastic containers and canned food that may contain BPA. Use ceramic or glass in the microwave. Search out BPA-free sports bottles like those now commonly sold in the US and Canada.
The difference between the Government response and the in-the-field response couldn't have felt more compelling when I asked John Reeve from the NZ Food Safety Authority if he would feel comfortable feeding his child with a BPA baby bottle.
His reply, "It wouldn't worry me at all."
But when I asked Canterbury University's Dr Shaw, a leader in the field, he didn't hesitate. "Absolutely and categorically no."
I'm listening to Dr Shaw - and my mother. The rest of the world will catch up.
