All this study says is that some BPA in the plastic seems to get into the water. Which we might expect.

We still have no evidence if BPA is harmful to humans and if so, in what dosage.

Among government and industry experiments on lab animals and tissues, 153 found adverse effects and 14 did not. The majority of those reporting no harm were funded by chemical corporations, the journal Chemical & Engineering News reported.

Now an editorial in the journal's April 16 issue by Senior Editor Bette Hileman highlights a number of potential sources of bias behind the inconsistent study outcomes, including the use of strains of rats that are insensitive to estrogen and choosing batches of animal feed that vary widely in their estrogenic activities.

The FDA has relied primarily on two studies funded by a trade association for makers of BPA. In April, an international consortium of scientists rejected the government's use of those studies.

These latest e-mails reveal an agency less concerned with consumer safety than with how the chemical's maker viewed the product's safety. This makes about as much sense as asking the oil industry to craft energy legislation.

All bottles were subjected to seven days of testing designed to simulate normal usage during backpacking, mountaineering and other outdoor adventure activities.

The UC researchers found that the amount of BPA released from new and used polycarbonate drinking bottles was the same—both in quantity and speed of release—into cool or temperate water.

However, drastically higher levels of BPA were released once the bottles were briefly exposed to boiling water.