Statements that all plastics display estrogenic activity are simply not true. |
The safety of Eastman Tritan™ copolyester is based on sound science and is supported by the testing presented in the
Safety Testing page and further detailed in a downloadable
If you would like more information, visit the
Fact Sheet page of the Media Room or the
Safety Testing page. Or download the safety research
white paper to see the battery of tests conducted by independent third-party laboratories to evaluate the safety of Eastman Tritan™ copolyester for potential estrogenic or androgenic activity. For more information about Eastman Tritan™ copolyester and your concerns about plastics. Send us an
email to share your thoughts or ask us questions.
Eastman works closely with its customers to ensure they are aware of the extensive testing, the scientific approach, as well as the reputation of the labs that conducted the research on Tritan.
There is no BPA used in the manufacture of Tritan. |
BPA is not and has never been an ingredient or by-product of the production of Eastman Tritan™ copolyester. Validation that Tritan is a BPA-free plastic is supported by robust testing and internal and independent third-party testing by accredited laboratories.
Eastman manufactures Tritan copolyester, not the finished products. |
As the supplier of Tritan, Eastman has conducted testing before and after processing and has made that data available for its customers. Eastman continues to market Tritan as estrogenic activity (EA) free because it is EA free. Eastman works closely with its customers to ensure they are aware of the extensive testing, the scientific approach, as well as the reputation of the labs that conducted the research on Tritan.
Laboratories are paid to conduct tests in a reproducible, repeatable, and reliable manner. They are not paid to provide a specific result. |
The Uterotrophic and Hershberger assays performed on Tritan were conducted according to OECD guidelines and Good Laboratory Practice. If a laboratory altered the results of their tests, it would be considered highly unethical and they could not stay in business.
It is a common misconception that universities do not charge for conducting research. |
Payment for the research is necessary to supplement salaries, to purchase and maintain lab equipment, and to cover other necessary costs associated with sustaining a working laboratory. Eastman has no reason to question the validity of the studies or the labs that conduct tests on its products.
There is a big difference between
in vivo (live animal) and
in vitro (test tube) testing. |
In contrast to the MCF-7 test, the
in vivo testing used to assess the endocrine disruption potential of Tritan™ is regarded by the scientific community as the “gold standard” (see
Safety Testing for more details). Furthermore, the Uterotrophic and Hershberger assays used to test Tritan have both been validated as part of the Tier I Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Both the MCF-7 and BG1Luc assays, used by PlastiPure and CertiChem, are simply nondefinitive screening tests. |
It is widely accepted and acknowledged that the MCF-7 test is considered an initial screening test. Because “false positives” are frequently observed, more definitive
in vivo tests for EA are warranted before making a final conclusion about a polymer’s potential for estrogenic or androgenic activity.
The MCF-7 test
has not been validated by the National Toxicology Program's Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods or the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for use in its Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program for the purpose of identifying substances with EA.
A paper published in May 2014 in
Environmental Health includes information regarding the BG1Luc assay. The study simply repurposes testing previously conducted and published in
Environmental Health Perspectives years ago. The conclusions of the study are unchanged because the BG1Luc test has the same limitations as any
in vitro test and utilized the same prior flawed sample preparation and stressors.
PlastiPure and CertiChem achieved positive EA results on Tritan only by replicating unrealistic conditions. |
Common use stressors include sunlight, heat, and microwave radiation. Scientists at PlastiPure and CertiChem admit to using unrealistic conditions to replicate common use stressors. To test UV exposure, they applied germicidal ultraviolet light (GUV) that would be the equivalent of 24 hours of direct exposure under a UV hood. The wavelength they used to simulate sunlight is 254 nm, a wavelength so unrealistic it is not even found on the earth’s surface.
In lieu of using common methods of microwave testing, they applied conditions 100% greater than the standard scientific protocol. The companies also used 8 minutes in an autoclave to mimic a dishwasher. Eight minutes in an autoclave will melt a typical sport water bottle. In contrast, Tritan has been thoroughly tested and is proved to survive over 1500 cycles in a dishwasher.
Under oath, neither the principals or scientists within PlastiPure and CertiChem nor their testifying experts would say that they believed Tritan was harmful to humans.
During the jury trial, PlastiPure admitted to designing a marketing strategy that created consumer awareness of EA and instilled a sense of fear within its target market—families with young children—to create increased sales of product and testing services.