The media attention appeared to have come from nowhere. Overnight everyone was talking about BPA -- whether they knew what it was or not.

What everyone did seem to know, however, was that the chemical commonly found in many of the plastic containers they eat and drink from had been deemed toxic by the federal government. And this revelation led to nothing but a lot of consumer confusion.

Bisphenol A (BPA) is an industrial chemical used to make a hard, clear plastic, as well as epoxy resins used as protective lining inside metal food and beverage containers.

The federal government stated that studies revealed "the general public need not be concerned . . . BPA does not pose a health risk;" but, "due to uncertainty raised in some studies," officials were going ahead with legislation to ban the importation, sale and advertising of baby bottles containing BPA.

This begs the question: If it's bad for babies, why isn't bad for us? Health Canada's screening assessment of bisphenol A last spring primarily focused on its impacts on newborns and infants up to 18 months of age; however, health risks for Canadians of all ages were also considered.

In addition to being in baby bottles and the lining of food and beverage containers, BPA has been found in medical devices, compact discs, electronics, dental fillings, optical lenses, chain oil and brake fluid.

And organizations like Ecojustice Canada think it isn't good for any of us.

"More than 150 peer-reviewed studies have associated BPA with obesity, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, breast cancer, prostate cancer and immune system dysfunction," reads a backgrounder produced by the non-profit organization, devoted to environmental law.

Ecojustice Canada is just one of many organizations that support more far-reaching bans of BPA, despite the government of Canada's website, which states four different ways that BPA is not harmful to people.

It was this conflicting information that led Port Coquitlam business owner Jeff Zacharias to make a change.

Zacharias, who owns Crystal Clear Water, said he has received enough calls from customers who were concerned about BPA that he felt it was worth looking into other options.

"(The) BPA problem doesn't really affect our industry because we don't heat the bottles so BPA can't leach into the water," he said, adding that a bit of digging produced a company in California that made BPA-free, five-gallon water bottles.

"I didn't know there was an option when I first started looking. They aren't cheap though, so right now only 50 per cent of my bottles are the new BPA-free ones," he said.

Zacharias said he didn't want to pass the extra cost on to his customers so he split up the order. His first batch of new bottles arrived in May 2008 and he hopes to order the rest early this spring.

His decision to change his bottles sets Crystal Clear Water apart from its competitors, and his customers can be confident when they are filling their new stainless steel personal water bottle, that both the water and its container are safe.

Whether others will find it necessary to follow suit will probably depend on how many restrictions the government puts on BPA in the future.

Zacharias, on the other hand, is glad he is ahead of the pack on playing it safe.