BPA News

We at Speaking of Science do our best to deliver you solid, sound science reporting. But just in case you haven’t been paying attention, comedian John Oliver — host of “Last Week Tonight” — is here to school you. …A lot of this comes down to common sense: Does something sound kind of crazy? If it does, you probably want to find out what experts outside of the study have to say about it.

Last week the South Korean Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (MFDS) published its risk assessment of BPA in the peer-reviewed scientific journal Environmental Research.  The MFDS is a government agency that is responsible for promoting public health by ensuring the safety of foods and other products.

The details are important, but what everyone wants to know is the bottom line. MFDS concluded:

We find that there are no health concerns for the general Korean population from dietary exposure or from aggregated exposure [to BPA].

“More research is needed.” That’s a common final sentence in scientific papers, especially when it comes to studying the effects of environmental chemicals on health. With numerous chemical reactions going on in our body all the time, and exposure to thousands and thousands of chemicals, both natural and synthetic, it is a huge challenge to tease out the effects of a single substance. That brings up the question of when the effort and funds invested in studying a chemical have been sufficient. Is there a point at which further research is unlikely to lead to a major revelation? Can research funds be better spent on alternate projects that are more likely to yield meaningful results? We may be reaching such a stage with bisphenol A (BPA), a chemical that has been the subject of more studies in the toxicological literature than any other.

Recent media stories have reported on two new scientific studies involving BPA’s effects on birth weight.  One study reported a statistical association between prenatal exposure to BPA and increased birth weight, while the other reported an association with decreased birth weight. 

The latest skirmish in the war of anti-chemical crusaders against the food industry broke out in an unlikely place – the usually tranquil waters of Starbucks’ pumpkin spice latte. Vani Hari, author of the widely read Food Babe blog, recently kicked up a fuss by charging that the popular drink contains a cancer-causing substance called 4-mei, which is a byproduct of its caramel coloring.

As the name of her blog suggests, Ms. Hari trades on her trim physique to make up for her lack of credentials in chemistry, nutrition, or food science. No matter; not only was Starbucks forced to defend the healthiness of its product, but the Food and Drug Administration found it necessary to restate its longstanding position that there is “no reason to believe that at current levels it causes a health concern.” The FDA also noted that the amount of 4-Mei found in coffee is far exceeded by that in soft drinks, bread, and ice cream. But it’s difficult to counter the audience appeal of a headline like “Drink Starbucks? Wake Up And Smell The Chemicals!”

If there are three letters that strike fear in the hearts of Canadian parents, it’s BPA. But, in a recent paper in the Canadian Journal of Political Science, Wilfrid Laurier professor Simon Kiss argues that Health Canada’s decision to classify BPA as toxic in 2008 was the result of political and cultural factors, not because science shows it’s unsafe. Bisphenol A, or BPA, is a synthetic compound that’s been in use since the 1950s. An additive to harden clear plastics, it’s also in the paper that receipts are printed on, and in the lining of food cans. Most of us have detectable traces of it in our urine. However, whether BPA has any effect on humans at typical exposure levels is deeply controversial, even among scientists.

An increasingly frequent and worrisome phenomenon that unnecessarily threatens human health and the natural environment is “regrettable substitutions,” which refers to bans or limitations on certain products, even though the alternatives might pose risks that are uncertain or greater. It calls to mind the old saying “out of the frying pan and into the fire.” Today, members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee are marking up legislation to reform the nation’s law on chemicals — the Toxic Substances Control Act. As they work, they should heed the lessons related to regrettable substitutions.

Parents have been concerned about the potential health effects of bisphenol A (BPA) on their children for years, based in no small part on scary headlines that have been heavily promoted. Surely parents would be interested, even relieved, to know that their concerns are not well founded.

Importantly, a new study helps to put concerned parents at ease about the health of their newborn children. As the latest study’s authors stated in a news release, the “risk [of BPA] to newborns may be smaller than previously believed.” The study found that newborns are able to efficiently metabolize and eliminate BPA from the body in the same way as adults.

Consumers can have confidence in the safety of BPA.

In recent months, several leading government bodies around the globe have made clear statements in support of the safety of bisphenol A (BPA) as it is used in consumer products. These are not merely opinions, but are sound conclusions backed up by comprehensive reviews of the extensive scientific literature on BPA. Of particular significance are the results of an in-depth research program on BPAconducted by U.S. government scientists at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and other agencies.

The periodic scares over chemicals in vaccines, foods and other products are typically a war on the periodic table, and one compound that on all of the evidence deserves exoneration is bisphenol-A, or BPA. The latest research deserves more attention before more federal dollars are wasted.