News Stories Archive | Page 5 of 9 | Facts About BPA

Not that many years ago, many reusable food and beverage containers on the market worldwide were made from polycarbonate plastic.  Polycarbonate, which is made from bisphenol A (BPA), is an almost ideal material for these products since its clarity is comparable to glass, making it easy to see what’s inside, and it’s virtually shatter-proof – an important attribute for consumer products that could be dropped. For years though, BPA has attracted considerable attention from scientists, environmental activists and the media.  Now, as a result of that attention, few of these products are made from polycarbonate and a variety of alternative materials are used instead.

With the high level of attention to bisphenol A (BPA) over the years, it’s easy to get the impression that BPA is everywhere and we’re constantly being exposed to high and harmful levels in our daily lives.  You might even have seen BPA referred to as an “everywhere chemical.” Adding to the confusion, the media is notorious for attaching pictures of products that contain absolutely no BPA to articles about BPA.  Perhaps the most common examples are pictures of bottled water.  Single-serve bottles containing water, sports drinks or carbonated beverages are almost universally made from a plastic known as polyethylene terephthalate (PET), which has no connection to BPA at all.

Based on a recent and fascinating scientific report from Switzerland, you might start to hear demands to eliminate mild mustard from our diet. The Swiss Federal Food Safety and Veterinary Office (FSVO) recently reported that mild mustard contains the chemical bisphenol F (BPF). Remarkably, BPF is not a contaminant introduced from packaging or other sources, but apparently is produced from a component naturally present in mustard seeds when the seeds are processed to make mustard.

It is commonly perceived that natural chemicals are safe while manmade substances may be harmful.  These perceptions, however, if not supported by scientific evidence, can result in risk perception gaps that can cause us to worry more than warranted by the evidence.

Prof. Sir Stephen O’Rahilly MD FRS FMedSci, Professor of Clinical Biochemistry and Medicine and Director of the Metabolic Research Laboratories, University of Cambridge, said: “The findings of this very small study are highly preliminary and should not influence public health policy. The hypothesis that BPA exposure during pregnancy predisposes to childhood obesity needs to be tested more rigorously in samples from considerably larger studies.”

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!”