Study Finds Bisphenol-A Can Enter Your Body Through Non-Food Sources
A new study from the University of Rochester shows that bisphenol-A (BPA), a potentially toxic chemical found in many plastics, can enter the body via non-food sources and lingers in the body longer than previously thought.
According to the study, BPA, which is found in baby bottles, food storage containers, and can linings, might also be found in household dust, tap water, and receipt paper. The study also finds that BPA remains in the body about eight times longer than previously thought.
Previous studies have associated BPA with increased risks of various cancers, reproductive disorders, and interference with medication. The FDA maintains that BPA is safe, although another government entity, the National Toxicology Program, found that there was cause for some concern.
Study: Bisphenol-A, used in plastics, lingers in body [Detroit Free Press]
(Photo: Consumerist)
Post a comment
Comments:
The poison is in the *dose*, people. Nothing in this article indicates that anything more than trace amounts were found - certainly not levels that would constitute an increase in risk. With sensitive enough equipment you can find all sorts of chemical traces. This doesn't mean they're dangerous.
Alarmism, hype, and a call for more funding $ for their own lab. Fear sells.
@zarex42: Take an environmental health class and you'll find this out. It's like taking a class about how everything can and will kill you. Granted, most of our problems stem from the fact that so much of our shit is so artificial and our bodies don't know what to do when this man-made shit gets in your body.
I don't know.... I would think statements like this one- "The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel had 10 household products tested and found toxic levels of BPA leaching from all of them." -seems to indicate greater than trace amounts. The chemical companies have been spending quite a lot to stifle and surpress more independant research pointing to the dangers of BPA. With the explosion of plastic products in our lives(plastic water botttles, plastic plumbing, storage containers) it stands to reason that the quantities will increase. And it doesn't always have to be mega doese to kill.... Try putting a sinlge drop of dimethyl-mercury on your skin for a couple seconds- wash it off and see how long you live for....
Even if adults were able to properly metabolize this toxin, I doubt that infants are. I'm seriously disturbed that this chemical is in baby bottles.
In a few months, it will probably have a safe level established just like melamine. It's getting harder and harder to avoid these toxic substances. Ugh.
@rellog: What I really wonder about is whether there is some interaction between all the different industrial chemicals we are all getting exposed to, with a cumulative effect. In other words, maybe we aren't getting toxic doses of any one thing most of the time, but the cumulative effect of all the different low-level exposures could have a negative health effect. If that were so, it would be extraordinarily hard to research and confirm, especially if the effects were only due to long-term exposure. I wonder if this sort of possibility gets neglected just because it's hard to research and deal with.
You can avoid it in bottles by using steel water bottles, in drinks by looking for glass but what are you supposed to use for food storage that isn't plastic?
@bohemian: Look for containers with recycling codes 1, 2, or 5.
[www.consumerreports.org]
You might also check out [www.greenerchoices.org] . And there's ceramic and glass, like Pyrex.
@bohemian: Pyrex, usually you can get a good set of food storage pans and bowls with lids for about $30 at Costco if they're carrying them that month.
@bohemian: There are plenty of plastics that don't include BPA (and there is glass food storage available, too). Most fridge container material isn't the hard clear plastic that involves BPA.
@hoot550: About the only thing that you can do is go live in a van wooden shelter down by the (untainted Canadian) river.
@zarex42: In fact, the poison is not in the "dose" in this case. Scientists are finding that any amount of exposure to this chemical is risky. Dr. Fredrick Vom Saal speaks extensively to this issue of people mistakenly believing the "dose" makes the poison and how it pertains to BPA.
How would BPA and alot of other chemicals actually leave the plastics ? .Does the plastic dry out and/or start decomposing releasing fumes or is there particulate matter involved .And would heat increase the effect on the plastic .
I've heard that fireman hate stuff like burning plastic furniture because of the fumes .
The saddest thing about [independent] BPA research is that it keeps trumpeting the exact same findings but nothing very little changes in the plastics indusrty.
I remember reading years old study showing that tap water is actually the most significant source of BPA in developed nations. Also, there's simply not enough research done on the effects of BPA in adults. And lastly, most peer reviewed studies have shown the half-life of BPA to be extremely short in adults, so why should I believe this one?
@zarex42: Clearly, dose-response is an important concept lost on a lot of people. But that doesn't mean that low or trace doses are safe - particularly not for vulnerable populations or if you take into account the likelihood of cumulative risk (as mentioned below - multiple sources daily exposure to low-level toxins).
Example of a vulnerable population: BPA has been found to reduce the success rate of chemotherapy. For people undergoing chemotherapy, a very low dose could result in a greatly increased risk of harm.
Additionally, just because we can't measure the harm of a certain low-level dose doesn't mean it doesn't exist. That's why the NAS is recommending that EPA reassess completely the way risk assessments are done for non-cancer health risks - because low levels of toxic substances previously thought to be 'fine' now are known to have reproductive, hormonal, and neurological effects. Dose-response is getting a new curve, and the very lowest doses could be found to have a significant response.
Details on the new proposed paradigm:
[books.nap.edu]
@u1itn0w2day: BPA is released when the bottle (or whatever plastic)is heated, but multiple studies have shown that after being heated multiple times it almost completely stops leaching. So yeah, people who warm up plastic baby bottles should think twice, but why would you do that in the first place? You should know my the time you have kids that warm liquids in plastic tastes nasty.
Anyway, BPA is in pretty much everything, its not going to go away because its a main chemical to harden plastic. Sure you can switch to glass or stainless steel, but how many bottles are you going to break and pay to replace when you can use one bottle? The recycling numbers don't have anything to do with BPA, all the numbers are is a classification system of the type of plastic, not whats in it. To reach the safety limit of BPA, a person would have to drink 20 5 gallon bottles of water per day, for the rest of their lives. Whats going to kill you first?
@u1itn0w2day: My understanding is probably far from perfect, but I belive BPA is a monomer which is used with other chemicals to form basic polymers or alter the behavior of polymers which are then used in plastic. When heat is added or when the plastic is stressed, the polymers break down and the BPA is released in its original monomer form.
In general, I think plastics leach a lot of chemicals. This of when you buy something new that's plastic. If it was boxed in the factory, you'll be nearly knocked out by the smell you face when you open it. That's the chemicals of plasticizers which have escaped the plastic and evaporated. Not all of them evaporate, though. BPA doesn't, I don't think.
@zarex42:
When I was working for an EPA call center in 2003-2005 there was a growing number of articles in peer-reviewed journals that was questioning the viewpoint that "the dose makes the poison". I recall one study finding that trace amounts of a pesticide (don't recall which one) caused more frogs to change sex than much larger standard doses.
I'm not in the field any longer, so I don't have intimate knowledge of what came of that line of inquiry. However, a quick google search seems to indicate that the debate continues.
@Jubes: The numbers actually have to do with what polymer was used in the plastic and are a good rough guide to determine which plastics do and don't contain BPA. Certain number can contain BPA, certain numbers will almost always contain BPA (7) and certain numbers will never contain BPA.
@zarex42:
No one talks about the good side of trace elements... what about the valuable ones?
Humans have about 0.1 ppm (100ppb) of gold in their bodies...
And gold has appreciated 1,000% since 2000....
I'm worth a FORTUNE!!!!
So, never get a receipt. Got it.
Actually, gold's up about 200% since 2000. So, that means you and four buddies _together_ are worth a fortune. :)
I worked for an EPA call center in college and I remember filing studies that said what you did. I was about to say the same thing, but from a way less technical standpoint, with way less references.
@hoot550:
Yes, exactly. Safe level is EXACTLY what we need. There's a safe level for plutonium, and an unsafe level for oxygen.
I love this health scare crap that gets perpetrated on the general public all the time. Hey everybody, did you know that EVERYTHING is potentially lethal? Water, vitamins, oxygen, and anything else you can think of! We need to get the government to ban all of these deadly substances. The key is in DOSAGE! Take, for example, saccharin. Yes, it causes cancer. What most people don't realize and what the media won't report because it would get people into less of a frenzy is that you would need to have an extremely unrealistic dose DAILY to see the ill effects. And with the BPA crap, it's the same story. We found something that might have a change to maybe to something to someone when all of the conditions are perfect and the person has a sensitivity and has eaten this and... IT'S A HEALTH SCARE! And the bottle industry is going to go right along with it because it's going to get all of the overprotective mothers and granola eating hippies to buy more bottles to get rid of this MENACE! And of course the government is going to go along with it, it's in baby bottles! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!
tl;dr: BULLLLLLLSHIIIIIIIIIIT
Trace or not is irrevelant. We aren't talking about dose-dependent poisions like say cyanide. BPA is among a class of compounds that are endocrine disruptors, which effectively have no safe-dose. They alter biochemical pathyways in your body at doses likely below what we can analytically detect. Fact: BPA is a carcinogen and endocrine disruptor. FACT: It is used in thousands of products. The extent to which it leaches from these sources and enters humans and how long it stays is not understood. Why risk it? Alternatives exist.
Another thing commonly found in plastic bottles is Dihydrogen Monoxide.
Should I be concerned about Dihydrogen Monoxide?
Yes, you should be concerned about DHMO! Although the U.S. Government and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) do not classify Dihydrogen Monoxide as a toxic or carcinogenic substance (as it does with better known chemicals such as hydrochloric acid and benzene), DHMO is a constituent of many known toxic substances, diseases and disease-causing agents, environmental hazards and can even be lethal to humans in quantities as small as a thimbleful.
What you may find surprising are some of the products and places where DHMO is used, but which for one reason or another, are not normally made part of public presentations on the dangers to the lives of our family members and friends. Among these startling uses are:
* as an additive to food products, including jarred baby food and baby formula, and even in many soups, carbonated beverages and supposedly "all-natural" fruit juices
* in cough medicines and other liquid pharmaceuticals,
* in spray-on oven cleaners,
* in shampoos, shaving creams, deodorants and numerous other bathroom products,
* in bathtub bubble products marketed to children,
* as a preservative in grocery store fresh produce sections,
* in the production of beer by all the major beer distributors,
* in the coffee available at major coffee houses in the US and abroad,
* in Formula One race cars, although its use is regulated by the Formula One Racing Commission, and
* as a target of ongoing NASA planetary and stellar research.
You know what I find utterly amazing? Despite all these horrible poisons and contaminants, we're still alive. (Not that this BPA story isn't important, it's just a litttle overblown.)
@Landru:
Do you know them? The article didn't even attempt to quantify the results, or consider whether it was a dangerous level. That's the problem.
WARNING: Life may lead to death. Birth at your own risk.
@zarex42: It's not that simple. One issue with BPA is that it is constantly in the bodies of individuals in developed nations. So, y the time I am 60, I have had BPA acting as an endocrine disruptor for 60 years. Dose then becomes much less important. The folks researching this stuff realize this, but according to you they're still wrong and can be proven as such with expired platitudes of "the poison is in the dose".
@bohemian: Wrap your food in wax paper when possible so that contact with the plastic container is limited.
@Claytons:
Dose is still critical. You have to realize that a dose of *zero* is not possible, nor practical. You have to establish some baseline based on actual evidence, not just "BPA=evil".
@bohemian:
Most of the Asian grocery stores I have been to have glass food storage containers. I'm not really sure why; perhaps they are for storing dishes that are more acidic or something like that.
The brand I have seen is called SnapWare GlassLock. Bed Bath & Beyond carries some of it, too, but the local Asian stores have lower prices that BB&B. As the name implies, they have plastic lids that snap onto the glass bases. Here they are at the SnapWare site: [www.snapware.com]
You could also do what I remember my mother doing, which was to store leftovers in re-purposed glass jars. She would wash pickle jars or whatever and reuse them. I use gallon sized jars to store pasta & flours, for example.
The real problem here is that this debate ends up polarizing folks into "there's nothing wrong with it under any circumstances" or "you will die from looking at it", whatever "it" is.
BPA is *not* a carcinogen, to the best of our knowledge - see here:
It appears to increase susceptibility to certain types of cancers, which is absolutely not good, but that's *not the same thing* - and before I'm accused of splitting hairs, please consider that taking certain vitamins can increase your risk of cancer as well:
Not that I'm advocating that we ban vitamin supplements, but accuracy and perspective are important.
BPA is *not* in all plastics no matter what, nor are all plastics toxic or leaching horrible things into your food. BPA *may* be in plastics marked with recycling codes 3 or 7 - emphasis on *may* - but even that is not guaranteed. Those numbers alone cannot be used as evidence of the presence or absence of BPA, so *please* stop implying as much - 3 is PVC and 7 just means all plastics not covered by 1-6 - including everything from polycarbonate to corn-derived biodegradable poly(lactic acid). For those who are worried about all of your plastic food containers killing you, therefore, stop it. As it turns out, there can be harmful impurities in glass, metals, ceramics, and any other material you like as well. Also, keep in mind that we live in an era where foodborne illness and death is far, far less common than it once was due to lack of such containers.
BPA *is* a potential health risk, especially for unborn babies, infants and children, because their low body mass, inability to efficiently process the stuff, and ongoing development make them particularly susceptible to its endocrine disrupting effects. There is no way I would let any child of mine be exposed to any quantity of this stuff if I could help it. Oh, and it's everywhere, by the way, which sucks (start panic now):
...though thankfully in pretty low concentrations vs. the EPA exposure limit of 50 µg/kg body mass/day - again, that's for adults, but it provides at least some perspective.
It's also worth noting that car accidents injure ~2.9 million and kill ~43,000 people per year in the US. This doesn't mean BPA is great and we should go out and eat some, but let's put things in perspective (and put on our seat belts and put away the G.D. cel phone while driving, thank you) before we all freak out.
It's stupid of the plastic industry to continue to add BPA to PVC as an antioxidant. There are alternative antioxidants, and they should be used. The industry should also be looking harder for alternatives to BPA-based plastics (polycarbonate, epoxy can coatings) for any applications where leaching to food and beverages may occur - better safe than sorry. Finally, the American Chemistry Council needs to stop giving chemistry a bad name by repeatedly responding with total denial that anything could ever cause harm under any circumstances - I can't believe anyone takes them seriously at this point. Nevertheless, CDs, DVDs, and eyeglasses made of polycarbonate are not an immediate threat to your health (unless you plan on boiling and eating them), and the big water bottle manufacturers (Nalgene, Camelbak, etc.) have been smart enough to transition from polycarbonate to another plastic to avoid issues of potential break down under the wrong conditions (moist / high pH / high temperature, like your dishwasher). FYI, the recycling code is *still 7*, for the new materials, thanks, and it was *just invented* in the last few years, so no, the plastics people have not been hiding BPA-free alternatives from you all this time in an effort to poison everyone. Likewise, please also recall that the tendency of consumers to constantly demand lower prices no matter what has killed many alternatives by making them non-viable from an economic standpoint. If we adjust our buying habits, the market will follow.
It's also stupid of the people who wrote the study referenced in the article to present things as they did when it comes to plastics. They note a study where flexible PVC hose leached BPA into water as evidence that we need to worry about rigid PVC plumbing. What they fail to note is that the study on flexible PVC hose (almost entirely in Japanese, so I question how carefully the authors understood what they referenced) involves letting water sit in bent hose for 24 hours and then measuring for BPA. Additionally, the hose tested was for sprinkler systems, drains and showers - not drinking water supply lines or food processing equipment. In contrast, rigid PVC is far less permeable than flexible PVC (meaning stuff leaches in / out much more slowly), contains lower concentrations of BPA (if it contains any at all), and almost never has water sitting in it for 24 hours. That doesn't mean that there will be no BPA coming out of rigid PVC pipes under any circumstances, but the risks there are far, far lower, making this a highly misleading comparison.
The idea that BPA in rigid PVC pipe is an inhalation hazard - also mentioned in the paper - is ludicrous, given that a pile of pure (100%) BPA has a vapor pressure of 3e-7 mm Hg at room temperature (vs. the fraction of a percent that may or may not be embedded in rigid PVC pipe), and the idea that PVC contains chlorinated BPA, a new mystery toxin no one tests for, is patently false. The reference the authors give for this claim says nothing of the sort - rather, it indicates that, if you treat BPA dissolved in water with chlorine bleach / similar compounds, as is done in sewage treatment plants, that you rapidly make chlorinated BPA. This has absolutely nothing to do with what's in PVC pipes, unless you're someone who likes to soak your PVC pipes in chlorine bleach for long periods of time (remember, it's a fraction of a percent embedded in a rigid, minimally permeable plastic, so no, it will not happen in five minutes) before drinking out of them (good luck with that). You might also be able to generate chlorinated BPA in pipes if you were to, for instance, put them in your oven and cook them to a golden brown or set them on fire on occasion, but at that point you may have more pressing issues to address.
All in all, this makes it very clear to me that (as is too often the case) no one with any clue about plastics reviewed this report. It's here if you're curious:
Enjoy,
Arc_Light
Bisphenol-A enters my body through my dreams.