So Is BPA Contaminating Our Food or Not?

[Editor’s note: The latest research data (announced after the article below was written) doesn’t look  good for BPA. A study conducted by doctors at Kaiser Permanente in Oakland, California and published online in the journal Fertility and Sterility on Oct. 28 revealed that 218 Chinese workers exposed to this chemical had low sperm counts and poor quality sperm. The greater the exposure, the greater the adverse effect on sperm. The results  reinforced past animal studies and other studies of human males that  strongly suggested a relationship between BPA and a variety of reproductive and other medical problems.  Last January, the FDA expressed “concern” about BPA.  The agency is working with the National Institutes of Health to further evaluate the chemical’s effects. However, the FDA has declined to say whether it is going to declare the chemical toxic, as has already been done in Canada.]

BPA is often in the news because consumers are apprehensive about its effects. Recently, The New York Times published a clear, detailed article on the subject and concluded--no surprise--that there is no final answer yet. However,  there is a glimmer of hope. More animal studies, financed by the government, are underway and may clarify conflicting conclusions drawn by scientists so far.

BPA (bisphenol-A) touches a great deal of the food we eat. It is a chemical component of  some plastics, particularly the plastic that lines most food and drink cans. It’s also used to manufacture clear plastic bottles, plastic containers, and many other products. According to The New York Times, almost everybody is exposed to it. A 2008 government study found that 93% of people age 6 and older had BPA in their urine, and it has been detected in the umbilical cord of newborns. Of great concern is its possible effect upon babies since it has been used in baby bottles and sippy cups. Some states have banned its use in products used by children, but a national ban has yet to be passed.

What damage does BPA do? It is suspected and has been accused of causing cancer, infertility, obesity, and many other medical problems. Studies show that it can mimic the hormone estrogen. No one can deny that BPA may be harmful to humans, but no one has yet proved that it is. Environmental groups and many Democrats favor the “precautionary principle” applied by the European Union: if there are plausible health concerns, a product should be banned until there is evidence that it’s safe. In the U.S., the opposite approach is applied: chemicals can be used until there is proof  that they’re dangerous. In defending its use, many Republicans and the food-packaging and chemical industries argue the following, according to the article: BPA is “all but indispensable to keeping canned food safe by sealing the cans and preventing corrosion and to producing many other products at reasonable prices.”

Scientists have been researching the effects of BPA for more than ten years. So why haven’t they been able to come up with a definitive answer about its safety? Here’s The New York Times explanation: “In science, no experiment is taken seriously unless other researchers can reproduce it.”  Various experiments have used different animal strains, different doses, and different methods of exposure, so it’s been impossible to reconcile the results.

So where does this leave consumers? Many have thrown out all plastic containers with the number 7 on the bottom because any that contain BPA are marked with a 7. (However, some plastics with a 7 may not have BPA; the markings are for recycling purposes, not to indicate the presence or absence of BPA.) People are commonly advised not to use plastic in the microwave. But those actions don’t totally protect a person from BPA. It’s also used in some medical devices, dental sealants, paper for cash register receipts, and the epoxy resin that lines most food and drink cans. So we’ll just have to hope that scientific research comes up with a conclusive answer, and the government either bans the chemical or offers proof that it’s harmless. 

For more information about BPA on this site, click below:

What is BPA?
http://shelflifeadvice.com/faq/what-bpa 

Is there good evidence that BPA is harmful to human health?
http://shelflifeadvice.com/faq/there-good-evidence-bpa-harmful-human-health

For a list of some products that do not contain BPA, type “Of the plastic products” into the search feature of this site.

Source(s):

The New York Times, “In Feast of Data on BPA Plastic, No Final Answer”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/07/science/07bpa.html?ref=science

Yahoo.com (from AP)  “High exposure to BPA linked to low sperm count”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101028/ap_on_he_me/us_med_bisphenol_sperm
 

Washingtonpost.com  “Study of Chinese workers links BPA to sperm problems
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/28/AR2010102800640.html