Slashdot Mirror
Studies Prove BPA Can Cross Placenta To Fetuses
Totes McGotes writes "From canned food to plastic bottles, Bisphenol-A seems to be cropping up everywhere, and now two new studies show that BPA freely crosses the placenta from pregnant mother to fetus. Plus, the research found that chemical transformations occur in the fetus allowing inactive BPA to be converted to the active form."
...what is this Bisphenol-A and why should I care?
BPA! It cures cancer! Now it can cure your unborn fetus' cancer, too!
-SaNo
So now that companies have stopped using BPA, what other additives should we investigate? Plastics still contain various chemicals that define the type of plastic...
I've moved to using glass for food storage. Although heavier, it's chemically safer since it's non-porous, and much easier to clean.
Studies don't "prove" anything. All they do is add a little weight to one side of an argument or another. Exactly how much weight depends on what was studied, how it relates to existing science, the methodology of the study, etc., etc., etc.
This study seems to add a little evidence to the belief that BPA is dangerous, of which there's already a lot. But only scientifically illiterate journalists and pundits (and, unfortunately, not a few opinionated doctors) look a single study and jump to big conclusion. You really need to look at the whole body of research.s
Apparently we don't really know:
The JAMA study measured urinary levels of BPA in 1455 adults aged 18-74 years, in relation to 8 conditions: arthritis, cancer, heart disease, diabetes, liver disease, respiratory disease (eg asthma, bronchitis, emphysema), stroke, thyroid disease. Higher BPA concentrations were found only in association with heart disease, diabetes and liver damage. This is a preliminary study, and “association” is not proof of causation but it does give grounds for concern. Bottom line: The significance, if any, of high urinary levels of BPA is not yet known, but long-term studies are certainly needed.
http://envirolaw.com/how-dangerous-is-bpa/
Personally I think it's a bad idea to cook food in plastic containers, or store things in plastic that can act as a solvent. The fact that you can taste the plastic container in the food is something I find disturbing and we primarily use glass and stainless, if only for that issue.
I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
A lot of papers were published in the 1990s claiming that endocrine disruptors such as BPA will cause children to have delayed onset of puberty. Since the onset of puberty has become earlier if anything, this seems to be in the same class of research as the "harm" of fluoridated water, power line radio waves, or dental amalgam mercury.
it was your cup that was poisoned. They were both poisoned. I spent the last few years building up an immunity to BPA.
If something were really, really bad for you, the evidence would be overwhelming. If this is in fact bad, it's bad only to a barely-detectable degree.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
that we're too late:
http://coolest-homemade-costumes.shippony.com/images/food/drinks/water/halloween-costume-ideas-for-kids-01.jpg
L'esperienza de questa dolce vita (The experience of this sweet life) - Dante Alighieri, The Divine Comedy
After a little digging I find that it is suspected in everything from breast cancer to obesity in children. It has been suspected as being bad sense the 1930's but there is no direct link to it causing any notable issues.
So in 80+ years of research the best they can come up with is "There may be an issue with Bisphenol-A"
It also seems to me that in 3 generations we would have seen a difference or at a minimum science should be able to say "It causes XXX"
It acts like female hormones once it gets inside the human body. Not good for adults, but really bad for babies.
First the oil spill now this.
WE GIVE UP ALREADY. YOU WIN. We surrender.
I'm not a nerd. Nerds are smart.
Actually, it is fixing the issue. Practically overnight an industry of BPA-free containers sprang up to service those people who wished to avoid exposure to the chemical. Media and research exists in a free market, so, it's not like we wouldn't have known any link.
Those that don't care (as in, not caring about their health, not caring since they're using the container to store stuff they don't intend to drink, etc) could still buy it and the prices the market will bare.
There's a lot of stuff the Free Market can't fix. This isn't one of them.
More Twoson than Cupertino
Assuming they are properly labeled. Unfortunately, the free market only works in a 100% informed populace that can weigh the costs and benefits of any product and have the option to choose. And the fairy tale land of perfectly informed people hasn't yet been made real. Clearly a failure of the free market and government regulation!
While BPA has alternatives, it's not always 100% clear. Many metal cans and bottles use a plastic lining that happens to contain BPA. Many "glass" products are actually layers of glass and plastic, or just plastic. With no labeling requirements on products composed of mixed materials, I couldn't make informed decisions even if I wanted to.
Finally, not related to BPA (where alternatives exist if you're willing to look hard enough for them), sometimes the free market fails to provide an alternative. I was trying to find beef stock the other day to make Swedish Meatballs. I generally prefer to avoid MSG and corn syrup in my food products. Of the ~8-10 different varieties of beef stock on the shelf at my local supermarket, all but one of them had MSG (and in large quantities) and a majority (forget the exact number) featured corn syrup (and yes, the only one without MSG had corn syrup). I ended up going with the MSG-free variety (the sodium content was roughly 1/8 that of the standard beef stock from any other brand, and 1/4 the sodium in the "low sodium" varieties), but the free market wouldn't let me avoid corn syrup as well. Nor for that matter do I know if the can itself had a lining containing BPA; even if I wanted to avoid BPA I had no way of making that decision.
$_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
Unfortunately, the industry of "BPA free" products sprang up at pretty much exactly the same time that the industry of BPA free products did. It turns out that printing new labels is much easier than actually reformulating your products.
Also, the "Contains BPA; but nobody except professional toxicologists studying the subject and hardcore supply chain wonks knows that" industries have been largely unaffected.
Pretty much as theory would predict, the areas closest to ideal markets with zero barriers to entry and equally informed participants achieved something close to a free market solution. The areas that deviated from those assumptions, whether by fraud, subterfuge, imperfect information, or existence of externalities did not.
For those of you that don't want to dig through the links in the summary blog, here is a more in-depth discussion of the papers.
Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
Except for all the people who will continue to use these products because they didn't hear.
So, we're supposed to craft a society to pander to those who are unwilling or incapable of doing their own research? Yeah, that should work out well....
Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
We are simply "selecting" for people who stay well informed and actually have a decent IQ. We need to compensate for all dumbasses we are keeping alive despite their own unintentional efforts to put themselves out of the gene pool.
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
I've heard that in a certain city there that if you spend a night there the world can be your oyster....
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
More fetuses will be born as female-ish babies and how is this a bad thing?
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
The opposite of Idiocracy? We definitely need more products like this!
Sterilize the stupid, kill off the uneducated, yay!
No sig today...
Science is pretty good at detecting problems that kill you instantly. In this case, it would be a correlation between BPA exposure while pregnant and breast cancer your children get forty years later. It's difficult to make studies that prove this firmly.
The article didn't say that the study proved that BPA is dangerous. It said that they proved that BPA can cross the placenta. All it takes to prove that something possible is to record a single incident of it occurring. That is definitely within the realm of what a single study can do, and assuming that these studies were performed correctly, that is exactly what they did. There are a lot of things that cannot be conclusively proven with a single piece of evidence, but the use of the word in this headline here is perfectly legitimate.
I didn't know the Bonneville Power Authority had gotten into genetics. I need to call my broker.
I don't believe in karma, I just call it like I see it.
Nobody cares about all this baby shit. I don't know why people bother submitting such nonsense.
While I also share your desire to not consume MSG or HFCS--or any refined fructose for that matter--I would have gone for the one with MSG and no corn syrup.
I have never been able to find any information that MSG is bad for you. Sure, there are holy wars on either side of the argument. There are inconclusive studies on both sides of the argument. There are people with a very specific sensitivity to it. But I have no seen anything conclusive.
HFCS on the other hand has a rather substantial amount of information regarding now just how bad it is for you but how it is bad for you.
There's a lot of stuff the Free Market can't fix. This isn't one of them.
I'd be more convinced of that had previous established industries built around something that was proven harmful traditionally reacted with an open mind and shut themselves down, rather than engaging in a campaign of FUD about the science.
You know, like if in the 50's the tobacco industry had said "Guys, the scientists are saying these things are killing us, so we're going to switch to growing, uh, potatoes or something. We just want you to be healthy, sorry to all of you who we've inadvertently gotten addicted."
Instead what I expect to happen is plastics companies will continue to sell you BPA free water bottles, capitalizing on the craze, and more importantly hoping that a BPA free water bottle will make you forget about the 3 tons that are still being produced every year and the millions of other products they're selling which can contaminate you, like canned foods.
In this case, MSG also corresponded to high sodium content. And regardless of source, there is information on the negative effects of high sodium. For the beef stock varieties I examined (with constant serving size), the MSG-free variety had 120 mg per serving, the "low sodium" varieties with MSG had 450 mg per serving and the regular varieties 900 mg per serving. Also, the MSG-free product didn't have HFCS, it just had regular corn syrup. Not that I know the differences in health effects; I just guess at what might be healthy based on the few dozen studies I read each year and hope for the best.
$_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
Agreed. Sodium is sodium. Though common sense would dictate that if "high fructose corn syrup" is exactly that then "corn syrup" should be merely that. I just don't trust food labels to be so straight forward.
...Have you tried to find a salad dressing that doesn't have HFCS and in insane amount of sodium in it that actually tastes edible? How come I can make my own rather easily that is rather tasty but I can't find a single one at the store?
It's upsetting to me, as I try to watch what I eat very carefully. I like being aware of what I put in my body. It has lead me to a lifestyle where I very rarely by prepackaged food and opt to prepare everything my self. My lack of trust in this industry has also lead to me becoming nearly 100% vegetarian. You can't even trust raw meat to not be adulterated before arriving at the store.
we're supposed to craft a society to pander to those who are unwilling or incapable of doing their own research?
Yes, because those producing the harmful products ALWAYS make the information freely and easily available to everyone, including those who don't have easy access to information sources outside of the local or national media.
Which is more painful? Going to work or gouging your eye out with a spoon? Find out!
http://www.workorspoon.com
Now before you all start calling me names, I have a serious question to ask.
Could this by any chance have to do with the increase in homosexuality?
I've also heard that this behavior is due to a dense population (too many frogs in the pond theory) or perhaps we're just a more open society.
Life is not for the lazy.
...Have you tried to find a salad dressing that doesn't have HFCS and in insane amount of sodium in it that actually tastes edible? How come I can make my own rather easily that is rather tasty but I can't find a single one at the store?
"Luckily" for me, I find the taste and/or texture of virtually all sauces and dressings disgusting. Finding a healthy salad dressing has never been an issue since I always eat salads plain. :-)
$_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
I've read so much bad news about petroleum lately, that I read the article title as "Studies Prove That BP Can Cross Placenta To Fetuses".
And BPA is a petroleum product. Go figure.
"We are Microsoft. You shall be assimilated. Competition is futile."
Unfortunately, the industry of "BPA free" products sprang up at pretty much exactly the same time that the industry of BPA free products did. It turns out that printing new labels is much easier than actually reformulating your products.
No, no, no. The printer just forgot the punctuation. It should be:"BPA, free". The manufacturers are including BPA, at no extra cost to you! I suspect they're all using the same printer as Lionel Hutz.
Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
At first I read that as BP causing these things, but then I realized they probably are (in the Gulf at least).
What he said.
That's what the newly-formed "she" said.
"Assuming they are properly labeled. Unfortunately, the free market only works in a 100% informed populace that can weigh the costs and benefits"
What you're ignoring is the cost to weight this information, it's simply mathematically impossible for people to way information about every product that exists today, not only that but manufacturing for many products is often extremely complicated network of products that no one could ever keep informed about.
There is also the problem that many companies do their damndest to have control of the government and legal system because they _don't_ want customers to be informed. Ignorance and vice is VERY profitable and you can be certain we'd here fud out of any industry who was having a negative effect on people of it is going to hurt their profits.
BPA as a chemical was discovered in the 19th century and it was investigated as a synthetic estrogen in the 1930s. However, it was never pursued as a production estrogen replacement (unlike DES). The question is, why not? Try to find an answer online--it's very difficult.
My understanding is that while it appeared to act like estrogen in the test tube, it turned out to have very little measurable estrogen-like effect in humans. My understanding is based on reading I did on BPA several years ago, but I have misplaced the citations. If anyone has a link to a detailed history of the pharma research involving BPA in the early 20th century, I'd be interested to read it. The Wikipedia article, for instance, is pretty much silent on anything involving BPA before a few years ago.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Brussels sprouts are good for you.
Just sayin'
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Funny, that market sprang up over fear and lies, not truth and facts.
So no, the free market didn't 'Fix' anything.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I ended up going with the MSG-free variety (the sodium content was roughly 1/8 that of the standard beef stock from any other brand, and 1/4 the sodium in the "low sodium" varieties), but the free market wouldn't let me avoid corn syrup as well.
It could be argued that the free-market was working correctly as despite the product range not being ideal you were still willing to buy one of them.
BP.... Poisoning the other Gulf? The Gulf of Uterus?
Cheers, Chris
Because salad dressing is perishable, and making it shelf-stable is an engineering, rather than culinary exercise. My favorite example: Once upon a time there was (or possibly still is) an actual place called Hidden Valley Ranch that was renowned for its buttermilk-based salad dressing. All attempts at bottling it led to a product with a sour acidic note instead of the buttermilk. The breakthrough was when the marketers realized very few people had tasted the real thing, and thus had no point of comparison and wouldn't care about the sour taste. Hence the still-used slogan "the way ranch is supposed to taste." (Googled for a reference, couldn't find one in a few minutes, sorry).
that's not a free market solution. that is opting out of the market entirely to meet your needs because the free market has not.
so if they sold a plastic liner that was guaranteed to give you cancer, but it was cheap, that would be ok because fuck it, they should have known better?
"that should work out well"...
You could have bought a T-bone from a local organic farmer and made the beef stock yourself.
Or left that store and gone to your local Whole Foods. Or, if you don't have one, you could have bought some online.
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
I ended up going with the MSG-free variety (the sodium content was roughly 1/8 that of the standard beef stock from any other brand, and 1/4 the sodium in the "low sodium" varieties), but the free market wouldn't let me avoid corn syrup as well.
It could be argued that the free-market was working correctly as despite the product range not being ideal you were still willing to buy one of them.
The free market also prioritizes making special "varieties" of products about the same way that the general population does. Consider that you might look for some of the following: organic, low sodium, MSG-free, HFCS-free, sugar-free, low-fat, made from free-range cows, gluten-free, BPA-free, locally made, and vegetarian-friendly (vegetable-based).
It's not generally cost-effective to make, ship, store, and sell all of these varieties; mandating that they all exist would be hugely expensive. So, the free market instead serves as much of the population as it profitably can. It would be too much to ask them to operate at a loss, so this is the most you could hope for. The only way to change this is to increase demand by raising awareness of issues like BPA.
A neutral communications medium is essential. It is the basis of science, by which humankind should decide what is true.
the free market instead serves as much of the population as it profitably can. It would be too much to ask them to operate at a loss, so this is the most you could hope for.
Or, you could regulate the market.
Markets will exist whether they are free or regulated, so long as there is supply, demand, and private parties are able exchange goods. Profit will always* occur in a market. Rather than only asking whether a seller can make a profit, you should also ask whether a buyer can satisfy his demand. From GP's story, it sounded like price wasn't the problem. Think about that. GP wants competition on quality/features, not merely competition on price... but, and this is the heart of the matter, price is the most obvious and easily understood piece of information about a good for sale.
GP's point was that consumers aren't informed of the dangers or benefits of certain ingredients. People being what they are - creatures of finite intelligence, education, attention, and motivation - they will never be perfectly informed as to what even their own preferences are, much less whether certain goods meet them. Government regulation of this problem is basically the gamble that specialist technocrats (i.e., regulators) are better able to weigh the costs and benefits of these ingredients for the whole population than individuals making private decisions for themselves only (i.e., what happens in the free market).
In some cases, aggregated private decisions (the free market) are best. But believing that the free market is always best seems over-optimistic of the capabilities of humans to gather and analyze information.
* in the long run, and from the point of view of the entity selling the good, as opposed to simply the exchange that occurs between buyer and seller. In other words, for example, a seller may reap more profit by selling certain goods at a loss but other goods at a higher profit.
There are a lot of estrogen mimicking chemicals we get exposed to on a daily basis. Other ones in plastic are xenoestrogens which are artificial chemicals that interact with the estrogen receptor. Phytoestrogens come from plants & exist in some soy products. I don't know what rock you live under, but many countries including the USA are having increasing fertility problems. Fertility clinics are doing better by the day since this problem is getting worse. Then you have the other problem of estrogens secreted in female urine which is left over from birth control pills. There are many rivers around city centres where fish are starting to become feminized & are having a hard time breeding. This is no scam, it's really quite a problem & will continue to get worse unless we change something.
Use leaded glass to keep out harmful radiation!
There is still an alternative there, which is making the beef stock from scratch yourself.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Well, as I always say, "If you can't pronounce it, don't put it in your mouth."
Lemon. PASS ...and so on.
Horse. PASS
Pee. PASS
Polyethylendicarbonate. FAIL
Arnold Schwarzenegger. FAIL
Because it's just SOOO efficient to have each person research each and every thing rather than just banning obviously problematic things so they don't have to. How often do you perform detailed chemical analysis of things you buy at the grocery store? When is the last time you studied the complete literature on a pesticide used on the fresh fruit? Do you even KNOW what pesticide was applied? Do you know that a neighboring field didn't get a different treatment? How close was the stuff you ate last night to that other field?
So, are you lazy, stupid, or simply trying to get on with your life hoping someone else is paying more attention than you are?
Actually, some preliminary studies suggest that early puberty in girls may be triggered by the presence of a 'stranger male' in the household. In other words, Mom's boyfriend.