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."
BPA! It cures cancer! Now it can cure your unborn fetus' cancer, too!
-SaNo
...he says, taking a long drink from his plastic water bottle.
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
it was your cup that was poisoned. They were both poisoned. I spent the last few years building up an immunity to BPA.
It acts like female hormones once it gets inside the human body. Not good for adults, but really bad for babies.
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.
According to Wikipedia you remember it wrong. And it wasn't the '90s, it was two years ago.
Also, later in the wiki article it says there's a link between BPA and both obesity and drug abuse.
Free Martian Whores!
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...
Oh, they're all bad.
Say what now? Nylon? Polyethylene? Nothing bad about them at all.
As a rule, it's usually the additives and trace chemicals from production that cause problems. All plastics are large chain molecules (and thus not absorbed by the body) and most are quite stable and do not break into monamers that could very easily (which is why most plastics are not biodegradable, and the very reason they are used).
Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
Actually, while in no way implicating BPA, in the average age of puberty has been dropping in Western countries for the past 170 years (since the 1840s according to the Wikipedia article). The disparity seems to correlate at least in part, to industrialization; the shift started later in Japan (1945), but progressed more rapidly (dropping by 11 months per decade, instead of 4 months per decade in Europe). In 1840, the average age of first menstruation was 17, in France, 15.3. Nowadays, either age would be considered quite late; typical onset of menstruation is now around age 11.75 worldwide; 12.5 in the U.S.
Clearly, BPA isn't responsible for the entire historical shift (what with BPA containing plastics only becoming common in the last 50 years or so); changes in diet (particularly the reduction in malnourishment levels) and activity levels (hunter gatherer groups tend to have an onset later than their diet would otherwise allow for) are responsible for some of the difference. But the increased exposure to all sorts of hormone mimicking chemicals (such as BPA) was likely responsible for some of the shift as well. The question is whether BPA is unusually damaging, whether it is possible to remove BPA and other hormone mimicking chemicals from our products and the environment without affecting us negatively in other ways, etc.
Unlike the realm of medicine, where the scientific method has been applied for to evaluate treatments more and more often in recent decades, the chemical industry remains largely untested and unregulated. People were painting their homes with lead paint and burning leaded gas in their cars and it took decades for studies to make the link to retardation and poor impulse control. For something like BPA, where the negative effects seem to be longer term and less severe than that of lead poisoning, it's not at all surprising that no one has investigated it until recently.
$_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
The opposite of Idiocracy? We definitely need more products like this!
Sterilize the stupid, kill off the uneducated, yay!
No sig today...
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.
That's entirely possible. Nothing in my statement directly implicates BPA, yet I'm skeptical that we can add chemicals to our diets that simulate our own sex hormones without affecting the processes those hormones regulate. Whether these effects are dangerous isn't something I know, but I would like to see rigorous studies done. Unfortunately, with chemicals like BPA, we seem to prefer introducing them to everyone's diet in an uncontrolled fashion before bothering to check if the chemicals are safe.
$_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
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.