Studies Prove BPA Can Cross Placenta To Fetuses 234
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."
Aaaand... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Aaaand... (Score:5, Funny)
...he says, taking a long drink from his plastic water bottle.
Re: (Score:2)
Most name brand manufacturers have phased out BPA the last time a study came out about the chemical... in 2007? This is on par with doing a study about the adverse effects of lead paint or asbestos insulation. Possibly dangerous chemical isolated in common item, replacement chemical used, hazardous chemical phased out of use. You're only at risk if you buy your hard plastic water bottles at the dollar store.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, they're all bad. Ones containing BPA are just worse.
Re:Aaaand... (Score:5, Informative)
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).
Re: (Score:2)
I'm wondering, not worried at all about it btw, if exposure to sunlight (UV for example) or other microwaves might in fact disrupt some of these bonds. I'm speculating here but maybe the density of BPA in nylon, polyethylene, polypropylene or even polystyrene is unmeasurable under normal use in comparison with polycarbonate plastic.
On the grand scheme of things, we have yet to see a serious (as is worse than the flu virus) consequences of endocrine disruptions in humans. The most alarming note come from the
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
There are literally tons of data to back that up. Think harder. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, because "all plastics are bad" is totally what I said.
Re: (Score:2)
Doctor: Don't worry, scrote. There are plenty of 'tards out there living really kick-ass lives. My first wife was 'tarded. She's a pilot now.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's a chemical used in many crystal-clear hard plastics. Like water bottles and baby bottles. Don't remember what it does to you - rots your brain or something.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It feminizes, IIRC.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Faaaabulous.
Sort of (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I guess Lois Griffin must have used a lot of BPA products while she was pregnant with Stewie.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Does it though? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
It feminizes, IIRC.
That must explain why the current crop of political leaders consists of Chickenhawks on the right and pussies on the left ;)
I can see the bumper sticker now: Ban plastic bottles! It's cheaper than injecting testosterone into our politicians.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
It's probably something you could google.
Great description (Score:4, Funny)
BPA! It cures cancer! Now it can cure your unborn fetus' cancer, too!
Re:Great description (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a geek, getting that would be the least of my problems.
Re: (Score:2)
adult male sexual dysfunction
I heard Slashdot causes this too.
Re: (Score:2)
adult male sexual dysfunction
I heard Slashdot causes this too.
Correlation != causation. You must be new here (said the guy with an orders of magnitude higher UID).
Re: (Score:2)
"BPA has been linked to obesity and many cancers, and worst of all (dumm, dumm, DAHHHH) adult male sexual dysfunction.
in rats that have been heavily dosed.
None of those effects have beens seen in human.
Re: (Score:2)
Odds are good that if you are looking at het porn, you didn't get exposed to much BPA.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Great description (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I love it when the description actually explains why something it good or bad.
No! That's bad when that happens! The ability to comment and moderate are meant for us to demonstrate our superior intellectual capabilities by correcting the glaring factual errors and omissions of TFS and TFA. No, /. depends on bad summaries and articles.
Effect of other additives? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm pretty sure that canned food companies haven't stopped using it [consumerreports.org].
Re: (Score:2)
...also easy to reuse and won't end up in the Pacific garbage patch.
Re: (Score:2)
BPA isn't a food additive, it's used primarily to make plastics. Products containing bisphenol A-based plastics have been in commerce for more than 50 years. It's used to line cans for everything from beer to soda to canned veggies. They used to make baby bottles out of it, IINM they stopped that.
I seem to vaguely remember that it's linked to erectile dysfunction... Yep, wikipedia says "Exposure to BPA in the workplace was associated with self-reported adult male sexual dysfunction".
Oh wait, I should have f
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that's not as bad as "spousal-reported sexual dysfunction".
Re:Effect of other additives? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
See, I still store food in tupperware, but will only reheat in glass containers, or microwave-safe plates. Does simply storing food in the containers contaminate it with BPA, or does the heating process do that?
Re: (Score:2)
Damn that DHMO, it's everywhere these days!
Enough with the "Proof" (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:Enough with the "Proof" (Score:5, Informative)
There has been quite a bit of scientific literature regarding BPA - see the links from Wikipedia [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Dude, did you read even a single word of what I said? If you had, you'd know I wasn't defending BPA.
Re: (Score:2)
I think he meant "moderation" as in "not extreme".
Studies can prove things (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Studies can prove things (Score:4, Insightful)
The article didn't say that the study proved that BPA is dangerous.
True. But the headline did. Does rather (look at the caption line of your current window)
It said that they proved that BPA can cross the placenta.
No, it said researchers "found" this to be the case in experiments with pregnant rats. I'm not just quibbling when I refuse to use the P word here. This is evidence that BPA crosses human placentas, and anybody who cares about neonatal health should certainly pay attention. But it's just not the same as proof. Another researcher might do another study that confirms or refutes this one. That wouldn't be proof either, just more evidence. And any of the above studies might get torn down if something finds fault with their methodology — which happens a lot in science, especially medical science.
Science isn't about proof. It's about accumulating evidence that backs up or tears down whatever theory or model happens to be under examination. This is inconvenient if you want to write pat little headlines, but it's the main reason science is more effective at advancing human knowledge than religion.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, "educated in science" usually means knowing lots of "scientific facts", not understanding scientific thinking.
The question is, how bad is BPA Really? (Score:3, Interesting)
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/ [envirolaw.com]
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.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that you can taste the plastic container in the food is something
Based on the fact that most people don't notice the bad taste of the frozen food itself in the plastic container that they cook in the microwave, I doubt they notice the taste of the plastic...
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that you can taste the plastic container in the food is something
Based on the fact that most people don't notice the bad taste of the frozen food itself in the plastic container that they cook in the microwave, I doubt they notice the taste of the plastic...
...or perhaps it's you who doesn't notice the good taste of microwave meals? Yes, actually, even without knowing you, I'm pretty sure you don't notice that good taste at all... ;-)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The fact that you can taste the plastic container in the food
This has always baffled me. As a kid I remember the plasticy taste from our plastic drink cups. It was especially noticeable if it was a closed container. You don't need a scientist to tell you it is leeching into the water when you can taste it. I don't understand why that didn't make people think "wait... it tastes like plastic... doesn't that mean that there is plastic leeching in the water? Is this possibly bad for me?"
Re: (Score:2)
Probably not. Plastics isn't absorbed. BPA is not plastic. it is in some plastics.
Of course there still hasn't been a study that showed any effects in humans, and the study didn't address the fact that the half life of BPA is about a day.
The banning in Canada was not based on any facts, just fear.
Re: (Score:2)
Brussels sprouts are good for you.
Just sayin'
The endocrine disruptor scam (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I read somewhere that BPA does delay the onset of puberty... but only in boys, and that it speeds it up in girls. I was under the impression that this was happening, but then again I'm nowhere near that field of work so I could be completely wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
dental amalgam mercury.
You mean the controversy where most people agree that it leeches mercury into the mouth... the question is, how much?
Re:The endocrine disruptor scam (Score:4, Informative)
According to Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] 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.
Re: (Score:2)
You'll find the same sort of "panel consensus" by scientists in the 1970s who were absolutely sure that billions of people will starve to death by the year 2000, because the world doesn't produce enough food and everybody will be malnourished.
The closer I get to obtaining my PhD, the more I'm learning that science is a group-think exercise where you had better agree with what others think, or else.
Re: (Score:2)
This paper is from 2008. It's probably the same one.
Also, no effect has been shown in humans. Not even a correlation.
Re: (Score:2)
Since the onset of puberty has become earlier if anything...
Onset of puberty is, I'm assuming, a complex biological event we don't completely understand, but one that can be affected by multiple factors. One explanation as to why puberty is starting earlier is that BPA did not do anything. Another explanation is that, no, BPA is still having unnatural effects but other factors, like increased hormones in meat, are having some other unnatural effects that would partially mask that.
The following is pure conjecture:
Maybe BPA -is- actually delaying puberty in males, b
And to think, all that time... (Score:5, Funny)
Bisphenol-A (Score:3, Informative)
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"
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I remember awhile back that there was a study that found that only drinking diet pop still affected a person's obesity, even though it did not contain any calories. http://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20050613/drink-more-diet-soda-gain-more-weight [webmd.com] .
I'm not saying that there is solid correlation here, I'm fine with the opinion that people who drink diet pop are probably the people making the worst food choices anyway. But what if it's not just the sugar, but the propensity to drink pop from cans with BPA and cont
Re:Bisphenol-A (Score:4, Informative)
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 [wikipedia.org]). 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.
Re:Bisphenol-A (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Plus, how do we know woman in the 1840s weren't just lying about when they first got their periods?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So in 80+ years of research the best they can come up with is "There may be an issue with Bisphenol-A"
We haven't cured cancer or the common cold either. Biology is hard.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
So in 80+ years of research the best they can come up with is "There may be an issue with Bisphenol-A"
Why is that not enough? Do you want them to force feed the stuff to a bunch of people for 30 years and compare them to the general population? Unfortunately, that is just about the only way to know for sure. Will you volunteer to be one of the people in that study? And when it is done, promise not to sue them for turning you into an obese breast-cancer infected human with no reproductive system left.
BPA is a leeches into your body at low levels over your entire lifetime. It is really hard to tell what
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"The first evidence of the estrogenicity of bisphenol A came from experiments on rats conducted in the 1930s, but it was not until 1997 that adverse effects of low-dose exposure on laboratory animals were first reported."
I've got one:
"Bisphenol-A causes you to dev
Better Article (Score:3, Informative)
More Women (Score:2)
More fetuses will be born as female-ish babies and how is this a bad thing?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I wonder whether BP can cause these things as well (Score:2)
Re:Freeeeee Markeeeeeeeeeet! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Freeeeee Markeeeeeeeeeet! (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 add
Re: (Score:2)
Funny, that market sprang up over fear and lies, not truth and facts.
So no, the free market didn't 'Fix' anything.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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....
Re:Freeeeee Markeeeeeeeeeet! (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Freeeeee Markeeeeeeeeeet! (Score:4, Insightful)
The opposite of Idiocracy? We definitely need more products like this!
Sterilize the stupid, kill off the uneducated, yay!
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Freeeeee Markeeeeeeeeeet! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
...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. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
"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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
How "overwhelming" the evidence is depends on several factors, including the intelligence of the person making the judgment. The wasps building nests near my house will never see an overwhelming correlation between being a risk to my kids, and dying due to Black Flag exposure that same evening.
Re: (Score:2)
If something were really, really bad for you, the evidence would be overwhelming.
What makes you think that?
Timeframes (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
If something were really, really bad for you, the evidence would be overwhelming.
Cutting off my toe would not be really, really bad for me, but that doesn't mean you can cut off my toe and it would be just fine and dandy.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm sure your grandfather's doctor said the same thing to him in the 1950s about cigarette smoking. "Bad for you? Nonsense, we'd have overwhelming evidence by now. Have a Camel, they're good for you! [flyingsnail.com]"
Re: (Score:2)
I've heard that in a certain city there that if you spend a night there the world can be your oyster....
Re: (Score:2)
> Nobody cares about all this baby shit. I don't know why people bother submitting such nonsense.
Uh, yeah, because the continuation of humanity beyond the next 80 years is like, such a niche issue. Estrogen mimics (like BPA) fuck with human reproductive systems as they form in the womb. So there's a ~20 year time lag between exposure (now, assuming you eat from cans) and measurable impacts (when our kids try out those reproductive parts). So maybe, as a society, we should try to be on the leading edge of