Why 'BPA Free' May Not Mean a Plastic Product Is Safe

5 Likes

Thank you! The bandwagon for BPA free products is getting ridiculous. Besides the fact that no known health effects are caused by this substance, the alternatives used are very similar. If you’re afraid of plastic, don’t use plastic. It’s that simple :slight_smile:

3 Likes

From the article:
“A slew of studies document negative reproductive, developmental, and metabolic effects in a menagerie of wildlife— rhesus monkeys, zebrafish, nematodes, and mice. Even human studies have linked BPA to a range of health issues.”

4 Likes

The science has been misrepresented by the usual chemical fear-mongering that goes on. Read these two articles to learn more about what the actual evidence shows. You would need to be exposed to BPA at millions of times higher dosages before you need to be worried. :slight_smile:


"In their most recent study, the researchers exposed rats to BPA starting a few days after conception and continuing through sexual maturity. Doses ranged from about 70 times the amount that Americans typically get through their diet to millions of times that amount.

And even when rats got more than 70,000 times what a typical American ingests, there was no change in body weight, reproductive organs or hormone levels, the scientists reported. “In the low-dose range, there really were no biologically significant changes observed at all,” Doerge says.

It was only when exposures were millions of times higher than what people typically get that the scientists saw changes like those caused by the body’s own sex hormones.

To double-check the results, the scientists also looked at how BPA was interacting with estrogen receptors — the part of a cell that usually responds to estrogen. And once again it was only the highest doses that produced interactions.

The results bolster previous studies by government researchers showing that people’s exposure to BPA is lower than previously estimated and that the human body is really good at inactivating and eliminating BPA. But they are at odds with some smaller and less rigorous academic studies."

1 Like

It comes down to credibility. I rate National Geographic above an NPR blogger.

I rate sound, evidence-based science over cherry-picking your sources to confirm your biases :slight_smile: Any actual rebuttals or do you accept the evidence?

I supplied you with:

  • the rigorously detailed review of the available evidence, by the European Food Standards Authority (do you choose a nature photography blog over a major health authorities sound science? :wink: )
  • The US FDA’s review (you are choosing a nature photography blog over TWO major health authorities?)
  • a clear description of the very precautionary limits defined by these governing bodies, and the hundreds of studies used to support this position and the fact that our exposures are extremely below this limit.
  • the most up-to-date studies showing that our exposure is actually much lower than the previous precautionary estimates
  • explanations on why your animal studies aren’t quality evidence*

The EFSA review is over 600 pages long, so I understand if you don’t want to read the entire thing. They do have a very handy summary I would recommend you reading, and their conclusion. The EFSA concluded that there is, “no health concern for BPA at the estimated levels of exposure” as far as diet goes. When it came to total exposure (i.e. diet and exposure from other sources such as thermal paper), they concluded that “the health concern for BPA is low at the estimated levels of exposure”. The factsheet that was published alongside the full document summarises the results as follows: “BPA poses no health risk to consumers because current exposure to the chemical is too low to cause harm.

I provided this quality information, and you choose to dismiss it all because of one half-hearted sentence in a nature photography blog? Please don’t be a hypocrite on these forums. We value evidence here. Follow the evidence, not your ideology :slight_smile:


*Here it is, seeing as you don’t want to press the button yourself:
“Animal studies have suggested possible links to certain cancers, infertility, neurological problems and other diseases. A lot of the work is fairly small-scale and, as I’ve mentioned, focused on animal studies (rather than looking directly at effects in humans). Where humans have been studied it’s usually been populations that are exposed to especially high BPA levels (epoxy resin painters, for example).” Not exactly a representative sample of the population hey?

Again, those are the words of a blogger, not a respected journal. Let’s just agree to disagree.

So you admit to ignoring the evidence from some of the world’s most respected researchers because it goes against your bias? I’ll agree with that, Nemo.

Just as you admit to ignoring all the links in the OP. Do stop the breathless Gish-gallops. Your behaviour verges on bullying.

asks for evidence
calls it a gish-gallop when it contradicts their viewpoint

Didn’t ignore, explained.

There is no need to be defensive. I am countering the claim, not you as a person. I have made no remark against you personally, and never will.

You’re debating, not discussing. In debate, truth is often a casualty.

There is a stark difference between attacking your personal characteristics (like your gender, your skin colour, your level of intelligence) and highlighting the fact that you avoid engaging with views in opposition to your own. It’s dishonest and needs to be called out. But I will never make a remark against you personally. I understand that this conversation is no longer bearing fruit, so I will make this my last comment to you. I hope you begin to open your mind to evidence, but I understand everyone is on their own journey. Have a good day, Nemo :slight_smile:

The foodstandards position on BPA is here

There have been countless products and chemicals once deemed safe that eventually were found to be health risks, and vice versa. Establishing each is a longer term individual undertaking that demands rigorous process with evidence. There are good points on both sides, but it has to be accepted that we are each subject to so many chemicals and other ‘intrusions’ into our possible well being that it is increasingly difficult to isolate any single aspect, often because of the interactions required for ‘A to beget B without having C’.

Lots of good points have been made and consumers can and will each make their own decisions, as will the regulators and thus the manufacturers. One would hope that the regulators would be taking their roles seriously, and with that assumption they have the ‘say’ for now.

Thanks for the information, it has been informative.

2 Likes