Plastics / BISPHENOL A (BPA)
While stickers are showing up declaring certain products “BPA Free,” that doesn’t mean they’re necessarily safe. Could bisphenol S be even worse than the compound it is supposed to be replacing? Last month in California, customers in the checkout lines in grocery stores started seeing warning signs that read, in part: “Many food and beverage cans have linings containing bisphenol A (BPA), a chemical known to the State of California to cause harm to the female reproductive system.” The label included the URL to the state’s website for Proposition 65, which requires businesses to warn Californians about exposure to any chemicals which cause cancer, birth defects, or reproductive harm. Human exposure to BPA is as ubiquitous as the stickers showing up now that proclaim products BPA free. The chemical used to make plastic has been linked to all kinds of reproductive issues, and even thought to play a role in the development of obesity and cardiovascular events, so industry is taking some steps to correct the problem (after much wailing and gnashing of teeth on their part). These stickers read “BPA FREE” and “NON-TOXIC PLASTIC” in bold letters and usually feature leaves and a green motif, the implication being that these products are safe and healthy. “There is a growing realization that we are poisoning ourselves with products that were designed to make our lives more convenient. And convenience is big business.” – Nancy L. Wayne, PhD, professor of physiology, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles But “BPA free” does not mean “EDC free” and many products now contain bisphenol S as a substitute for BPA. BPS is a similar chemical and has been found in everything from canned soft drinks to receipt paper to baby bottles. (The FDA banned BPA in baby bottles.) It’s been found in indoor dust samples and is beginning to show up in human urine, and it has been reported to be less biodegradable than BPA. Animal studies have implicated BPS in impaired offspring development. And the production of BPS is increasing annually. “Recent studies testing BPS and comparing it to BPA show that BPS is as bad, if not worse, than BPA as an EDC,” says Andrea Gore, PhD, professor and Vacek Chair of Pharmacology at the University of Texas in Austin, and editor-in-chief of Endocrinology. “’BPA free’ can give consumers a false sense of security about the product.” BPS studies are relatively new, and they’re following a similar trajectory to BPA and other EDC studies – aquatic species first, since these chemicals are released into the water supply, then mammalian models, and then on to human models. According to Kimberly H. Cox, a postdoctoral fellow studying reproductive endocrinology at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, the effects of BPA and BPS are subtler than say, PCBs or pesticides, where exposures came at high levels, with devastating effects. The effects of BPA and BPS depend on the timing, length, and dose of exposure, and numerous studies have shown that there are effects on the reproductive system, for example, at doses of BPA much lower than what has been determined as a “safe” exposure by the EPA. And now there also seem to be effects of BPS on the development of the reproductive system, as well as the brain regions that control reproduction. “As studies continue to investigate the impacts of BPS, all of these factors (timing, dosage, etc.) will have to be taken into account,” says Cox. “Fortunately, with years of studies on BPA, I think that the new research can learn from past mistakes, standardize methods, and also make direct comparisons to better understand how these two chemicals are similar and where they differ.” Fish TalesA study on BPS using aquatic species was published in Endocrinology in February, showing that BPA and BPS alter many aspects of the reproductive neuroendocrine system in zebrafish. The work was led by Nancy L. Wayne, PhD, a professor of physiology at David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, and Wenhui Qiu, a senior graduate student at Shanghai University, who received a Chinese fellowship to work in Wayne’s lab for a year. Wayne and her postdoctoral fellow Siddharth Ramakrishnan had shown in 2008 that BPA profoundly affected embryonic development of medaka fish, even just 24 hours after exposure. “[Qiu] was very interested in our 2008 study, and wanted to follow-up on the impact of BPA on development of the reproductive system using our zebrafish model system,” Wayne says. “We worked out an experimental design – and she wanted to include BPS, as there were a few studies at that time suggesting that it was an EDC.” Wayne, Qui, and their team exposed zebrafish to low levels of BPA and BPS, using the zebrafish model because the embryo is transparent, which makes it a popular model for investigating molecular genetics. “We took advantage of these characteristics by generating a transgenic zebrafish in which the GnRH3 promoter and signal sequence drives expression of a bright variant of green fluorescent protein,” Wayne says. “We are able to visualize development of GnRH3 neurons in the live embryo in real time.” The researchers found that BPA and BPS accelerate embryonic development, increase GnRH neuron number in the forebrains of zebrafish embryos, and increase expression of reproductive neuroendocrine-related genes. Both chemicals also mimic thyroid hormones. “When endocrinologists talk about BPA, they frequently describe it as estrogenic – and do not point out the other endocrine systems that are being altered, such as thyroid hormone,” Wayne says. “Our paper emphasizes that BPA and BPS are activating both estrogenic and thyroid hormone pathways. This suggests that EDCs are having much broader effects on health and disease than just mimicking estrogens (which is bad enough).” “’BPA free’ does not necessarily mean safer,” she continues. “It’s been marketed in that way. But when you look at the structure of BPA and BPS, there is very little difference. What were manufacturers thinking? It was merely an EDC swap.” Cox wrote an editorial in the same issue of Endocrinology, pointing out that “Qiu et al are the first to report on direct effects of low dose developmental exposure across multiple signaling pathways” and that their work could lay the groundwork for future studies of BPS. She writes that the mounting evidence obligates the scientific community “to extend beyond traditional endpoints and pathways to more whole-system, unbiased approaches.” Cox says that since a lot of EDC researchers got their starts conducting research in either pharmacology or endocrinology, many studies can have focused endpoints that were specific to the field of the primary investigator. “For example,” she says, “a behavioral endocrinologist might focus on the effects of EDC exposure on reproductive or social behaviors. Other systems would not be evaluated at the same time.” Researchers may also become too focused on narrower questions, and that focus can introduce biased approaches to their studies, which, according to Cox, are things like selecting candidate genes to examine the effects of EDCs on their expression. “While there is nothing wrong with either of these approaches, they require pieces to be put together on the back end, and for another study to be conducted to answer the next question,” Cox says. “What other behaviors are altered with the same exposures? What other genes are changing?” “Prideful Plastophobia”So far, there are many more studies on BPA than BPS. Studies on BPA have been going on for decades, and many have reached the same conclusion – that BPA leads to negative health outcomes, which is why industry has felt the need to assuage the public’s fears with cutesy and reassuring stickers. But, and this shouldn’t come as a surprise, the plastic and chemical industries aren’t exactly thrilled with the work on BPS. When Wayne and Qui published their paper in February, UCLA sent out a press release highlighting the results, and the media ran with it. “It made quite a splash on the Internet,” Wayne says. And then, on February 12th, Plastics Today published an article titled, “UCLA BPA/BPS Study Tainted by Plastophobia.” “The author was highly disparaging of our study, EDC studies in general, and accused me of “prideful plastophobia,’” Wayne says. “It felt like a personal attack.” Last October, the Endocrine Society hosted a Twitter chat on EDCs. Chemical and plastic industry Twitter accounts joined in, and it got, to say the least, interesting. And it makes sense; these industries will be affected by any policy that regulates their products. But none of the researchers studying these chemicals is out to destroy these industries or the products they create; they just want to make sure these industries are producing the things that people use every day as intelligently as possible. And these researchers have some ideas on how that can happen. Testing chemicals before they are put into consumer products seems like an elegant and simple solution. “While we may never be able to test for every possible outcome, this would be a really important way for chemical companies to at least make sure that known pathways affected by other EDCs are not likely to be impacted by their products,” Cox says. No Easy Answers But just because it seems like a simple answer, that doesn’t mean it will be an easy answer. Gore agrees that only by testing before a chemical is introduced into products that come into contact with food and beverages and lotions and personal care products and intravenous tubing and on and on, only then can we be confident that a consumer product is free of EDCs. “However, that is not how we do testing in this country,” she says, “so that system will need to change.” Wayne says she would like to see future EDC work that focuses on practical problems that the public is asking about, like whether the plastic containers that people use and reuse are leaching EDCs. But she points out that this will be hard work; the FDA still claims BPA is safe, even though it banned its use in baby bottles and sippy cups. The official statement is: “The Food and Drug Administration’s assessment is that the scientific evidence at this time does not suggest that the very low levels of human exposure to BPA through the diet are unsafe.” “Recent studies testing BPS and comparing it to BPA show that BPS is as bad, if not worse, than BPA as an EDC. ‘BPA free’ can give consumers a false sense of security about the product.” – Andrea Gore, PhD, professor and Vacek Chair of Pharmacology, University of Texas, Austin; editor-in-chief, Endocrinology “I don’t know what studies they are reading,” Wayne says, “but the ones in peer-reviewed papers point to an entirely different conclusion. Until the FDA is convinced by the mass of data showing that BPA below their NOAL (no observed adverse effect level) has an impact on biological functions, the powerful chemical and manufacturing industries will not be motivated to make changes.” However, she says the public can help by insisting on safe products, and federal agencies can help by stepping up and funding unbiased research. “There is a growing realization that we are poisoning ourselves with products that were designed to make our lives more convenient,” Wayne says. “And convenience is big business.” – Bagley is the associate editor of Endocrine News. He wrote about the possible link between growth hormone and the risk of stroke in the July issue. At a Glance • Products that announce they are “BPA free” do not necessarily mean that they are EDC free. • Studies are being conducted on BPS, a very similar analog to BPA, and researchers are finding that BPS has very similar effects as its more infamous cousin. • More studies need to be done on BPS, and researchers have ideas on keeping harmful chemicals from getting into consumer products, but it will be a battle. Source : Endocrine News Link to Source Chemical used in BPA-free products exhibits similar endocrine-disrupting effects Exposure to a substitute chemical often used to replace bisphenol A in plastics can encourage the formation of fat cells, according to a new study published in the Endocrine Society’s journalEndocrinology. The replacement chemical, bisphenol S, has a slightly different chemical structure than bisphenol A (BPA), a known endocrine disruptor. As of 2014, nearly 100 epidemiological studies have been published tying BPA to health problems, according to the Introductory Guide to Endocrine-disrupting Chemicals published by the Society and IPEN, a global network that supports sound chemicals management. Concerns about BPA’s health effects have encouraged some consumers to purchase food containers labeled “BPA-free”. BPA-free products often contain bisphenol S (BPS) or other substitutes, but researchers have raised concerns that these replacements also interfere with the body’s hormones and may pose similar threats to public health. “Our research indicates BPS and BPA have comparable effects on fat cells and their metabolism,” said the study’s senior author, Ella Atlas, PhD, of Health Canada, the federal department responsible for helping Canadians maintain and improve their health. “The study is the first to show that BPS exposure can induce the formation of human fat cells.” The Canadian researchers created a human cell model to test the effects of BPS exposure. They used human cells called preadipocytes – undifferentiated cells that can develop into fat cells – taken from the hip, thigh or abdomen of female volunteers. Groups of cells were exposed to various concentrations of BPS during a 14-day period. For comparison purposes, some cells were exposed to the chemical dexamethasone instead because it triggers a known rate of fat cell formation and accumulation of lipids, or fat-like substances that collect in the blood and tissue. Researchers found that the cells exposed to the smallest amounts of BPS as well as the cells exposed to the highest concentrations exhibited the largest accumulation of lipids, while moderate amounts had a smaller effect. Exposure to even tiny amounts of endocrine-disrupting chemicals can interfere with the functioning of hormones, since small changes in hormone levels are designed to trigger adjustments in metabolism, respiration, heart rate and other bodily functions. “Since BPS is one of the replacement chemicals used in consumer products that are marketed as BPA-free, it is important to examine whether BPS acts as an endocrine-disrupting chemical,” Atlas said. “This study shows that BPS and BPA have similar effects on fat cell formation, lipid accumulation and expression of genes important for lipid metabolism.” Other authors of the study include Jonathan G. Boucher and Shaimaa Ahmed of Health Canada’s Environmental Health Science and Research Bureau in Ottawa, Canada. The study, “Bisphenol S Induces Adipogenesis in Primary Human Preadipocytes from Female Donors,” will be published online at http://press.endocrine.org/doi/10.1210/en.2015-1872, ahead of print. Source : Newswise Link to Source Do our bodies safely break down BPA? Fat chance, study suggests. A new study suggests the long-held industry assumption that bisphenol-A breaks down safely in the human body is incorrect. Instead, researchers say, the body transforms the ubiquitous chemical additive into a compound that might spur obesity. The study is the first to find that people’s bodies metabolize bisphenol-A (BPA) — a chemical found in most people and used in polycarbonate plastic, food cans and paper receipts — into something that impacts our cells and may make us fat. The research, from Health Canada, challenges an untested assumption that our liver metabolizes BPA into a form that doesn’t impact our health. “This shows we can’t just say things like ‘because it’s a metabolite, it means it’s not active’,” said Laura Vandenberg, an assistant professor of environmental health at the University of Massachusetts Amherst who was not involved in the study. “You have to do a study.” People are exposed to BPA throughout the day, mostly through diet, as it can leach from canned goods and plastic storage containers into food, but also through dust and water. Within about 6 hours of exposure, our liver metabolizes about half the concentration. Most of that — about 80 to 90 percent — is converted into a metabolite called BPA-Glucuronide, which is eventually excreted. The Health Canada researchers treated both mouse and human cells with BPA-Glucuronide. The treated cells had a “significant increase in lipid accumulation,” according to the study results. BPA-Glucuronide is “not an inactive metabolite as previously believed but is in fact biologically active,” the Health Canada authors wrote in the study published this week in Environmental Health Perspectives. Not all cells will accumulate lipids, said Thomas Zoeller, a University of Massachusetts Amherst professor who was not involved in the study. Testing whether or not cells accumulate lipids is “a very simple way of demonstrating that cells are becoming fat cells,” he said. “Hopefully this [study] stops us from making assumptions about endocrine disrupting chemicals in general,” he said. The liver is our body's filter, but it doesn't always neutralize harmful compounds. “Metabolism’s purpose isn’t necessarily a cleaning process. The liver just takes nasty things and turns them into a form we can get out of our body,” Vandenberg said. BPA already has been linked to obesity in both human and animal studies. The associations are especially prevalent for children exposed while they’re developing. Researchers believe BPA does so by mimicking estrogen hormones, but its metabolite doesn’t appear to do so. In figuring out why metabolized BPA appears to spur fat cells, Zoeller said, it’s possible that BPA-Glucuronide is “hitting certain receptors in cells”. Health Canada researchers were only looking at this one possible health outcome. “There could be other [health] impacts,” Zoeller said. In recent studies BPA-Glucuronide has been found in human blood and urine at higher concentration than just plain BPA. Industry representatives, however, argue the doses used were much higher than what would be found in people. Steve Hentges, a spokesperson for the American Chemistry Council, which represents chemical manufacturers, said the concentrations used in which the researchers saw increased fat cells were "thousands of times higher than the concentrations of BPA-Glucuronide that could be present in human blood from consumer exposure to BPA. "There were no statistically significant observations at lower BPA-G concentrations, all of which are higher than human blood concentrations,” he said in the emailed response. Zoeller agreed the dose was high but said “the concentration is much less important than the fact that here is a group testing an assumption that’s uniformly been made.” Vandenberg said the range is not that far off from what has been found in some people’s blood. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is reviewing the Health Canada study but couldn’t comment before Environmental Health News’ deadline, said spokesperson Marianna Naum in an email. The agency continues to study BPA and states on its website that federal research models “showed that BPA is rapidly metabolized and eliminated through feces and urine.” Health Canada, which was not able to provide interviews for this article, has maintained a similar stance to the U.S. FDA, stating on its website that it “has concluded that the current dietary exposure to BPA through food packaging uses is not expected to pose a health risk to the general population, including newborns and infants.” However, the fact that Health Canada even conducted such a study is a big deal, Vandenberg said. “Health Canada is a regulatory body and this is pretty forward thinking science,” she said. “Hopefully this is a bell that can ring for scientists working for other regulatory agencies.” Source : Environmental Health News Link to Source Effects of Korean red ginseng (Panax Ginseng Meyer) on bisphenol A exposure and gynecologic complaints: single blind, randomized clinical trial of efficacy and safety Mihi Yang1*, Ho-Sun Lee1 , Min-Woo Hwang2 and Mirim Jin3 Abstract Background: Korean red ginseng (KRG) is a processed ginseng from raw ginseng to enhance safety, preservation and efficacy, known having beneficial effects on women’s health due to its estrogen like function. While estrogen supplementation showed some modulation of endocrine disrupting chemicals, bisphenol A (BPA) has been focused as a potential endocrine disrupting chemical. In this study, we examined the efficacy and safety outcomes of KRG against BPA, focusing on female quality of life (QOL). Individual variations in susceptibility to KRG were also investigated with the Sasang Typology, the personalized medicine used for hundred years in Korea. Methods: We performed a single-blind randomized clinical trial. Study subjects were young women (N = 22), consumed 2.7 g of KRG or placebo per day for 2 weeks and filled up questionnaires regarding gynecologic complaints at the 4 time spots. We analyzed urinary total BPA and malondialdehyde (MDA), an oxidative stress biomarker, with GC/MS and HPLC/UVD respectively, and diagnosed their Sasang Typology with the questionnaire for the Sasang constitution Classification (QSCC II). Results: KRG consumption decreased urinary BPA and MDA levels (ps < 0.05) and alleviated ‘menstrual irregularity’, ‘menstrual pain’, and ‘constipation’ (ps < 0.05). SoEum type (Lesser Yin person) among the Sasang types showed significant alleviation in insomnia, flushing, perspiration and appetite by KRG consumption, rather than other Sasang types. During the intervention, no one experienced any aggravated side effects. Conclusion: We suggest KRG is efficient for protection for female QOL and BPA- exposure and – related oxidative stress. However, individual variation in susceptibility to KRG should be further considered for identifying ideal therapy Source : BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine Link to Full Article BPA exposure linked to changes in stem cells, lower sperm production BPA and other estrogenic compounds hamper development of the stem cells responsible for producing sperm in mice, which suggests such exposure could contribute to declining sperm counts in men, according to a new study. The study, published in PLoS Genetics, is the first to suggest that low, brief exposures to bisphenol-A, or other estrogens such as those used in birth control but found as water contaminants, early in life can alter the stem cells responsible for producing sperm later in life. Exposure to estrogens “is not simply affecting sperm being produced now, but impacting the stem cell population, and that will affect sperm produced throughout the lifetime,” said Patricia Hunt, a geneticist at Washington State University who led the study. BPA is a ubiquitous chemical found in most people and used to make polycarbonate plastic and found in some food cans and paper receipts. People also are exposed to synthetic estrogens used in birth control as they are commonly found contaminating water, even after treatment. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration banned BPA from baby bottles in 2012 but maintains that BPA currently used in food containers and packaging is safe. And this week the European Food Safety Authority announced in a new assessment there is “no consumer health risk from bisphenol-A exposure.” However, Hunt’s study adds to evidence that low doses of the compound may harm us. Hunt and colleagues exposed some newborn mice to BPA and some newborn mice to a synthetic estrogen used in birth control pills and hormone therapy. These exposures – comparable to human exposures to the compounds -- caused “permanent alterations” to the stem cells responsible for sperm production, the authors wrote. The researchers also transplanted the stem cells into unexposed mice and verified the impacts to sperm development. It is “sobering evidence” for possible harmful impacts from short-term exposure, said Mary Ann Handel, a senior research scientist with The Jackson Laboratory, which specializes in genetics research Scientists previously found BPA exposure impactsmice testis size and sperm development and prostate growth. But what Hunt and colleagues did was different – they found a possible reason why these things happen: changes to the stem cells, which are vital for male reproduction. “The negative effects of estrogenic chemicals on the developing male include an expanding list of subtle changes to the developing brain, reproductive tract, and testis,” the authors wrote. “Changes in all three have the potential to induce major reproductive repercussions and … the biological underpinnings remain unclear.” Over the past few decades, researchers have noted declining sperm counts and quality in places such as Europe, Japan and the United States. In Denmark, more than 40 percent of young men have sperm counts associated with infertility or decreased fertility. “When you show you’re impacting a stem cell – that’s a huge deal,” said University of Missouri scientist Frederick vom Saal, who was not part of the study. “This exposure could very well be the basis for transgenerational loss of sperm production.” Sperm production is a continuous process: Once males hit puberty and start producing sperm, stem cells slowly divide and give rise to new cells to produce sperm. And, while there are some limits in using mice and extrapolating findings to humans, the reproductive systems’ “fundamentals are the same,” Hunt said. However, Steven Hentges of the American Chemistry Council, which represents chemical manufacturers, said in an emailed response that multiple large studies "consistently find no reproductive effects in males or females at any dose remotely close to the levels of BPA to which people are actually exposed." He said Hunt's study is of "limited relevance to human health" and that the doses used were much higher than actual human exposure. Hunt said that is not true. "The levels we used are based on previous studies and produce very low levels in blood that are lower than those reported in humans," Hunt said. Vom Saal said it’s important in future studies to see if the stem cell changes from exposure are passed to future generations. Evidence suggests that estrogenic compounds appear to alter the ability of genes to function properly, a phenomenon referred to as epigenetic changes. When such changes happen, it can mean similar problems in sperm production for future generations. And “since most people are consistently exposed to BPA and other estrogenic compounds, each generation could have it a bit worse,” vom Saal said. Hunt and colleagues did run into one problem – there are secondary impacts, such as fluid retention, which make it difficult to take the stem cell research to the next level and look at correlations in sperm cell counts and measures of reproductive ability. “Exposure is not just affecting cells in testis but the whole animal,” Hunt said. Hunt admits this is “complicated genetics stuff,” but said the consequences are quite important. “This implicates cells way upstream” and could mean problems for “subsequent generations after exposure,” she said. Source : Environmental Health News Link to Source That Takeout Coffee Cup May Be Messing With Your Hormones A new study suggests that whole classes of BPA-free plastics—including the kind in styrofoam—release estrogenic chemicals. Most people know that some plastics additives, such as bisphenol A (BPA), may be harmful to their health. But an upcoming study in the journal Environmental Healthfinds that entire classes of plastics—including the type commonly referred to as styrofoam and a type used in many baby products—may wreak havoc on your hormones regardless of what additives are in them. The study's authors tested 14 different BPA-free plastic resins, the raw materials used to make plastic products, and found that four of them released chemicals that mimic the female hormone estrogen. That's not surprising. As Mother Jonesreported earlier this year, many BPA-free plastic goods—from baby bottles and sippy cups to food-storage containers—leach potentially harmful estrogen-like chemicals. But until now, it wasn't clear what role the resins played. The new study suggests that sometimes the resins themselves are part of the problem, though additives such as dyes and antioxidants can make it worse. In the case of polystyrene, the resin used in styrofoam and similar products, the authors tested 11 samples and consistently found estrogen seepage after exposure to intense steam or ultraviolet rays. Styrofoam is a registered trademark of Dow. The company stresses that its product is used for crafts and building insulation, not food and beverage containers. ("There isn't a coffee cup, cooler, or packaging material in the world made from actual Styrofoam," according to Dow's website.) But generic polystyrene foam, which most people call styrofoam anyway, is ubiquitous in the food-services industry, where its found in everything from meat trays to takeout containers. Polystyrene resin—which the Environmental Protection Agency has labeled a suspected carcinogen—is also used to make hard plastic items, including utensils and toothbrushes. The study also looked at three different types of Tritan—a novel plastic marketed as a safe, estrogen-free alternative to BPA-laden polycarbonate—and found that all of them leached estrogen-like chemicals. To continue reading - go to Source: Mother Jones Super-Sized BPA: Why Receipts and Greasy Fingers Shouldn’t Mix An order of French fries may be bad for your health in ways that extend well beyond the outsize calorie count. According to a new study out today by scientists at the University of Missouri, people who used hand sanitizer, touched a cash register receipt, and then ate French fries were quickly exposed to high levels of bisphenol A (BPA), a chemical widely used to coat receipt paper. BPA has been identified as an endocrine disrupting chemical for its ability to interfere with estrogen and other hormones. In human and animal studies, BPA exposure has been linked to adverse effects on the reproductive and neurological systems as well as increased risk for obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. Some animal studies also suggest that BPA can set the stage for certain cancers, including breast and prostate cancer. The study, published in PLOS One, is the first to show how handling BPA-coated receipt can account for exposure at levels that have been shown to harm health. Most studies of BPA exposure, including those that have informed current regulation of the chemical, have focused on exposure that happens through food or after BPA passes through the gut, explains study author Frederick S. vom Saal, Professor of Biological Sciences at the University of Missouri-Columbia. But this study shows that skin absorption of BPA appears to lead to higher levels of biologically active BPA in the body than when the chemical is digested with food. When scientists added in two other factors–scrubbing hands with hand sanitizer and eating greasy food–the evidence points to a super-sized dose of BPA. “The chemicals used to make hand sanitizers, soaps, lotions, and sunscreen degrade the skin’s ability to act as a barrier and so act as skin penetration enhancers,” says vom Saal. So the BPA enters the body more efficiently than it would otherwise. Food grease and other oils can act similarly because BPA itself is fat-soluble, explains vom Saal. Vom Saal also explains that BPA can be absorbed rapidly by tissue in the mouth so that the chemical enters the body without first being metabolized–or broken down in digestion. “The combination of dermal and oral BPA absorption led to a rapid and dramatic average maximum increase in unconjugated (bioactive) BPA…in blood and urine within 90 minutes,” write the study authors. In experiments, BPA was absorbed by people who held a receipt for as little as two seconds. The amounts absorbed in the study “are in a zone where effects associated with obesity, diabetes and neurological effects can result,” says vom Saal. Many laboratory studies have shown that BPA can produce health effects at very low levels of exposure—or just a few parts per trillion. BPA has also been shown to effect developing embryos, which means a mother’s exposure to BPA can affect her children. Some studies have shown that a single BPA exposure can affect even a third generation as the chemical has the potential to alter the ovary and eggs of the exposed fetus. At the same time many studies have found associations between BPA exposure in humans and the health effects found in lab studies. Given the concern about BPA’s health effects, manufacturers of baby bottles and toddler’s sippy cups have largely stopped using it. In 2012, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration withdrew its approval for use of BPA in these products. But its use is still allowed in other products that come into contact with food. Industry trade associations, including the American Chemistry Council, maintain that BPA is safe and that average exposure levels, including from receipts, are not harmful. Meanwhile, 12 different states have passed laws barring BPA in various products–primarily food and beverage containers intended for use by children. Only one state, Connecticut, has passed a law banning use of BPA in receipts. But simply switching to another chemical may not solve the problem. As vom Saal and his coauthors point out in this study, a common BPA alternative used in receipts is bisphenol S, which can also interfere with estrogen. In fact, in its assessment of available alternatives for receipts, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency found no chemical that was clearly safer than BPA. “What we need,” says vom Saal, “is an alternate technology.” In the meantime, it appears that grabbing the fast food receipt before snacking on French fries may not only be packing on the extra calories. It might also be disrupting our hormones. Source : CivilEats Link to Source These Popular Plastic Bottles May Be Messing With Your Hormones A new study finds that many BPA-free brands advertised as safe may be anything but. Many BPA-free plastics leach BPA-like chemicals that are potentially damaging to human health, a dilemma Mother Jones explored in our expose on the plastics industry earlier this year. But consumers have had no way of knowing which of the items lurking in their pantries might wreak havoc on their hormones. Until now. A new paper in the journal Environmental Health identifies specific plastic products—including AVENT baby bottles, CamelBak sippy cups, and Lock & Lock food storage containers—that leach estrogen-mimicking chemicals. Perhaps more importantly, it also names a few options that are hormone free. Between 2010 and 2013, scientists from CertiChem, a private lab in Austin, tested 50 reusable BPA-free plastic containers. In most cases, they used a line of human breast cancer cells that multiplies in the presence of estrogen, as well as substances like BPA that mimic the female hormone. The researchers found that some products leached hormone-altering chemicals even before being exposed to conditions, such as heat from a dishwasher or microwave, that are known to unlock potentially toxic chemicals inside plastic. And most containers did so under some circumstances. After exposure to the type of ultraviolet rays that are found in sunlight (UVA) and used to sterilize baby bottles (UVC), more than three quarters of the containers tested released synthetic estrogens. The chart below shows the results for a sampling of products before and after UV exposure. To continue reading and to see the chart see Source : Mother Jones BPA, phthalates tied to kids' weight, diabetes risk Children exposed to two chemicals commonly used in food packaging are more likely to be obese or show signs of diabetes precursors than those with lower exposure, new research suggests. Researchers found urine levels of one type of phthalate, used to soften plastic, were tied to a higher risk of insulin resistance among teenagers. Based on data from the same large nutrition survey, another study group linked bisphenol A, or BPA - used to line aluminum cans - to obesity and larger waists in youth. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, about one in six U.S. children and teenagers is now obese. "Clearly unhealthy diet and lack of physical activity are the drivers of this epidemic … but increasingly environmental chemicals are being identified as possible contributors," Dr. Leonardo Trasande, a pediatrician from New York University, said. He and his colleagues analyzed data from a nationally-representative health and nutrition survey conducted in 2003 to 2008, which included urine and blood tests for 766 adolescents aged 12 to 19. They found urinary levels of one particular type of phthalate, known as Di-2-ethylhexylphthalate (DEHP), were closely tied to a teenager's chance of having insulin resistance, a precursor to diabetes. Just under 15 percent of study participants with the lowest one-third of DEHP levels were insulin resistant, compared to almost 22 percent of those with the highest levels. DEHP, Trasande said, is often used to soften plastic bottles. It's used in plastic that is printed with the number 3 for recycling. The researchers said their findings don't prove that eating food packaged with phthalates causes insulin resistance. For example, it's possible children who are already insulin-resistant have unhealthier eating habits and eat and drink more packaged products - thus the higher phthalate levels in their urine. But Trasande told Reuters Health the chemical may influence how the body secretes insulin in response to sugar. Because of that, he tells parents to avoid buying plastics made with DEHP. "I advise them not to wash plastic containers in the dishwasher," he said. And, "When the plastic is clearly etched or damaged, it's time to throw it away." MORE EVIDENCE ON BPA For a separate study published concurrently in Pediatrics, Dr. Joyce Lee from the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor and her colleagues used nutrition survey data through 2010 to compare BPA levels in the urine of six- to 18-year-olds with other health measures. In their analysis of 3,370 kids, BPA - an industrial chemical that may mimic estrogen in the body - was not linked to insulin resistance or blood sugar. But children with higher BPA levels were more likely to be obese, and tended to have a higher waist circumference-to-height ratio, than those with the lowest levels. A total of 18 percent of kids in the study were obese, based on CDC growth charts. Compared to children with the lowest BPA levels, the 25 percent with the highest levels were twice as likely to meet the cutoff for obesity. The average child had 2.6 nanograms, or 2.6 billionths of a gram, of BPA in every milliliter of urine. The findings are in line with a 2012 study that used some of the same data and also linked BPA in kids' urine to their chance of being overweight or obese, without proving a cause-and-effect relationship (see Reuters Health story of September 18, 2012 here: reut.rs/PDrxzL). "That study adds further concerns to the ongoing use of BPA in food," Trasande said. "There are a variety of chemicals used in children's products including BPA as well as other chemicals of less notoriety that our kids are exposed to on a daily basis, for which there are unknown health effects," Lee told Reuters Health in an email. "Although the evidence about BPA and adverse health effects are not definitive, as a clinician, I do recommend that parents try to avoid BPA-containing plastics when possible to minimize their family's exposure. I also tell them to avoid microwaving food in plastic containers, as this can lead to chemicals leaking into the food," Lee said. Still, one researcher cautioned that urinary levels of BPA and other chemicals may not say a lot about how much actually gets into children's blood and tissues. "Everybody who does BPA studies uses the urine for a surrogate of exposure. It's erroneous, because the urine is purely what the person took in that day in BPA," Dr. Robert Brent from Alfred I. DuPont Hospital for Children in Wilmington, Delaware, who wrote an editorial accompanying the new studies, said. "In order to know what exposure is you have to have the blood level of the chemical," he told Reuters Health - as well as how quickly it breaks down in the blood. Last year the U.S. Food and Drug Administration banned BPA from baby bottles, but said there was not enough evidence for a more widespread ban. The FDA has not placed regulations on phthalates in food products, Trasande's team noted. Source : Reuters Link to Source Study links food-packaging chemical and obesity in girls Unhealthy diets and limited physical activity are leading causes of obesity in children, and now new research adds to growing evidence that the chemical BPA found in food packaging may be partly to blame. The study, published in the journal PLOS ONE, shows girls between ages 9 and 12 with high BPA levels had double the risk of being obese than girls with low BPA levels, validating previous animal and human studies, said Kimberly Gray, a health scientist at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. BPA, or bisphenol-A , is a chemical laced in everything from plastic bottles to metal food containers. The chemical can alter the body's metabolism and make it harder to lose weight, experts said. The study by Kaiser Permanente draws on urine samples of 1,326 male and female children from fourth through 12th grades at three Shanghai schools. Researchers took into account common obesity risk factors, including diet, mental health, amount of physical activity, and family history. Girls between ages 9 and 12 with high levels of BPA — 2 micrograms per liter or more — were two times more likely to be obese than girls with lower levels of BPA in the same age group. Girls with very high levels of BPA — more than 10 micrograms per liter — were five times more likely to be obese, the study shows. "There's this dogma that weight is about calories simply going in and out. This research suggests that's simply not the case," said Bruce Blumberg, a professor of pharmaceutical sciences at the University of California, Irvine. Blumberg was not involved in the study. Here's the catch: Researchers did not find any significant relationship between BPA and obesity levels in girls older than 12 and boys of all ages. Puberty-age girls could be more sensitive to the impact of BPA on metabolism, said lead researcher De-Kun Li. "It's the proverbial chicken-egg scenario. We could be seeing the opposite trend at work," said Leonardo Trasande, associate professor of environmental medicine and pediatrics at New York University (NYU). Because BPA easily absorbs into fatty tissue, children with obesity could also be more likely to secrete the chemical, said John Meeker, associate professor of environmental health science at the University of Michigan. Li dismissed the claim, saying that if obese children secreted more BPA, obese children in all age groups would have high BPA levels and they didn't see that pattern. The new study confirms a 2012 study by NYU researchers which found that more than 22% of kids and teens ages 6 to 19 with the highest BPA levels were obese. Kids and teens with low BPA levels had a 10% risk of obesity, according to the study, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) maintains the safety of the low exposure levels of BPA in food packaging and will review the study to address BPA safety, said FDA spokesperson Theresa Eisenman. "Attempts to link our national obesity problem to minute exposures to chemicals found in common, everyday products are a distraction from the real efforts underway to address this important national health issue," the American Chemistry Council, a major trade association, wrote in a statement. Long-term, population-based studies that track BPA from the womb to early adulthood are required to confirm the relationship. Urine samples fail to measure BPA lodged in tissue and more specific measures of obesity and hormones are needed, Gray said. Researchers of the new study plan to examine BPA exposure in the womb, Li said. What's the takeaway? BPA exposure is nearly ubiquitous, said Philip Gruppuso, professor of pediatrics at Brown University. More than 92% of Americans older than age 6 have detectable levels of BPA in their body, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) says. Gruppuso advises parents to limit use of food packaged in plastic and avoid heating infant formulas — but with a grain of salt. "You can go crazy trying to think of all the things you might do to prevent exposure," he said. "Don't over-interpret the results. The major hazard may not be the plastic but the food the plastic is used to wrap up." Source : USA Today Link to Source Are BPA-Free Plastics Just As Bad? As consumers search out a "BPA-free" label as a measure of a product's safety, science continues to indicate that such labels are not an indication that the product is risk-free. In the span of a week, three studies pointed out potential health hazards in various plastics. And without more precautionary testing and laws to safeguard against unknown toxins, experts say it's impossible for a consumer to buy a plastic product that is verifiably safe. "As someone who works on this every single day, it's still hard for me to navigate the marketplace," said Lindsay Dahl, deputy director of Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families. In one recent study, researchers were surprised to find that one of the main alternatives to BPA seems to be equally damaging -- despite its reputation is a "safe alternative." As an endocrine disruptor, BPA mimics the hormone estrogen, potentially causing a variety of health concerns. One of the unique qualities of BPA is that it only takes a small amount to produce effects. When researchers exposed rat cells to bisphenol S, a replacement chemical to BPA, they found that low levels of BPS acted in a similar manner. "We didn't think would have those effects, but it's essentially the same as BPA," said Rene Vinas, one of the University of Texas researchers who conducted the BPS study published in Environmental Health Perspectives. In another study, researchers from Taiwan found melamine in the urine of study participants who ate soup out of melamine bowls (melamine is a shatterproof plastic commonly used in tableware marketed toward children). While the amount was small -- up to 8 parts per billion -- melamine is a known carcinogen. Here's where things get even more complicated: There's no way to know if the receipt you just grabbed or the BPA-free water bottle you sent your kid to school with is laced with BPS. And the FDA says that it takes 2,500 parts per billion of melamine in a person's blood to pose a risk -- so does that mean it's safe to pop your toddler's favorite robot plate in the microwave? No one can say for sure. "While in many cases the contents of food and personal care products list ingredients, rarely do they list ingredients for containers they are in," said Cheryl Watson, co-author of the BPS study. "Even if you try to go by the recycling label on the container, it just lists the primary plastic, and not the other ones that may be mixed in. We know BPS is found in thermal paper – but who knows what else. " Health advocates say the system in the U.S. needs to be overhauled. Instead of assuming chemicals are safe until proven otherwise, the process needs to be reversed, Dahl said. "I think it's time for consumers to really understand how broken our federal laws are on toxic chemicals," Dahl said. "Whether it's melamine bowls or BPA, we don't have strong federal laws to make sure chemicals are safe before they go into our products." Minnesota became the first state to ban BPA in baby bottles and sippy cups in 2009, and while more states have introduced more comprehensive legislation "basically saying we can't play chemical whack-a-mole," Dahl said, her coalition is pushing for Congress to pass the Safe Chemicals Act, which would reverse that burden of proof. Laws have focused on children because the effects are bigger when the exposure occurs during development. But we may be just beginning to see the repercussions. "Even though you and kids might not see effects, generations of exposure, grandchildren might see the effects eventually," Vinas said. Meanwhile, some scientists are calling for a second wave of plastics that would focus on improved health and environmental safety and sustainability. "We are in need of a second plastic revolution," said Rolf Halden, a researcher at Arizona State University's Biodesign Institute, in a press release announcing his new overview of plastics published in Reviews on Environmental Health. "The first one brought us the age of plastics, changing human society and enabling the birth and explosive growth of many industries. But the materials used to make plastics weren't chosen judiciously and we see the adverse consequences in widespread environmental pollution and unnecessary human exposure to harmful substances. Smart plastics of the future will be equally versatile but also non-toxic, biodegradable and made from renewable energy sources." Vinas and Watson are hoping that more preliminary testing and screening could sift out toxic chemicals before they hit the market. "If chemists and biologists work together, they [might be able to] screen out all these potentially bad chemicals that mimic hormones," Vinas said. What can consumers do now? Glass and stainless steel containers make good substitutes for plastic, experts said. Feed your baby with a glass bottle, advised Arnold Schecter, a public health physician at the University of Texas School of Public Health in Dallas, and eat fresh produce instead of canned vegetables. Because BPS has been found in currency, Vinas avoids cash. "Ideally, stay away from all of it until we find a chemical that doesn't leach," Vinas said. "But worrying about it is also probably not healthy." Health advocates say the system in the U.S. needs to be overhauled. Instead of assuming chemicals are safe until proven otherwise, the process needs to be reversed, Dahl said. "I think it's time for consumers to really understand how broken our federal laws are on toxic chemicals," Dahl said. "Whether it's melamine bowls or BPA, we don't have strong federal laws to make sure chemicals are safe before they go into our products." Minnesota became the first state to ban BPA in baby bottles and sippy cups in 2009, and while more states have introduced more comprehensive legislation "basically saying we can't play chemical whack-a-mole," Dahl said, her coalition is pushing for Congress to pass the Safe Chemicals Act, which would reverse that burden of proof. NEWS: Even BPA-Free Plastic Not Always Safe Laws have focused on children because the effects are bigger when the exposure occurs during development. But we may be just beginning to see the repercussions. "Even though you and kids might not see effects, generations of exposure, grandchildren might see the effects eventually," Vinas said. Meanwhile, some scientists are calling for a second wave of plastics that would focus on improved health and environmental safety and sustainability. "We are in need of a second plastic revolution," said Rolf Halden, a researcher at Arizona State University's Biodesign Institute, in a press release announcing his new overview of plastics published in Reviews on Environmental Health. "The first one brought us the age of plastics, changing human society and enabling the birth and explosive growth of many industries. But the materials used to make plastics weren't chosen judiciously and we see the adverse consequences in widespread environmental pollution and unnecessary human exposure to harmful substances. Smart plastics of the future will be equally versatile but also non-toxic, biodegradable and made from renewable energy sources." Vinas and Watson are hoping that more preliminary testing and screening could sift out toxic chemicals before they hit the market. "If chemists and biologists work together, they [might be able to] screen out all these potentially bad chemicals that mimic hormones," Vinas said. What can consumers do now? Glass and stainless steel containers make good substitutes for plastic, experts said. Feed your baby with a glass bottle, advised Arnold Schecter, a public health physician at the University of Texas School of Public Health in Dallas, and eat fresh produce instead of canned vegetables. Because BPS has been found in currency, Vinas avoids cash. "Ideally, stay away from all of it until we find a chemical that doesn't leach," Vinas said. "But worrying about it is also probably not healthy." Source : Discovery News Link to Source Semen Quality and Sperm DNA Damage in Relation to Urinary Bisphenol A among Men from an Infertility Clinic Abstract Bisphenol A (BPA) impairs spermatogenesis in animals, but human studies are lacking. We measured urinary BPA concentrations, semen quality, and sperm DNA damage (comet assay) in 190 men recruited through an infertility clinic. BPA was detected in 89% of samples, with a median (interquartile range [IQR]) concentration of 1.3 (0.8 – 2.5) ng/mL. Urinary BPA concentration was associated with slightly elevated, though not statistically significant, odds for below reference sperm concentration, motility, and morphology. When modeled as continuous dependent variables, an IQR increase in urinary BPA concentration was associated with declines in sperm concentration, motility, and morphology of 23% (95%CI –40%, -0.3%), 7.5% (-17%, +1.5%), and 13% (-26%, -0.1%), respectively, along with a 10% (0.03%, 19%) increase in sperm DNA damage measured as the percentage of DNA in comet tail. In conclusion, urinary BPA may be associated with declined semen quality and increased sperm DNA damage, but confirmatory studies are needed. Source : Reprod Toxicol Link to Full Article BPA Linked to Potential Adverse Effects on Heart and Kidneys in Children and Adolescents Exposure to a chemical once used widely in plastic bottles and still found in aluminum cans appears to be associated with a biomarker for higher risk of heart and kidney disease in children and adolescents, according to an analysis of national survey data by NYU School of Medicine researchers published in the January 9, 2013, online issue of Kidney International, a Nature publication.Laboratory studies suggest that even low levels of bisphenol A (BPA) like the ones identified in this national survey of children and adolescents increase oxidative stress and inflammation that promotes protein leakage into the urine, which is a biomarker for early renal impairment and future risk of developing coronary heart disease, according to Leonardo Trasande, MD, MPP, associate professor of pediatrics, environmental medicine, and population health, and co-lead author of the study. The study adds to the growing concerns about BPA, which was recently banned by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration but is still used as an internal coating for aluminum cans. Manufacturers say the chemical provides an antiseptic function, but studies have shown the chemical disrupts multiple mechanisms of human metabolism. “While our cross-sectional study cannot definitively confirm that BPA contributes to heart disease or kidney dysfunction in children, together with our previous study of BPA and obesity, this new data adds to already existing concerns about BPA as a contributor to cardiovascular risk in children and adolescents,” says Dr. Trasande. “It further supports the call to limit exposure of BPA in this country, especially in children,” he says. “Removing it from aluminum cans is probably one of the best ways we can limit exposure. There are alternatives that manufacturers can use to line aluminum cans.” Children in the United States are exposed to the chemical early in life and surveys have shown that by age six nearly 92 percent of children have some trace of BPA in their urine. Its use has been banned in the European Union and Canada, and in the United States for use in baby bottles and sippy cups. Last September Dr. Trasande’s group published a study showing a significant association between obesity and children and adolescents with higher concentrations of BPA in their urine in the Journal of the American Medical Association. In the new study Dr. Trasande, Teresa Attina, MD, PhD, MPH, and Howard Trachtman, MD, of NYU School of Medicine’s Department of Pediatrics, analyzed data on 710 children and adolescents aged 6 to 19 collected in a national survey to assess the health and nutritional status of adults and children in the United States. The data was from the 2009-2010 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), which contained measurements on urinary BPA, and a protein called albumin, which is not normally found in urine because the spaces in the glomerular membrane of the kidney are too small to allow protein molecules to escape. If there is membrane damage as in some kidney diseases like glomerulonephritis, albumin can leak through into the urine. The researchers controlled for risk factors such as hypertension, insulin resistance, elevated cholesterol, exposure to tobacco smoke, race/ethnicity, caregiver education, poverty to income ratio, age, weight and gender in these children. Children with the highest amount of BPA in their urine, compared to those with the lowest amount, had a higher albumin to creatinine ratio, a potential early marker of renal impairment and future risk of developing coronary heart disease, according to the study. “While we excluded children with pre-existing kidney disease from our analysis, I am concerned that BPA exposure may have even greater effects on children with kidney disease,” says Dr. Trachtman, co-lead author of the study. “Because their kidneys are already working harder to compensate and have limited functional reserve, they may be more susceptible to the adverse effects of environmental toxins. We clearly need further study of BPA exposure and its effects on the kidney both in healthy children and in children who have pre-existing kidney disease.” The researchers concluded their analysis by emphasizing the need for further research on environmental chemicals and cardiovascular disease, noting that further study may well transform our understanding “from one that focuses on dietary risks to an approach that recognizes the role of environmental chemical factors that may independently impart the risk of … future cardiovascular disease.” Source : Newswise Link to Source Lowered Thyroid Hormones Found in Baby Boys Exposed to Bisphenol A A new study is the first to link the ubiquitous chemical--found in hard plastics, canned foods and paper receipts--with altered thyroid hormones in babies Pregnant women exposed to higher levels of the chemical bisphenol A gave birth to baby boys with lower thyroid hormones, according to a new study published today. The study by University of California, Berkeley, scientists is the first to link the ubiquitous chemical – used in hard plastics, canned food liners and some paper receipts – to altered thyroid hormones in babies, and it adds to evidence that BPA may have some effects on fetuses. For every doubling of the mothers’ BPA levels, there was 9.9 percent less thyroid-stimulating hormone in their baby boys. No significant effect was detected in the girls; animal studies suggest females may be able to metabolize the chemical better. “Most work up to this point has focused on [BPA’s] estrogen properties. The fact that it’s also messing up thyroid function is very surprising,” said Laura Vandenberg, a postdoctoral fellow at Tufts University who studies BPA but was not involved in the new study. Experts said they do not know what, if anything, the reductions in thyroid hormones might mean for the health of the babies because their levels remained within the range considered normal. But previous research suggests that reduced thyroid hormones might impair learning abilities and motor skills. “Thyroid hormone is probably the best known factor in terms of influencing brain development,” said Thomas Zoeller, a biology professor at University of Massachusetts-Amherst who specializes in studying thyroid hormones and brain development. “The fact that the researchers see relationships at all is a very important issue that we should not ignore." The scientists analyzed data from 364 pairs of moms and newborns in California’s Salinas Valley, a low-income community of mostly Mexican-American farm workers. Most of the mothers had low levels of BPA – 42 percent less than the average U.S. woman. Eighty-two percent had the chemical in their urine, compared with 95 percent of women of childbearing age tested nationwide. While the study does not prove that BPA alters babies' thyroid hormones, scientists say it provides evidence that the link should be further investigated. “Our data suggest that there is not a safe level of exposure,” said Jonathan Chevrier, an assistant researcher at the University of California, Berkeley, Center for Environmental Research and Children's Health and lead author of the study, which was published in Environmental Health Perspectives. The American Chemistry Council, which represents chemical manufacturers, maintains that BPA is safe to use and questioned the validity of the study. "The author's speculation that BPA is linked to health effects caused by thyroid hormone levels in women and newborns is not supported by the data," said Steven Hentges, of the council's Polycarbonate/BPA Global Group, in a prepared statement. "The authors themselves note that the thyroid hormone levels reported were within normal range and the study was not designed to measure any health effects." He also said the testing was too limited to be an accurate representation of the mother's levels during pregnancy. Thyroid hormones are continually produced, and BPA doesn’t stay in people’s bodies for long, but Chevrier said this doesn’t mean the findings aren’t cause for concern. “This effect we see might not be permanent…Some people might think that’s good news,” he said. “But people are continually exposed to BPA. The effect isn’t permanent, but people are permanently exposed.” However, Zoeller cautioned that "because BPA is not bioaccumulative, it is very difficult to get a good sense of what exposure is." "Even with multiple measurements, you have to start out realizing that establishing these links is enormously challenging," he said. Results from previous studies investigating BPA and thyroid function have been inconsistent. Different studies on rats have shown BPA to increase, decrease and have no effect on thyroid hormones after prenatal exposure. In human studies – before now only conducted on adults and teens – BPA has been linked to both increased and decreased thyroid hormones. The new study found significant decreases in thyroid hormones in the babies' blood only when compared with the women’s BPA levels shortly before they gave birth, not during their first and second trimesters. That may mean that BPA’s effect on the fetuses’ hormones is temporary or comes only at certain times. “This association was strongest when BPA was measured in the third trimester of pregnancy, which may either be due to a transient effect of BPA on thyroid-stimulating hormone or a developmental window of susceptibility,” the study said. The mothers also had reductions in some thyroid hormones that correlated to their BPA levels. However, the type of hormone, called T4, "is not biologically active" so the importance is unknown, the researchers wrote. The study controlled for their iodine intake, which can affect thyroid hormone levels, and for other chemicals they were exposed to. The researchers, led by epidemiologists Brenda Eskenazi and Kim Harley, have tracked this group of Salinas Valley women and their children since before they were born in 1999 and 2000. They are investigating an array of chemicals, particularly pesticides, to investigate whether the children’s health is at risk. The children tested as newborns for thyroid hormones in this study are now teenagers, and Chevrier and his colleagues plan to look for any potential effects of the lower hormones. "We are aware of no studies that investigated the developmental effect of lower but normal neonatal TSH," they wrote. Only a few studies have investigated the possible neurological effects of BPA in children, including two that found a link to hyperactivity in girls and other behavior problems. Animal studies have found impaired memory, gene changes and altered behavior. Cheryl Stein, an assistant professor at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine, said usually it is high thyroid hormone levels that are cause for concern because they can spur development problems or mental retardation. This is because higher levels indicate the body is trying to make up for a thyroid that isn’t functioning properly. But too little thyroid hormone also can be problematic, causing reduced IQs or learning problems, Zoeller said. Scientists in the Netherlands studied 220 women and reported in 1999 that those with the lowest thyroid hormone levels had babies who scored lower on mental and motor skill tests. They warned that it “may be an important risk factor for impaired infant development.” Zoeller, who was not involved with the new study, said the potential health impacts remain vague because it measured hormones in the babies’ blood instead of tissue, which gives a more complete picture of their functioning. “This should really be a trigger to look further into this relationship,” Zoeller said. In animals, some studies report that low levels cause reproductive problems, obesity and cancers. In human adults, it has been linked to increased risk of diabetes and heart disease. The idea that “many lifelong chronic diseases start in the womb” has gained wide support in recent years, according to a 2012 study from the Center for Research on Occupational and Environmental Toxicology. And “pretty much anything mom is exposed to the fetus is exposed to,” Vandenberg said. BPA circulates in pregnant women’s blood, and it passes through the placenta the same way alcohol would, she said. It’s also found in amniotic fluid, which cushions fetuses in the womb and provides nutrients for development. BPA is mass-produced, heavily studied and controversial. Each year about six billion pounds are produced globally and more than one million pounds are released into the environment, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. A synthetic estrogen, BPA has been used as an ingredient in polycarbonate plastics since the 1950s. It also is used to produce resins for the liners of canned foods. Since BPA is ubiquitous, it’s hard to pin down how people are exposed, but Vandenberg said canned food is a major source. Currently, 11 U.S. states have banned BPA in some products. In July, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration banned the chemical from baby bottles and sippy cups after manufacturers had already abandoned its use in these products. Earlier this year, the FDA denied a request to ban uses in food packaging but announced that it was "not a final safety determination" because research continues. Source : Scientific American Link to source Study Links BPA from Plastic to Obesity in Kids High levels of the plasticizer bisphenol A (BPA) in kids' and teens' urine were associated with obesity, researchers found. In a cross-sectional study, those with the highest concentration of BPA were more than twice as likely to be obese as those who had the lowest levels (odds ratio 2.53, 95% CI 1.72 to 3.74, P<0.001), according to Leonardo Trasande, MD, of New York University, and colleagues. The association was strongest in white children, who had a fourfold increased likelihood of obesity with the highest urinary levels of BPA compared with the lowest (OR 4.08, 95% CI 1.66 to 10.00, P=0.003), Trasande and co-authors wrote in a special obesity-centered issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association. The authors noted that, in experimental studies, "BPA exposure has been shown to disrupt multiple metabolic mechanisms, suggesting that it may increase body mass in environmentally relevant doses and therefore contribute to obesity in humans." However, prior studies have only looked at adult populations. Trasande and colleagues collected data on 2,838 kids and teens ages, 6 to 19, who participated in the 2003-2008 National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES), including diet, physical examination, urinary BPA concentration, and demographic information. BPA concentrations were broken down into quartiles. The median urinary BPA concentration was 2.8 ng/mL. Of the participants, 34.1% were overweight and 17.8% were obese. Children in the lowest urinary BPA quartile had a lower estimated prevalence of obesity at 10.3% (95% CI 7.5% to 13.1%) while those in the fourth and highest quartile had an adjusted prevalence of obesity of 22.3% (95% CI, 16.6% to 27.9%). Urinary BPA concentration in children and adolescents was significantly associated with obesity in the second (OR 2.22, 95% CI 1.52 to 3.23), third (OR 2.09, 95% CI 1.48 to 2.95), and highest concentrations (OR 2.53, 95% CI 1.72 to 3.74, P<0.001 for all) when compared with those in the lowest quartile. The interactions between urinary BPA concentration and obesity were significant in white populations when comparing lowest to highest quartiles (P<0.001 for all estimates):
In a model fully adjusted for sex, caloric intake, television watching, poverty-to-income ratio, parental education, serum cotinine levels, urinary creatinine levels, age, and race/ethnicity, elevated urinary BPA was still significantly associated with obesity (OR 1.24, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.44), and showed a trend for overweight status (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.18). Trasande acknowledged in a press briefing on Tuesday that the study findings have no immediate clinical implications, adding that longitudinal studies are needed to find factors identifying effects and types of exposure. But, he said, "It is fair to say that if you reduce a child’s food consumption from canned sources, you could reduce a child’s BPA in urine." The authors noted in the paper that because obesity develops over time, "causation cannot be inferred from a cross-sectional association of urinary BPA concentration with increased body mass, even when consistent with increasing laboratory evidence." However, the results of their analysis can be generalized and they called for further study on the interaction of elevated urinary BPA with obesity in white children. They also said that future studies could include children already enrolled in longitudinal studies to measure banked urine samples for BPA concentration. Primary source: Journal of the American Medical Association Source reference: Trasande L, et al "Association between urinary bisphenol A concentration and obesity prevalence in children and adolescents" JAMA 2012; DOI: 10.1001/jama.300.11.1303. Source : MedPage today Link to Source BPA diminishes in vitro success. Ehrlich, S, PL Williams, SA Missmer, JA Flaws, KF Berry, A Calafat, X Ye, JC Petrozza, D Wright and R Hauser. 2012. Exposure to bisphenol A (BPA) at levels commonly found in the general population may cut a woman's chance of getting pregnant if she is undergoing fertility treatment, a study from Harvard University finds.Those with higher BPA levels were less likely to get pregnant than women with lower levels. The link was stronger in women having more intense fertility treatments. The pregnancies failed because the embryos did not attach to the uterus. While animal studies show similar results, this is the first time researchers report a link in people. BPA is widely used in some plastics, most food can linings and certain receipt paper. What did they do? Researchers followed 137 women seeking fertility treatment at Massachusetts General Hospital Fertility Center. They examined the relationship between BPA exposure and pregnancy success among women undergoing IVF treatment. Women were of childbearing age (18-45 years), used their own eggs in the IVF procedure and most were Caucasian and non-smokers. They were followed through each IVF cycle until they delivered their baby or stopped treatment. The participants underwent one of three IVF treatment protocols based on whether they were "poor responders" or "good responders." Women who are “poor responders” require large doses of fertility drugs and end up with fewer eggs. BPA concentrations in urine samples were measured at each fertility treatment. The researchers confirmed pregnancies – defined as successful embryo implantation – by measuring the levels in blood samples of a hormone produced during pregnancy – ß-human chorionic gonadotropin hormone (ß-HCG). The hormone is found in blood and urine of pregnant women as early as 10 days after conception. Medical history, lifestyle factors, occupation and other personal information were collected in a nurse-administered questionnaire and/or in an in-depth take-home questionnaire. Researchers categorized women into one of four exposure groups based on the BPA levels in their urine: 1.69 micrograms per liter (μg/L) or lower, 1.70-2.33 μg/L, 2.34-3.79 μg/L and 3.80 μg/L or higher. They compared the chances of getting pregnant in women in the highest exposure groups (1.70 μg/L and higher) to women in the lowest exposure group (1.69 μg/L or lower). In their analysis, they considered several factors that could affect the association between BPA exposure and implantation failure, including women’s age, day of embryo transfer and specific IVF protocol treatment followed. What did they find? Regardless of the factors considered, the results show a clear trend of increasing implantation failure with higher BPA levels. These effects were observed in women with BPA levels lower than those in women of childbearing age in the general U.S. population. Average levels of BPA measured in the women's urine – 1.53 μg/L – were comparable to those reported in women from the general U.S. population – 1.97 μg/L. Without taking into account women’s age, day of embryo transfer and IVF protocol followed, the chances of getting pregnant decreased with increasing exposure levels of BPA. Women in the highest exposure group had half the odds of getting pregnant than women with the lowest levels. Findings were similar after controlling for women’s age, day of embryo transfer, and IVF protocol followed. The relationship was not as strong in women in the highest exposure group. Researchers also observed stronger associations between BPA and failed pregnancies in women who were poor responders. Those with higher levels of BPA were less likely to become pregnant. Women who were poor responders were generally older and more likely to have past IVF treatment cycle failures. They also had reduced number of eggs, lower average number of eggs retrieved and diminished ovarian response to stimulation. What does it mean? This is the first study to find an association between failed egg implantation and BPA exposure in women undergoing IVF treatment. This finding is important because it provides the first human data on the association between implantation failure in women seeking IVF treatment and BPA exposure at levels observed in women of childbearing age in the general population. Results suggest that as BPA levels increase so do the number of failed pregnancies in women undergoing fertility treatment. These findings confirm in people what has been observed in animal studies and support previous studies that link BPA to fertility problems in humans. Prior studies in humans report that BPA exposure is associated with recurrent miscarriages, quality and number of eggs retrieved during IVF treatment and peak hormone levels essential for a successful pregnancy. Additionally, findings support earlier studies that suggest women seeking IVF treatment minimize their exposure to BPA (Fujimoto et al. 2011; Mol-Lin et al. 2010). The results may not be applicable to women trying to conceive naturally. According to the authors, it is possible that women undergoing fertility treatment are more sensitive to BPA exposure due to different factors “including their underlying infertility, the in vitro conditions of early embryonic development or the ovarian hyperstimulation protocols.” Nonetheless, because 10-15 percent of the population in the United States and developed countries are infertile, the results are still relevant to a large subset of the general population. Source : Environmental Health News Link to Source FDA Rejects BPA Ban The FDA has reportedly denied a petition from the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) to ban the plasticizing agent bisphenol A (BPA) from food packaging. According to an Associated Press report, the agency found that the NRDC didn't provide enough scientific evidence to justify a complete ban of the chemical, which ignited public concern in 2008 after being found in baby bottles, soup cans, and other food items. The FDA has not yet posted the decision on its website and did not immediately respond to a request for confirmation. The decision springs from a lawsuit NRDC filed in June 2010 after the FDA didn't respond to its initial petition 18 months earlier, which called for the agency to keep the chemical out of food packaging products. In 2008, FDA initially dismissed concerns about BPA in consumer products, but subsequently took heat from congressional leaders and its own scientific board for the decision. Two year later, the agency reversed course and promised a major research effort to pin down any potential health risks. Some research has linked the chemical with cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and liver abnormalities, and on its website, the FDA says some studies have raised questions about its effects on the brain, behavior, and prostate gland in fetuses, infants, and young children. Still, the agency says the evidence generally supports the safety of current low levels of human exposure to BPA. FDA said it currently supports voluntary industry actions to stop producing BPA-containing baby bottles and minimize the presence of the plasticizer in food can linings. The American Chemistry Council, generally an advocate for industry, reiterated in a press statement its stance that BPA is safe. "BPA is one of the most thoroughly tested chemicals used today and has a safety track record in food contact of over 40 years," said the Council's Steven G. Hentges, PhD. "The consensus of government agencies across the world, based on the science, is that BPA is safe for use in food-contact materials." Source : Medpage Today Link to Source Canada Declares BPA, a Chemical in Plastics, to Be Toxic OTTAWA — The government of Canada formally declared bisphenol A, a chemical widely used to create clear, hard plastics, as well as food can liners, to be a toxic substance on Wednesday. The compound, commonly known as BPA, has been shown to disrupt the hormone systems of animals and is under review in the United States and Europe. Canada’s move, which was strenuously fought by the chemical industry, followed an announcement by the government two years ago that it would eliminate the compound’s use in polycarbonate bottles used by infants and children. The compound was formally listed as being toxic to both the environment and human health in an official notice published online by the government without fanfare, a noticeable contrast to the earlier baby bottle announcement, which was made by two cabinet ministers. George M. Enei, the director general of science and risk assessment at Environment Canada, one of two government departments that made the designation, said the move would make it easier to ban the use of BPA in specific products through regulations rather than by amending legislation, a cumbersome and slow process. But he said the government’s first step would probably be to set limits on how much BPA can be released into the air or water by factories that use the compound. “This is a step in a journey,” Mr. Enei said. “Once you’re on the list, it signals Canada will do something.” While Canadian industry groups did not respond to requests for comment, the decision was condemned by the American Chemistry Council. “Environment Canada’s announcement is contrary to the weight of worldwide scientific evidence, unwarranted and will unnecessarily confuse and alarm the public,” Steven G. Hentges, who leads the polycarbonate and BPA group at the council, said in a statement. Rick Smith, the executive director of Environmental Defence, a group that lobbied for the designation, said he hoped that the government would ban BPA from infant formula can linings. “This toxic designation is a very strong regulatory power that gives them firm legal footing on any number of things,” Dr. Smith said. However, Dr. Smith agreed that the toxic designation was likely to bring an abrupt end to a variety of food-related uses for BPA, even without new regulations or laws. Refillable polycarbonate bottles for adults — once popular because of their clarity, light weight and durability — largely vanished from the market after negative publicity around BPA about two years ago. In addition to food containers, BPA is used to produce some of the epoxies that line cans used for soft drinks, fruits and vegetables. BPA is widely seen as a test case in an era of mounting worry about household chemicals, pollution and the possible links between illness and environmental exposures, especially in fetuses and young children. Many scientists believe that it is an “endocrine disruptor,” a term applied to chemicals that can act like hormones. Studies using lab animals and cell cultures show that BPA can mimic the female hormone estrogen. Last year, the Endocrine Society, a scientific group, issued a 34-page report that said there was strong evidence of adverse health effects from endocrine disruptors, including harm to the reproductive system, causing malformations, infertility and cancer. In the United States, about half a dozen states have banned BPA in children’s products. The federal government has taken no action, saying there is no proof of harm in humans. But health and regulatory agencies have concerns about BPA and have commissioned more studies. In a statement, Dr. Josh Sharfstein, the principal deputy commissioner at the Food and Drug Administration, said the agency was working with the National Institutes of Health “and other partners to advance scientific understanding of BPA and inform our decisions.” In an extensive study of BPA retained by Canadians’ bodies that was published in August, Statistics Canada, a government agency, found that almost no one escaped the chemical and that the highest concentrations of the compound were found in teenagers, with younger children a close second. The presence of a chemical in the body, however, does not necessarily mean it is harmful. Canada’s designation is at odds with Europe’s approach. Last month, the European Food Safety Authority released an update that concluded that “data currently available do not provide convincing evidence of neurobehavioral toxicity of BPA” But France and Denmark have independently imposed temporary bans on some uses of BPA. Source : New York Times 14/10/2010 LINK TO SOURCE Dismay over EU decision not to ban baby bottle chemical bisphenol-A European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) says no convincing evidence to cause it to ban or further restrict exposure to the controversial chemical bisphenol-A used in plastic bottles and containers Health campaigners have reacted with dismay after EU officials decided against restricting or banning bisphenol-A (BPA), despite evidence of links to breast cancer. BPA is a synthetic chemical used to make plastic drinking bottles, baby bottles and storage containers as well as the lining of some food and drink cans. It is applied as a coating to the insides of food cans, which can then be heated to kill off bacteria without the metal in the can contaminating the food contents. European food safety officials say the current evidence does not provide convincing evidence of the toxicity of BPA. The re-assessment came after new studies reported adverse effects on animals exposed to BPA at low doses, including on their nervous system, immune system and susceptibility to breast cancer. There have also been studies suggesting a link between exposure to BPA and coronary heart disease and reproductive disorders. Earlier this year, an alliance of groups, including WWF, Breast Cancer UK and The Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL) backed an open letter sent sent by 21 scientists to EFSA saying they feared exposure to BPA could damage health, particularly among vulnerable groups such as babies and pregnant women. The National Cancer Institute in the US has also recently called for the use of BPA in consumer products to be more tightly regulated. However, in a statement issued this week, Efsa said: 'These studies have many shortcomings. At present the relevance of these findings for human health cannot be assessed, though should any new relevant data become available in the future, the Panel will reconsider this opinion.' A spokesperson for HEAL said it was shocked and dismayed by Efsa's decision, which comes despite other countries such as Taiwan, Canada, Denmark, Sweden and France all pronouncing BPA as toxic and hazardous to health. Breast Cancer UK said it would be continuing to push for a ban on BPA being used in baby bottles. 'We will continue our No More BPA campaign until this public health issue has been acknowledged and we call on the UK Government to ignore EFSA and take the initiative by banning the use of BPA in baby and toddler products throughout the UK,' said chair Claire Dimmer. Source The Ecologist LINK TO SOURCE The wonderful Ecologist on line has a great article on how to store food in plastic containers and also what plastics are less harmful, here is the link See Also QUERCETIN ALLEVIATES BISPHENOL A-INDUCED CHANGES IN NUCLEIC ACID AND PROTEIN CONTENTS IN MICE |
|