Maybe BPA Isn’t Bad for You?

plastic water bottle pours water into a clear glassI am so confused about BPA. For years I trusted studies that linked the endocrine-disrupting substance—a chemical used to harden plastics like water bottles, as well as to coat cash register receipts and line aluminum cans—with obesity, anxiety and reproductive problems.

Recently, a new study concluded that prenatal exposure to BPA—before and just after birth—was linked to liver cancer. But on the heels of that study came another from the FDA that puts my beliefs about BPA in question.

For years I trusted studies that linked BPA with obesity, anxiety and cancer. But a new FDA study puts my beliefs about BPA in question.

But before we get to that, let’s review the history: In 2012, the FDA announced a nation-wide ban on BPA in bottles and sippy cups. The following year, California placed the chemical on its Proposition 65 list, officially recognizing it as a reproductive hazard.

In 2013, the UN and WHO called hormone-disrupting chemicals like BPA a “global threat;” shortly thereafter the California EPA office announced that BPA would be added to the Prop 65 list of chemicals known to cause reproductive toxicity.

But the new FDA study, published in the journal Toxicological Sciences, may affect these decisions. Scientists exposed rats to BPA as many as 70,000 times what the average American is exposed to. And they found no change in body weight, reproductive organs or hormone levels—in fact, there were no biologically significant changes at all. When exposure was in the millions, then the scientists saw hormone-related changes.

Does this mean I’m going to start feeding my kids a lot of canned food? Absolutely not. Unlike these unfortunate animal study subjects, we don’t live in a vacuum. I know that BPA is just one of at least 200 hormone-disrupting chemicals that all Americans are exposed to daily, and this study does nothing to address my concern about how they interact within a person’s body.  As much as I can reduce our exposure to BPA—along with other toxic chemicals—I will.

When it comes to my children, I follow the Precautionary Principle, which states that, “When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.”

Basically, I understand the FDA study in the context of the thousands of other studies I’ve read that raise red flags when it comes to BPA and health—especially for kids. I recommend these six easy steps to reduce BPA exposures.

What do you think? Does this FDA study change how you feel about BPA? What are you doing to reduce exposures? Please leave me a comment below. Thanks!

Photo: Natural Grocers

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Comments

  1. This study from an organization that is filled with former chemical and pharmaceutical industry staff and leadership must be questioned with a jaundiced eye. This study was done with a species of rat that is basically immune to estrogenic compounds, so what great “truth” can be deduced from it? NONE! Considering how much our own government has capitulated its fiduciary duty to protect the commonweal for the benefit of the corporate juggernauts, I would treat any promulgation from its bureaucracy with a HUGE grain of salt.

  2. Why trust the FDA? They are part of the New World Order and the depopulation agenda.

  3. it is so hard to trust the FDA. I know that sounds terrible but erring on the side of caution is probably the best solution here. Until we know more, I would say don’t risk your health.

Speak Your Mind

*