Posted on 03/04/2013 1:48:12 AM PST by neverdem
Question marks have been raised over whether the levels of bisphenol A (BPA) that people are routinely exposed to are high enough to cause the diseases that have been linked to the controversial chemical. An analysis by Justin Teeguarden, a systems toxicologist at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, US, makes the bold claim that many of the animal tests that demonstrate that BPA may be a contributory factor in diseases like type 2 diabetes, obesity and heart disease have been elucidated using concentrations much greater than those ever found in humans.
‘The old saw that correlation is not causation may hold true here for BPA’
BPA is ubiquitous in modern society thanks to its use in polycarbonate clear plastics, epoxy resins that line food tins and in dental sealants. Concerns have been raised about the chemical as it is thought to be an endocrine disruptor, disturbing the normal hormonal regulation of animals. As BPA products are ever present as they help to keep food fresh, anyone with a western diet will receive a daily dose of BPA. Many so-called low dose studies in animals have linked the chemical to a wide range of disorders because it can mimic the hormone oestrogen. The concentrations of BPA used in these low dose studies are meant to ape those found in people eating a fairly ordinary diet.
It is these studies that Teeguarden’s analysis takes aim at. His work took in 150 studies which measured BPA in 32,000 people’s blood and urine, as well as studies which attempted to calculate how much BPA was in their diet. These studies all came up with BPA concentrations in the pM or lower range, with the exception of one type of blood analysis that threw up concentrations a thousand times greater. It is these nM levels that many animal tests have used when establishing the dangerous effects of the chemical, he points out.
Teeguarden says that pM levels of BPA ought not to be a concern for us. This is because if the hypothesis that BPA causes harm by mimicking oestrogen is correct, then the dose of the chemical your average person receives everyday is 100 to 10,000 times lower than those needed to activate the hormone receptors. He also makes the point that the term ‘low dose’ has become somewhat debased in the BPA literature. When he looked at 130 animal studies using that term, the vast majority used BPA levels many times higher than a person would ever encounter in their diet. He says that this is more than just an academic point as it has contributed to confusion among toxicologists, epidemiologists and the general public.
Teeguarden notes that something just doesn’t add up with these studies that show up such high levels of BPA in the blood, compared with the others. This is because if you follow how much BPA someone has in their diet then these nM BPA blood concentrations seem improbable. He suggests that contamination might be a factor. ‘The canula you use to take the blood are plastic, the tubes and lines are plastic and labs are covered in dust that contains BPA,’ he says. ‘A single speck of dust containing BPA getting into a sample could put the levels off the chart.’
Richard Sharpe, an endocrinologist at the MRC Centre for Reproductive Health in the UK, says that BPA may just be an ‘innocent bystander’ in these arguments. He says that part of the problem is that many association studies looking at human populations have linked the chemical to ‘western diseases’ like type 2 diabetes. So, how can studies that suggest a strong association between diseases like obesity gel with dietary levels of BPA that may be too low to have a noticeable biological effect? Sharpe says that the old saw that correlation is not causation may hold true here. A ‘western diet’ high in fats and sugars can cause obesity and diabetes and such a diet typically comes packaged in materials that contain BPA. He says that this would be a ‘beautifully simple way’ of reconciling the available data.
Nevertheless, Teeguarden’s analysis and the suggestion that BPA is merely a marker for a bad diet are still controversial among many epidemiologists and toxicologists. Joseph Braun, an epidemiologist from Brown University, US, says that he feels that the truth lies somewhere in the middle. He accepts that the link between BPA and western diseases may just be an artefact, but thinks things are less clear cut with link between the chemical and such conditions as altered neurological development in children.
This new analysis doesn’t put an end to questions over BPA’s effects on people, as Teeguarden is the first to concede. ‘Now we have the appropriate human exposure it doesn’t mean we’re done,’ he says. ‘Now we have the concentrations to conduct studies in the range of human exposure.’
So, how can the BPA conundrum be resolved? Researchers are agreed that more high quality prospective studies are needed. But the question of how to reproduce a western-style diet without any BPA in it will be difficult to solve.
I hope this is true....I used to practically swim in that stuff. And I turned out OD...er...FK...er...OK.
Good.
Those who have a belief not unlike that of a global warmist, are ever on the lookout for a way to legislate against it. Using every available study showing links to altered neurological development in children. “For the Children” is a big seller, right or wrong.
I’ve read that all honey is contaminated with BPP.
I’m glad that someone is beginning to look at these studies critically. I’ve been suspicious of them for a long time. Unfortunately, there is a strong tendency among many in the medical research community to look for “easy” answers to complex problems, and BPA seems to have fallen victim to that tendency.
Although it has long been discredited, the idea that there is a linear association between exposure and effect is still used far too often as a working hypothesis. If the LD50 of salt is 2,000 mg/kg body weight, that doesn’t mean that a dose of 0.02 mg/kg will have a harmful effect. Real dose-effect curves are sigmoidal.
There are efforts being made to replace BPA. Yet there is no guarantee that whatever replaces it will have a good safety profile, or will prove to be “generally” safe after several years of use.
The flap is but another opportunity for the vibrator crowd to make a difference
“I’ve read that all honey is contaminated with BPP.”
In almost anything you consume, using the awesome scientific tools today, you can find a molecule of something “known by the state of California” that causes cancer, hemophilia, pederasty or almost anything. The thing is, a molecule of something, or even lots of molecules of something will be ignored by your body. You suck in arsenic and cyanide and all sorts of stuff all day long and never notice it. Much of this was present naturally thousands of years ago and our ancestors survived and had us…WAIT! All of our ancient ancestors are dead! OMG!
Why should we be forced to take any man-made chemicals into our bodies? Because ‘scientists’, drug makers, or some salesman say it’s OK?
Our society is ravaged by a rise in disease, ailments, syndromes and disorders, the question is why. Even if something is ‘controversial’ or ‘suspect’, shouldn’t it be taken into account?
Actually, the life span in our society has never been higher. And it is growing only a bit slower than our rate of aging. What is the basis of your statement?
We’re being kept alive longer by the pharmaceutical industry. Take away the drugs and watch that life expectancy fall.
Do I really have to explain my statement after posting a link *explaining* my statement?
Something to consider:” An estimated 1 in 70 boys and 1 in 315 girls in the U.S. now have an autism spectrum disorder (ASD), according to a 2009 study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Increased awareness and detection as well as earlier diagnoses cannot alone account for the steep increase over the past few decades, experts say.”
http://www.fitpregnancy.com/pregnancy/health/do-chemicals-cause-autism
“I hope this is true....I used to practically swim in that stuff. And I turned out OD...er...FK...er...OK.”
You sound perfectly norbal to me.
I'd be willing to bet that sample contamination is a common problem in the studies critical of BPA. Even after decades of little success, we are still dealing with those who are pushing low doses of chemicals as emerging science. It doesn't matter to them that they have achieved absolutely zero scientific credibility, they continue looking for a following -- outside of the chemicalphobes in the media. I believe these people are driven solely by the pursuit of money, and that they will drift to the next "scare of the month" when the hysteria surrounding BPA finally passes. But, then again, I'm a cynic.....
Indeed.
In a modern biochemistry lab, plastics are used extensively. Centrifuge tubes of all sizes, flasks for cell and microbe culture, syringes, cell spreaders and scrapers, pipettes, sample cups, PCR tubes and plates, etc., etc., are all made of plastic. As one critique of BPA studies pointed out, if a speck of plastic dust falls into the sample, that would be enough to send the BPA levels skyrocketing. With all of the plastics in use in labs, it would be difficult to avoid plastic dust, even if the samples were processed entirely using glass and metal labware.
The BPA scare is discussed here with increasing regularity, but this is the first time the very real issue of contamination has been brought to light. To me, this is the only explanation for the results that so many fear. The whole notion of trace chemicals causing all sorts of maladies is something many embrace when, in reality, it is the height of junk science.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.