Replies

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.

Excellent points. When it comes to BPA, much of the alarmist research completely ignores the fact that the human body is efficient at metabolizing BPA, so it remains in the body for only a short period of time. As a matter of fact, in many of these studies, the levels of BPA measured in the subject's urine, prior to the initiation of the study, were more than 1,000 times lower than the precautionary limits set by the FDA. You can find just about any toxin you want to find in our blood and urine if you measure for it in the right quantities.

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.....