Posted on by

BPA Update: Alternatives May Be Just as Bad

9 Replies

A gloomy editorial by Dominique Browning in the New York Times this week touches upon a recent trend :

I’m struck by how many signs on the shelves advertise BPA-free bottles, BPA-free sippy cups. It breaks my heart. Manufacturers might be removing BPA, a chemical used to harden certain plastics, from their products, but they are substituting chemicals that may be just as dangerous, if not more so. Read more…

What you need to know:

Bisphenol-A  is a chemical compound used as a building block of several polymers and polycarbonates that in turn are found in plastic bottles and cans. Which means all of us are exposed to tiny amounts, whether drinking canned juice, milk from a baby-bottle, or any other product sold in a plastic container or a can.

The chemical has been sold since the 1940’s and starting in the 1960’s has been lining the insides of cans in order to extend shelf life. BPA behaves like the hormone estrogen once it enters the body and disturbs the normal working of certain genes. Estrogen mimicking chemicals like BPA are potentially harmful even at very low doses, such as those found in plastic bottles and cans.

Toxicity questions have been around for decades, raising safety issue, especially for babies who ingest a proportionally larger amount due to their small size. Potential problems include hyperactivity, learning disabilities, brain damage, and immune deficiencies.

In recent years, more and more companies are removing BPA from their products. The problem is that some of the alternatives are not necessarily safe:

Consider the thermal paper that comes out of cash registers. Its BPA passes through the skin into the bodies of anyone who works at check-out counters, as well as their customers. Appleton, a specialty paper company, markets a BPA-free thermal paper that uses Bisphenol S [BPS] instead.

In … limited tests conducted outside the United States, BPS shows estrogenic activity — not as strong as BPA, but not a good sign. BPS is now used in the United States to make PES (polyethersulfone) plastic. Some baby bottles marketed as BPA-free use PES plastic.

Just wonderful. The article goes on with another example before hitting the nail on the head – In the US, our regulatory system doesn’t require proof that a chemical is safe for it to be admitted in to products. Only after it has been used on us, human guinea pigs, for several years, and only IF enough people start to get sick, do companies test for toxicity.

Why not have chemical companies prove the safety of their products before our kids get sick?

You know the answer…

Get Fooducated: iPhone App RSS Subscription or Email Subscription

Follow us on twitter: twitter.com/fooducate on facebook: facebook.com/fooducate

Get Fooducated

Download APP

Subscribe

Follow

  • Miranda

    what, exactly, does the FDA DO??? Anything to do with Food Safety or are they just busy busting pot smokers????  GAH!
     

  • Brooke

     Firstly, Fooducate has mis-interpreted what the NYT article says.  The original states:

     ”The problem is that our regulatory system allows manufacturers to introduce or continue to use chemicals that have not been adequately tested for safety”  

    Note the use of the word “adequately” – not that the substances have not been tested, just not adequately (in the author’s opinion – as it is an opinion column).  I’m going to give NYT a little credit in assuming that the author DOES know that the FDA looks at toxicology data prior to the substance going into a food contact substance, but she just feels like more could/should be done (a valid concern).  This is in contrast to what Fooducate (incorrectly) states in its post that no prior testing is done.Further information on the details of what the FDA does prior to the marketing of a food contact substance can be found here:

    http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodIngredientsPackaging/FoodContactSubstancesFCS/default.htm

    In the future, I suggest Fooducate become familiar with the FDA’s site before perpetuating mis-truths.

  • Fistuk

    The headline of this article reads “Alternatives May Be Just as Bad”
    Then the comparison reads ” BPS shows estrogenic activity — not as strong as BPA, but not a good sign.”
    So is it as bad, or not as bad?

    • http://www.fooducate.com/blog Fooducate

      The next sentence, referring to the NY Times article says “The article goes on with another example…”. That one may be even worse…

      • Fistuk

         That’s a vague statement which doesn’t actually say anything.

  • Pyarali

    sooo

  • Mj

    This post is missing some information and seems incomplete.
    -Avid Fooducate Follower

  • Jessica Isabel

    I drink water out of a glass jar. BPA free, cheap, easy to replace if broken, and I think it actually tastes better. Obviously not suitable for children, but for adults it works quite well. Also better than a travel mug for hot beverages because the lid screws shut. 

    • Mari Baker

      We actually don’t use plastic to eat/drink out of in our house and that is all my almost 3 year old knows (though he does use plastic as other people’s houses). He handles the glass very well and has been drinking out of an actual glass since about 10 months old. Obviously, not every kid is the same, but it works for him and us.