BPA
resin replacements may be more harmful
By Angela Logomasini, Independent Women's
Forum and Competitive Enterprise Institute - 12/27/12 12:00 PM ET – The Hill, Congress Blog
As the year winds down, it’s a good
time to look back at what was one of the biggest alarm stories of the year: the
alleged health impact of the chemical Bisphenol A (BPA). Were the claims true,
and what might we expect to happen in 2013?
In 2012, news headlines were awash with
faulty claims about dangers lurking in food, cosmetics, cleaning products, and
even cash register receipts — all allegedly posed by BPA. Green groups targeted
their message to women, who were — and continue to be--barraged with one-sided
stories suggesting that BPA containers pose a serious threat to our children.
These
activists claim that BPA is an “endocrine disrupter” — a chemical that affects
human hormone systems. Supposedly, it impacts human development starting in the
womb and eventually leads to everything from breast cancer, heart disease,
obesity, and more. But as IWF scholars have explained many times on Inkwell and
elsewhere, women should be wary of such hype.
Manufacturers have used BPA for more
than 60 years to make hard, clear plastics and resins that line food
containers, and there are no documented cases of BPA-related illnesses from
consumer exposures. Research shows that the human body quickly metabolizes and
passes out trace-levels of BPA found in food, producing no adverse health
effects. Comprehensive studies conducted by researchers from the World Health
Organization, United States, European Union, Canada, Japan, and other places
have deemed the current uses of BPA safe.
Rather than focus on these comprehensive
reviews, greens continue to cite random and largely inconclusive studies that
claim to “link” BPA to health problems. But many of these studies are more akin
to junk science than hard science as they simply don’t have good data to assess
BPA exposures. In fact, researchers highlighted this problem in a recent
article in the journal PLOS One.
Nonetheless, governments have already
begun taking action on BPA merely to alleviate anxieties generated by
environmental activists rather than to address legitimate public health
problems. For example, following Canada’s lead, the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration banned BPA use in baby bottles and sippy cups this year even
though it deemed those uses safe. And the French recently have banned its use
in food packaging.
If there is anything to fear, it’s the
regulations that may result from the hype. In fact, products that replace BPA
may not be any safer and in some cases may be more dangerous.
Ironically, earlier this year,
researchers pointed out that the chemical used to replace BPA for plastic baby
bottles and reusable water bottles, known as Bisphenol S (BPS), is actually a
more potent “endocrine disrupter” and that the human body does not metabolize
BPS as easily!
Fortunately, there are many reasons to
doubt that trace exposures to BPS — or any synthetic chemical for that matter —
could have significant hormonal effects. Synthetic chemicals simply are not
potent enough. Consider the fact that natural substances in our diets that we
consume every day — such as soy, almonds and a variety of legumes — contain
endocrine mimicking” substances that are tens of thousands of times more potent
than synthetic chemicals! And we all know, soy and nuts aren’t only safe — they
are pretty good for you.
Accordingly while BPS plastic
alternatives probably are no more dangerous than BPA, they certainly are not
any safer.
Other options are potentially more
dangerous. For example, greens suggest glass, but who could seriously deem it
safer? We all know the risks associated with broken glass. Indeed, children
face far higher risks from cuts and subsequent infections than they do from a
trace chemical that has been used for decades without any documented adverse
health impacts.
Bans on BPA resins that line cans may
pose more serious risks. Specifically, BPA resinsline food containers — from
soup to soda cans — to prevent the spread of deadly pathogens like E-coli.
Manufacturers pointed out in the Washington Post that there aren’t any good
alternatives for this use. Accordingly, bans that force us to buy inferior
alternatives may mean increased food-borne illnesses.
Now that’s something to worry about.
Logomasini serves as a senior fellow at
the Independent Women's Forum and the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
No comments:
Post a Comment