BPA
is Back -- New Science Proves Safety
HEALTH &
WELLNESS on 02.18.13
BPA is not so bad
after all. At least, there is not enough of it in our bodies to be causing
obesity, diabetes, cancer, liver disease or heart attacks -- just a few of the
modern diseases that have been correlated with the growing presence of this
plastic additive in baby and drinking bottles as well as canned food linings.
The news stems from a
session at last week's conference of the American
Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) entitled: Can
Exposure Science Quell the Furor over Environmental Endocrine Disruption?
The Furor Over BPA
Concerned parents have
been inundated by studies finding toxic
chemicals in the bodies of pregnant women and in our kids' favorite canned
soups and pasta.
BPA belongs to a class
of chemicals suspected to act as endocrine disruptors. What that means in
non-scientific terms is that BPA can act like the chemical messengers our body
uses naturally. If our body gets the wrong message at the wrong time, the
result can be birth defects, neurological problems, even diseases
that might be passed on to future generations.
No wonder
advocates for childrens' health have suggested we look for alternatives
to BPA.
Fueling the furor is
an overwhelming sense of loss of control: these chemicals are in our
environment, in our food, in everyday household items. Who is in charge of
keeping us safe in the face of harmful chemicals?
Can Science Quell the
Furor?
If this science came
from an industry-funded source, it could be ignored pending independent
confirmation. But work funded entirely by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) under the Science to Achieve Results (STAR) program
certainly merits a bit of trust.
At the AAAS
conference, six topics examined recent exposure science on BPA. Presenting a
review of BPA concentrations in humans -- representing 30,000 people, including
women and infants, in 19 countries -- the authors posed the question of whether
BPA concentrations in humans are high enough to cause endocrine disruption. The
answer is stated bluntly: "They are not."
Which raises the next
question:
can this knowledge affect the public’s view of
the risks posed by BPA?
Why Facts Don't Quell
Fear
A scientists will keep
an open mind and look for studies that can repeat the same conclusion, just to
make sure we did not overlook some important factor or have a flaw in the
design of our study. But the information presented in this seminar gives strong
support to the idea that we do not need to fear BPA as current levels of
exposure.
But a scientist saying
so does not suffice. Especially not when fear makes better headlines. Which
brings us to a real problem: this stuff is complex.
The 'exposure science'
that was discussed amongst members of the American Association for the
Advancement of Science has math, models, and medicine underlying it that make
it virtually impossible for the average concerned parent to understand. Here is
an overview, in much simpler language:
·
The amount of BPA
found in a review of many studies was not as high as that found in some
studies, suggesting that the studies that found high levels of BPA reflect
contaminated samples or some other form of distortion.
·
The amount of BPA
found in urine is not a good indicator of how much BPA the body has in the
bloodstream, where it might confuse the body, leaning to disease. This simple
statement is, in the scientific discussion, hidden behind a lot of techno-speak
about intestines, livers, and chemical reactions required for the BPA to be
harmful in the blood.
·
The body still prefers
estrogen, the endocrine messenger our bodies are designed to understand, so it
would take a lot more BPA "screaming" its message before our bodies
would start listening.
So do you feel better
about BPA based on the simple version of the facts?
But other scientists
will continue to publish reports about BPA and other endocrine disruptors in
which they continue to find mechanisms by which these chemicals could cause
harm. Those studies are not lies: these chemicals can have harmful effects when
studied under different conditions. Just not at the levels of actual human
exposure, according to the facts above.
The Important Message
for Parents
We always look for the
take-away message that gives control back to those of us trying to do our best
for our kids in a complicated world. Which brings us to the most important
message that the sum of science on BPA delivers so far: a lifestyle rich in BPA
does correlate with disease. BPA probably cannot be blamed, at least at the
levels encountered. The scientists discussing BPA point to another insidious
hazard:
Diet is the main source of BPA. So an obvious
possibility is that poorer diets
are associated with higher intake of BPA.
Poorer diets -- that
means processed foods high in sugars and fats -- could be the real reason why
studies show people with higher BPA levels suffer from obesity, diabetes, and
cardiovascular disease. The parent hoping to give their child a better future
will be thankful for the can linings that keep food safe to eat when offering
their kids their favorite
canned meals, accepting BPA's role in reducing food-borne illnesses,
because there really is no
BPA substitute. Then they will balance those convenient moments with many
more meals of good, fresh home cooking. But that is not science; it's just
plain common sense.
No comments:
Post a Comment