1. Sign our petition calling on Cochrane to withdraw their review of Exercise Therapy for CFS here.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Guest, the 'News in Brief' for the week beginning 18th March 2024 is here.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Welcome! To read the Core Purpose and Values of our forum, click here.
    Dismiss Notice

"Plastics labelled 'BPA free' may not be safe"

Discussion in 'Other health news and research' started by DokaGirl, Jan 1, 2020.

Tags:
  1. DokaGirl

    DokaGirl Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,664
    "A scoping review of the health and toxicological activity of bisphenol A (BPA) structural analogues and functional alternatives


    Abstract
    Recent studies report widespread usage or exposure to a variety of chemicals with structural or functional similarity to bisphenol A (BPA), referred to as BPA analogues or derivatives. These have been detected in foodstuffs, house dust, environmental samples, human urine or blood, and consumer products. Compared to BPA, relatively little is known about potential toxicity of these compounds. This scoping review aimed to summarize the human, animal, and mechanistic toxicity data for 24 BPA analogues of emerging interest to research and regulatory communities. PubMed was searched from March 1, 2015 to January 5, 2019 and combined with the results obtained from literature searches conducted through March 23, 2015, in The National Toxicology Program’s Research Report 4 (NTP RR-04), “Biological Activity of Bisphenol A (BPA) Structural Analogues and Functional Alternatives”. Study details are presented in interactive displays using Tableau Public. In total, 5748 records were screened for inclusion. One hundred sixty seven studies were included from NTP RR-04 and 175 studies were included from the updated literature search through January 2019. In total, there are 22, 117, and 221 human epidemiological, experimental animal, or in vitro studies included. The most frequently studied BPA analogues are bisphenol S (BPS), bisphenol F (4,4-BPF), and bisphenol AF (BPAF). Notable changes in the literature since 2015 include the growing body of human epidemiological studies and in vivo studies conducted in zebrafish. Numerous new endpoints were also evaluated across all three evidence streams including diabetes, obesity, and oxidative stress. However, few studies have addressed endpoints such as neurodevelopmental outcomes or impacts on the developing mammary or prostate glands, which are known to be susceptible to disruption by BPA. Further, there remains a critical need for better exposure information in order to prioritize experimental studies. Moving forward, researchers should also ensure that full dose responses are performed for all main effects in order to support hazard and risk characterization efforts. The evidence gathered here suggests that hazard and risk characterizations should expand beyond BPA in order to consider BPA structural and functional analogues."
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0300483X18306668?via=ihub

    (Title for this post paraphrased from CBC TV article, January 1, 2020:
    "Plastic labelled ‘BPA free’ might not be safe, studies suggest")
     
    MeSci, Ron, Michelle and 5 others like this.
  2. DokaGirl

    DokaGirl Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,664
    Ron, Amw66, Invisible Woman and 2 others like this.
  3. Hoopoe

    Hoopoe Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    5,234
    There seem to be two competing theories:

    One says there is an epidemic of mental illness, depression, somatization, health anxiety, malingering, etc.

    The other says there are new environmental factors causing an epidemic of chronic disease.
     
    MEMarge, MeSci, shak8 and 9 others like this.
  4. rvallee

    rvallee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    12,296
    Location:
    Canada
    Let's see... one has miserably failed every time it was tried, is still being tried exactly as it ever was, is built on magical thinking and logical fallacies.

    The other has been well-validated and we even have an idea of how many annual deaths are caused by pollution and actual toxins, not the imaginary fluff that people juice or whatever, but actual nasty stuff that we know is bad but is almost impossible to study in real-life situations.

    We kind of went through this with the whole vaporizing lead in the atmosphere may be a bad idea after all. Also the asbestos thing, kinda famous, you know (don't tell Sigmund Wessely though, it makes a dent in his nonsense about 9/11 ground zero and all the nasty stuff that people breathed for days but whatever hysteria it may just be).

    Hmmm... tough choice. Magical thinking with a history of systemic failure vs. validated but limited research based on actual reality that has many localized or specific examples.

    Wonder which one will pan out. Big suspence. Occam's razor vs Freud's pipe. Which cuts best and easiest through BS, I wonder.
     
    TiredSam, JemPD, shak8 and 5 others like this.

Share This Page