About a decade in the past, an article published in The Lancet attracted quite a bit of attention, being reprinted or commented on in many related publications. Unlike the vast majority of news about medical research, this piece unashamedly mentioned money, and a spectacular amount of it. Of course, its subject matter was not a complete surprise, having been brought up many times in various contexts, of which a few typical examples follow.
Quite some time ago, it was determined that among the known thyroid system disruptors are PCBs, flame retardants, heavy metals, phthalates, and a manufactured chemical called bisphenol A, familiarly referred to as BPA. This potentially hazardous substance was commonly found in canned food, bottled liquids, infant-care products, dental resins, and other locations, having been put there on purpose with apparent disregard for any adverse results.
As far back as 2012, it was no longer surprising to encounter headlines such as “Association between urinary bisphenol A concentration and obesity prevalence in children and adolescents.” This particular piece of journalism noted that elevated urinary concentrations of BPA were associated not only with obesity but also with coronary artery disease. At the time, it was common for medical writers to note that exposure to BPA was linked to childhood obesity, although hard proof was difficult to come by.
In 2016, journalist Rebecca Lee wrote for CBS News,
The controversial chemical was removed from baby bottles and sippy cups almost four years ago, but is still found in the packaging of many popular food products. Of the items sampled, BPA was found in 100 percent of the Campbell’s products, 71 percent of Del Monte’s and 50 percent of the General Mills cans.
A 2014 study looked at “the effects of long-term paternal exposure to a ‘safe’ level of BPA” in adult male lab rats and their adult descendants, finding that such exposure “disrupted glucose homeostasis and pancreatic function,” but did not seem to affect body weight. Yet there was enough evidence to support a strong suspicion that chronic exposure to supposed “safe” amounts of it was not actually all that safe.
A year later, BPA was being mentioned as deserving high priority for further study as a health risk for humans because of the high degree of exposure that seemed bound to affect people of all ages, one way or another. Suspicion involved not only reproductive toxicity, but other side effects, “including liver damage, disrupted pancreatic β-cell function, thyroid hormone disruption, and obesity-promoting effects.”
Early in 2016, BPA was still a food industry favorite to improve food can linings and water bottles. Science writer Bailey Kirkpatrick described how, if only grownups were affected, that would be serious enough, but the stuff was also extensively used in baby feeding bottles and toys that toddlers famously gnaw on. Not to put too fine a point on it, BPA was going into their mouths and from there to other parts of their bodies. Apparently, not much thought had been expended on that aspect of the manufacturing trend.
Even though not proven at the time to affect body weight, there were plenty of other issues, like how the chemical could affect the human reproductive system by “mimicking estrogen, binding to nuclear estrogen receptors and even androgen receptors.” There were also issues and suspicions concerning connections to diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancer, brain damage, prostate gland trouble, and rising obesity rates.
It was also noted, with alarm in many quarters, that BPA disperses into the air and, equally concerning, into the water, which, as any classroom globe will demonstrate, knows few borders and embraces the planet from every angle. Concerned professionals also spoke of lax oversight, the absence of adequately transparent labeling, and, as always, insufficient data. Still, the available evidence was enough to move the Food and Drug Administration to forbid the presence of BPA in the packaging of baby formula, even if it did prevent metal corrosion.
(To be continued…)
Your responses and feedback are welcome!
Source: “Association between urinary bisphenol A concentration and obesity prevalence in children and adolescents,” Pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov, 09/19/12
Source: “Study finds BPA in cans of many popular food products,” CBSNews.com, 04/11/16
Source: “High-fat diet aggravates glucose homeostasis disorder caused by chronic exposure to bisphenol,” Ncbi.nlm.nih.gov, April 2014
Source: “BPA, an energy balance disruptor,” Pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov, 2015
Source: “Could Common Chemicals Tip the Epigenetic Balance and Program Someone for Obesity?,” WhatIsEpigenetics.com, 05/24/2016
Image by LillyCantabile/Pixabay
FAQs and Media Requests: 
