AngryToxicologist is a scientist in the public health sector, knows plenty about toxicology, and is occasionally angry about it all. Drop me a line at The evidence BPA (bisphenol A) is having toxic effects on humans is becoming more and more solid. Just recently a paper in JAMA found BPA may be associated heart disease and other probelms in humans. Other research has shown possible association with metabolic disorders (one thing I didn't note in the second post is that the two studies reinforce each other with the metabolic findings like diabetes). Furthermore, the FDA's own panel called FDA's okey-dokie/industry-studies-only assessment of BPA flawed and it was announced yesterday that the FDA has called a do-over.
Therefore, it may surprise you to know that there exist (and have existed for a while), FDA-approved alternative coatings as Chemical and Engineering News reports. Why aren't they being used? From the C&EN article it seems that the simple reason that BPA is still being used is that you would have to use different coating for different applications (gasp!) as opposed to the one-toxic-chemical-fits-all approach.
Sigh...
PS Reading the C&EN article, you now have another reason to buy the 'fresh' sauerkraut or make your own.
PPS Can a fermented product be classified as fresh? That doesn't seem right to AT.
Comments
It strikes me that as long as fermentation or culturing is an active process, the products should be considered fresh. The product being fermented/cultured may no longer be "fresh" in the strict sense of the word, but as long as natural biologic processes are contributing to the development of a final product, that product should be considered "fresh." Consider both yeast and sourdough bread cultures, yoghurt cultures, all of the mold and bacterially fermented cheeses, beer/ale, hard cider, etc.
If "good fresh bread" by definition smells of yeast, why should we say any other edible product of fermentation is not fresh?
Posted by: chezjake | December 16, 2008 10:43 AM
The evidence BPA (bisphenol A) is having toxic effects on humans is becoming more and more solid. Just recently a paper in JAMA found BPA may be associated heart disease and other probelms in humans.
so you agree with the authors, that because their paper describes a data dredge with no prior hypothesis, and multiple testing, that the association may be a statistical artefact ? You also are correct to use the word "association", since that has nothing to do with BPA "causing" effects.
Seriously, if you are going to get all hyper about evidence like that, why don't you believe every epidemiological paper? One week, coffee causes cancer; the next it doesn't. One week, tea cures heart disease; the next it doesn't. Why don't you get upset over every epidemiology paper published, no matter how bad the evidence ?
yours
per
Posted by: per | December 21, 2008 7:42 PM
thankss.best regards
Posted by: spor haberleri | January 1, 2009 5:46 PM
thanks bes geards you
Posted by: netlog | February 15, 2009 10:01 AM
admin very thanks
Posted by: Seslichat | February 15, 2009 11:44 AM
It's crazy to think that all this time we have been exposed to BPA but until this recent spur in interest over it, it was brushed under the rug. Our lives are consumed by BPA. It is in fillings in our teeth, it lines the metal in our canned foods, and in our plastic food containers. It is scary to know that BPA is found in most baby bottles and sippy cups. There are many new companies coming out with BPA free bottles though. As far as plastic drinking bottles for adults go, Camelbak has always been BPA free and Nalgene and REI are coming out with a BPA-free lines, too.
Posted by: Ajlouny | February 25, 2009 11:26 PM
Thanks for this post, and I agree! I can't access the link to Chemical Engineering News, can you let me know what alternatives they suggest for can coatings? Thanks!
Posted by: toxfree | March 3, 2009 7:02 PM
so you agree with the authors, that because their paper describes a data dredge with no prior hypothesis, and multiple testing, that the association may be a statistical artefact ? You also are correct to use the word "association", since that has nothing to do with BPA "causing" effects.
Posted by: sac ekimi | April 25, 2009 12:28 PM
The evidence BPA (bisphenol A) is having toxic effects on humans is becoming more and more solid. Just recently a paper in JAMA found BPA may be associated heart disease and other probelms in humans.
Posted by: burun estetigi | April 25, 2009 12:30 PM
As usual, you have to pay for the C&EN article, so I couldn't read it.
Anyway, I suppose someone should point out that it would be daft to replace a dodgy product with something that seems less nasty, simply because there hasn't been time to study it.
Posted by: Chris Lee | May 26, 2009 11:05 AM
t's crazy to think that all this time we have been exposed to BPA but until this recent spur in interest over it, it was brushed under the rug. Our lives are consumed by BPA. It is in fillings in our teeth, it lines the metal in our canned foods, and in our plastic food containers. It is scary to know that BPA is found in most baby bottles and sippy cups. There are many new companies coming out with BPA free bottles though. As far as plastic drinking bottles for adults go, Camelbak has always been BPA free and Nalgene and REI are coming out with a BPA-free lines, too.
Posted by: film izle | May 29, 2009 9:38 AM
It's crazy to think that all this time we have been exposed to BPA but until this recent spur in interest over it, it was brushed under the rug. Our lives are consumed by BPA. It is in fillings in our teeth, it lines the metal in our canned foods, and in our plastic food containers. It is scary to know that BPA is found in most baby bottles and sippy cups. There are many new companies coming out with BPA free bottles though. As far as plastic drinking bottles for adults go, Camelbak has always been BPA free and Nalgene and REI are coming out with a BPA-free lines, too.
Posted by: dvd film izle | June 9, 2009 1:49 PM
Also, technically, pointing out Ms. Szwarc's link to the fast food industry isn't an "ad hominem" argument at all. The proper term would be "guilt by association
Posted by: sohbet | July 25, 2009 7:36 PM
so you agree with the authors, that because their paper describes a data dredge with no prior hypothesis, and multiple testing, that the association may be a statistical artefact ? You also are correct to use the word "association", since that has nothing to do with BPA "causing" effects.
Posted by: sohpet | July 26, 2009 5:01 PM
You also are correct to use the word "association", since that has nothing to do with BPA "causing" effects.
Posted by: burun estetiği | August 20, 2009 10:14 AM
You've got bots -- at least responses 3,4,5,11,12, and 13.
"sohpet" and "sohbet" is a bot/Turing test, reusing chunks of text from earlier posts -- don't click the link, the destination has been flagged intermittently as a virus/worm propagator site.
Anybody home? Beware letting your threads become toxic dump sites -- eventually someone will get fooled and click on a bad link.
----
I actually had a serious question; you asked why this stuff is still being used?
Because journalists rely on this stuff to check the evidence:
STATS: We Check Out the Numbers Behind the News
... Center for Health and Risk Communication at George Mason University shows how experts view ... STATS INVESTIGATES
... BPA Conspiracy Theory Dr. S. Robert Lichter
August 27, 2009 ...
http://stats.org/
Check it out.
Posted by: Hank Roberts
| August 30, 2009 3:22 PM
"stats.org" will also provide you with:
"Science suppressed: How America became obsessed with BPA"
Take a look at the whole school's work.
Posted by: Hank Roberts
| August 30, 2009 3:24 PM
Ah! Sourcewatch has nailed these people as industry PR:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Statistical_Assessment_Service
"... STATS is a 501(c)3 non-profit organisation but its 2006 annual return to the Internal Revenue Service states that "salary costs for the organization are shared with the Center for Media and Public Affairs. CMPA ... reports the salary costs and files payroll reports under its tax identification number. DCFC is a related organization."[1] (It is not clear what "DCFC" refers to). The report also states that the relationship between STATS and CMPA is one of "common control".[2] Since STATS shares the offices (in the pricey "K Street" lobbying district of Washington) and staff of CMPA, it should be considered as a front, rather than a subsidiary or spin-off.
In 2004, STATS became officially affiliated with George Mason University and displays the university logo at the foot of its webpages.[3] ..."
Posted by: Hank Roberts
| August 30, 2009 3:29 PM
Thanks for the info...
Posted by: GCP | September 2, 2009 8:25 AM
Wow. Does anyone at ScienceBlogs have a high enough profile to be a target for this project?
Excerpt:
"The plastics industry has launched a $10 million PR blitz aimed at stopping the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from re-evaluating its declaration that a widely-used plastics additive called Bisphenol A (BPA) is safe. ...
... downplaying the risks of the additive, discrediting anyone who portrays the chemical as a health threat, and utilizing Web 2.0 technology, like blogs, Facebook, Twitter, Wikipedia and YouTube, to plant "Trojan Horse" messages....
... The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel uncovered tobacco industry documents that show the ... tobacco industry was concerned about the BPA issue because cigarette filters and package wrapping contain the additive. The documents also show that FDA scientists tapped chemical industry lobbyists for help drafting public safety standards on BPA."
http://www.prwatch.org/node/8527
Posted by: Hank Roberts | September 6, 2009 10:55 AM
I think during pregnancy it will be better to avoid such things.As we know prevention is better then cure.
Posted by: anti cellulite cream | October 31, 2009 1:07 AM