Just how pervasive is this stuff? Well in the United States urine tests found it to be in 95% of all people tested, and in other parts of the world it has been found in the blood, in placenta, and in birth chords.
One of the other very interesting characteristics of Bisphenol A is that test results are dependant on who has done the testing. Every single test conducted by the plastics industry and those who manufacture container products have found it completely safe for human consumption. On the other hand 95% of independent tests have produced results so terrifying that those conducting the test never want to touch goods that come in those products again.
Spokespeople for the plastic industry say that there is nothing wrong with the chemical and that scientists are using flawed methodology. The scientists respond by saying the plastic industry is splitting hair in their results when they say that Bisphenol A is weak form of Estragon because it triggers reaction in far fewer cells then other forms. It still affects enough cells that are responsible for many of our biological functions.
One of the big five plastics companies in the United States, GE, has just decided to phase out that aspect of their business. They claim their timing has nothing to do with the first of what promises to be many class action suits brought against the manufacturers of plastic. A group in Los Angles is filling suit alleging harm from the chemical was caused by plastic baby bottles.
GE claims that their plastics division isn't growing as rapidly as others and is not fitting into their current business mode, so they've put it on the market. Their spokesperson dismisses talk of risks from Bisphenol A as "speculation" saying that it has never been shown to have any risks to humans.
If the chemical is so safe why have scientists from Health Canada and the Ministry of the Environment classified it as inherently toxic? Why are they conducting an assessment of how it used in the manufacturing process where they are starting with that premise that it is a risk to humans and industry is going to have to convince them otherwise? Normally it’s the other way round.
When Health Canada set its acceptable limits (the amount of trace elements on a parts per million scale that is considered safe for human consumption) back in 1999 they didn't take the less is more factor into their calculations. Some scientists are now saying this chemical needs to be considered on a scale of parts per trillion for a clear picture to emerge.
Article comments
1 - A person at Washington State
A good article.
Hmmm... So the industry's studies all say the chemical is harmless, but independent and university scientists are saying it is certainly harmful to mammals with similar hormonal systems to ours, and is probably harmful to us.
Not hard to see who is more believable. Who has the highest stakes riding on how their studies turn out? Not the university scientists; they still get paid even if things don't turn out the way they thought. In fact, that's how this whole thing came up in Patricia Hunt's study at Washington State. She wasn't even looking for this at first; she was studying something else and just needed to find out why her mice had developed unforeseen reproductive defects. Corporate science, on the other hand--it may not be quite on the scale of cigarette companies releasing "studies" proving their products safe, but bias is bound to creep in. When billions of dollars and maybe the job of the researcher are at stake, the methodology and interpretation of the results are bound to reflect that influence.
Kudos to Canada for taking a proactive stance on this. Maybe it's not as big a problem as the evidence suggests...I hope it's not...but I'd rather be safe than sorry, and I'll trust the government and independent research before I'll trust the ethics of the corporate world. I wish I could say the government in the US was doing as good a job looking out for people and seeing the big picture.