Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Studies Prove BPA Can Cross Placenta To Fetuses

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the estrogen-mimic dept.

Earth 234

Totes McGotes writes "From canned food to plastic bottles, Bisphenol-A seems to be cropping up everywhere, and now two new studies show that BPA freely crosses the placenta from pregnant mother to fetus. Plus, the research found that chemical transformations occur in the fetus allowing inactive BPA to be converted to the active form."

cancel ×

234 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

frist psot (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32501150)

bisphenol-a is pants

Aaaand... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32501162)

...what is this Bisphenol-A and why should I care?

Re:Aaaand... (4, Funny)

KevinKnSC (744603) | more than 4 years ago | (#32501238)

...he says, taking a long drink from his plastic water bottle.

Re:Aaaand... (0, Flamebait)

oh_my_080980980 (773867) | more than 4 years ago | (#32501296)

FYI, not all plastics are bad...

Moron.

Re:Aaaand... (1)

Surt (22457) | more than 4 years ago | (#32501582)

Oh, they're all bad. Ones containing BPA are just worse.

Re:Aaaand... (4, Informative)

Bakkster (1529253) | more than 4 years ago | (#32501928)

Oh, they're all bad.

Say what now? Nylon? Polyethylene? Nothing bad about them at all.

As a rule, it's usually the additives and trace chemicals from production that cause problems. All plastics are large chain molecules (and thus not absorbed by the body) and most are quite stable and do not break into monamers that could very easily (which is why most plastics are not biodegradable, and the very reason they are used).

Re:Aaaand... (0, Offtopic)

Surt (22457) | more than 4 years ago | (#32502178)

Right, no waste management issues with those at all.

Re:Aaaand... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32501966)

It's too bad that your mother chose to drink so much Coke from plastic bottles. It made her shit out a retarded baby. Her only child, a complete idiot. :(

Re:Aaaand... (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#32502312)

Doctor: Don't worry, scrote. There are plenty of 'tards out there living really kick-ass lives. My first wife was 'tarded. She's a pilot now.

Re:Aaaand... (2, Informative)

ecklesweb (713901) | more than 4 years ago | (#32501254)

It's a chemical used in many crystal-clear hard plastics. Like water bottles and baby bottles. Don't remember what it does to you - rots your brain or something.

Re:Aaaand... (2, Informative)

GungaDan (195739) | more than 4 years ago | (#32501310)

It feminizes, IIRC.

Re:Aaaand... (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 4 years ago | (#32501348)

What he said.

Re:Aaaand... (2, Funny)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 4 years ago | (#32501364)

Faaaabulous.

Sort of (4, Informative)

Benfea (1365845) | more than 4 years ago | (#32501406)

It acts like female hormones once it gets inside the human body. Not good for adults, but really bad for babies.

Re:Sort of (2, Funny)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#32502346)

I guess Lois Griffin must have used a lot of BPA products while she was pregnant with Stewie.

Re:Aaaand... (2, Funny)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#32501510)

It feminizes, IIRC.

That must explain why the current crop of political leaders consists of Chickenhawks on the right and pussies on the left ;)

I can see the bumper sticker now: Ban plastic bottles! It's cheaper than injecting testosterone into our politicians.

Re:Aaaand... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32501536)

It feminizes, IIRC.

That must explain why the current crop of political leaders consists of Chickenhawks on the right and pussies on the left ;)

I can see the bumper sticker now: Ban plastic bottles! It's cheaper than injecting testosterone into our politicians.

Oh for the love of humanity someone please mod parent up! :)

Re:Aaaand... (0, Troll)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 4 years ago | (#32502086)

It feminizes, IIRC.

Somebody told me that it was found in high concentrations in the products of a well-known company located in Cupertino, CA.

I won't say which company, because I haven't been able to independently confirm it, but it's something to think about.

Re:Aaaand... (1, Redundant)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 4 years ago | (#32501822)

It's probably something you could google.

Great description (3, Funny)

sanosuke001 (640243) | more than 4 years ago | (#32501164)

I love it when the description actually explains why something it good or bad.

BPA! It cures cancer! Now it can cure your unborn fetus' cancer, too!

Re:Great description (5, Informative)

camperdave (969942) | more than 4 years ago | (#32501344)

Bisphenol A is a component in polycarbonate plastics, used to make stuff like baby and water bottles, sports equipment, medical and dental devices, dental fillings and sealants, eyeglass lenses, CDs and DVDs, and household electronics. It is also used in thermal and carbonless paper, and as a protective coating on the inside of tin cans. BPA has been linked to obesity and many cancers, and worst of all (dumm, dumm, DAHHHH) adult male sexual dysfunction.

Re:Great description (1, Funny)

AnonymousClown (1788472) | more than 4 years ago | (#32501414)

BPA has been linked to obesity and many cancers, and worst of all (dumm, dumm, DAHHHH) adult male sexual dysfunction.

So I have a medical excuse for looking at porn?

Yee Haw!

Re:Great description (1)

Surt (22457) | more than 4 years ago | (#32501782)

Odds are good that if you are looking at het porn, you didn't get exposed to much BPA.

Re:Great description (2, Funny)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | more than 4 years ago | (#32501438)

Let me be the first to say, "Oh we're so fucked"

Re:Great description (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32501648)

and worst of all (dumm, dumm, DAHHHH) adult male sexual dysfunction.

Let me be the first to say, "Oh we're so fucked"

Didn't you read your parent post? We're so NOT fucked.

Re:Great description (1)

The Fanta Menace (607612) | more than 4 years ago | (#32501450)

...and worst of all adult male sexual dysfunction.

I'm a geek, getting that would be the least of my problems.

Re:Great description (1)

Chowderbags (847952) | more than 4 years ago | (#32502322)

adult male sexual dysfunction

I heard Slashdot causes this too.

Re:Great description (2, Insightful)

Urkki (668283) | more than 4 years ago | (#32502024)

I love it when the description actually explains why something it good or bad.

No! That's bad when that happens! The ability to comment and moderate are meant for us to demonstrate our superior intellectual capabilities by correcting the glaring factual errors and omissions of TFS and TFA. No, /. depends on bad summaries and articles.

Freeeeee Markeeeeeeeeeet! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32501228)

It will fix it! No matter what's the problem. Free Market fixes everything! Hooray for Free Market!

Just saving you the time to go on ranting how regulations are bad :D

Re:Freeeeee Markeeeeeeeeeet! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32501432)

Now people are free to not buy BPA products.

Re:Freeeeee Markeeeeeeeeeet! (5, Insightful)

ShadowRangerRIT (1301549) | more than 4 years ago | (#32501682)

Assuming they are properly labeled. Unfortunately, the free market only works in a 100% informed populace that can weigh the costs and benefits of any product and have the option to choose. And the fairy tale land of perfectly informed people hasn't yet been made real. Clearly a failure of the free market and government regulation!

While BPA has alternatives, it's not always 100% clear. Many metal cans and bottles use a plastic lining that happens to contain BPA. Many "glass" products are actually layers of glass and plastic, or just plastic. With no labeling requirements on products composed of mixed materials, I couldn't make informed decisions even if I wanted to.

Finally, not related to BPA (where alternatives exist if you're willing to look hard enough for them), sometimes the free market fails to provide an alternative. I was trying to find beef stock the other day to make Swedish Meatballs. I generally prefer to avoid MSG and corn syrup in my food products. Of the ~8-10 different varieties of beef stock on the shelf at my local supermarket, all but one of them had MSG (and in large quantities) and a majority (forget the exact number) featured corn syrup (and yes, the only one without MSG had corn syrup). I ended up going with the MSG-free variety (the sodium content was roughly 1/8 that of the standard beef stock from any other brand, and 1/4 the sodium in the "low sodium" varieties), but the free market wouldn't let me avoid corn syrup as well. Nor for that matter do I know if the can itself had a lining containing BPA; even if I wanted to avoid BPA I had no way of making that decision.

Re:Freeeeee Markeeeeeeeeeet! (1)

Daneurysm (732825) | more than 4 years ago | (#32502270)

While I also share your desire to not consume MSG or HFCS--or any refined fructose for that matter--I would have gone for the one with MSG and no corn syrup.

I have never been able to find any information that MSG is bad for you. Sure, there are holy wars on either side of the argument. There are inconclusive studies on both sides of the argument. There are people with a very specific sensitivity to it. But I have no seen anything conclusive.

HFCS on the other hand has a rather substantial amount of information regarding now just how bad it is for you but how it is bad for you.

Re:Freeeeee Markeeeeeeeeeet! (4, Insightful)

Applekid (993327) | more than 4 years ago | (#32501560)

Actually, it is fixing the issue. Practically overnight an industry of BPA-free containers sprang up to service those people who wished to avoid exposure to the chemical. Media and research exists in a free market, so, it's not like we wouldn't have known any link.

Those that don't care (as in, not caring about their health, not caring since they're using the container to store stuff they don't intend to drink, etc) could still buy it and the prices the market will bare.

There's a lot of stuff the Free Market can't fix. This isn't one of them.

Re:Freeeeee Markeeeeeeeeeet! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32501660)

Except for all the people who will continue to use these products because they didn't hear.

Remember well: The definition of "free market" includes "perfect information".

Re:Freeeeee Markeeeeeeeeeet! (2, Insightful)

BJ_Covert_Action (1499847) | more than 4 years ago | (#32501768)

Except for all the people who will continue to use these products because they didn't hear.

So, we're supposed to craft a society to pander to those who are unwilling or incapable of doing their own research? Yeah, that should work out well....

Re:Freeeeee Markeeeeeeeeeet! (3, Insightful)

jameskojiro (705701) | more than 4 years ago | (#32501912)

We are simply "selecting" for people who stay well informed and actually have a decent IQ. We need to compensate for all dumbasses we are keeping alive despite their own unintentional efforts to put themselves out of the gene pool.

Re:Freeeeee Markeeeeeeeeeet! (3, Insightful)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 4 years ago | (#32502050)

The opposite of Idiocracy? We definitely need more products like this!

Sterilize the stupid, kill off the uneducated, yay!

Re:Freeeeee Markeeeeeeeeeet! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32501922)

Except for all the people who will continue to use these products because they didn't hear.

Remember well: The definition of "free market" includes "perfect information".

I find it hard to believe no one's heard by now. I'm not sure where you live but where I am (Canada) not only was it on all the radio stations for months but there were also signs at the grocery stores as well as non-BPA bottles (with info included) for sale at every turn.

Re:Freeeeee Markeeeeeeeeeet! (3, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#32501684)

Unfortunately, the industry of "BPA free" products sprang up at pretty much exactly the same time that the industry of BPA free products did. It turns out that printing new labels is much easier than actually reformulating your products.

Also, the "Contains BPA; but nobody except professional toxicologists studying the subject and hardcore supply chain wonks knows that" industries have been largely unaffected.

Pretty much as theory would predict, the areas closest to ideal markets with zero barriers to entry and equally informed participants achieved something close to a free market solution. The areas that deviated from those assumptions, whether by fraud, subterfuge, imperfect information, or existence of externalities did not.

Re:Freeeeee Markeeeeeeeeeet! (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 4 years ago | (#32502302)

There's a lot of stuff the Free Market can't fix. This isn't one of them.

I'd be more convinced of that had previous established industries built around something that was proven harmful traditionally reacted with an open mind and shut themselves down, rather than engaging in a campaign of FUD about the science.

You know, like if in the 50's the tobacco industry had said "Guys, the scientists are saying these things are killing us, so we're going to switch to growing, uh, potatoes or something. We just want you to be healthy, sorry to all of you who we've inadvertently gotten addicted."

Instead what I expect to happen is plastics companies will continue to sell you BPA free water bottles, capitalizing on the craze, and more importantly hoping that a BPA free water bottle will make you forget about the 3 tons [pds.org] that are still being produced every year and the millions of other products they're selling which can contaminate you, like canned foods.

Re:Freeeeee Markeeeeeeeeeet! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32502176)

Still don't get why people believe allowing government to enslave the working class and force them to give their money to the non-working class is so much better.

Effect of other additives? (3, Insightful)

Pigeon451 (958201) | more than 4 years ago | (#32501256)

So now that companies have stopped using BPA, what other additives should we investigate? Plastics still contain various chemicals that define the type of plastic...

I've moved to using glass for food storage. Although heavier, it's chemically safer since it's non-porous, and much easier to clean.

Re:Effect of other additives? (2, Interesting)

exhilaration (587191) | more than 4 years ago | (#32501290)

So now that companies have stopped using BPA...

I'm pretty sure that canned food companies haven't stopped using it [consumerreports.org] .

Re:Effect of other additives? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32501300)

They haven't stopped using it for lining metal food cans, have they?

Re:Effect of other additives? (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 4 years ago | (#32501304)

...also easy to reuse and won't end up in the Pacific garbage patch.

Re:Effect of other additives? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32501480)

I suggest we investigate dihydrogen monoxide as our next candidate. Studies have shown that it too can cross from pregnant mother to fetus.

Re:Effect of other additives? (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 4 years ago | (#32501778)

Damn that DHMO, it's everywhere these days!

Re:Effect of other additives? (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#32501596)

BPA isn't a food additive, it's used primarily to make plastics. Products containing bisphenol A-based plastics have been in commerce for more than 50 years. It's used to line cans for everything from beer to soda to canned veggies. They used to make baby bottles out of it, IINM they stopped that.

I seem to vaguely remember that it's linked to erectile dysfunction... Yep, wikipedia says "Exposure to BPA in the workplace was associated with self-reported adult male sexual dysfunction".

Oh wait, I should have finished reading your comment before responding, you're aware that it's used for plastics, TFA didn't stress that. I've stopped drinking beer out of cans, and I've been buying frozen rather than canned veggies (they taste better too).

Re:Effect of other additives? (1)

willoughby (1367773) | more than 4 years ago | (#32502218)

"self-reported adult male sexual dysfunction"...

Well, that's not as bad as "spousal-reported sexual dysfunction".

Enough with the "Proof" (3, Insightful)

fm6 (162816) | more than 4 years ago | (#32501276)

Studies don't "prove" anything. All they do is add a little weight to one side of an argument or another. Exactly how much weight depends on what was studied, how it relates to existing science, the methodology of the study, etc., etc., etc.

This study seems to add a little evidence to the belief that BPA is dangerous, of which there's already a lot. But only scientifically illiterate journalists and pundits (and, unfortunately, not a few opinionated doctors) look a single study and jump to big conclusion. You really need to look at the whole body of research.s

Not quite. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32501428)

This study doesn't supply evidence that BPA is dangerous. It supplies evidence that it can pass from mother to fetus.

If you start with a female that has no detectable amounts of BPA in her body, get her pregnant, expose her to BPA after she has been pregnant for a while, and then detect it inside the body of the child....you have pretty much proven that it can pass from mother to fetus. Within any reasonable meaning of the word "proven," anyway.

Re:Enough with the "Proof" (4, Informative)

thePig (964303) | more than 4 years ago | (#32501546)

There has been quite a bit of scientific literature regarding BPA - see the links from Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Enough with the "Proof" (2, Insightful)

fm6 (162816) | more than 4 years ago | (#32501614)

Dude, did you read even a single word of what I said? If you had, you'd know I wasn't defending BPA.

Nice try (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32501570)

Chemical industry.

Re:Enough with the "Proof" (1)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 4 years ago | (#32501668)

That word bugs me, too, especially coming from people supposedly educated in science.

Studies can prove things (5, Insightful)

pavon (30274) | more than 4 years ago | (#32502208)

The article didn't say that the study proved that BPA is dangerous. It said that they proved that BPA can cross the placenta. All it takes to prove that something possible is to record a single incident of it occurring. That is definitely within the realm of what a single study can do, and assuming that these studies were performed correctly, that is exactly what they did. There are a lot of things that cannot be conclusively proven with a single piece of evidence, but the use of the word in this headline here is perfectly legitimate.

The question is, how bad is BPA Really? (2, Interesting)

Low Ranked Craig (1327799) | more than 4 years ago | (#32501278)

Apparently we don't really know:

The JAMA study measured urinary levels of BPA in 1455 adults aged 18-74 years, in relation to 8 conditions: arthritis, cancer, heart disease, diabetes, liver disease, respiratory disease (eg asthma, bronchitis, emphysema), stroke, thyroid disease. Higher BPA concentrations were found only in association with heart disease, diabetes and liver damage. This is a preliminary study, and “association” is not proof of causation but it does give grounds for concern. Bottom line: The significance, if any, of high urinary levels of BPA is not yet known, but long-term studies are certainly needed.

http://envirolaw.com/how-dangerous-is-bpa/ [envirolaw.com]

Personally I think it's a bad idea to cook food in plastic containers, or store things in plastic that can act as a solvent. The fact that you can taste the plastic container in the food is something I find disturbing and we primarily use glass and stainless, if only for that issue.

Re:The question is, how bad is BPA Really? (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 4 years ago | (#32501486)

The fact that you can taste the plastic container in the food is something

Based on the fact that most people don't notice the bad taste of the frozen food itself in the plastic container that they cook in the microwave, I doubt they notice the taste of the plastic...

Re:The question is, how bad is BPA Really? (1)

Urkki (668283) | more than 4 years ago | (#32502078)

The fact that you can taste the plastic container in the food is something

Based on the fact that most people don't notice the bad taste of the frozen food itself in the plastic container that they cook in the microwave, I doubt they notice the taste of the plastic...

...or perhaps it's you who doesn't notice the good taste of microwave meals? Yes, actually, even without knowing you, I'm pretty sure you don't notice that good taste at all... ;-)

Re:The question is, how bad is BPA Really? (2, Insightful)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 4 years ago | (#32501916)

The fact that you can taste the plastic container in the food

This has always baffled me. As a kid I remember the plasticy taste from our plastic drink cups. It was especially noticeable if it was a closed container. You don't need a scientist to tell you it is leeching into the water when you can taste it. I don't understand why that didn't make people think "wait... it tastes like plastic... doesn't that mean that there is plastic leeching in the water? Is this possibly bad for me?"

One problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32502244)

Can you detect all the bad plastic molecules? I'm not sure we can. Even if it's tastes ok, it might not be.

Like a million other compounds? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32501280)

So it crosses the placenta. So what? Out of the infinite number of molecules, I would imagine some large fraction cross the placenta. What conceivable meaning can we derive from the fact that one random molecule does so? This is about one step better than a story about the dangers of DHMO.

Re:Like a million other compounds? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32501706)

Dihydrogen monoxide doesn't act like a sex hormone. BPA does.

The endocrine disruptor scam (1)

dorpus (636554) | more than 4 years ago | (#32501282)

A lot of papers were published in the 1990s claiming that endocrine disruptors such as BPA will cause children to have delayed onset of puberty. Since the onset of puberty has become earlier if anything, this seems to be in the same class of research as the "harm" of fluoridated water, power line radio waves, or dental amalgam mercury.

Re:The endocrine disruptor scam (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32501370)

Logic check on Aisle 3.

A lot of articles were published in the early 2000s claiming that larger, more powerful engines would allow cars to travel faster. Since average highway speeds seem to have decreased if anything...

Re:The endocrine disruptor scam (2, Interesting)

spaanoft (153535) | more than 4 years ago | (#32501378)

I read somewhere that BPA does delay the onset of puberty... but only in boys, and that it speeds it up in girls. I was under the impression that this was happening, but then again I'm nowhere near that field of work so I could be completely wrong.

Re:The endocrine disruptor scam (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 4 years ago | (#32501498)

dental amalgam mercury.

You mean the controversy where most people agree that it leeches mercury into the mouth... the question is, how much?

Re:The endocrine disruptor scam (3, Informative)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#32501896)

According to Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] you remember it wrong. And it wasn't the '90s, it was two years ago.

In 2007, a consensus statement by 38 experts on bisphenol A concluded that average levels in people are above those that cause harm to many animals in laboratory experiments.[28] A panel convened by the U.S. National Institutes of Health determined that there was "some concern" about BPA's effects on fetal and infant brain development and behavior.[10] A 2008 report by the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) later agreed with the panel, expressing "some concern for effects on the brain, behavior, and prostate gland in fetuses, infants, and children at current human exposures to bisphenol A," and "minimal concern for effects on the mammary gland and an earlier age for puberty for females in fetuses, infants, and children at current human exposures to bisphenol A." The NTP had "negligible concern that exposure of pregnant women to bisphenol A will result in fetal or neonatal mortality, birth defects, or reduced birth weight and growth in their offspring."[29]

Also, later in the wiki article it says there's a link between BPA and both obesity and drug abuse.

Disruption of the dopaminergic system
A 2005 review concluded that prenatal and neonatal exposure to BPA in mice can potentiate the central dopaminergic systems, resulting in the supersensitivity to the drugs-of-abuse-induced reward effects and hyperlocomotion.[47]

A 2008 review has concluded that BPA, mimic estrogenic activity and impact various dopaminergic processes to enhance mesolimbic dopamine activity resulting in hyperactivity, attention deficits, and a heightened sensitivity to drugs of abuse.[48]

A 2009 study on rats has concluded that prenatal and neonatal exposure to low-dose BPA causes deficits in development at dorsolateral striatum via altering the function of dopaminergic receptors.[49] Another 2009 study has found associated changes in the dopaminergic system.[45]

Re:The endocrine disruptor scam (1)

Mr. Slippery (47854) | more than 4 years ago | (#32502326)

A lot of papers were published in the 1990s claiming that endocrine disruptors such as BPA will cause children to have delayed onset of puberty.

Citation? Everything I've seen says BPA exposure advances puberty:

Chinese conspiracy. (-1, Flamebait)

jameskojiro (705701) | more than 4 years ago | (#32501340)

It is a conspiracy to provide all of the chinese single men with sterile (feminized men) who look like women, can make love like women, and are developed like women minus the actual female reproductive organs.

No wonder china is producing all of this plastic and sending it to us, in 20 years all of our children will be either genetic women, or genetic men who have developed into women in the womb thanks to the plastic from china.

China will then take over us for our women as Chinese men will be awfully loney by then.

Re:Chinese conspiracy. (-1, Flamebait)

couchslug (175151) | more than 4 years ago | (#32501466)

"It is a conspiracy to provide all of the chinese single men with sterile (feminized men) who look like women, can make love like women, and are developed like women minus the actual female reproductive organs."

No, that's called "Thailand". (runs)

Re:Chinese conspiracy. (1)

jameskojiro (705701) | more than 4 years ago | (#32501944)

I've heard that in a certain city there that if you spend a night there the world can be your oyster....

And to think, all that time... (5, Funny)

seanonymous (964897) | more than 4 years ago | (#32501346)

it was your cup that was poisoned. They were both poisoned. I spent the last few years building up an immunity to BPA.

so? (1, Interesting)

Lord Ender (156273) | more than 4 years ago | (#32501352)

If something were really, really bad for you, the evidence would be overwhelming. If this is in fact bad, it's bad only to a barely-detectable degree.

Re:so? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32501740)

The evidence only eventually becomes overwhelming, as more and more researchers ask questions. That doesn't mean it'll be overwhelming now. Asbestos anyone?

Re:so? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32501746)

So your approach is, some poison is ok rather than none at all?

Thank god you're not a policy maker, or work for the EPA!

Re:so? (1)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 4 years ago | (#32501762)

If something were really, really bad for you, the evidence would be overwhelming.

How "overwhelming" the evidence is depends on several factors, including the intelligence of the person making the judgment. The wasps building nests near my house will never see an overwhelming correlation between being a risk to my kids, and dying due to Black Flag exposure that same evening.

Re:so? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32501766)

If something were really, really bad for you, the evidence would be overwhelming. If this is in fact bad, it's bad only to a barely-detectable degree.

I agree. That's why I smoke tobacco.

Signed, the 1950s.

PS I hear good things about Thalidomide.

Re:so? (1)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 4 years ago | (#32501936)

If something were really, really bad for you, the evidence would be overwhelming.

What makes you think that?

Re:so? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32502040)

How long did it take us to figure out cigarettes? Remember, more doctors smoke Camels...

Re:so? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32502106)

If this is in fact bad, it's bad only to a barely-detectable degree.

What study said that? This study doesn't say anything about how bad it is for you. Only that it crosses the fetal boundary. There are lots of studies that say BPA is bad for you, for many reasons. Baby products have been moving to BPA-free for years now. This just confirms that it is important.

If something were really, really bad for you, the evidence would be overwhelming.

Not necessarily. Sometimes getting the evidence is really tough.

Some things require life-long studies before the effects are known. So you only find out after 30 years. Or comparing one generation to another. "Men of this generation have a XX% lower sperm count than their fathers." And other things involve testing on fetuses or young children where it is often difficult to find volunteers, or it is difficult to do. And some unhealthy behaviors coincide with other unhealthy behavior so it is hard to isolate them. Ex: Suppose a study finds that people who drink at least 3 bottles of have a 5% greater risk of breast cancer. Is that from the drink, or the bottles, or one of the other unhealthy behavior those people tend to engage in? Once it is narrowed down to the true cause, perhaps that 5% goes to 500%. Or maybe it goes down to .5%.

Timeframes (2, Informative)

PIPBoy3000 (619296) | more than 4 years ago | (#32502134)

Science is pretty good at detecting problems that kill you instantly. In this case, it would be a correlation between BPA exposure while pregnant and breast cancer your children get forty years later. It's difficult to make studies that prove this firmly.

Bisphenol-A (2, Informative)

Anon-Admin (443764) | more than 4 years ago | (#32501382)

After a little digging I find that it is suspected in everything from breast cancer to obesity in children. It has been suspected as being bad sense the 1930's but there is no direct link to it causing any notable issues.

So in 80+ years of research the best they can come up with is "There may be an issue with Bisphenol-A"

It also seems to me that in 3 generations we would have seen a difference or at a minimum science should be able to say "It causes XXX"

Re:Bisphenol-A (1)

GungaDan (195739) | more than 4 years ago | (#32501742)

"should be able to say 'It causes XXX'"

That was Vin Diesel. And he, too, should be banned.

Re:Bisphenol-A (2, Interesting)

capnchicken (664317) | more than 4 years ago | (#32501744)

I remember awhile back that there was a study that found that only drinking diet pop still affected a person's obesity, even though it did not contain any calories. http://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20050613/drink-more-diet-soda-gain-more-weight [webmd.com] .

I'm not saying that there is solid correlation here, I'm fine with the opinion that people who drink diet pop are probably the people making the worst food choices anyway. But what if it's not just the sugar, but the propensity to drink pop from cans with BPA and continue to drink them.

I'd be interested to see European BPA levels contrasted to American BPA levels. What if it's not just caloric intake that is making America so fat, maybe it's our increasing exposure to this, along with calories. There is an obvious increase in childhood obesity and diabetes, what if on top of bad food and poor exercise, it's our increased exposure to this, pre-cradle to grave, that is accelerating our poor health?

Re:Bisphenol-A (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32501878)

there is no direct link to it causing any notable issues.

The Wikipedia article is full of studies linking BPA to all sorts of hormone effects. There's strong evidence that it acts like a hormone in mammals. The endocrine system is very complex, but disrupting it is not something I want to do, even if it's hard to prove the exact effects.

Re:Bisphenol-A (3, Informative)

ShadowRangerRIT (1301549) | more than 4 years ago | (#32501974)

Actually, while in no way implicating BPA, in the average age of puberty has been dropping in Western countries for the past 170 years (since the 1840s according to the Wikipedia article [wikipedia.org] ). The disparity seems to correlate at least in part, to industrialization; the shift started later in Japan (1945), but progressed more rapidly (dropping by 11 months per decade, instead of 4 months per decade in Europe). In 1840, the average age of first menstruation was 17, in France, 15.3. Nowadays, either age would be considered quite late; typical onset of menstruation is now around age 11.75 worldwide; 12.5 in the U.S.

Clearly, BPA isn't responsible for the entire historical shift (what with BPA containing plastics only becoming common in the last 50 years or so); changes in diet (particularly the reduction in malnourishment levels) and activity levels (hunter gatherer groups tend to have an onset later than their diet would otherwise allow for) are responsible for some of the difference. But the increased exposure to all sorts of hormone mimicking chemicals (such as BPA) was likely responsible for some of the shift as well. The question is whether BPA is unusually damaging, whether it is possible to remove BPA and other hormone mimicking chemicals from our products and the environment without affecting us negatively in other ways, etc.

Unlike the realm of medicine, where the scientific method has been applied for to evaluate treatments more and more often in recent decades, the chemical industry remains largely untested and unregulated. People were painting their homes with lead paint and burning leaded gas in their cars and it took decades for studies to make the link to retardation and poor impulse control. For something like BPA, where the negative effects seem to be longer term and less severe than that of lead poisoning, it's not at all surprising that no one has investigated it until recently.

Re:Bisphenol-A (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32502144)

Actually, while in no way implicating BPA, in the average age of puberty has been dropping in Western countries for the past 170 years (since the 1840s according to the Wikipedia article [wikipedia.org]). The disparity seems to correlate at least in part, to industrialization

Yes, and the number of Storks and birth rate are correlated to!

Reason for drop of puberty is quite straightforward: better food leads to better growth and more body fat, which in turn leads to earlier puberty. No chemicals needed.

effing BPA... (1)

Opie812 (582663) | more than 4 years ago | (#32501434)

First the oil spill now this.

WE GIVE UP ALREADY. YOU WIN. We surrender.

Re:effing BPA... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32501612)

You must be french....

 

Re:effing BPA... (1)

Opie812 (582663) | more than 4 years ago | (#32501720)

pffft.

I hate the french as much as any red-blooded anglo Canadian should (I mean both France-french and Quebec "french")

Junk Science (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32501686)

Yet more junk science from the same folks that brought you global warming, evolution and the "big bang". And these "scientists" wonder why people with brains don't take anything they say seriously.

Better Article (2, Informative)

BJ_Covert_Action (1499847) | more than 4 years ago | (#32501712)

For those of you that don't want to dig through the links in the summary blog, here is a more in-depth discussion [environmen...thnews.org] of the papers.

More Women (1)

jameskojiro (705701) | more than 4 years ago | (#32501972)

More fetuses will be born as female-ish babies and how is this a bad thing?

BP has no right to do this! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32501984)

I object to what BP is doing. They're already causing enough trouble in the Gulf. What do we let them invade our placentas and fetuses?

Oh, BPA. Nevermind.

Dull (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32502120)

It's a dull story, quite yawn-worthy, and really not in keeping with the tech/nerd/geek bent of slashdot historically.

BPA? (1)

sheph (955019) | more than 4 years ago | (#32502220)

I didn't know the Bonneville Power Authority had gotten into genetics. I need to call my broker.

Whatever. (1, Funny)

Kenoli (934612) | more than 4 years ago | (#32502240)

Nobody cares about all this baby shit. I don't know why people bother submitting such nonsense.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?