BPA causes Poly Cystic Ovary Syndrome according to 2 studies, and it deforms delicate bones in the ear causing congenital deafness.

This is quite an article. IFIFC (whose Board includes representatives from Pepsi, Kraft, Dannon, General Mills, Mars,) wants to take the opportunity to assure us that BPA is no reason to avoid packaged foods.

It seems to assure us that despite BPA being an issue of concern for the National Institutes of Health, declared toxic by Canada, and banned from baby bottles in the EU, we should not worry ourselves and avoid IFIFCs packaged foods.

There seems to be a mountain of studies showing adverse effects from BPA (even at low exposure levels). I certainly don't claim to fully understand this highly controversial subject.

I just think this thinly veiled food industry attempt to assure the public that "everything is all right", and that we shouldn't stop giving them money, sure is interesting. Does anyone remember Sen. Feinstein on the floor of the Senate, vowing to be back after she explained that the chemical companies lobbied her BPA-banning amendment out of the FSMA debate?

I guess she needs to be careful not to upset junk-food manufacturers, as well. I thought a lot of companies were voluntarily shifting away from BPA?

Don - can you provide links for those studies so that everyone can compare?

This reminds me of the Saccharine scare 30 years ago, when they found you need to consume 100 times the normal amount for it to possibly cause cancer.

Moderation and fresh, in my opinion is the way to go. Limit exposure and you limit the problems.

I'm confused: this study is supposed to show that BPA is not harmful, but the study itself is based on people who are eating a diet free from BPA exposure. How does demonstrating that BPA is excreted out once you stop being exposed to it prove that it is safe to continue to be exposed to it?

Help me out here, not seeing the logic.

More important, the BPA exposure from credit card receipts which print thermally (using heat, not ink) is exponentially, possibly up to billions of times higher, than the exposure to BPA in food packaging. Why all the fuss about this much lesser source of BPA I do not know. See links below:

2/3/10 – Part 2 – start here …. Talks about receipts and ink

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jennifer-grayson/eco-etiquette-how-do-i-av_b_447150.html

1/27/10 - Part 1

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jennifer-grayson/eco-etiquette-how-do-i-av_b_438016.html

A sampling of the many other articles:

5/18/10

http://gardenersindex.ning.com/group/compost/forum/topics/bpa-found-on-cash-register?commentId=3193295%3AComment%3A311586&xg_source=activity&groupId=3193295%3AGroup%3A9887

2/22/10

http://ecowomen.net/2010/02/22/bpa-risks-in-cash-register-receipts/

1/19/10

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/55336/title/BPA_is_regulated_._._._sort_of

10/8/09

http://www.usnews.com/money/blogs/fresh-greens/2009/10/08/bisphenol-a-another-reason-you-dont-need-your-receipt

10/7/09

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/48084/title/Concerned_about_BPA_Check_your_receipts

BPA is an endocrine disruptor.

"Of 115 published animal studies, 81 percent found significant effects from even low-level exposure to BPA."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mercola/bpa-toxins-puts-newborns_b_457590.html

Structural damage to your brain
http://www.organicconsumers.org/foodsafety/bisphenolA120805.cfm

Increased fat formation and risk of obesity
http://www.drcranton.com/nutrition/plastics_diabetes_obesity.htm

Changes in gender-specific behavior, and abnormal sexual behavior
http://h2omorganic.wordpress.com/2010/01/02/dangers-of-bisphenol-a-bpa-in-plastics-canned-foods-baby-toys-more/

Stimulation of prostate cancer cells
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18007998

Increased prostate size, and decreased sperm production
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101028073741.htm

Diabetes
http://www.drcranton.com/nutrition/plastics_diabetes_obesity.htm

Heart Disease
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/53958/title/Study_supports_connection_between_BPA_and_heart_disease

Liver Damage
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100113/full/news.2010.7.html

As put forth by industry proponents of the benefits of using BPA in food packaging, it is true that it has enabled packaging that helps alleviate some problems that could lead to food-spoilage caused illnesses and deaths. It also seems to be true that people are not being made acutely ill from the minute quantities of BPA they ingest so they, therefore, are not visiting emergency rooms due to problems of BPA. And it likewise seems that people are not dropping dead from toxic overdoses of ingested BPA. Furthermore, it is true that BPA is quickly and quite efficiently flushed out of our bodies. But those are all measures of the apparent safety of BPA that are based on old and inappropriate paradigms for determining safety of such a substance. Unlike many toxins, BPA, ingested in minute amounts, does not cause acute illness or death. As such, it has appeared to be safe for us to use.

BPA is a known hormone-like substance. There is no doubt that is can weakly mimic the effects of estrogen in animals, humans included. There is also no question that the amounts of estrogen and other hormones in our bodies are very minute, yet they produce significant effects in us in many ways, including growth and development. These minute quantities of hormones significantly affect the functioning of our systems because they are, to varying degrees, constantly present in our bodies.

This is why the findings of current investigations into BPA as an endocrine disrupter are more significant than are the studies based on the old paradigm which are referred to by industry defenders of BPA. The new paradigm recognizes that relatively constant supplies of endocrine disruptive substances, even at minute doses, pose a previously unrecognized risk to our health and well-being. Continuous micro-doses of hormone-like substances can and do affect our bodies just as significantly as the natural micro-doses of hormones produced by our bodies. Although any particular dose may be quickly flushed out of the body, an essentially constant supply negates that flushing due to continuous resupply.

It may be true that "there is no scientific evidence of any illness, disease or adverse health effect in people attributed to a food product that used BPA as a packaging compound." But that is an evaluation based on the old paradigm which has become irrelevant. Scientific awareness and understanding has evolved beyond that view, and there is a growing body of evidence from multiple studies that strongly suggests our health and well-being is affected by constant micro-doses of BPA and other endocrine disruptors. It now seems that there are subtle yet significant long-term effects impacting our physical growth and development, our immune system functions, and our mental and emotional functioning. While this may not result in immediate acute illness and disease, it does lead to chronic difficulties that decrease our level of health and wellness and also increase our susceptibility to a variety of illnesses and diseases.

At the very least, this issue deserves much more investigation, uninhibited by industry economic interests or by old-paradigm thinking. Ideally, investigations should be actively encouraged and supported by the industry and by the entire scientific community. And one ubiquitous source that has yet to be investigated is our municipal water supplies. Municipal water tanks are typically lined with BPA-based epoxy - the same kind of stuff that food cans are lined with. That means micro-doses of BPA come out of our water taps and is in all of our food, even if packaged in BPA-free containers, because all of our food is processed with, and even packed in, BPA-laced water. It has become almost impossible to avoid ingesting micro-doses of BPA.

That is what you really need to know.

BPA is a known hormone-like substance. There is no doubt that is can weakly mimic the effects of estrogen in animals, humans included.

Then when are we going to ban soybeans, carrots, and other vegetable sources of xenoestrogens?