A new study published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives has concluded that the petroleum byproduct Bisphenol A, commonly found in plastic products from food packaging and can linings to water bottles, not only competes for receptor space with reproductive hormones in the body, but it appears that men with higher BPA concentrations in their urine also have lower sperm counts.
Worse, the study said that out of 308 men chosen from the general population, BPA was found in a whopping 98% their urine.
This mirrors other claims out there that reliable scientific studies on BPA can’t even be completed because it is too hard to find a BPA-free control group! (As I’ve said before, I bet if you asked most people, the fact that the vast majority of us here in the U.S. have blood that’s so utterly tainted with a plastic chemical to the point that a reliable study can’t even be completed is proof enough in and of itself that we probably need tougher regulations on it, science or no science).
This study falls on the heels of yet another new study that just came out of Australia which found that prenatal exposure to BPA causes negative health effects in babies down the road in life, including a two-fold increased risk for obesity and type two diabetes, on top of higher potential for reproductive problems and breast cancer.
Even though a plethora of research has shown that BPA is harmful to health on a multitude of levels, to the point that France has now banned all BPA from all food and beverage packaging by 2015, the FDA continues to ignore reality and allow the widespread use of the chemical here like it’s no big deal.
Add all those studies to the fact that some six billion pounds of BPA are produced annually and over a million pounds of it are released into the environment every year, and you’d think the FDA might considering finally doing something about it — if for no other reason than to save face to the world. It took the agency, who claims its mission is to protect our health, years and years just to finally remove the stuff from baby bottles and sippy cups, and that was after most all other developed nations had already banned it from children’s food products long ago.
Well the FDA does have a position on BPA. What is it? Seemingly a bunch of whining about how BPA is so firmly entrenched in American society at large, it would be too hard to remove it at this point:
For example, today there exist hundreds of different formulations for BPA-containing epoxy linings, which have varying characteristics. As currently regulated, manufacturers are not required to disclose to FDA the existence or nature of these formulations. Furthermore, if FDA were to decide to revoke one or more approved uses, FDA would need to undertake what could be a lengthy process of rulemaking to accomplish this goal. [emphasis added]So, because it would take a “lengthy process of rulemaking,” the FDA is going to continue to stick its fingers in its ears and play the “LA-LA-LA I’m not listening!” game when it comes to study after study proving a xenoestrogenic chemical knowingly in widespread use is dangerous to our health?
In the meantime, suggestions on trying to avoid BPA as much as possible include avoiding canned foods (unless they say BPA-free on the labels) and to try and avoid using plastic containers especially for heating food, since high temperatures aid in leaching the chemical into whatever you’re eating.
(Originally posted at The Daily Sheeple)