Banner
    Hysteria On BPA Debunked Again
    By News Staff | February 15th 2013 04:47 PM | 8 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments

    Bisphenol A, widely known as BPA, has recently become a controversial science issue, along with climate change and every food, energy and medicine study. In the modern world, the only legitimate science is the science that agrees with well-funded activist organizations. BPA is a component of plastic bottles and canned food linings that have helped make the world's food supply safer but has recently come under attack because some studies have found it has the potential to mimic the sex hormone estrogen if blood and tissue levels are high enough.

    An analysis of almost 150 BPA exposure studies shows that in the general population, people's exposure may be many times too low for BPA to effectively mimic estrogen in the human body. 

    The analysis by toxicologist Justin Teeguarden of the Department of Energy's Pacific Northwest National Laboratory shows that BPA in the blood of the general population is many times lower than blood levels that consistently cause toxicity in animals. The result suggests that animal studies might not reflect the human BPA experience appropriately.

    "Looking at all the studies together reveals a remarkably consistent picture of human exposure to BPA with implications for how the risk of human exposure is interpreted," said Teeguarden. "At these exposure levels, exposure to BPA can't be compared to giving a baby the massive dose of estrogens found in a birth control pill, a comparison made by others."

    In addition to evaluating the likelihood of BPA mimicking estrogen in humans, Teeguarden also analyzed another set of BPA studies that looked at the chemical's toxicity in animals and cells in the lab. These 130 studies are significant as a group because they refer to the exposures as "low dose," implying they are very relevant to human exposures.

    According to his analysis, however, the "low doses" actually span an immense range of concentrations, a billion-fold. In addition, only a small fraction of the exposures in these self-described "low dose" studies are in the range of human exposures, from 0.8 percent to 7 percent depending on the study.

    "The term low-dose cannot be understood to mean either relevant to human exposures or in the range of human exposures. However, this is in fact what it has come to mean to the public, as well as many in the media," said Teeguarden.

    The first analysis covered 30,000 individuals, including women and infants, in 19 countries. Human blood concentrations were calculated multiple ways using many kinds of exposure data.

    Teeguarden looked to see if BPA concentrations were sufficiently high to be a significant source of estrogen-like activity in the blood. Researchers have long known that BPA can bind to the same proteins that estrogen does -- called estrogen receptors -- when estrogen is doing its job in the body. However, in most cases, BPA does so much more weakly than estrogen. To trigger biological effects through receptors, BPA concentrations have to be high enough in the blood to overcome that weakness.

    "Systematically testing the estrogenicity, or the bioactivity of BPA at the part per trillion concentrations we expect in human blood would seem the most scientific way to substantiate or refute this conclusion," said Teeguarden.

    Teeguarden analyzed the data in these studies using multiple independent approaches applied systematically to the data from thousands of individuals. The results showed that human blood levels of BPA are expected to be too far below levels required for significant binding to four of the five key estrogen receptors to cause biological effects.

    Teeguarden's analysis also confirmed the findings of many academic and government scientists that biologically active BPA is at such low concentrations in the blood that it is beneath toxicologists' current ability to detect it, raising questions about the role of sample contamination in studies reporting high levels of BPA.


    Analysis of 130 Toxicity Studies

    In this analysis, Teeguarden compiled all the BPA studies that included the term "low dose" as it referred to human exposure by using such terms as "low-concentration," "environmentally relevant," or "human exposure." From the 130 studies found, he and his PNNL biologist Sesha Hanson-Drury compiled all the doses that were actually used in the studies.

    The results showed that a small fraction of the "low doses" used in these studies are within the range of human exposures, with the vast majority being at least 10 to thousands of times higher than what humans are exposed to daily. In addition, the range of concentrations spans from upwards of 10 grams per kilogram of weight per day down to 100 picograms per kilogram of weight per day (a picogram is one millionth of a millionth of a gram).

    "Unfortunately, the low dose moniker has been used by some to promote the importance of selected toxicity studies, for example, in arguments to ban BPA," said Teeguarden. "For BPA and all chemicals, we need more accurate language to present these findings so the public and scientists in other disciplines can understand how human exposures compare to exposures in laboratory studies reporting toxicity."


    Presented at the annual AAAS meeting in Boston.

    Comments

    Hank
    Is anyone else relieved something normal is happening there? At least at the meetings I went to, they were always held over Valentine's Day so all of the evo- and social psych people would have 'studies' of kissing or something else worth ridiculing.  This and this are just crackpot goofiness, and then scientists will be alarmed people no longer trust science.

    And they have 'Science Idol' this year, where I guess people will compete like dancing monkeys - the exact thing rational people ridicule.
    There's nothing controversial about climate change. The controversy only exists in the minds of the anti-science deniers. This is like the idiots who claim there's controversy concerning evolution.

    Hank
    Sure, or vaccines causing autism or fracking causing headaches or GMOs causing anything. They are controversies not because of the science, but because of the anti-science. And BPA is another example of it.
    car2nwallaby
    I understand bloggers are understood to have bias, but shouldn't an article by "News Staff" at least pretend to make an effort at objectivity?  Also, a picogram is a millionth of a millionth of a gram.
    Also, a picogram is a millionth of a millionth of a gram.
    I did not write the article, but I corrected the error you pointed out. Thanks.
    but shouldn't an article by "News Staff" at least pretend to make an effort at objectivity?
    I don't think the article is biased. You may have been turned off by the opening paragraph, but the rest is fine.  
    Gerhard Adam
    Hard not to, when the tone suggests that it's all "anti-science hysteria" so that some poor scientist must take time away from his busy schedule of saving the world to "debunk" hysterical claims, yet again.

    It is kind of funny how we end up having these discussions about things like BPA, because the only reason for it, is because we don't already know the answer.  We only begin to investigate after allegations are raised after years or decades of use. 
    Mundus vult decipi
    car2nwallaby
    The opening paragraph belies an author who started with a point of view and went looking for a reason to feel vindicated.  I wasn't at the meeting and there's no paper referenced, but it sounds like the main point of the talk was that the term "low dose" is not scientifically meaningful and shouldn't be confused with "biologically relevant".  That's different from labeling scientific concern over pervasive hormone mimicking chemicals "hysteria" and declaring it all "debunked".
    "Systematically testing the estrogenicity, or the bioactivity of BPA at the part per trillion concentrations we expect in human blood would seem the most scientific way to substantiate or refute this conclusion," said Teeguarden.
    Sounds to me like a scientist advocating more (and differently targeted) study, not declaring the question closed.
    human blood levels of BPA are expected to be too far below levels required for significant binding to four of the five key estrogen receptors to cause biological effects.
    Sounds to me like blood BPA is expected to be at sufficient levels to activate at least one estrogen receptor.
    John Hasenkam
    Sounds to me like blood BPA is expected to be at sufficient levels to activate at least one estrogen receptor.
    Moreover we should look at the effect for classes of compounds. There are many estrogen mimickers out there. Measuring one may not give any true indication of the total impact on "sub threshold" values for a number of chemicals with similiar properties.