The National Academy of Sciences Comments on BPA

Steven Hentges, Ph.DFriday, July 28, 2017
SAFETYLast week an expert committee of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) released
a report with the esoteric title “Application of Systematic Review Methods in an Overall
Strategy for Evaluating Low-Dose Toxicity from Endocrine Active Chemicals.” I’m guessingthat one slipped by under your radar screen. Just reading the title might deter you fromreading any further, but keep reading this blog since the report revealed a very important
observation about bisphenol A (BPA).
For 20 years or more, scientists have understood that some chemicals, known asendocrine active chemicals (EAC), can interact with our endocrine system and potentiallycause health effects. But as a developing area of science, it has been a challenge forregulatory agencies to know what to do with the deluge of new scientific information onEACs, which is why the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) asked for guidancefrom NAS.
One aspect of the challenge is the claim that low levels of EACs – levels that are currently
considered to be safe – might cause health effects that are not detected by conventional
toxicity testing. Of particular interest are levels that are in the range of actual human
exposure.
BPA, which is primarily used to make polycarbonate plastic and epoxy resins, is considered
to be an EAC. Because it exhibits weak endocrine activity, scientists worldwide have beenfascinated by BPA and have conducted hundreds of studies on laboratory animals.
Many of the studies suggest that low levels of BPA could cause health effects, which has
1/2

attracted controversy and considerable media attention. But the relevance of these studiesto human health has not been fully resolved.
The NAS committee addressed that question by using BPA to illustrate how new data canhelp to address uncertainty. The illustration highlighted recent research from the U.S.
National Toxicology Program and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that
effectively defined actual human exposure levels for BPA.
Knowing actual human exposure levels is very important for understanding the relevance of
toxicity studies to human health. Studies that examine levels in the range of actual humanexposure are likely to be the most relevant studies for human health.
What the NAS committee observed is worth quoting in its entirety:“Such concentrations [i.e., actual human exposure levels] are well below those studied inmost in vitro and in vivo experimental studies, so most studies reporting “low dose”
effects of BPA do not directly inform whether BPA can cause effects at current
human exposure levels.” (emphasis added)
In other words, of the hundreds of studies on BPA, most are of limited relevance for humanhealth because actual human exposure levels are well below the levels tested. Thisobservation provides additional strong support for government bodies around the world thathave evaluated these studies and concluded that BPA does not pose a risk to humanhealth.
A prime example is FDA, which asks the question “Is BPA safe?” on its website andanswers unambiguously – “Yes.” Similarly, the European Food Safety Authority
recently stated “BPA poses no health risk to consumers of any age group (including unborn
children, infants and adolescents) at current exposure levels.”

2/2