2014/08/18

science 2.0

Meet BPA-Free,
The New BPA Free, The New BPA altenatives to avoid risks
http://www.science20.com/steve_hentges/meet_bpafree_the_new_bpa-142600
Steve Hentges

More Articles
Are You Exposed To BPA, And Does It Matter?
Does BPA Make You Fat?
All Articles

There’s an emerging trend, of late, in the seemingly endless saga of the chemical bisphenol A (BPA),
which is most commonly used to make polycarbonate plastic and epoxy resins. Although the BPA
saga has not yet become completely passé, much of the attention that had been given to BPA is now
focused on alternatives to BPA. Indeed, it seems that BPA-Free is becoming the new BPA.

For what seemed an eternity, BPA had been at the center of a perfect storm comprised of scientists,
regulators, legislators, environmental activists and the media. Their collective fascination with BPA
struck many as bordering on obsession.

Over the last decade, thousands of studies on BPA have been published by scientists around theworld and, in response to the flood of scientific data, regulatory agencies conducted numerous
safety/risk assessments. Attracted to the controversy and spurred on by environmental activists,legislators proposed to ban products containing BPA. On all fronts, media coverage has bothreported on and promoted the controversy.

The scientific process may not be speedy, but we must trust that science will eventually cut throughthe controversy and resolve uncertainties about the safety of BPA. Thanks in large part to aremarkable research program designed and conducted over the last several years by the U.S. Foodand Drug Administration (FDA) in conjunction with the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP),
that’s exactly what is happening. With extensive results from that program now available, FDA
recently answered the question “Is BPA safe?” with the most straightforward answer possible – “Yes.”In spite of continued safety assurances from government agencies, BPA is no longer used in a few
markets. For example, it’s well known that baby bottles and most sports bottles are no longer madefrom polycarbonate plastic. But with controversy about the safety of BPA now in decline, the BPAFree alternatives are coming under attack from some of the same players who previously hadtargeted BPA.

This shouldn’t really be a surprise and, in fact, it was predicted 4 years ago in a prescient commentary
published by Judy LaKind and Linda Birnbaum in the Journal of Exposure Science andEnvironmental Epidemiology:“There are too many examples of chemicals taken off the market only to be replaced with chemicals
that, in time, come to be considered ‘of concern.’ We may be at such a juncture with replacement
chemicals for bisphenol A (BPA) and PFOS. BPA, used mainly in the production of polycarbonates,
has been measured in >90% of the general US population, prompting calls for bans, which havebeen enacted for certain uses in some parts of the United States and proposed in other countries.

This has in turn resulted in a demand for alternatives to polycarbonate bottles, including glass andmetal bottles and those made from a copolyester (C&EN News, 2009), which is marketed to both
adults and children. Our literature search on some of the replacement copolyester chemicals
revealed no exposure information. Years from now, will we be seeing exposure studies describing
certain BPA alternatives as emerging chemicals of concern?”

With BPA so well-studied over so many years, it should be no surprise that BPA-Free alternatives
are not nearly as well studied. That’s doesn’t by itself mean anything. But the difference in available
data for BPA and BPA-Free alternatives is now becoming very apparent and is attracting scientists
like bees to honey.

Some researchers are studying plastics, including the copolyester mentioned above that is analternative to polycarbonate, and report that “[e]strogenic chemicals often leach from BPA-free plastic
products that are replacements for BPA-containing polycarbonate products.” The researchers also
appropriately note that their data “can only describe the existence of a possible hazard for
consumption of chemicals with EA [estrogenic activity] leaching from plastic products, not what riskthat consumption might have to human health,” which suggests that more research may follow.

Other researchers are studying BPA analogues (i.e., chemicals with similar structures that might beused in place of BPA to make plastics or resins), in particular bisphenol S (BPS), which is currently
used as an alternative to BPA in thermal receipt paper. As predicted 4 years ago, recent exposurestudies report human exposure to BPS and the presence of BPA analogues in various environmental
compartments including food, paper products, indoor dust, and freshwater sediment.

With limited data available, studies relevant to potential human and environmental health effects from
BPS and other analogues are also starting to appear. Very reminiscent of many earlier studies onBPA, some researchers are announcing their findings both in the form of a scientific paper and apress release to attract further attention.

But just like the early days with BPA, these new research results are difficult to interpret with respect
to the safety of the BPA-Free alternatives as they are being used. As is often stated at the end ofthese papers, more research is needed and, almost certainly, more research will be done.

Beyond the few studies cited here, the number of studies focused on alternatives to BPA is clearlyon an upward trend. As stated by NTP, “[t]here is a considerable amount of data available on BPA
toxicities; however, very little is known about the potential replacement chemicals.” In particular,“there is insufficient in vivo toxicological data to adequately characterize the possible human healtheffects of BPS” and, for that reason, NTP is currently considering a comprehensive research concepton BPS.

With new research results and controversy expanding to BPA-Free alternatives, it’s not just scientists
who are taking an interest. Government agencies have also taken an interest, initially focused onalternatives to BPA in thermal receipt paper. Already assessments have been conducted by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Danish Ministry of the Environment, and the State ofMinnesota. As concluded by EPA, with similar conclusions from the others, “[n]o clearly safer
alternatives to BPA were identified in this report…”. Further such analyses are anticipated.
As scientists and government agencies turn their attention to BPA-Free alternatives, environmental
activists and the media will not be far behind. With headlines like “The Scary New Evidence on BPAFree Plastics” and “BPA-Free Plastic Containers May Be Just as Hazardous,” the media barrage
may be just beginning. For a while, it may have seemed that BPA-Free product labels would be agood selling point, but now the labels may become a target.

Labels proclaiming that a product is free of something are not unique to BPA. In general, though,such labels are not very informative. The right question to ask is not what a product is free of, butwhat is the product made from and what is known about its safety? Further discussion on this topic
may be the focus of a future article.

SH