Overexposed To Bisphenol F? Blame Mother Nature
BY STEVE HENTGES | AUGUST 2ND 2019 11:51 AM

Whether you realize it or not, there’s a good chance that youare being exposed to bisphenol F (BPF). There’s even a fairchance that you are highly exposed. If so, should you beconcerned and what should you do about it?
Up until a few years ago, BPF was a fairly obscure industrial
chemical used to make certain resins and coatings. There
wouldn’t have been much reason to think that you could be
exposed to BPF at all, much less any significant amount.
That changed a few years ago when scientists with the Swiss Federal Food Safety
and Veterinary Office (FSVO) reported that mild mustard contains significant levelsof BPF, a result soon confirmed by German government scientists. Even more
surprising than its mere presence, these studies also reported that BPF is not acontaminant but is produced from a component naturally present in mustard seeds
when the seeds are processed to make mustard.
More recently a group of scientists from the European Food Safety Authority(EFSA) reported that a variety of edible plants used as food supplements or
traditional Chinese medicines also contain BPF. As with mustard, BPF is naturally
present in these plants and it’s quite possible that BPF is naturally present in otherplants that we use as foods or supplements.
Even so, how much of a concern could this be? After all, BPF is produced by Mother
Nature and how much mustard and traditional Chinese medicine can you eat
anyway? As it turns out, a fair amount of data published in the last few years
suggests that, at least for some people, the answer may be quite a bit.
It would still be easy to conclude that consumption of BPF through food is of noconcern, except for one inconvenient fact. Bisphenol F is a close chemical cousin tothe synthetic chemical bisphenol A (BPA).

1 / 5

That’s the same BPA that has been surrounded by controversy for many years due
to claims that low doses of BPA are associated with a wide range of potential healtheffects. Although much less studied, similar claims have recently been made aboutBPF. In light of repeated appeals to ban BPA, could now be the time to also ban
mild mustard and traditional Chinese medicines that contain BPF?
Exposure to BPF – What We Know and How We Know It
One of the best ways to measure human exposure to chemicals is a scientificmethod known as biomonitoring, which involves measurement of a chemical or its
metabolite in a biological tissue or fluid. For BPA, biomonitoring is particularly usefulsince BPA is rapidly and completely eliminated from the body in urine after
exposure. How much BPA enters the body is readily measured by how much comesout in urine. Well over 100 urine biomonitoring studies have been conducted on BPA
around the world over the last 15-20 years and consistently show that exposure toBPA is low.
Available data on BPF indicates that it also is rapidly eliminated from the body inurine after exposure, which means that urine biomonitoring is also useful formeasuring exposure to BPF. Perhaps due to the (mistaken) belief that otherbisphenols, for example BPF, are widely being used as alternatives to BPA, anumber of urine biomonitoring studies on BPF have been conducted in recent years.
A comparison of urine biomonitoring results for BPA and BPF is both interesting andinformative. Of particular interest are studies from Australia, Canada, Saudi
Arabia, Sweden, and the United States that report detection frequencies, typicallevels (i.e., median values) and maximum levels of BPA and BPF in urine from thesame participants.
In each case, the detection frequency for BPA is higher than for BPF. For many
participants, the amount of BPF in urine, if it was present at all, was below the levelthat could be detected. In contrast, BPA was detected in the urine of nearly all2 / 5

participants. This is expected since BPA is more widely used, in particular in
products that consumers might contact.
Likewise, the typical levels are higher for BPA than for BPF, which is also expected
for the same reason. Based on how these substances are used, we would expect
more exposure to BPA than BPF.
Where it gets interesting is the comparison between maximum levels. In eachstudy, the maximum level for BPF is higher than for BPA, in one case more thaneight times higher. This unexpected result does not make sense based on how BPAand BPF are used and in light of the data on detection frequency and typical levels.
However, it would make sense if the highest exposure levels correspond toindividuals who consumed mustard (or traditional Chinese medicines that containBPF).
The study that reported the highest level of BPF was conducted on a group of
Canadian women with urine samples collected in their second trimester ofpregnancy and then again at three months postpartum. The researchers alsocollected information on what the participants consumed in the 24 hours before
urine collection.
Indeed, the two participants with the highest BPF levels reported consuming mild
mustard in the preceding 24 hour time period. Based on this observation and otherrelated dietary data they collected, the researchers concluded that “[f]or BPF,
mustard consumption may be an important exposure source, particularly among
the highest exposed.”
In addition, the researchers estimated intake of BPA and BPF for each participant.
Consistent with many other biomonitoring studies worldwide, all intakes of BPA
were below the most stringent safe intake limit for BPA, which is the Tolerable Daily
Intake (TDI) for BPA in Europe.
However, intake of BPF in the most highly exposed participants exceeded the safe
intake limit for BPA. A safe intake limit specifically for BPF has not been set but theone for BPA is a reasonable surrogate given the close similarity between BPA andBPF.
Now That We Know, What Should We Do About It?

3 / 5

If you subscribe to the precautionary principle, the obvious action to consider is toban mild mustard and traditional Chinese medicines that contain BPF. After all,there is evidence for human exposure at potentially unsafe levels.
To date though, no such calls to action have been made and there are good reasons
not to do so. For starters, mustard and traditional Chinese medicines have beenused for centuries, with no known ill effects. As noted by the authors of thefirst report on BPF and mustard, “now we realise that BPF has been consumed overcenturies in a popular condiment” and “we are not aware of any study connecting
mustard consumption with an increased risk for human health.”
As further noted by two European experts at the time, “one could ask the question
whether or not centuries of chronic low-dose or intermittent high-dose exposure toBP-F may have had a detrimental (endocrine) health effect in humans … However,this seems unlikely…” It’s no more likely now that we know BPF is also present intraditional Chinese medicines, which may have been in use even longer thanmustard.
Perhaps most importantly is the current state of science on BPA. The TDI for BPA
used as a surrogate safe intake limit for BPF was conservatively set by EFSA in2015 as a temporary TDI. The reason for the temporary designation is that EFSA
planned to revisit its assessment of BPA when the results of the CLARITY study on
BPA are available.
Although the EFSA assessment is just beginning, we already know the results of theCLARITY study, which was conducted by senior FDA scientists to resolve remaining
uncertainties about the safety of BPA. The study is of unprecedented scope andmagnitude for BPA.
The results indicate that BPA has very little potential to cause health effects evenwhen people are exposed to it throughout their lives. As stated by the study’sPrincipal Investigator, “BPA did not elicit clear, biologically plausible, adverseeffects” at any dose even remotely close to typical human exposure levels.
Although the CLARITY results are directly applicable only to BPA, they are
informative to the safety of BPF given the close chemical similarity between BPA

4 / 5and BPF. For good reasons, we can expect that mustard and traditional Chinese
medicines containing BPF will be with us for centuries to come.

5 / 5