The "safe" plastic you make in the microwave could be as bad as BPA

123RF.COM

Your lunch box could be free of BPA, but that does not mean it does not contain other chemicals.

The BPA-free plastic you make in the microwave can be just as toxic as what you try to avoid.

Twenty years ago, researchers discovered that BPA – a chemical used in the coating of certain food packaging to protect food from contamination and prolong shelf life – caused a sudden increase in abnormal eggs in animals.

The concern raised by BPA has led to the development of alternatives and many consumers are looking for BPA-free plastics for their families.

But now, it seems that some alternatives to BPA could cause problems similar to those of the ingredient that they replace.

READ MORE:
* Fears for embryos exposed to plastic food containers
* Search for Plastic Leach Chemicals in New Zealand
* Plastic products: Does your kitchen need a detox?

BPA or bisphenol A, which is also used in non-food products since the 1960s, is considered an endocrine disruptor, a class of chemicals that interferes with the normal hormonal processes of the body.

Although its activity is modest, it is widely used and we are all exposed, according to Professor Ian Rae, Environmental Chemicals Specialist at the University of Melbourne.

It infiltrates food or liquids when the plastic that contains it is heated, for example in a microwave oven or dishwasher, exposed to UV rays or damaged.

"As the effects are chronic (develop slowly) and that BPA can affect different people in different ways, it has been difficult for regulators and even harder for consumers to assess the risks we face", Rae said.

Dr. Oliver Jones, a senior lecturer in analytical chemistry at RMIT University in Australia, said no one has ever proven that BPA damages the levels people are normally exposed to, but that BPA has caused a series of replacements. .

"These are chemically very similar to BPA but have not been as extensively tested for their potential health effects," he said.

Now, researchers have stated that alternative bisphenols appear to cause the same problems in mice as BPA – according to a report published in the journal, Current Biology.

Patricia Hunt, from Washington State, described it as "a strange déjà vu experience in our lab".

Repeating their accidental discovery 20 years ago, Hunt and his colleagues found that mice were exposed to replacement bisphenols from damaged mouse cages. They also found that this caused problems in the production of eggs and sperm.

Professor James Wright of the University of Auckland said the research indicated that the fact that no plastic is "BPA free" does not necessarily mean that it is less toxic.

"Most likely, the toxicity of the replacement has not been studied extensively.xtremely, a number of recent studies of some BPA replacements have shown that they may have the same toxicity that BPA itself, "Wright said.

But Lou Sherman of New Zealand's Scion Research Institute pointed out that BPA and its alternatives are not everywhere.

"In general, plastics marked with recycling codes 1 (PET, soft drink bottles), 2 (HDPE, milk bottles), 4 (LDPE, plastic bags), 5 (polypropylene) and 6 (polystyrene) are very unlikely. " contain BPA or its alternatives.

"It is also important to note that even if a material contains BPA or these alternatives, they will present a risk that if they migrate packaging into food at harmful levels." International regulations related to food contact require that plastics and the limits of migration have been designed to protect consumers from damage. "

Further study on how alternatives to BPA were introduced into food was needed, she said.

DETERMINE THE EXHIBITION

The implications of BPA alternatives for human health were not yet clear.

Hunt said that the initial exposure of the mice was remarkably similar to what could happen in people using plastics: it was accidental and highly variable.

Although the determination of human exposure levels was difficult, the experiments of Hunt and his team were conducted using low doses of BPS and other alternative bisphenols deemed relevant for exposure in people using plastics without BPA.

According to Hunt, these problems, if they occurred in people, as was shown in the case of BPA, would affect future generations.

Researchers have shown that if it were possible to completely eliminate contaminants containing bisphenol, the effects would persist for about three generations.

Hunt said additional work was needed to determine if some replacement bisphenols were safer than others. Dozens of such chemicals are currently used.

She also suspected that other widely used and endocrine disrupting chemicals, including parabens, phthalates and flame retardants, could have similar harmful effects on fertility.

Hunt's advice to consumers is simple: BPA-free or not, "plastic products that show physical signs of damage or aging can not be considered safe."

– Things