New study finds BPA-free plastics may not be safer than ordinary plastics – Quartz

Consumers who are turning to plastics made with alternatives to BPA in the hope that they are safer will not like what they are about to hear.

A new study, published in the journal Current Biology, concluded that common alternatives to BPA caused adverse effects in mice, especially in their reproductive cells. The findings add to the growing body of evidence that these alternatives carry their own health risks. As Science noted, if new research on animals and humans continues to support these findings, it could frustrate efforts to reassure many consumers already worried about plastics in their containers containing healthy foods.

The issue has been one of the major concerns of recent years, in part because of the work of Patricia Hunt, a geneticist from the University of Washington State, who has directed the study. team responsible for new research. It first helped to draw attention to the possible risks of BPA – bisphenol A in its long form – after finding them by accident.

The industrial chemical has been used for decades to make plastics in which food is packaged and resins used for items such as cans. In 1998, she was conducting a study on mouse eggs when she discovered that an abnormally high number of them had abnormalities. She discovered that a temporary worker in the lab had used a hard floor cleaner, instead of the usual mild detergent, to clean the cages and bottles of the mice, damaging the plastic and causing the BPA to leach.

The new study tested the effects of BPA and common alternatives, such as BPS (bisphenol S), GMP and BPAF in female and male mice. It revealed that chemicals disrupt the transmission of genetic information during meiosis, the division of cells required for the production of eggs and sperm in sexually reproducing animals, and suggests that the problem

The new study was born of circumstances similar to the one that prompted Hunt to look into BPA. She had recently discovered that normal washing of her new BPA-free cages, made of polysulfone, degraded to form BPA-like compounds and caused similar problems. It was "an experience of already seen strange," said Hunt Science. This prompted the deepest examination of alternatives to BPA.

In the last few years, BPA has been a cause of growing concern because of the fear that the chemical, which is almost ubiquitous, will affect hormones, reduce the number of sperm cells, and cause problems. 39, other problems. But the danger that this really represents is still not clear. Groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council have asked the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to ban it. The FDA refused, but banned its use in baby bottles and goblets. A recent government study did not find it very threatening.

Yet, many people are looking for alternatives. For them, the study by Hunt and the other authors contains a warning: "Although" BPA-free "is a valuable marketing tool and most consumers interpret this label as an indication of a safer product, our findings C. elegans, zebrafish, mice and rats, as well as the human in vitro studies that replacement of bisphenols may induce adverse effects similar to those reported for BPA.