BPA-free plastic is not safe or finds a study

We are looking for labels that say the plastics are "BPA free" to make sure the product is safe to eat or drink. A new study has shown that BPA-free options are not safe either.

A team of researchers from the School of Molecular Biosciences at the University of Washington tested BPA-free plastics on laboratory mice and found adverse effects on sperm count and egg health.

Image credit: Monticello / Shutterstock

BPA is an abbreviated form for bisphenol A used to package food and beverages. The chemical has been used since the 1960s, according to the US Food and Drug Administration (US FDA). BPA was widely used in the manufacture of polycarbonates or hard and hard plastics commonly used to store and package food products and beverages, as well as to cover the interior walls of these containers. When it is exposed to heat (eg microwave oven) or if the container is damaged, this chemical mixes with food and may be ingested. In a report entitled National Health and Nutrition Survey 2003-2004 (NHANES III) published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), experts found that BPA contamination in food and beverages was 93 %. about 2,500 urine samples collected in the United States showed high levels of BPA.

BPA is known to mimic the female hormone, estrogen, and so it has been found that it is altering the normal hormonal composition of consumers, especially if it is 39; children. This same team of researchers, some two decades ago, had shown the harmful effects of BPA on egg chromosomes. The long-term effects of exposure to BPA are, however, not fully understood in humans. According to the US FDA website, "BPA is safe at current levels present in foods." However, the potential for damage remains. The FDA has therefore banned the use of BPA in infant packaging, cups and baby bottles. The market has since experienced a deluge of BPA-free products used in plastic containers for food and beverages.

In this new study, lead author Patricia Hunt, a professor at Washington State University's School of Molecular Biosciences, and her colleagues discovered that BPA-free alternatives are not as safe as it seems . They tested these on laboratory mice to find infertility problems in these animals. The researchers believe that this could also be true for humans. The results of the study were published in the latest issue of the journal Current Biology. Hunt said in a statement that alternatives without BPA and "many of these common substitutes are not safe".

The team kept laboratory mice in BPA-free plastic cages and divided them into two groups. One of the groups of mice received BPA through a dropper, while the other group did not receive BPA. To the researchers' surprise, the animals that did not receive BPA (the control group) also began to show genetic changes seen in the BPA group. The team analyzed and noted that the mouse control group was actually exposed to bisphenol S or BPS present in BPA-free cages as an alternative to BPA. The cages of the control mice were inadvertently cleaned by a temporary worker using aggressive detergents instead of mild soaps. This damaged them and caused a leak of BPS in the food and water of the animals. This BPS was also able to modify genes and cause problems associated with the production and maturity of sperm and eggs.

The research team then exposed the mice to other BPA substitutes, such as GMP, BPS and BPAF. The adverse effects of all alternatives remained the same. The quality and quantity of spermatozoa and eggs in exposed animals continued to decline. These genetic changes that were introduced into the mice seemed to be passed on to future generations, also causing fertility problems in them.

According to a statement by Hunt, BPA or BPA-alternative, "plastic products that show physical signs of damage or aging can not be considered safe."