[ad_1]
"BPA-free" labels on plastic bottles are a guarantee that the product is safe.
But new research adds to the growing evidence that BPA-free alternatives may not be as safe as consumers think. The researchers found that in mice, BPA replacements caused a decrease in sperm count and less viable eggs. These effects were then passed on to the next generation, scientists reported yesterday in the journal Current Biology (13 September).
Although this research was conducted on mice, the researchers believe that the results could be true for humans. But further research would be needed to confirm.
BPA, which stands for Bisphenol A, has been a chemical used in food and beverage packaging since the 1960s, according to the US Food and Drug Administration. Specifically, it is used to make a hard, transparent plastic called polycarbonate that is found in the protective lining of some food and beverage canisters. [5 Ways to Limit BPA in Your Life]
The chemical gets into food and beverages from containers – especially if the plastic is old or damaged (which can happen, for example, by doing it in the microwave).
In fact, the chemical was so prevalent that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's 2003-2004 National Health and Nutrition Survey (NHANES III) found detectable levels of BPA in 93% of more than 2,500 samples urine collected in the United States.
According to a previous report from the journal Live Science, experts are unsure of the effect of BPA on the body, although it is becoming increasingly clear that BPA can be harmful to humans. The current consensus of the FDA is that "BPA is safe at current levels present in foods," according to its website.
According to the Live Science Report, there is concern that BPA may mimic the hormone estrogen and disrupt the body's natural hormone system.
Although the FDA currently prohibits the chemical in baby bottles, goblets and infant packaging, the concerns and growing pressures of the public have led, over the years, to an influx of "BPA-free" products. ".
In these products, alternative chemicals replace the function of BPA. And "there is more and more evidence that many of these current replacements are not safe," Patricia Hunt, senior author and professor at the Molecular Biosciences faculty at the University of Washington, said in a statement.
Alternatives to BPA may not be so different
In the new study, Hunt and his team were really trying to determine the effects of BPA on mouse reproduction when they noticed something weird, according to a National Geographic article.
The mice, all in plastic cages without BPA, were divided into two groups. One group received BPA through a dropper, while the other did not. The group that did not receive BPA was supposed to be a control – but control mice then began to show similar genetic changes to mice receiving BPA.
They found that the control group was exposed to the BPA replacement solution, bisphenol S or BPS from damaged cages. According to the study, these chemicals altered their chromosomes – or wire-shaped structures containing genes – and resulted in problems with egg and sperm production.
They therefore performed follow-up tests, deliberately exposing the mice to these alternatives, such as BPF, BPS and BPAF. They found similar results. Both sexes had problems properly recombining DNA – the process of forming new chromosomes by combining pieces of genetic material from both parents – to produce sperm and eggs. These changes could lead to abnormal eggs and less viable sperm, the statement said.
They also found that these alterations could be transmitted from generation to generation – and if they completely eliminated all BPAs and alternatives, the effects would continue for three generations.
The same team, 20 years ago, found that BPA itself damages the chromosomes of the egg, according to the release.
The problem might be that alternatives are not very different from BPA itself – all new versions have the basic chemical structure, with only slight differences from BPA.
Johanna Rochester, a non-profit researcher at The Endocrine Disruption Exchange, who was not part of the research, told National Geographic that the world should move away from alternatives to BPA. "We do not really want to wait another 20 years for all these human studies to show that there is a problem," she said.
BPA or BPA-alternative, "plastic products that show physical signs of damage or aging can not be considered safe," Hunt said in another statement.
Originally published on Live Science.
[ad_2]
Source link
