Introduction
Bisphenol-A (BPA) is one of the industrial chemicals that have raised a lot of debate among scientists and the media on its safety on human beings. Whereas the chemical is almost ubiquitous, its presence in food canning and feeding bottles has been the most substantial area of interest.
This has compelled scientists in the field of food safety and the higher regulatory body, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), to research more on BPA’s safety. The debate on the safety of EPA has created two sides with one side claiming that BPA does not pose any significant health risk to human beings thus its use should be continued.
However, the other side of the debate argues that BPA is a potentially risky chemical to human beings especially by affecting the human neuroendocrine system. Each side presents its arguments and this paper aims at examining the debate on the safety of BPA.
Precisely, the paper argues that BPA should be banned since its continued exposure poses serious health risks to human health. Clear supportive evidence and analysis has been provided in this paper to support the view that BPA should be banned.
According to Barclift (2009, p. 23), Bisphenol-A is “an organic compound that makes up the backbone of many polycarbonate polymers” in addition to acting as a plasticizer in polyvinyl chlorides.
This industrial chemical is also produced in high volume (about 2.3b pounds in 2004 in the U.S. alone) for use in epoxy resins and in making adhesives. Due to its use in manufacture of polycarbonate plastics, BPA is therefore encountered in food packaging with epoxy resins being commonly used as coatings for food cans and water pipes.
Infant bottles as well as compact discs are well known products that contain BPA as a manufacturing chemical. There are some dental sealants that also contain BPA. Bisphenol-A is undoubtedly ubiquitous more so with consideration that it can also be found in cell phone covers among household items that are made from polycarbonate plastics (NTP and CERHR, 2008).
BPA is a potentially toxic substance and it mimics estrogen, albeit a weak one. BPA is however speculated to cause developmental and behavioral effects that are of “some concern” to human beings (U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 2010, p. 2). To be precise, Bisphenol-A acts like estrogen once it is introduced into the body by binding to estrogen receptors non-competitively.
This therefore implies that BPA has the potential to disrupt hormonal balance thus altering human development (Davis et al., n.d). Low dose exposures to BPA therefore pose the risk of abnormally early menarche, low sperm count, breast cancer as well as diabetes among other illnesses.
Infants are most vulnerable because their hepatic system is not fully developed for detoxification and their developmental systems (neuronal and endocrine) are weak (U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 2010). These risks are some of the reasons that make FDA wary and warn on the continued exposure to BPA more so through feeding bottles and packaging for infant formula.
The banning or retention of BPA is highly dependent on valid research findings that can be generalized on the toxicity of BPA to humans with the current exposures. The FDA has approved the use of products that have BPA level that are of low risk as per standardized toxicity tests.
While this is the case, novel research findings by institutions like the National Toxicology Program have contested the continued exposure to BPA on the basis of its adverse effects on prostate gland, and brain among other organs especially in infants (U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 2010).
These concerns cannot be ignored as they have been raised elsewhere with concerns being raised as early as in 1998. Hinterthuer (2008) mentions that one geneticist, Patricia Hunt of Case Western Reserve University, warned that BPA was capable of leaching out of the plastic containers thus gaining entry to human body through direct contact or food.
A main concern of BPA leaching out is in case the container is heated say in a microwave or during food processing and packaging. This is an almost inevitable exposure to the chemical since most canned foods have to be heated thoroughly during packaging.
The speculations that BPA is risky have been proved through numerous studies with animal models and the chemical has been shown to be toxic to rodents. The Food Safety Net (2010) reports that there are more than 200 studies that have proved that low doses of BPA have estrogen-like effects (at least in female monkeys and mice) in addition to other risks.
Such studies have however been criticized by supporters of BPA arguing that the studies cannot be replicated thus they cannot be generalized. Hinterthuer (2008) also reports that the banning of BPA has been opposed by some on the argument that the said risks are only reported in animal models and never in humans.
Some researchers who claim that BPA has health risks counter their opponents by arguing that these findings have been replicated in government-funded studies (at least in 90% of the studies) and only industry-funded studies have failed to do so.
The FDA on its side has expressed concerns over the constantly reported potential risks of BPA and thus it encourages reduced exposure to BPA. In specific, FDA advocates for alternative packaging and lining products in the food industry as a way of minimizing exposure.
The FDA however notices that there are a few risks related to human exposure to BPA compared to nutritional benefits that infants get from canned infant formula.
Conclusion
It is appreciable that the FDA has noted the raised concerns on the risks of BPA more so considering their neuroendocrine effects in infants. The presence of BPA in almost everywhere in the environment is one important cause for concern on its potential risks.
Cone and Environmental Health News (2010) already report exposure to BPA as unexpectedly high among cigarette handlers and smokers and cashiers who come in contact with cash register receipts. This indicates that the 50 micrograms per kilogram exposures set by FDA (Hinterthuer, 2008) are exceeded and therefore the mentioned health risks cannot be ignored.
I would suggest that BPA be banned from consumer products to avoid harming infants and consequent generations. The fact that animal studies attest the presence of adverse health effects with low doses of BPA is enough warning that this can happen in human beings.
Even as the FDA conducts thorough studies on possible toxicological effects of BPA and their meaning to human health, the already existing studies should form concrete reason for the banning of BPA. I agree with Barclift (2009) and the FDA that industries that rely on BPA should find alternatives that are BPA-free for sustainability and safety of consumers.
References
Barclift, T. (2009). Managing the concerns of BPA: A new perspective on managing bisphenol A content and seeking out alternatives. Adhesives and Sealants Industry. pp. 23-25.
Cones, M. and Environmental Health News. (2010). Recipe for High BPA Exposure: Canned Vegetables, Cigarettes and a Cashier Job. Scientific American. Web.
Davis, M., Foulds, J., Freeman, A., Khatter, K. and Polyzou, C. et al. (n.d). Baby’s toxic bottle: bisphenol A leaching from popular baby bottles. The Work Group for Safe Markets, a coalition of U.S. public health and environmental NGOs.
Food Safety Net. (2010). Study says BPA exposure, risk higher than assumed. Web.
Hinterthuer, A. (2008). Just how harmful are bisphenol-A plastics?Scientific American. Web.
NTP and CERHR. (2008). NTP-CERHR monograph on the potential human reproductive and developmental effects of bisphenol A. NIH Publication No. 08 – 5994. National Toxicology Program U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Center for The Evaluation of Risks To Human Reproduction.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2010). Update on bisphenol A for use in Food Contact Applications.