Originally published February 27 2015
EU lowers safety limit for endocrine-disrupting chemical BPA
by Ethan A. Huff, staff writer
(NaturalNews) For the first time in nearly 10 years, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has conducted a reassessment of the safety of bisphenol A (BPA), the plastics chemical that many a study has linked to endocrine disruption, behavioral disorders, heart disease and cancer. But rather than concur with this growing body of evidence showing the chemical's dangers, the group has declared BPA to be safe at current exposure levels for all age groups, including unborn babies.
In a recent announcement, the EFSA declared that BPA "poses no health risk to consumers of any age group (including unborn children, infants and adolescents) at current exposure levels." It also proclaimed that dermal exposure from things like thermal paper receipts and money is "under the safe level," even though in the same breath the group admits that it really doesn't know how much BPA is being absorbed through the skin, on average.
The EFSA claims that it looked at all the available science regarding BPA in coming to this irresponsible conclusion, which puts public health at considerable risk by deceitfully assuaging people's fears about exposure to this noxious chemical substance. There is substantial evidence in the scientific literature suggesting that BPA is responsible for triggering a variety of health conditions, including but not limited to breast cancer, reproductive disorders, neurobehavioral problems and immune suppression.
Did the EFSA even look at any of this evidence when quantifying the potential health risks associated with BPA? The regulatory body says it consulted and engaged with "national authorities and stakeholders" during the risk assessment process, but its findings don't seem to reflect the truth about this widely used chemical, mainly that it's a high-risk toxin both at high and low exposure levels.
BPA defies typical dose-response toxicity model, is harmful at very low levels Whenever the safety of a chemical is called into question, the skeptics crowd is quick to scoff at it, declaring in predictable smugness that "the dose makes the poison" -- so there! Except that in the case of BPA, science has shown that very low doses of the chemical are highly toxic, a phenomenon known as a non-monotonic dose response.
Put simply, exposures to extremely low levels of BPA have been found to be uniquely toxic in ways that are not observed at higher exposure levels. One particular study published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives (EHP) found that acute exposure to environmentally relevant low doses of BPA promotes the formation of heart disease in females.
Another study, published in the journal Endocrine Disruptors, confirmed this as well after identifying more than 450 studies showing low-dose exposure to BPA to be harmful to humans. Researchers involved in this evaluation put it this way:
"Based on all available studies, we are confident that consistent, reproducible, low dose effects have been demonstrated for BPA. We conclude that the doses that reliably produce effects in animals are 1-4 magnitudes of order lower than the current LOAEL [lowest observed adverse effect level] of 50 mg/kg/day and many should be considered adverse."
Interestingly, the EFSA lowered its "tolerable daily intake" (TDI) for BPA considerably just after declaring the chemical to be safe at current exposure levels. According to the announcement, the group's new TDI for the chemical has been reduced from 50 micrograms per kilogram of body weight per day to 4, a 92 percent decrease.
"EFSA will reconsider the temporary TDI when the results of long-term research by the US National Toxicology Program are available for evaluation in two to three years," the group announced.
All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech. Truth Publishing LLC takes sole responsibility for all content. Truth Publishing sells no hard products and earns no money from the recommendation of products. NaturalNews.com is presented for educational and commentary purposes only and should not be construed as professional advice from any licensed practitioner. Truth Publishing assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. For the full terms of usage of this material, visit www.NaturalNews.com/terms.shtml