Archive for category Bisphenol A [BPA] & Bisphenol S [BPS]
Thursday, August 02, 2012
By: J. D. Heyes
[NaturalNews] Researchers have found a link between dental fillings made using bisphenol A, otherwise known as BPA, and behavior and emotional problems in children.
Scientists from New England Research Institutes in Watertown, Mass., say the effects generally show up a few years later and they were generally small but were nonetheless measurable.
The study’s lead researcher was quick to note that her team did not measure levels of BPA in particular, and did not know if any other chemicals were possibly leaking from the fillings.
“It’s a controversial topic in dental research, how much really does leach (from fillings)… and whether or not that would have an effect,” said study lead Nancy Maserejian. “It’s generally assumed that the amounts leached are tiny.”
Maserejian went onto say that fillings made using the substance are starting to become more popular, in part because they are the same color as teeth – as opposed to earlier, silver-colored amalgam fillings, Reuters reported.
FDA wouldn’t ban chemical’s use in food packaging
According to the Web site “Facts About BPA,” the substance is “the key component used to make epoxy resins and polycarbonate plastic, which are used to make consumer goods that make our lives safer and more convenient.”
In addition, “BPA helps to make epoxy resins durable and to make clear polycarbonate plastic strong, lightweight and resistant to heat and shattering,” the site noted.
Other reports described BPA as a chemical substance that is also found in some food packaging and canned goods. A 2011 study linked prenatal exposure to BPA with hyperactivity and anxiety in girls specifically, though overall its effects are not clear.
In March, the Food and Drug Administration announced it had rejected a petition from the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) asking the agency to ban BPA in food-contact materials.
“The Food and Drug Administration’s assessment is that the scientific evidence at this time does not suggest that the very low levels of human exposure to BPA through the diet are unsafe,” the agency said on its Web site.
For the tooth study, Maserejian and her team examined data on 534 children, ages six to ten, who had cavities and were then randomly chosen to receive amalgam fillings or one of two different so-called composite fillings. BPA was used in the manufacturing of one of those composite fillings.
Five years later, parents and their children answered a number of questions regarding depression and anxiety, including attitudes at school and behavior overall.
by: Lisa Garber
July 30, 2012
What do latchkey kids, college students, and busy parents have in common? Well, one thing is that they save valuable time and money by cooking with canned foods. The bad news? Tagging along with these foods is a hefty dose of bisphenol A.
According to a past study conducted by the nonprofit Consumers Union, 18 of 19 canned foods contained 22 micrograms of BPA per serving—116 times more than the ‘daily recommended limit.’ Progresso, Del Monte, Campbell’s, Annie’s, and Hormel soups took the BPA lead. Unfortunately, BPA still continues to taint food cans today.
BPA Affects Fertility
Researchers have linked BPA consumption to hyperactivity, aggression, depression, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, various cancers, and reproductive difficulties including Anogenital distance. Males with short AGD have been found to have 7 times the chance of being sub-fertile. This is a troubling statistic given that prenatal BPA exposure through parental consumption is associated with shortened AGD.
Men alone are not at risk, however. The journal Human Reproduction published a study that found women who miscarried three or more times had markedly high levels of BPA compared to mothers of successful pregnancies.
Food Industry’s Ties to BPA
That the food industry has remained largely silent despite this barrage of research means one thing: they’re making too much money to change. As said by the Natural Resources Defense Council, the FDA has repeatedly failed “to safeguard the food supply.” Even the Environmental Protection Agency left BPA off the list of chemicals needing stricter regulation after a heart-to-heart with lobbyists.
Though even while, until now, both companies and manufacturers have been slow to remove BPA, the chemical is slowing inching it’s way out of food and consumer products. One most recent decision was made by the FDA to ban BPA in baby bottles. But even with BPAs departure, companies are beginning to use a close relative of BPA known as bisphenol-S. Unfortunately, this BPS chemical is also toxic.
Still, there’s no need to despair. Just because the industry isn’t on the side of healthful eating doesn’t mean we can’t enjoy the convenience of canned foods. Eden Foods lines most of its cans with oleoresin (a plant-based lining) and puts acidic foods like tomatoes in paper cartons often used for soups.
You can even DIY canned foods with a home canning kit and BPA-free lids. Parents wary of BPA’s effects on their children’s health as well as their future fertility can even make canning a family venture, with benefits to be reaped for months!
To naturally reverse the effects of BPA, try drinking black tea and eating foods—like sauerkraut and kimchi—high in probiotics.
by: Anthony Gucciardi
July 18, 2012
After countless activists and concerned organizations voiced serious concern over the presence of the cancer-linked chemical substance known as BPA in baby bottles, the FDA has finally responded by banning the presence of BPA in baby bottles nationwide. While the decision is highly beneficial for the health of toddlers and parents across the United States and elsewhere, the FDA continues to ignore the mass amount of research linking toxic BPA (also known as bisphenol-a) to a host of diseases such as cancer and diabetes.
BPA in Baby Bottles Officially Banned by FDA, Still in Food Products
During the same round of statements made regarding the ban of BPA in baby bottles within the US, FDA spokesperson Curtis Allen continued to outlandishly assert that the ‘safety of BPA’ used in actual food products is still supported by the organization. Allen even goes on to say that the reason for the ban is more a result of the industry ‘abandonment’ of BPA than actually protecting the health of US citizens. In his statement, Allen told medical reporters:
“FDA’s action is based on industry’s abandonment of these uses of BPA… The agency continues to support the safety of BPA for use in products that hold food.”
Meanwhile, nations like Canada have already taken the initiative to halt the usage of BPA due to legitimate health concerns. As far back as October of 2010, Canada declared that BPA was a toxic substance and should be heavily regulated as such. Outside of being shown to drastically increase your risk of developing diabetes, BPA has also been linked to breast cancer in more than 130 studies. Other associated conditions include heart disease, infertility disorders, and much more.
So why is the FDA brushing this chemical off as a perfectly ‘safe’ food-grade chemical?
It has been revealed that just after the FDA rejected a recent request to ban BPA as a whole within the United States, BPA makers were set to make a whopping $8 billion in sales. Even more outrageous, these producers launched their subsequent manufacturing campaigns that ultimately accounted for the creation of over 4.7 million metric tons of BPA. Clearly, this industry is quite massive and has not only a large financial backing but also a substantial lobbying wing. In the event that the FDA outright banned BPA, multi-billion dollar corporations would be extremely upset.
Instead of choosing public health over the interests of these companies, the FDA once again sided with mass industry. The organization noted that while there are very serious scientific concerns regarding BPA, the agency is simply going to wait it out and see how it really impacts humans. In other words, they admit it is potentially causing a widespread wave of cancer, diabetes, and heart disease, but the hundreds of prominent studies and outspoken health experts just aren’t enough for the agency.
“While evidence from some studies have raised questions as to whether BPA may be associated with a variety of health effects, there remain serious questions about these studies, particularly as they relate to humans,” wrote the FDA.
by: Lisa Garber
July 18, 2012
Earlier this year, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration declared bisphenol A relatively safe (cough, cough). But due to the growing awareness that BPA is actually highly toxic, even the FDA’s ‘safe’ statement hasn’t stopped many plastics and papers manufacturers from replacing the estrogen-mimicking compound with its close cousin, bisphenol S. And the revenue has been worth the change, even if BPS isn’t any safer than BPA. In fact, you may be more exposed to the BPS chemical now than you were to BPA before.
Why BPA is Unsafe
Despite the FDA’s announcement, research continues to raise red flags over BPA. Endocrinology, a publication of The Endocrine Society, featured a study in which mice received low doses of BPA and thereafter experienced effects on the brain and social behaviors.
Because BPA is environmentally persistent, its effects are long-lasting and trans-generational as well. In the aforementioned study, prenatal exposure to mice correlated with raised levels of anxiety, aggression, and cognitive difficulties.
Maybe mice are mice and people are people, but our exposure to BPA is nothing to be overlooked. We eat food from cans with BPA. We store leftovers in containers with BPA. We drink water from BPA-laden bottles. We handle thermal paper and thereby BPA at the workplace. We essentially live, breathe, and eat BPA.
And now we have to worry about the BPS chemical instead?
Increased BPS Chemical Exposure
Not much is yet known about BPS—the compound replacing BPA in products like thermal paper—but the outlook is gloomy.
In 2005, Japanese scientists compared the hormone-mimicking effects of BPA and 19 similar compounds (including BPS chemical) on human cells. Although they found BPS’s effects to be slightly weaker than its cousin’s, new research shows that we may be absorbing more BPS through our skin than we were absorbing BPA.
Kurunthachalam Kannan of the Wadsworth Center at the New York state Department of Health led a research team in analyzing 16 types of paper from the U.S., Japan, South Korea, and Vietnam. All receipt paper analyzed contained BPS.
“People who handle thermal paper in their jobs may be absorbing much more BPS,” the analysts said—19 times more, according to their research.
If you’re concerned about your BPS exposure, keep in mind that BPA-free (and BPS-laden) receipts have those telltale red fibers in the paper. To reduce your exposure:
- Wash your hands after touching thermal paper.
- Save paper—and yourself—and tell the cashier to not print the receipt.
- Avoid putting receipts in bags with food.
- Store necessary receipts in folders or drawers to avoid unnecessary contact.
- If you are the cashier, consider investing in gloves.
by:Paul Adams, J.D.
July 17, 2012
In earlier times it was easier to control a million people than physically to kill a million people. Today it is infinitely easier to kill a million people then to control a million people. – Zbigniew Brzezinski (Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg Group, Carter/Obama Advisor).
The cancer epidemic is a soft-kill operation and a move by the world’s so-called elites to cull the human population. It is well documented that the Club of Rome, Bill Gates, Ted Turner, the Rockefellers, Warren Buffet and many other globalists plan to dominate and decimate humanity with their population reduction agenda.
As we will see, the globalists first cause the cancer and then provide us with their ineffective treatments (not cures) for profit. This method is known as Problem – Reaction – Solution.
According to the American Cancer Society, 1,638,910 new cancer cases will arise in the United States during 2012. Approximately 577,190 American cancer patients are expected to die from their cancer this year as well. One in every two men will suffer from cancer (one in four will die) as will one in every three women (one in five will die). According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, cancer is the second leading cause of death, closely trailing heart disease.
In 1971, President Nixon and Congress declared war on cancer. Since then, the federal government has spent well over $105 billion to battle cancer. In 2010 alone, the National Cancer Institute had a budget of $6.4 billion. As of March 2011, the Susan B. Komen Foundation, allegedly leading the fight against breast cancer, had $439,451,449 in “total public support and revenue.” Pharmaceutical giant Merck alone had a 2010 research and development budget of 8.12 billion.
Why all the death and suffering despite billions, if not trillions, in government and private cancer research? Why have cancer treatments remained almost unchanged since the 1950s: toxic radiation, toxic chemotherapy, and surgery?
The answer is simple: treating cancer is profitable; curing it is not. Cancer also furthers the globalist goal of massive depopulation.
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
By: Ethan A. Huff
[NaturalNews] Growing awareness about the prolific presence of the hormone disruptor bisphenol A (BPA) in plastics, receipt paper, money, and various other consumer products and materials has led to the widespread removal of this highly toxic chemical from many products in recent years. But bisphenol S (BPS), the chemical now being used in place of BPA in many “BPA-free” products, may be just as harmful — if not more harmful — than BPA.
A new study published in the ACS journal Environmental Science & Technology is the first to analyze the presence of BPS in consumer products, and particularly in both thermal and recycled paper products. According to Kurunthachalam Kannan and colleagues who conducted the study, BPS is similar to BPA in that it mimics estrogen, and can cause severe endocrine disruption as a result of repeated exposure.
For their study, which was funded in part by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the National Natural Science Foundation of China, and the Department of Science and Technology of Shandong Province, Kannan and the team tested 16 different types of paper and paper products, including thermal receipt paper, paper currencies, flyers, magazines, newspapers, food contact papers, airplane luggage tags, printing paper, paper towels, and toilet papers.
They found that every single tested sample of thermal receipt paper, which is used by most retailers nowadays to print purchase receipts, tested positive for BPS at concentrations ranging from 0.0000138 milligrams per gram (mg/g) to 22.0 mg/g. This is roughly the same range level that has been observed in thermal receipt paper for BPA in earlier studies.
BPS is up to 19 times more absorbable in the skin than BPA
The research team also found that 87 percent of currency bill samples, which were collected from 21 different countries, contained BPS in varying levels. BPS was also observed in 14 of the other paper products sampled as well, including in 52 percent of recycled paper samples tested, which indicates that this largely unknown chemical is quietly hiding in all sorts of paper products that millions of people are exposed to every single day.
Perhaps the most disturbing finding about BPS; however, is the fact that BPS absorbs into the skin at much higher rates than BPA. According to the study, BPS is capable of absorbing at a rate up to 1900 percent higher than BPA, which makes it potentially much more harmful than BPA at altering hormone levels.
According to a 2005 study out of Japan, BPS is only slightly less potent than BPA at mimicking the female hormone estrogen in the body. However, other studies have shown that BPS is far less biodegradable than BPA, and is actually the most persistent bisphenol compound among eight of the most common bisphenol compounds tested. (http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org)
Sources for this article include: