In an article published in the August 2016 edition of the magazine Endocrine News, editor Derek Bagley reports on products labeled as ‘BPA-free’ and the question whether they are actually safer and healthier than their BPA-containing antecessors. In May 2015, bisphenol A (BPA, CAS 80-05-7) was added to the list of chemicals known to cause reproductive harm under Proposition 65 in the State of California, U.S. (FPF reported). Consequently, since May 2016 warning signs at cash registers inform Californian consumers that “many food and beverage cans have linings containing bisphenol A (BPA), a chemical known to the State of California to cause harm to the female reproductive system” (FPF reported). Bagley points out that BPA-free does not mean EDC-free and that many products now contain bisphenol S (BPS,CAS 80-09-1) as a substitute for BPA. BPS is structurally very similar to BPA and animal studies have shown that it can impair embryonic development, fertility, and it may be adipogenic – just like BPA. BPS is detected in indoor dust samples and human urine, is reported to be less biodegradable than BPA, and its production is increasing annually, Bagley writes. According to a study exposing zebrafish to low levels of BPA and BPS, the chemicals can activate both estrogenic and thyroid hormone pathways, suggesting broad effects on health and disease (FPF reported).
“’BPA-free’ does not necessarily mean safer,” stated Nancy L. Wayne, senior author of the zebrafish study and professor of physiology at David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, U.S.. Using BPS instead of BPA is “merely an EDC swap,” she added.
Derek Bagley (August 2016). “Warning signs: How safe is ‘BPA free?’” Endocrine News