A new opinion article published on February 11, 2015 in The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) expresses concerns over the use of governmental funds to support bisphenol A (BPA, CAS 80-05-7) research. The article stresses that BPA has already undergone thorough safety testing supported by government funding and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has already twice confirmed its safety. WSJ questions the potential adverse health impacts of BPA pointing to the recent study by Teeguarden and colleagues (FPF reported). This study concludes that humans are not at risk of absorbing high levels of BPA into the bloodstream. The hypothesis that BPA might be absorbed into the bloodstream was raised in a previous study in beagle dogs (FPF reported) and later used by BPA opponents as evidence that the chemical was unsafe, thus pressuring regulators to reconsider BPA safety. Finally, the article poses the question whether more taxpayer-funded BPA studies are needed, considering that the already conducted studies have failed to establish a causal relationship between BPA and adverse health effects. The article concludes by encouraging the reallocation of the funds for BPA studies to other, more productive research projects.
Pete Myers from the independent news provider Environmental Health News commented on the WSJ article stressing that Teeguarden and colleagues used a flawed experimental design and thus their study is irrelevant to BPA safety. In the study, blood was drawn from a vein in the arm. Thus, BPA had already passed through the liver, where it was rendered inactive. However, in the original experiment in beagle dogs, blood was drawn immediately downstream from the mouth, therefore, before BPA inactivation, Myers explains.
The Wall Street Journal (February 11, 2015). “Snoopy is safe after all.”