3

According to the following article by Time, and the study that it cites, several compounds of the chemical bisphenol - used in commonly-handled products like shopping receipts and plastic containers like bottles - are likely to be unsafe for humans, and coming into contact with them can cause adverse affects such as changing hormone levels.

That article states:

BPA has been shown to cause problems with human reproduction, metabolism, neurological function and a whole host of other problems.

...

Research on the health effects of BPF and BPS is still in its early stages — just because a chemical has the ability to behave a certain way in the body doesn't necessarily mean it's dangerous.

...before going on to warn consumers to stay away from products that contain all three, which seems contradictory.

An article from the Scientific American goes further, citing studies and experiments that the compounds have had adverse effects, both in vitro and in vivo on animal test subjects, and concludes that the industry is not adequately regulated:

These in vivo studies agree with in vitro studies claiming that BPS is a hazard. But the problem doesn’t stop with removing bisphenol S from the market as was done for bisphenol A. The problem, according to Kurrasch, lies in the lack of industry regulation. Currently, no federal agency tests the toxicity of new materials before they are allowed on the market.

  1. Is the chemical compound BPA unsafe for humans?

  2. Are the chemical compounds BPF and BPS likely to be unsafe for humans, and would consumers be justified in avoiding them?

  • 1
    If you'd like to ask, in a separate question, whether "any federal agency tests the toxicity of new materials before they are allowed on the market in the USA?" that would be on-topic, but asking whether such a system is inadequate is about political opinions, not empirical evidence. – Oddthinking Apr 13 '17 at 3:36
  • 7
    The right question here isn't whether compounds are harmful but whether they are harmful in the doses people are typically exposed to. Water is harmful if you drink too much but I don't see warnings about that. – matt_black Apr 13 '17 at 9:33
  • 1
    So it's the usual case of the dose makes the poison? In that case, is it fair to say that consumers are not justified in avoiding any of them, and that the publishing of the above articles by Scientific American and Time, as well as the conclusions made by the studies they cite, are hasty and irresponsible? – Hashim Apr 13 '17 at 21:29
  • One thing to keep in mind is that not all substances necessarily display a monotonic dose response. This has especially been a concern with suspected endocrine disruptors. See e.g. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3365860 – sumelic Apr 14 '17 at 6:33
  • @matt_black: The question is already phrased in a way that implies that. It asks if they are "likely to be unsafe for humans"; if humans are not likely to be exposed to doses that would cause harm, then the correct answer is that they are unlikely to be unsafe for humans, for that reason. – sumelic Apr 14 '17 at 6:35

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .