4 ms·

The only negative findings I recall were here: "Outside researchers didn’t deliver uniformly good news, however. Valspar approached scientists at Baylor Medica

The only negative findings I recall were here: "Outside researchers didn’t deliver uniformly good news, however. Valspar approached scientists at Baylor Medical School, who found that TMBPF blunted estrogen’s effect on test cells and that a polymer made from the molecule had a similar effect on testosterone, according to a 2017 paper in PLOS ONE. Adam Szafran, a molecular biologist who helped lead the research, says the findings weren’t conclusive and could be specific to the prostate cells they tested. "Mallen acknowledges that those results raise questions about the compound. But he says company-sponsored research showed that changes in test cells don’t translate into effects on an entire organism. That study, published online in Food and Chemical Toxicology in October 2019, showed no endocrine-related effects on rats fed TMBPF for 3 months." The chance that this is a fairly safe chemical (or at the very least, a safer substitute for BPA) seems pretty promising so far. Of course, more studies should be and are planned to be done.

OnlineGladiator 7y ago
It's really hard to ignore the conflict of interest here. All of the company's research suggest it works, and the only other research mentioned in the article raises flags. Call me skeptical.
- James_Henry 7y ago
  > All of the company's research suggest it works, and the only other research mentioned in the article raises flags. That's not true. Soto, Maier, Maffini and Zoeller, all outside researchers, had findings in favor of TMBPF. I suppose it's fine to be skeptical though.
mjevans 7y ago
I too read that as a Call for Further Testing, and given the other tests, at least moving forward with using a likely safer coating based on the other tests. It isn't unfathomable for a single study, pro or negative, to uncover a previously unconsidered test variable or other complication and it is entirely indicative that a followup study which has a larger sample size and better controls needs to be conducted to obtain more solid evidence.

OnlineGladiator 7y ago

It's really hard to ignore the conflict of interest here. All of the company's research suggest it works, and the only other research mentioned in the article raises flags. Call me skeptical.

James_Henry 7y ago
> All of the company's research suggest it works, and the only other research mentioned in the article raises flags. That's not true. Soto, Maier, Maffini and Zoeller, all outside researchers, had findings in favor of TMBPF. I suppose it's fine to be skeptical though.

mjevans 7y ago

I too read that as a Call for Further Testing, and given the other tests, at least moving forward with using a likely safer coating based on the other tests. It isn't unfathomable for a single study, pro or negative, to uncover a previously unconsidered test variable or other complication and it is entirely indicative that a followup study which has a larger sample size and better controls needs to be conducted to obtain more solid evidence.