4 ms·

It took us decades of use to understand the harms of bpa, which are still disputed by 'industry science's despite the existing research. For instance right now

by elif 4y ago

It took us decades of use to understand the harms of bpa, which are still disputed by 'industry science's despite the existing research. For instance right now we are largely replacing baking plastics and nonstick coatings with silicon because it is known not to leech.. but now we are finding that silicon breaks down after 200-1000 baking cycles. There isn't any conclusive data to say when it becomes unsafe, if it does at all.. All that to say, if a plastic was designed to melt immediately upon contact with a heating element and bind to the first thing it touches... I'm not using it for tea.

dragontamer 4y ago
> It took us decades of use to understand the harms of bpa, which are still disputed by 'industry science's despite the existing research. https://www.fda.gov/food/food-additives-petitions/questions-answers-bisphenol-bpa-use-food-contact-applications https://www.fda.gov/food/food-additives-petitions/questions-... > Yes. Based on FDA's ongoing safety review of scientific evidence, the available information continues to support the safety of BPA for the currently approved uses in food containers and packaging. People are exposed to low levels of BPA because, like many packaging components, very small amounts of BPA may migrate from the food packaging into foods or beverages. Studies pursued by FDA's National Center for Toxicological Research (NCTR) have shown no effects of BPA from low-dose exposure. ------- FDA isn't "industry", they're the government regulators in charge of food safety of the USA. So we swapped from one plastic (BPA) with a century of research to other plastics with no research. They're all going to "leach" into our foods because when food comes in contact with molecules, it will absorb those molecules. If you cook food in an iron pan, the food will have more iron content. If you cook food in a copper pan, the food will have more copper content. Its just how things work. The question of safety is about studying the effects of iron, copper, or... BPA. And as far as I can tell, only low quality alternative-medicine journals seem to ever have anything to say about BPA.
- elif 4y ago
  Furthermore, data obtained in human and different cell lines show that BPA interferes with thyroid hormones synthesis, secretion, and signaling. Due to its anti-androgenic action, BPA works as an agonist on estrogen receptors and antagonist on androgen receptors[0] BPA exerts endocrine disruptor action due to its weak binding affinity for the estrogen receptors ERα and ERβ. BPA exerts other effects by activating the membrane receptor GPER (GPR30) and/or other receptors such as the estrogen-related receptors (ERRs).[1] In the presence of BPA and DES, the ER-binding region of the HOTAIR promoter was enriched by trimethylation on lysine 4 of histone 3 (H3K4) and by H3K4-specific methyltransferases, which are known to activate transcription73 (Table 2). Moreover, developmental BPA exposure enhances H3K4 trimethylation on genes, which are subsequently more sensitive to regulation by testosterone [2] [0] https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/21/16/5761#:~:text=Furthermore%2C%20data%20obtained%20in%20human,on%20androgen%20receptors%20%5B35%5D https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/21/16/5761#:~:text=Furthermor.... [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6864600/#:~:text=BPA%20exerts%20endocrine%20disruptor%20action,%2Drelated%20receptors%20(ERRs) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6864600/#:~:tex.... [2] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41574-019-0273-8 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41574-019-0273-8 As for your point about FDA not being "industry" https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/09/28/495694559/a-look-at-how-the-revolving-door-spins-from-fda-to-industry https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/09/28/4956945... (The same FDA also banned bpa in products for children under 3)
  - dragontamer 4y ago
    You've copy/pasted a couple of lines from various studies, seemingly without any rhyme or reason. I'm trying to figure out what you're trying to say, but you're not exactly making it easy. EDIT: I know the stupid "Dihydrogen Monoxide" trick. Just because scary chemical words are used in a paper doesn't mean anything. You're gonna have to make an actual point and argument if you want to convince me of anything. Hint: What does BPA do, and why are you scared of it? In your own words, supported by the quotes you chose above.
    - elif 4y ago
      You specifically attacked the publication credibility of bpa studies... So my focus was in providing high quality sources. I assumed you could understand the papers if I linked them. The summary of those excerpts are "endocrine disruption and hormone modulation" If that is still jargon to you, the effects of those processes which have been substantially linked to bpa are reproductive problems, developmental delays, and increased risk of certain cancers.
      - dragontamer 4y ago
        Sure. So you should be able to link a study demonstrating these reproductive problems. IE: X people have less exposure to BPA, Y people have more exposure to BPA, and Y people have said problems. -------- Traditionally, that's the kind of study that's done. For example, X people are non-smokers, Y people are smokers. Y people have Z% more cancer than X people. A quickie look through the papers you copy/pasted from are not of this traditional style of research. The links are rather... weak.
        elif 4y ago
        The reason you will struggle to find data like that is that there is no "non-smoker" group. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4674187/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4674187/ BPA is in every person, and fetal and childhood exposure is the most critical period, and cancers don't develop until later in life.

by elif 4y ago

dragontamer 4y ago

> It took us decades of use to understand the harms of bpa, which are still disputed by 'industry science's despite the existing research. https://www.fda.gov/food/food-additives-petitions/questions-answers-bisphenol-bpa-use-food-contact-applications https://www.fda.gov/food/food-additives-petitions/questions-... > Yes. Based on FDA's ongoing safety review of scientific evidence, the available information continues to support the safety of BPA for the currently approved uses in food containers and packaging. People are exposed to low levels of BPA because, like many packaging components, very small amounts of BPA may migrate from the food packaging into foods or beverages. Studies pursued by FDA's National Center for Toxicological Research (NCTR) have shown no effects of BPA from low-dose exposure. ------- FDA isn't "industry", they're the government regulators in charge of food safety of the USA. So we swapped from one plastic (BPA) with a century of research to other plastics with no research. They're all going to "leach" into our foods because when food comes in contact with molecules, it will absorb those molecules. If you cook food in an iron pan, the food will have more iron content. If you cook food in a copper pan, the food will have more copper content. Its just how things work. The question of safety is about studying the effects of iron, copper, or... BPA. And as far as I can tell, only low quality alternative-medicine journals seem to ever have anything to say about BPA.

elif 4y ago
Furthermore, data obtained in human and different cell lines show that BPA interferes with thyroid hormones synthesis, secretion, and signaling. Due to its anti-androgenic action, BPA works as an agonist on estrogen receptors and antagonist on androgen receptors[0] BPA exerts endocrine disruptor action due to its weak binding affinity for the estrogen receptors ERα and ERβ. BPA exerts other effects by activating the membrane receptor GPER (GPR30) and/or other receptors such as the estrogen-related receptors (ERRs).[1] In the presence of BPA and DES, the ER-binding region of the HOTAIR promoter was enriched by trimethylation on lysine 4 of histone 3 (H3K4) and by H3K4-specific methyltransferases, which are known to activate transcription73 (Table 2). Moreover, developmental BPA exposure enhances H3K4 trimethylation on genes, which are subsequently more sensitive to regulation by testosterone [2] [0] https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/21/16/5761#:~:text=Furthermore%2C%20data%20obtained%20in%20human,on%20androgen%20receptors%20%5B35%5D https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/21/16/5761#:~:text=Furthermor.... [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6864600/#:~:text=BPA%20exerts%20endocrine%20disruptor%20action,%2Drelated%20receptors%20(ERRs) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6864600/#:~:tex.... [2] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41574-019-0273-8 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41574-019-0273-8 As for your point about FDA not being "industry" https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/09/28/495694559/a-look-at-how-the-revolving-door-spins-from-fda-to-industry https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/09/28/4956945... (The same FDA also banned bpa in products for children under 3)
- dragontamer 4y ago
  You've copy/pasted a couple of lines from various studies, seemingly without any rhyme or reason. I'm trying to figure out what you're trying to say, but you're not exactly making it easy. EDIT: I know the stupid "Dihydrogen Monoxide" trick. Just because scary chemical words are used in a paper doesn't mean anything. You're gonna have to make an actual point and argument if you want to convince me of anything. Hint: What does BPA do, and why are you scared of it? In your own words, supported by the quotes you chose above.
  - elif 4y ago
    You specifically attacked the publication credibility of bpa studies... So my focus was in providing high quality sources. I assumed you could understand the papers if I linked them. The summary of those excerpts are "endocrine disruption and hormone modulation" If that is still jargon to you, the effects of those processes which have been substantially linked to bpa are reproductive problems, developmental delays, and increased risk of certain cancers.
    - dragontamer 4y ago
      Sure. So you should be able to link a study demonstrating these reproductive problems. IE: X people have less exposure to BPA, Y people have more exposure to BPA, and Y people have said problems. -------- Traditionally, that's the kind of study that's done. For example, X people are non-smokers, Y people are smokers. Y people have Z% more cancer than X people. A quickie look through the papers you copy/pasted from are not of this traditional style of research. The links are rather... weak.
      - elif 4y ago
        The reason you will struggle to find data like that is that there is no "non-smoker" group. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4674187/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4674187/ BPA is in every person, and fetal and childhood exposure is the most critical period, and cancers don't develop until later in life.