backtop


Print 34 comment(s) - last by AnnihilatorX.. on Jan 25 at 7:28 PM

BPA alternative may cause just as many problems

A little over four years ago, BPA was linked to a number of medical conditions including diabetes, asthma, and cancer among others. The chemical was commercially introduced in 1957, and was used in a wide range of products including food containers and bottles. Due to the backlash over BPA-related health risks, many manufacturers stopped using the chemical in their products.

In response, companies that offered plastic products containing BPA switched to Bisphenol S (BPS). BPA and BPS are very similar structurally, making the latter a good “drop-in replacement” for the former.

Researchers at the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston are now reporting that widespread human exposure to BPS was confirmed in 2012 during the analysis of urine samples taken in the U.S., Japan, and China. The research study found that BPS disrupts cellular responses to the hormone estrogen, changing the pattern of cell growth -- even low levels of BPS exposure were enough to interfere with hormones.

"Our studies show that BPS is active at femtomolar to picomolar concentrations just like endogenous hormones -- that's in the range of parts per trillion to quadrillion," said UTMB professor Cheryl Watson, senior author of a paper on the study now online in the advance publications section of Environmental Health Perspectives. "Those are levels likely to be produced by BPS leaching from containers into their contents."

The backlash against BPA was fast and furious, but it may take some more time (and additional studies) to determine if BPS will encounter the same fate.

Source: Science Daily



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Here's a thought...
By LordSojar on 1/23/2013 3:12:33 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
- Sugar is bad for you (no, it's not)


Ok, so the other things... you might have some kind of point with. This however, sir, is a lie.

Sugar is awful for human beings, specifically fructose. Do you also believe alcohol (that would be ethanol by the way) isn't bad for you?

Sugar is classified as a poison by its hepatic process. It's converted into acetaldehyde in your liver, and it's not converted into glycogen like glucose is.

So to say sugar isn't bad for you is not only an outright lie, it's an ignorant one.

Human beings are not supposed to eat sugar, especially fructose enriched sugar, in the quantity we eat it in, period. Obesity epidemic is due almost exclusively to sugar... as is heart disease (because the VLDLs produced by the hepatic breakdown of fructose are the type that get under the endothelial cells in your arterial walls, and the LDLs produced by fats are far too buoyant and large to do so)

So, in summary.... you're wrong on every possible level here. If you're going to have sugar, make sure it's with fiber. Great saying, even if you don't believe in god... When god created the poison, he packaged it with the cure. Fiber counteracts almost all the fructose load in fruit when eaten as part of a balanced diet.

But if you're consuming 600 calories a day worth of fructose and eating less than 100g of fiber... you're poisoning your body, plain and simple.


RE: Here's a thought...
By lyeoh on 1/23/2013 3:33:32 PM , Rating: 3
Actually sugar has a role to play. When fruits are in season many animals fatten themselves up on it. Then when fruits go out of season or winter comes, they start losing that fat. If they didn't get fat enough they might not do so well.

The main problem I see is if you keep fattening yourself up for years or even decades.


RE: Here's a thought...
By maugrimtr on 1/24/2013 9:12:46 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The same faux activism


You mean Science? I thought the other thing was faux activism - Religion? You might notice that those who ignore Science and instead create fictional realities also fall under the Religion spectrum due to their reliance on belief, i.e. make believe, not founded in fact, unscientific.

BPA was subject to a lot of scientific study. After all that study, it was concluded that BPA was probably not a good. Probably not hard to locate the scientific studies. Is that conclusive? Of course, not. Governments took advice from their agencies and the Canadian action probably spooked everything enough to immediately go nuts. Manufacturers replace BPA with BPS - a very similar chemical with similar properties. The scientists are merely proving that BPS has similar risks attached that led to the BPA issues (something the companies involved would already be aware of).


RE: Here's a thought...
By EricMartello on 1/25/2013 5:31:45 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The scientists are merely proving that BPS has similar risks attached that led to the BPA issues (something the companies involved would already be aware of).


No, they are not proving anything because they failed to prove anything with BPA in the first place. It was junk science with tests designed produce a desired result rather than a legitimate test with an objective analysis of results.


RE: Here's a thought...
By EricMartello on 1/25/13, Rating: -1
RE: Here's a thought...
By EricMartello on 1/25/2013 5:43:19 PM , Rating: 1
Reposted for the haters who believe free thinking means checking google and wikipedia. lulz

quote:
Ok, so the other things... you might have some kind of point with. This however, sir, is a lie.


Not a lie, and speaking in absolutes implies that you have some kind of definitive proof to back up what you say.

quote:
Do you also believe alcohol (that would be ethanol by the way) isn't bad for you?


You think it is? lol

quote:
Sugar is classified as a poison by its hepatic process. It's converted into acetaldehyde in your liver, and it's not converted into glycogen like glucose is.


Ok let's not delve into the fantasy world of doctors who get their degrees Fedex'd to them by some outfit in russia. No legitimate medical or scientific body classifies sugar as a poison. The "alternative medicine" nutjobs who think any food that comes in a package is 'toxic' are the ones pushing that nonsense.

quote:
Obesity epidemic is due almost exclusively to sugar... as is heart disease


Unsubstantiated claim; no REAL doctor is going to bet their license on the notion that sugar is the root of all evils...but the people who want you to buy alternative sweeteners like stevia or splenda have no problem paying off some quack to make statements like this.

quote:
So, in summary.... you're wrong on every possible level here.


You're obviously new here otherwise you'd know that I'm never wrong.

quote:
Fiber counteracts almost all the fructose load in fruit when eaten as part of a balanced diet.


In a time when people were eating an almost "all natural" diet they were also living to ripe old ages of 30, maybe 45.

quote:
But if you're consuming 600 calories a day worth of fructose and eating less than 100g of fiber... you're poisoning your body, plain and simple.


Assuming a 2,000 calorie diet getting 25% of your caloric intake from sugar would certainly not be the most optimal for health since the calories lack nutrients; but that is not making a your "sugar is poison" case for you. All that you said could have been condensed into one sentence: "Sugar is unhealthy if it's the primary component in your diet, however as part of a balanced diet it is fine."


"This week I got an iPhone. This weekend I got four chargers so I can keep it charged everywhere I go and a land line so I can actually make phone calls." -- Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki