SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
BPA-free plastics may not be safer than regular plastics after all, a new study finds
Consumers turning to plastics made with alternatives to BPA in the hope that they're safer won't like what they're about to hear.
A new study [open, DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2018.06.070] [DX], published in the journal Current Biology, concluded that common alternatives to BPA caused harmful effects in mice, notably in their reproductive cells. The findings add to the mounting body of evidence that these alternatives carry their own health risks. As Science noted, if further research on animals and humans continues to support these findings, it could derail efforts to reassure the many consumers already nervous about the plastics in their food and drink containers that there are safe options to choose from.
The issue has been one of major concern in recent years, in part because of the work of Patricia Hunt, the Washington State University geneticist who led the team behind the new research. She first helped draw attention to the possible perils of BPA—bisphenol A in its long form—after stumbling on them by accident.
From the paper:
DuPont's 20th century slogan "better living through chemistry" has been borne out. Remarkable technical advances allow us to synthesize molecules and create subtle variations in them. Innovation, however, has outpaced our ability to understand the implications of the release of rapidly generated families of structurally similar chemicals into our environment. Our data add to and extend the growing concern about the harmful reproductive effects of one such family, the bisphenols. Although most data derive from rodent studies, given the developmental and reproductive similarities, concerns almost certainly extend to humans. Importantly, bisphenols are not the only chemical family with an ever-increasing array of diverse members; other prominent environmental contaminant families include the parabens, perfluorinated compounds (PFCs), phthalates, flame retardants, and quaternary ammonium compounds.
The ability to rapidly enhance the properties of a chemical has tremendous potential for treating cancer, enhancing medical and structural materials, and controlling dangerous infectious agents. Importantly, this technology has paved the way for "green chemistry," a healthier future achieved by engineering chemicals to ensure against hazardous effects. Currently, however, regulatory agencies charged with assessing chemical safety cannot keep pace with the introduction of new chemicals. Further, as replacement bisphenols illustrate, it is easier and more cost effective under current chemical regulations to replace a chemical of concern with structural analogs rather than determine the attributes that make it hazardous.
Also at Fortune.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Monday September 17 2018, @10:36AM (6 children)
Perhaps you could enlighten us, regarding all those reasons not to use glass? There is no chemical hazard. There is a danger of getting cut on a broken glass container, but geez, Louise, a little care goes a long way. Disposal? Recycle them. It takes a lot less energy and chemicals to recycle glass than to create new plastics. That removes a butt-ton of pollutants from our garbage stream. BTW - not all glass has to be "recycled" - just wash and sterilize the bottles, and fill them up again, for resale. It seems that Europeans and others have figured this out. Much of the world recycles, routinely. Americans? Not so much. We are the ultimate throw-away society.
Stainless steel is pretty expensive, not to mention energy intensive. It's not going to replace all the uses we have for bottles. Imagine the price of a pint of water at your local convenience store, if it were sold in stainless steel.
Stainless is good stuff, if you plan on reusing it for an extended period of time. I have a thermos which is over 30 years old. It still works perfectly, even if all the powder coat finish is knocked off of it. Of course, the more people who see the benefits of stainless, and start buying items made of it, the higher the price will go. Still, not a terrible idea - you buy it, and reuse it for years, so even relatively poor people can afford it the one time investment.
(Score: 4, Touché) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Monday September 17 2018, @10:38AM
Even if no one is injured, it means you need to replace the bottle. If you don't already have such a replacement on hand, your child will require years of therapy when it grows up.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 17 2018, @01:09PM
Kind of the opposite? Demand/supply thing. Stainless is cheap.
You buy food in steel cans? Stainless is only 4x as expensive to make. So if you pay like $0.05/can for steel and production, it is like $0.20 for the stainless. Of course that is like 100x the cost of plastic shit, but at least it lasts. I've used stainless bottles on my bike for more than a decade. Dropped them, dented them, they still work perfectly.
And no, can't use glass on a bike.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday September 17 2018, @02:53PM (2 children)
There's so many different ways that needs to go away... I think you might be too subtle when being sarcastic.
Glass just isn't very durable which makes be surprised "the powers that be" aren't pushing it harder. Figure the profits at walmart of selling one metal bottle per lifetime or at least per decade or two, vs selling replacement glasses a couple per year into perpetuity. My wife and I had genuine glass glasses when we got married, figured we'd enjoy the "luxury" before we had kids and had to go plastic for awhile, we ran out of glasses before we had kids... And we only waited a couple years.
(Score: 3, Informative) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Monday September 17 2018, @04:49PM (1 child)
There is a brand of water fountain that also has a spigot placed for the convenient filling of water bottles. Every time that spigot is used, an LCD counter is incremented to indicate the number of plastic bottles that have been avoided.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 18 2018, @03:38AM
It's also a good indicator of how many gallons of water that fountain has wasted. The water keeps flowing for a second after you remove the bottle. That water adds up quickly.
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Tuesday September 18 2018, @02:50AM
Sufficiently broken glass has the same environmental impact as a rock.