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 takyon on Monday September 17 2018, @05:10PM (1 child)
Maybe it needs less water than cotton, but irrigation is still going to be used by successful hemp farmers:
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/the_green_lantern/2011/04/high_on_environmentalism.html [slate.com]
https://hempindustrydaily.com/myth-busting-hemp-needs-more-water-than-many-think/ [hempindustrydaily.com]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Monday September 17 2018, @09:49PM
Yeah, just because a plant is "drought tolerant" doesn't mean that it grows well in dry, desert conditions.
But, there is another added benefit. Hemp is good for the soil. Maybe not as good as legumes, but it's good for the soil. A farmer who rotates crops will want to use hemp to restore depleted soil after a cotton or corn crop. Legumes are great, because they fix nitrogen in the soil, but hemp is almost as good, for other reasons.