Are Concerns About BPA Overblown?

BPABy now I’m sure most of you have heard claims that bisphenol A (BPA) is a harmful chemical that should be avoided as much as possible. Perhaps you even read that on this blog.

Researchers, clinicians, environmental groups and the media have all sounded the alarm on BPA, pointing to a large body of animal evidence which suggests that it has estrogenic effects (i.e. increases estrogen activity) which in turn cause numerous health problems, ranging from obesity to infertility.

But recent evidence in humans (and animals) has led me to reconsider my original position on BPA. In a commentary published in the journal Toxicological Sciences, Dr. Richard M. Sharpe, a leading global expert on male reproductive health, reviews several studies which suggest that BPA is an extremely weak estrogen at levels of exposure that humans are likely to experience in the real world. (1) In fact, even at levels 4,000 times higher than the maximum exposure of humans in the general population, there are “no discernible adverse effects”. (2) Studies conducted by other groups on oral exposure to BPA at doses obtained in everyday life have also failed to find any negative effects on reproductive health or sexual development. (3) Sharpe explains that much of the early research indicating harm from BPA was flawed because it used far larger doses than humans could ever reasonably be exposed to, or methods of delivery (i.e. injections or implants) that don’t reflect real-world routes of exposure.

The history of science is the history of scientists being wrong most of the time. Tweet This

The history of science is the history of scientists being wrong most of the time

These findings may come as a surprise to you. They may even shake your faith in science. After all, if scientists were so wrong about BPA, what else are they wrong about?  Plenty—as I’m sure you already know. (Cholesterol and heart disease? Salt and high blood pressure? Giving estrogen to post-menopausal women to prevent heart disease? The list goes on and on.) It wouldn’t be a stretch to say that the history of science is the history of scientists being wrong about most things most of the time. If you doubt this, just look back even 100 years at prevailing opinions in science and medicine. Unfortunately, we often forget that people living 100 years from now will look back at our closely held beliefs with the same mixture of amusement and scorn. Dr. Sharpe alludes to this in his commentary:

Anyone involved in biomedical research knows that scientific ‘‘facts’’ that remain untouched by the ravages of further research are a rare commodity. Usually, most facts change their form with time (evolve), and their meaning, and probably their importance, also will change. Disappointing as this may be for our scientific egos, it represents something far more important—scientific progress. It is inevitable that scientific progress, in the form of new facts, will trample over our bright ideas, hypotheses, and even over our results. This apparently destructive process is in fact constructive, and as scientists, we have to embrace this evolution and to accept that the sacrifice of our initial beliefs (and our precious results and our interpretations) is part and parcel of advancing understanding.

That’s one of the most refreshing and honest passages I’ve ever encountered in a scientific paper.

Another issue is that policy makers, clinicians, the media, (and I would argue) the general public want certainty and black and white answers. Yet the process of scientific inquiry is inherently full of uncertainty and “gray areas”. Again from Dr. Sharpe—this time from an interview in Forbes Magazine (4):

There’s still the camp who is ignoring a lot of the evidence, and which remains the most vociferous. One of the issues is that in science nothing is ever absolutely black or white; but if you ignore a lot of the evidence – the bits that don’t fit – you can make something black and white…

…What is never stressed enough is that scientists work at “the borders of ignorance” – what is in front of us is unknown and we try to find our way forward by making hypotheses based on what is known. This means that we are wrong most of the time, and because of this scientists have to be very cautious about interpretations that are based on our projected ideas about what is on front of us. What decision-makers, politicians and the public want is unequivocal guidance, not uncertainty. So this creates a dilemma for scientists. Those who are more prepared to throw caution to the winds and make unequivocal statements are more likely to be heard, whereas a more cautious scientist saying “we’re not sure” will not be taken notice of. The bisphenol A saga has until recently been a story of such contrasts.

The messy intersection between science and humanity

Sharpe’s comments highlight the messy intersection between science and humanity. Most of us don’t tolerate uncertainty very well. We want clearly defined, unequivocal answers that we can act on. I suspect this is an evolutionary mechanism: if we’re exposed to a threat in a natural environment, indecision or uncertainty could threaten our survival. Unfortunately, this (innate?) desire for certainty works against us in the realm of scientific inquiry, which instead invites us to live in a world of gray where “right” and “wrong” are moving targets and relative terms. As Dr. Sharpe said above, scientific progress requires us to continually challenge our beliefs and revise our hypotheses when they are no longer supported by the evidence.

Does this mean we should disregard all scientific research? This is perhaps a natural response, but I don’t think it’s the right one. It is possible—though not always easy— to separate good evidence from bad. For example, one of the golden rules of scientific research is that an original result be repeatable by large studies conducted in a rigorous manner by researchers at other laboratories. Bisphenol A failed this test, as studies following the initial negative findings did not support the conclusion that BPA is estrogenic. Yet there are many other findings we can be more confident of, because the quality of evidence supporting them is higher.

Speaking personally, this is yet another reminder that humility and a spirit of curiosity and non-attachment are perhaps the most important qualities I can cultivate as a research-oriented clinician. I have been wrong before and I most certainly will be wrong again. I can’t guarantee that everything I write here is correct, and won’t be disproven or at least altered in some way at a future date. But the commitment I can make to you is that I will continue to challenge my assumptions and beliefs, and admit when I am wrong. That’s the best I can do—and I believe it’s the best anyone working in science or medicine can promise.

Why avoiding BPA still might be prudent

Though I’m impressed with Dr. Sharpe’s critique of the research suggesting that BPA has estrogenic activity, I’m not yet ready to proclaim that BPA is harmless. There are two reasons for this. First, as you can imagine, Sharpe’s critique—and others like it— have been challenged by many of the scientists who’ve published work suggesting BPA has estrogenic activity. In a six-page letter to the editor in Toxicological Sciences, Dr. Fredrick vom Saal, who published the seminal 1997 study indicating that low doses of BPA have estrogenic effects, defended his hypothesis. (5) He argued that his team’s initial results have, in fact, been replicated by many other groups around the world, and as of March 2005 there were 104 publications reporting in vivo estrogenic activity of BPA in animals and humans at doses lower than the current reference dose in the USA of 50 µg/kg/day. He also points out that some prominent critics of the BPA-estrogen connection have longstanding ties with chemical corporations, which casts suspicion on their motives.

Second, there’s a large body of research suggesting that BPA may have other harmful effects above and beyond its estrogenic activity. For example:

  • A 2008 review found an association between higher BPA exposure and cardiovascular disease, diabetes and elevated liver enzymes. (6
  • A study published in 2012 found that maternal exposure to BPA decreases thyroid hormone levels in male (but not female) babies at birth. (7)
  • A 2013 study demonstrated an association between postnatal urinary concentrations of BPA and asthma in children. (8)
  • Another 2013 study found a relationship between urinary BPA concentrations and childhood behavioral and learning development. (9)

These studies are observational, so the standard caveats apply. (And we’re not going to see randomized clinical trials evaluating BPA’s harmful effects because such research wouldn’t be ethical.) So we’ll have to just live with the uncertainty until the data become more clear.

In the meantime, I prefer to avoid plastic as much as possible because I see little downside to doing so. I dislike using plastic water bottles and containers for several reasons (possible health consequences, environmental impacts, taste, etc.), and my family has already made the shift to using stainless steel and glass instead of plastic for storing and transporting food and beverages. I don’t think I’ll ever look back and say, “Gee, I sure wish I would have used more plastic containers,” but I can certainly see myself regretting NOT eliminating them if it turns out that BPA and other plastics do have harmful effects. (For recommendations on how to reduce plastic use, see my previous article on plastic food containers.)

I’d like to close with one last quote from Dr. Sharpe (from his commentary in Toxicological Sciences):

If this short opinion piece does nothing else, I hope that it will remind us all of the central importance to be attached to the repeatability of experiments and how we should react when a study proves to be unrepeatable. As scientists, we all like our ideas and hypotheses to be proved correct; yet, there is equal merit in being proved wrong. The ideal hypothesis is one that can be shot at, and in most cases, it ends up full of holes (at best). This is the tried and trusted way via which scientific understanding moves onward, and ultimately, our own convictions and presumptions cannot stand in its way.

Now I’d like to hear from you? How did this post affect you? Does it make you less likely to trust scientific studies? Have you taken steps to reduce your exposure to BPA—and will you continue to do so?

Like what you’ve read? Sign up for FREE updates delivered to your inbox.

  • I hate spam too. Your email is safe with me.

Comments Join the Conversation

  1. K piper says

    I appreciate the lack of ego or agenda. I appreciate the personal rationale for your choices and sharing of your personal conclusions. I find the black and white answers (which are so often wrong) make it hard to trust any information. I’m grateful for a two sided reporting and the clear declaration of your biases. I appreciate the grey.

  2. Sarah says

    Hi Chris,

    Here’s why I remain cautious about BPA. I have Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome. I have it under control through a combination of diet & livestyle changes and supplements. The supplements were all geared at reducing inflamation (ginger, turmeric, etc.), the dietary changes are mainly low sugar/carb and no MSG and no drinking from plastic bottles. Now that my condition is stable, I find I can loosen up on the sugar/carb intake and the MSG avoidance a little without overt adverse effects. But when I buy juice or ice tea in those plastic bottles a couple days a week for a couple of weeks, I start putting weight back on and I’ll usually find my menstrual regularity starts to wobble. The symptoms disappear again with avoidance. I know this is just one person’s experience but it dovetails very well with the research and I’ll keep avoiding BPA for this reason.

    • KC says

      Sarah, have you considered that it could be the juice/ice tea itself that makes you put on weight? After all, they contain sugar even if it’s ‘natural’ sugar. Just a thought….. :)

    • Angel says

      I also have a sensitivity to BPA, that I developed from drinking water from a Nalgene bottle for at least a year. My symptoms were identical to those I got when I developed a sensitivity to soy (which also has estrogenic stuff). The symptoms occasionally recur, and they seem to recur when I eat canned foods … the cans’ liners often contain BPA. So I avoid BPA too. I think it’s nasty stuff.

      • says

        Angel, How did you know at the time that your trouble was the BPA? I’m curious what symptoms or feelings they were and then how to came to get it diagnosed.

    • Karl says

      The juice and ice tea are probably worse than the BPA. There are too many variables I think. Try eating cans of Del Monte green beans and see what happens. It has 1,140ppb of BPA.

      On a side note, when I eat cans of salmon at 14.75oz on subsequent days, my urine will smell. I’m unsure what’s causes that. The only thing I purchase canned is fish.

  3. Shabnam Das Kar says

    Perhaps what we do need to consider is not the effects of BPA alone, but the interaction of all xenoestrogens together. I read this today. What do you think?

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23530988

    Conclusions in the article:
    In mixtures expected to be found in contaminated environments, xenoestrogens can have dramatic disrupting effects on hormonal mechanisms of cell regulation and their downstream functional responses, altering cellular responses to physiologic estrogens.

  4. Dennis D says

    You are missing the elephant in the room — human germ cell impacts caused by endocrine disrupting compounds. True that BPA may have little discernable impact on you and even your fetus. But what about the fetus’s most vulnerable and molecularly sensitive tissue–its germ cells (egg and sperm precursors), these cells develop into the grandchild generation. Plenty of evidence demonstrates germline havoc caused by BPA and other endocrine disruptors. For that reason alone BPA should be banned.

    • Rachel Ernst says

      This point by Dennis D about human germ cell impacts is the most alarming point made here. My daughter carries with her all the eggs she will ever produce. BPA may or may not be the best thing for us, but are we ever surprised with the next bad thing turns up in headlines? (mainly independent bloggers who turn these things up!) We have to use our common sense, intuition, and ancestral wisdom teaching to help guide us, along with our science.

  5. Tim says

    Since BPA wasn’t part of the human diet a thousand or ten thousand or one hundred thousand years ago, why would anyone need any type of study to know that BPA is not meant for human consumption? We don’t need a scientific study or any rationalization or any observation to know this. It is intuitively obvious. And our intuition is a form of truth.

    BPA and other manmade chemicals should not be in our food. Period.

    • Tim timler says

      Oh man, you know what we also didn’t have tens of thousands of years ago? Cabbage, broccoli, cauliflower, bananas, heck just about any animal or plant that you consume that you did not hunt or gather is the result of selective breeding and are man-made. You can also bet your boots that the result of that are that those food products have differing chemical properties than their forbears on which our forbears 30,000 years prior were munching.

      Intuition is a stupid way to make decisions. Evidence and reason is the way to go.

      • Raiden says

        You can’t compare breeding to BPA.

        Breeding took place because people liked traits and wanted to eat these traits more. So they bred animals to have these traits.

        These traits were already present 20000 years ago, in different combinations.

        That is my understanding. But nobody ever said “hey, this Bisphenol-A contaminated meat tastes great!”

  6. Zizzy says

    I’m more concerned about the perception that storing water and food in metal containers is somehow better for you than some plastics. As someone allergic to nickel (15% of women are), I have learned how overexposed we are to metals in general, and how many metals like nickel “sweat” into our food and water. I personally can’t stand the taste of water from a metal drinking kanteen. I can only do glass or plastic.

    • says

      I agree, even metals can be problematic. I’ve also never liked the taste of water when I drink from a metal canteen. I have switched to a glass canteen that I carry everywhere and have never looked back. The other problem with focusing on whether or not a particular man-made (or natural compound in unnatural concentrations) is bad for health is that it may only be the tip of the ice berg. If BPA is eventually vindicated from being a health scourge, does that mean drinking from plastic bottles is now safe? Not necessarily because there may my many other overlooked or unknown compounds in plastic that make it dangerous for other reasons. I feel the same about supplements vs. real food or other environmental sources of “nutrients”. For example, sure you could get your vitamin D in supplement form if you’re too busy to spend enough time in direct sunlight to produce it yourself, but then you may be missing out on many other benefits of sunlight exposure, such as its beneficial effects on circadian rhythms, other compounds that might be produced in the skin as co-factors of vitamin D synthesis, etc. This is where the ancestral health framework is a useful guiding heuristic for what is likely good about natural sources of physiologically-important inputs (i.e., nutrients, broadly defined), and avoiding newer and more “unnatural”, in the sense of being outside of the range of environmental exposures in our evolutionary past, agents that may be harmful in ways we don’t yet know.

      • Justin Kameran says

        Glass is a must for liquid. I agree wholeheartedly about metal and water; yuck. I can’t see any harm in storing food in stainless steel containers. What harms has been identified from stainless steel?

        • Finndian says

          Stainless steel is made by adding a small amount of nickel to the metal to make it rust free. The most common cause of a nickel allergy is a body piercing. A nickel allergy is the top cause of allergic dermatitis. One would assume the molecules of nickel make it into the bloodstream when a sterilized stainless steel post is put through an earlobe or other body part as the body mounts an attack against these invaders.

          Having said that what would happen if you simmered a soup in a stainless steel lined pan for a number of hours. What if the soup were acidic?

          • modernprimitive says

            nickel is not what makes it “stainless steel”. chromium adds corrosion resistance and stain(rust) resistance. it does this by creating a layer of chromium oxide on the surface of the steel. nickel is mostly used to add hardness to the steel. 18/0 stainless steel contains 0 nickel in it’s formulation, and you can find cooking and storage containers made from 18/0 stainless. there are also a handful of cookware manufacturers that produce titanium cookware. titanium grades 1-5 do not contain nickel. and as far as body jewelry is concerned, there are again many materials, and grades of those materials used. when purchasing stainless steel body jewelry, you should only buy certified 316lvm. 316 LVM is more pure do to it’s processing, and it forms a more substantial surface layer, which helps to protect the host body from reactions to the nickel content of the material. that is why 316lvm is the only implant grade stainless steel. there are also the options of titanium and niobium which are nickel free and non allergenic. titanium grade 5 is certified as implant grade as well. there is no reason to fear metals, when you use the correct metal for the job.

      • La Tannee says

        We live in a chemical world, there is no way back. The food itself contains much more harmful chemical (pesticides and fongicides) than the packaging.
        Packaging coating should be inert (metal coating), though plastic is obviously the exception.
        Chemicals in food are meant to be absorbed. Who will investigate this aspect ?

  7. says

    Thank you so much for posting this. After reading the recent critiques of the “Red Meat is bad” articles, I have become a little disillusioned with science. However, this is very refreshing and honest. Science isn’t bad, not should it never be trusted, but it allows me to abandon the black/white thinking I had and invite some reasonable skepticism.

    Thanks for posting!

  8. Heidi says

    I also appreciate the honesty of this post. Thank you. It’s best to remain a truth seeker than a believer.

  9. says

    Scientists like dictirs are regarded as infallible by most people but it is so important to remember that health and science are just theories not concrete facts! There is still so much we don’t know or understand about science. So what to believe? I tend to trust my own experience above all else and to remain open and curious instead of convinced and opinionated.

  10. Kit C. says

    Science “works” by constantly critique and review of prior science, so none of us should be losing our “faith” in science and scientists. Instead we should be questioning ourselves; do we take to heart the recommendations in a scientific article because we understand the information being presented, or simply because we want to “believe”? Science is about repeatable facts, not belief, so make your decisions based on what makes sense to you, not “faith” in science. If you don’t understand it, dig deeper and into as unbiased a source as possible (that can be a tough one); be honest enough with yourself to see if you are just confirming your own bias or are actually looking at all sides of the issue. That is a hard thing to do though when so much of the popular press journalism regarding science is darn close to abysmal, and there is certainly a concerted effort being made by some to render all science suspect in order to push or protect their agenda.

    In other words: think for yourself!

  11. Mark says

    Omniscience is not a prerequisite of certainty.

    “…A man does not know everything, but he does know what he knows. The choice is not: to make unwarranted, dogmatic claims or to give up the cognitive quest in despair. Both these policies stem from the notion that omniscience is the standard. One side then pretends to have access to it somehow, while the other bewails our lack of such access. In reason, however, this kind of standard must be rejected. Conceptual knowledge rests on logic within a context, not on omniscience. If an idea has been logically proved, then it is valid and it is an absolute — contextually.”
    - http://www.peikoff.com/opar/certainty.htm

  12. says

    Dr. Orva: Here. You smoke this, and be sure you get the smoke deep down into your lungs.
    Miles Monroe: I don’t smoke.
    Dr. Orva: It’s tobacco. It’s one of the healthiest things for your body. Now go ahead. You need all the strength you can get.
    From Sleeper, where in the future Woody Allen finds out how wrong science was in the past.

  13. says

    Honestly, I don’t trust one two or even 20 research papers about BPA, Soy is safe, Fluoride in our water is safe, The drugs that have made it into our water supply have no effect but at the same time I don’t want to be an alarmist I remember when I was a kid they were making a big deal about CFC causing the hole in the ozone. Well it turns out the crap they replaced it with is worse for global warming.

    The problem I see with my patients is that they are extremely over chemically exposed that they human body has little to no means to excrete naturally. We have to pick our battles, eat food that is minimally processed and local (to at least avoid trucking it in from half a world away). Drink “pure” water and pray that you can deal with the airborne stuff (both indoor and outdoor).

    So I don’t think we should “unsound” the alarm we need to avoid as many man made chemicals as possible and if we can get BPA out we may be able to deal with a few other chemicals that we cant remove from our food supply

  14. Frank says

    My understanding is that water bottles or any other plastic container with the number 1 stamped at the bottom does NOT contain BPA. If this is the case, then why is everyone always saying otherwise?

    I really don’t want to drink any amount of BPA’s, not even trace amounts, and I thought that plastic number 1 doesn’t contain any (number 6 or 7 may). I also don’t like tap water because of the chlorine, fluoride, heavy metals, and possible trace pharmaceutical drugs that may be in it.

    Am I right in drinking bottled water coming from a clean spring water source from northern Canada (with zero fluoride) or am I just trading one set of harmful substances with another?

  15. Amy says

    Great post! I think this gets to the core of my what I believe- We shouldn’t just jump from one study to the next proclaiming that it “proves” everything (or anything). Rather, it would serve us all well to use some common sense. If BPA is not as harmful as they say, maybe it won’t kill me. Then again, it’s a man made chemical that isn’t found in nature. Seems to me to the common sense would be to limit exposure to any kind of toxin.

    thanks for your great analysis!

  16. Zelyna says

    I appreciate the clarity given in this article that science is not “an exact”, and research can change. I do, and have already taken the steps to cut down on my use of plastic simply to keep my carbon footprint lighter. I hate thinking about how much plastic is sitting around in landfills today, or in our oceans. If BPA is as bad as most think it is, then those chemicals are leaching into our soils and making this Earth less habitable.

  17. Kiyomi says

    I LOVE that you are not afraid to cover a lot of controversial topics! They are my favorite to read! I think it takes great courage.
    I appreciate that you give such a great background on both sides of these issues. I think I am finally being educated from an honest non biased perspective. I think I’m Learning more from your posts than I have anywhere else on these issues.

  18. says

    There are so many chemicals in this world that we have yet to discover that is causing all of us a great deal of harm. So my attitude about BPA is… While I don’t actively seek it out and ingest it… I am not going to FLIP OUT if I happen to use a bottle that is labeled # 7 or if I microwave a plastic container every once in awhile (well, I just make sure those are microwave safe for the fact that I don’t need it MELTING). There will ALWAYS be conflicting views on what’s healthy and what’s not. I am just going to stick to my guns and eat tomatoes out of the can – lol.

      • finndian says

        Kuerig type of coffee cartridges that brew a plastic cup in 192 degree boiling water then force the BPA laden “soup” into your cup of coffee. If the cartridges were BPA free they would say it on the packaging and they do not.

        Double yuck!

  19. Mare says

    We ALL carry such a huge toxin load in our bodies today, far more than at any other time in man’s history so if one can help cut down at least some of their overall body burden with a little extra effort and a tad less convenience (we are far too reliant today on convenience and what’s easiest to use but often to our own detriment) by avoiding storing food and drink in plastic containers then I say go for it!

  20. Loretta says

    Chris, I’ve been trying to eat more whole foods, grass fed meat, low carb, no sugar, no wheat or grains type of diet. What do you think about “whole food supplements”? Are they necessary/advisable/helpful? Also, i’ve noted that some of the ingredients include wheat. Any input you could give would be much appreciated. Thanks :-)

  21. Jaymi says

    I’m not sure I agree with our concerns with BPA being overblown. As part of my master’s program I authored a paper (unpublished) reviewing the most recent literature on low dose effects of BPA exposure in the pre- and pos- natal periods. At best, the literature is conflicting and indeterminate. I think the best conclusion that can be made is that we don’t know what we don’t know and we have little understanding between acute high dose exposure as compared to chronic low dose exposure.

  22. Ashley says

    Does this mean you are still using your sous vide? I’m trying to decide on getting one or not, but all this BPA and EA stuff is making me wary. Do the benefits outweigh the issues?

  23. says

    I am not familiar with bisphenol A. But I am surprised that this thing is present to food packaging, the epoxy lining of metal food and beverage cans, and plastic bottles. It is a good thing that there are more ways to find if an organic compound is harmful to human beings.

  24. Michael says

    Chris,

    You’ve mentioned in the past the benefits of a grass fed, raw milk, nondenatured whey protein as a source of glutathione building blocks. What are your thoughts on IV administered glutathione? Is this something that should only be done for a few months to correct deficiency while starting a good food/supplement plan to supply the body with the necessary precursors (Whey/Glycine/NAC)? Is there a good test to take to check someones glutathione status? Any risks to glutathione IV therapy or potential side effects that would be analogous to exogenous bioidentical hormones suppressing the HTPA? Hearing more about detoxification, lab tests, and therapeutic protocols on the podcast would be great. Thank you for the countless hours of your time spent helping educate others.

  25. says

    This post for me has helped to make me see a different side of BPA but in the same breath I am not sure if I could get past all the negatively charged reports and “side effects” that I have seen from countless studies. As easy as it is to see those studies and always be against it I would like to now do more research and read more into this side of things and see where that takes me.

  26. Carrie Soltesz says

    My daughter, now age 14, reacts to BPA. It took us FOREVER to discover this, as she is also highly sensitive to gluten & corn. But when we finally connected the dots and eliminated not only plastic, but absolutely all cans, non stick pans and even the coffeemaker (old glass Pyrex perculator to the rescue!) she finally started to heal. The last rash, years old, is gone, her bloating is minimal and her ability to tolerate trace gluten has actually improved slightly.
    What interests me the most (and was “proof pudding” to me, in hindsight) is what happened when we did eliminate BPA. She had had over a year and a half of stable periods, but then she immediately skipped a cycle, and then bled every two weeks for three months. It took 6-7 months for her to get back on track. She also started having hot flashes, crawly skin & disrupted sleep. I bought blood lab after blood lab on my own, trying to detect estradiol. (E2) Her levels were post menopausal (read: non existent), and I finally ended up having to put her on Vivelle, which we are now thankfully starting to be able to taper off after about a year. (She also bears some, but not all, symptoms of PCOS.)
    The thing is, I couldn’t get doctors to listen to me. Because her body was very well devoloped – she started budding at eight – no one would accept that she had an estrogen deficiency despite the repeated labs and menopausal symptoms.
    I firmly believe that her young body mistook BPA for its own estradiol/estrogen, overdeveloped early, but that the ovaries, awash in what they were supposed to be producing, underdeveloped and became “toasted”, if you will.
    I do NOT believe every young girl is in danger of this! But she was, and so will be some others. PCOS & gluten-plus-several-other allergies seem to normally accompany it.
    In summary, I’ve always said that if you sat myself, my mother and my daughter on a lab table and gave all three of us the same dose of the same medicine (adjusted for weight), the medicine would be too weak for me, too strong for my daughter & WAY too strong for my mother. That’s why medicine is an Art and a Practice, not a science. It is Not A Science. There is no “control group” for a human being.

  27. chris says

    I avoid all cans now because of Bpa, even the new ones because they leach Bps.
    I have been using the paper tetrapaks.. They are lined with metallocene-based linear low-density polyethylene. I have been trying without success to search for potential problems with this material.. Does it leach anything into food? Thought this might be a good topic for you to discuss, and hopefully shed some light on it.

Join the Conversation