Skip to content

Endocrine Disruptors BPA, BPS, and Now BPSIP

 Studies are accumulating evidence that the hormone disrupting effects of compounds BPA (bisphenol A) and BPS (the common substitute for BPA) have numerous negative health effects in humans, including reproductive disorders. But now a second BPA substitute - BPSIP - is also being found in humans, and may be even more persistent than BPA and BPS. This is because they're all chemically similar, and all three are endocrine disruptors. This article points out that they have slightly different effects, and when we are exposed to more than one of them (which we are), then the health effects will be even more worrisome.

Unfortunately these plasticizers are in products all around us, and so detected within almost all of us. They're in food packaging containers (and therefore in food), water bottles, can linings, toys, personal care products, thermal paper products such as cash receipts, etc. Canned foods are considered one of the most significant routes of human exposure to bisphenol A (BPA).

Other endocrine disruptors include phthalates - so read personal care product labels to avoid these. Another way to lower exposure to endocrine disruptors is to buy and store food not in plastic containers, but in glass containers or stainless steel. Don't microwave food in any sort of plastic containers. Avoid products with fragrances in them, including air fresheners. Avoid flexible vinyl (e.g. shower curtains). (For all posts on endocrine disruptors, and an article from National Institutes of Health.) From PLOS Biology:

Wreaking Reproductive Havoc One Chemical at a Time

Bisphenol A (BPA), unlike DES, remained obscure until the 1950s, when chemists tapped it to make polycarbonate plastics and epoxy resins. BPA now tops the list of high-volume chemicals, and is found in numerous consumer products, including water bottles, food packaging containers and can linings, and thermal paper products like cash receipts and boarding passes (Fig 1). And because it can leach out of products, it’s been detected in the urine of nearly every person tested. It’s also been found in breast milk, follicular and amniotic fluid, cord blood, placental tissue, fetal livers, and the blood of pregnant women.

Hundreds of studies have associated the BPA levels found in most of us with reproductive disorders, cancers, obesity, and other adverse effects in both animals and humans. Although chemical manufacturers with a stake in the $16 billion BPA market continue to question this evidence, they’ve responded to safety concerns by offering BPA-free alternatives. But as a recent study in PLOS Genetics [1] shows, the new versions seem an awful lot like the original. When one chemical comes under scrutiny, manufacturers often substitute compounds with similar structures to save time and money. But similar structures often cause similar problems. And that’s exactly what the PLOS Genetics authors found.

Thinking BPA’s replacement, bisphenol S (BPS), might target the same pathways, Patrick Allard and his colleagues at the University of California at Los Angeles compared the effects of both substances....But, surprisingly, the authors say, the two bisphenols gummed up the works through somewhat different molecular steps. That means simultaneous exposure to BPA and BPS could potentially cause even more reproductive harm. Future studies will need to confirm this possibility, but it’s an unsettling prospect given the ubiquity of BPA and increasing use of BPS, which has already been found in food, shampoo, face cream and other personal care products, soil, and thermal paper products.

And now there’s another “safer” alternative to worry about, researchers reported in Environmental Health Perspectives [2]. Suspecting that cashiers would face higher exposures on the job, the authors screened their urine, blood, and receipts (as well as people who didn’t handle receipts) for BPA, BPS, and another analog called BPSIP. Cashiers’ BPA levels after work were highly variable, likely resulting from its widespread use, but levels of BPS and BPSIP were higher in most cases. Both BPS and BPSIP were also detected in people who weren’t cashiers....The authors were also surprised to see BPSIP in cashiers’ blood more often than the other compounds, suggesting it may be more persistent and our exposure more widespread than previously assumed. BPSIP’s health effects are unknown.

Much more is known about BPA’s estrogenic powers. Earlier this year Pat Hunt, who was among the first to report BPA’s ability to scramble mouse eggs [3], reported similar problems in mouse sperm in PLOS Genetics [4]. Low sperm counts, undescended testicles, malformed penises, and other reproductive anomalies have risen in recent decades, suggesting environmental estrogens may play a role. Hunt’s team investigated this possibility by exposing newborn male mice to BPA or a stronger synthetic estrogen, ethinyl estradiol, just when sperm differentiation begins. BPA exposure disrupts meiosis in males as it does in female mice, the authors discovered, but in different ways....

Health researchers are especially concerned about environmental contaminants that reach the womb during critical windows when even the slightest disturbance can rewire developmental programs to produce profound, irreversible changes that can take years to appear. These changes can cause a plethora of chronic health problems, including diabetes, cardiovascular disorders, birth defects, and cancer.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *