Bisphenol S (The BPA Replacment) alters hormones (just like BPA) at low doses

Not sure if the debunker community still cites as "conspiracy theory" the statement that bisphenol-A (aka BPA) messes with human hormones and is absorbed into the body thru ouch of BA products which include [most] retail register tape (what receipts are printed on) but it’s been proven to be harmful. While I guess you could debate whether or not the harmful effects of BPA were intentional (meaning the companies who produced it did so with full knowledge of its harmful side-affects), I'd like to see you make a logical argument for how its replacement, BPS or Biphenyl-S, is also by accident and not a harmful act willfully down.

Did any of you debunkers claim at some point in the past that the notion that BPA was harmful, and or that it messed with your hormones was just conspiracy theory? There was a time not too long ago when so called conspiracy theorists were warning of the dangers of BPA while the mainstream (like the media) were calling those people tin foil hat wearing nut jobs.

Let’s say BPA was just a freak accident and that it somehow passed al the test/study before being put into production despite its ability to wreak havoc on human hormones. Can you really make the same claim for its replacement? I mean what kind of industry makes this same kind of mistake twice in a row like this without willfully doing it?
You can get the details of the story and study at http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/news/2013/bpa-alternative-alters-hormones
 
I did make a comment that many folks that worry about the hormonal changes it might cause, seem to have no problem at all with soy products that do the same thing.

Eating tofu several times a week is going to mean that you receive a MUCH higher dose of 'hormonal change chemicals' than one does from eating a couple of cans of soup a week.
 
Wow no "That’s bunk/Conspiracy Theory" replies? Either no one cares or no one thinks this is important enough to try to debunk. Then again maybe BPA is one item that even the debunking community has finally admitted is exactly as toxic/bad as the conspiracy theory community has been warning about for years.
 
How many other things do the same thing? Like soybeans?

There is an ancient saying 'the DOSE makes the posion'. That is my opinion of BPA. In large quanities, it could cause some health issues, but so will salt or even water. In the amounts that most adults get, it is most likely not a problem.

I think it is good that it is no longer in infant products.

Toxic, maybe, harming folks I doubt like. Grilled meat has a cancer causing chemical in it, do you want all grilling of meat to cease?

Why don't you show us the evidence that it is harmful.
 
Not sure if the debunker community still cites as "conspiracy theory" the statement that bisphenol-A (aka BPA) messes with human hormones and is absorbed into the body thru ouch of BA products which include [most] retail register tape (what receipts are printed on) but it’s been proven to be harmful.

When did the 'debunker community' say this? I find it hard to believe they would have disagreed with that basic statement as the effects appear to have been well-studied since 2005. Even the FDA expressed concern.
Can you provide a quote or context for any denial?

Maybe the only thing they would disagree with is the claim that it was a deliberate plot to control population or turn everyone gay.

Bisphenol S's estragon mimicking qualities was also studied as early as 2005.

It appears to have been used as a legal alternative, legislation obviously hasn't bothered to catch up with it so companies will take advantage of that fact.



  • ^ Liao, C.; Liu, F.; Kannan, K. (2012). "Bisphenol S, a New Bisphenol Analogue, in Paper Products and Currency Bills and Its Association with Bisphenol a Residues". Environmental Science & Technology 46 (12): 6515. doi:10.1021/es300876n
    . edit
  • ^ Liao, C.; Liu, F.; Guo, Y.; Moon, H. B.; Nakata, H.; Wu, Q.; Kannan, K. (2012). "Occurrence of Eight Bisphenol Analogues in Indoor Dust from the United States and Several Asian Countries: Implications for Human Exposure". Environmental Science & Technology 46 (16): 9138. doi:10.1021/es302004w
    . edit
  • ^ Kuruto-Niwa, R.; Nozawa, R.; Miyakoshi, T.; Shiozawa, T.; Terao, Y. (2005). "Estrogenic activity of alkylphenols, bisphenol S, and their chlorinated derivatives using a GFP expression system". Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology 19 (1): 121–130. doi:10.1016/j.etap.2004.05.009
    . PMID 21783468
    . edit
  • ^ Viñas, R.; Watson, C. S. (2013). "Bisphenol S Disrupts Estradiol-Induced Nongenomic Signaling in a Rat Pituitary Cell Line: Effects on Cell Functions". Environmental Health Perspectives. doi:10.1289/ehp.1205826
    . edit

Content from External Source
 
The article you link to has a link to a study by the university of Texas - but that link does not work. The same link seems to be in all the articles on the 'net regarding this matter.

Do you have any other sources for this?

Do you have any evidence that BPS was introduced knowing that these effects existed, as opposed to, say, corporate laziness?

BTW you seem to have misunderstood what debunking is. If someone had said "BPA is harmful" debunkers should be asking "What is the evidence for that?"

And if the evidence stacks up then fair enough. And if the evidence does not stack up and support the claim then that can be pointed out, and the poor/insufficient EVIDENCE debunked.

Personally I have never seen any thing about BPA/S at all.
 
I believe that he misinterpeted a statement of mine. I pointed out that other things have the same estrogen mimicking properties that BPA does, like soybean products and that some of the folks that are the most concerned about BPA are also promoters of the consumption of soybean products.

I happen to see irony in that. I would get more estrogen mimicking chemicals from a Thanksgiving dinner of tofu turkey, than I would in a month of normal soup consuption and handling register tapes.

I would also like to know if the quanities from these are large enough to cause any health problems. Many folks consume a lot of soybean products and it hasn't caused them health problems.
 
Back
Top