Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for July 27th, 2010

Poison!

Gosh, life sure is a scary place, isn’t it?  BPA is the new pants-wetting monster-under-the-bed.   Actually not new at all.

Cash-register receipts from many fast-food outlets, groceries, pharmacies, big-box stores and U.S. post offices contain high levels of the endocrine-disrupting chemical bisphenol A.

A study released late today by the Environmental Working Group reported that a laboratory analysis it commissioned found the plastic component BPA on 40 percent of receipts from McDonald’s, CVS, KFC, Whole Foods, Wal-Mart, Safeway and other businesses.

BPA is used to coat thermal paper, which reacts with dye to form black print on receipts handled by millions of Americans every day. In laboratory tests, the chemical has been linked to a long list of serious health problems in animals. Several environmental activists, including Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., also have called for removing BPA from canned goods.

Wash your hands – you should be doing that already – before you eat.  Oh, but they have an answer to that!

The EWG, a national nonprofit organization, is undertaking additional studies to determine whether and to what degree BPA enters the body. However, earlier this month Swiss scientist Sandra Biedermann and her colleagues from the Zurich Official Food Control Authority reported that BPA from register receipts can “enter the skin to such a depth that it can no longer be washed off.”

If it is so deep that it can’t be washed off it is deep enough to not get on my food.  Unless somehow the chemical is so frickin’ evil that it senses food and leaps out of our pores onto that food.  Since we always can trust Wikipedia:

While there is little concern for dermal absorption of BPA, free BPA can readily be transferred to skin and residues on hands can be ingested.

Back to the bedwetting article.

That finding raises the possibility that the chemical infiltrates the skin’s lower layers to enter the bloodstream directly, the EWG says.

The skin is really quite impressive in terms of what it can keep out and yes, there is always a possibility.  However, if you are only going to “raise the possibility” then it means it hasn’t been tested and hasn’t been quantified.

Ask yourself:  “Who is the EWG?”  “What is their agenda?”  “Who gives them money?”  “What do they consider a success story on any given chemical threat-du-jour?”

Read Full Post »