"BPA on Receipts: Getting Under Our Skin"
The plastics chemical BPA was banned from baby bottles in Canada in 2008,
in France in 2010, in all of Europe in 2011, and in the United States in 2012.
But in 2015, France forbid the use of BPA in any food or beverage packaging,
something the U.S. FDA decided was not warranted.
But what about the 90+ studies reporting links between BPA levels
in people's urine with a wide array of adverse health outcomes?
Including an apparent significant increase in the likelihood of developing
heart disease and diabetes, obesity, impaired liver,
immune and kidney function, inflammation,
reproductive effects in women and men,
and altered thyroid function, and developmental deficits in children
such as aggressiveness, hyperactivity, and impaired learning.
Only a very small minority of studies appear to support
the federal government's assertions that there were no effects at low doses.
So where's the disconnect?
Governments determine safety levels
by sticking tubes down into the stomachs of lab animals.
The BPA is released directly into the stomach, where it goes to the liver
to be detoxified into an inactive form called BPA-glucuronide,
so very little active BPA gets into the bloodstream.
But that's not what studies on humans show.
People have active BPA in their blood,
and so the FDA response was to reject all such human studies as implausible.
The problem with a blanket rejection of human data
is that there may be sources of BPA exposure that are not modeled
by stomach tube exposure in rats.
After all, this isn't how food enters our bodies actually.
We chew it; we move it around in our mouths before it enters the stomach.
And it turns out BPA can be completely absorbed directly into the bloodstream
from the mouth, thus bypassing instant liver detoxification.
The same would be the case for BPA absorbed through the skin.
So-called thermal paper is 1 to 2% BPA by weight.
That's like cash register receipts, luggage tags, bus, train and lottery tickets.
Taking hold of a receipt can transfer BPA to our fingers,
especially if they're wet or greasy.
But does it then get absorbed into our system through the skin?
Well, cashiers were found to have more BPA flowing through their bodies,
but that was just based on a few people.
Same problem with studies showing those eating plant-based diets
having lower levels—too small of a sample size really to make a conclusion.
It's been estimated that even cashiers handling receipts all day long
may not exceed the tolerable intake.
However, if they're using something like hand cream, that could change.
Many skin-care products—hand sanitizers, lotions, soaps, and sunscreens—
contain chemicals that enhance skin penetration.
So using a hand sanitizer before touching a receipt could, in theory,
cause a breakdown of the skin barrier.
Theoretically that is, until now.
We now know that holding a receipt and eating food after using hand sanitizer
results in high blood levels of active BPA.
Researchers at the University of Missouri conducted a study
to mimic aspects of the behavior of people in a fast-food restaurant
where they observed people using hand sanitizer, handling a receipt,
and then eating food with their hands.
They found that when people handled the receipt right after using Purell,
BPA was transferred to their fingers, then fries,
and then the combination of absorption through the skin and the mouth
led to significant levels of active BPA in their blood.
You can hold a receipt in your hand for 60 seconds
and only come away with 3 micrograms in your body.
Whereas if you pre-wet your hands with hand sanitizer,
you can get 300 in just a few seconds, a hundred times more.
These findings show that just a few seconds touching a receipt
after using something like hand lotion could transfer large amounts of BPA,
and so this could explain why dozens of human studies show active BPA
in people's systems, contrary to the assumptions based
on stomach tube studies in rodents.
When actual evidence contradicts your assumptions,
you reject the assumptions,
but what the FDA did was instead reject the evidence.