BPA on Receipts: Getting Under Our Skin

BPA on Receipts: Getting Under Our Skin

September 15, 2019 65 By Ewald Bahringer


the plastics chemical BPA was banned from baby bottles in Canada in 2008 and 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 that US FDA decided was not warranted but what about the 90 plus 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 government’s determines safety levels by sticking tubes down to the stomach’s of lab animals the BPA is released directly into the stomach where goes to the liver to be detoxified into an inactive form called BPA glue karana 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 I mean we chew it we move it around 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 percent bpa by weight that’s like cash register receipts luggage tags bus train 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 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 hand handling receipts all day long may not exceed the tolerable intake however if they’re using something like hand cream that could change many skincare products hand sanitizers lotion soaps and sunscreens contain chemicals that enhance skin penetration so using a hand sanitizer before touching receipt could in theory cause a breakdown of the skin barrier theoretically that is until now we now know that holding 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’ve observed people using a hand sanitizer handling receipt and then eating food with their hands they found that when people handle 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 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 [Music] you