Noticias sobre el BPA

Not that many years ago, many reusable food and beverage containers on the market worldwide were made from polycarbonate plastic.  Polycarbonate, which is made from bisphenol A (BPA), is an almost ideal material for these products since its clarity is comparable to glass, making it easy to see what’s inside, and it’s virtually shatter-proof – an important attribute for consumer products that could be dropped. For years though, BPA has attracted considerable attention from scientists, environmental activists and the media.  Ahora, como resultado de esa atención, muy pocos de estos productos son fabricados con policarbonato y, en su lugar, se utiliza una variedad de materiales alternativos.

With the high level of attention to bisphenol A (BPA) over the years, it’s easy to get the impression that BPA is everywhere and we’re constantly being exposed to high and harmful levels in our daily lives.  You might even have seen BPA referred to as an “everywhere chemical.”

Adding to the confusion, the media is notorious for attaching pictures of products that contain absolutely no BPA to articles about BPA.  Perhaps the most common examples are pictures of bottled water.  Single-serve bottles containing water, sports drinks or carbonated beverages are almost universally made from a plastic known as polyethylene terephthalate (PET), which has no connection to BPA at all.

Teniendo en cuenta un fascinante informe científico reciente desde Suiza, tal vez comience a escuchar demandas para eliminar la mostaza de nuestra dieta. La Oficina Federal de Seguridad Alimentaria y Veterinaria (FSVO) de Suiza recientemente informó que la mostaza contiene el químico bisfenol F (BPF). Sorprendentemente, el BPF no es un contaminante presente en envases ni en otras fuentes, si no que aparentemente se origina a partir de un componente que se halla de forma natural en las semillas de mostaza durante el procesamiento para la elaboración de la mostaza.

It is commonly perceived that natural chemicals are safe while manmade substances may be harmful.  These perceptions, however, if not supported by scientific evidence, can result in risk perception gaps that can cause us to worry more than warranted by the evidence.

Prof. Sir Stephen O’Rahilly MD FRS FMedSci, Professor of Clinical Biochemistry and Medicine and Director of the Metabolic Research Laboratories, University of Cambridge, said: “The findings of this very small study are highly preliminary and should not influence public health policy. La hipótesis de que la exposición al BPA durante el embarazo predispone a la obesidad en la niñez debe probarse más rigurosamente en muestras provenientes de estudios a largo plazo”.

En Speaking of Science, hacemos nuestro mayor esfuerzo por brindarle informes sólidos basados en argumentos científicos. But just in case you haven’t been paying attention, comedian John Oliver — host of “Last Week Tonight” — is here to school you. …A lot of this comes down to common sense: ¿algo de esto le suena un poco a locura? Si lo hace, probablemente quiera saber lo que los expertos que no formaron parte del estudio tienen para decir sobre esto.

Last week the South Korean Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (MFDS) published its risk assessment of BPA in the peer-reviewed scientific journal Environmental Research.  The MFDS is a government agency that is responsible for promoting public health by ensuring the safety of foods and other products.

Los detalles son importantes, pero lo que todo el mundo quiere saber son los resultados. El MFDS concluyó lo siguiente:

Llegamos a la conclusión de que no hay preocupación en cuanto a la salud de la población general coreana por la exposición a través de los alimentos ni por la exposición agregada [al BPA].

“Se necesita más investigación”. Esta es una frase final muy común en los documentos científicos, en particular, cuando se trata de estudiar los efectos de los químicos ambientales en la salud. Teniendo en cuenta la cantidad de reacciones químicas que se suscitan en nuestro cuerpo todo el tiempo, y la exposición a miles y miles de químicos, tanto naturales como sintéticos, es un enorme desafío bromear acerca de los efectos de una sola sustancia. That brings up the question of when the effort and funds invested in studying a chemical have been sufficient. ¿Existe un punto en el que continuar con investigaciones no nos lleva a grandes descubrimientos? Can research funds be better spent on alternate projects that are more likely to yield meaningful results? We may be reaching such a stage with bisphenol A (BPA), a chemical that has been the subject of more studies in the toxicological literature than any other.

Recent media stories have reported on two new scientific studies involving BPA’s effects on birth weight.  One study reported a statistical association between prenatal exposure to BPA and increased birth weight, while the other reported an association with decreased birth weight.

The latest skirmish in the war of anti-chemical crusaders against the food industry broke out in an unlikely place – the usually tranquil waters of Starbucks’ pumpkin spice latte. Vani Hari, author of the widely read Food Babe blog, recently kicked up a fuss by charging that the popular drink contains a cancer-causing substance called 4-mei, which is a byproduct of its caramel coloring.

As the name of her blog suggests, Ms. Hari trades on her trim physique to make up for her lack of credentials in chemistry, nutrition, or food science. No matter; not only was Starbucks forced to defend the healthiness of its product, but the Food and Drug Administration found it necessary to restate its longstanding position that there is “no reason to believe that at current levels it causes a health concern.” The FDA also noted that the amount of 4-Mei found in coffee is far exceeded by that in soft drinks, bread, and ice cream. But it’s difficult to counter the audience appeal of a headline like “Drink Starbucks? Wake Up And Smell The Chemicals!”