University of Missouri researchers claim that previous lab tests have underestimated exposures to bisphenol A (BPA). (Press release|Study).
However, the study has a number of limitations which suggest that it is not applicable to humans:
- Importantly, previous and on-going human studies have not found any evidence of unconjugated BPA in serum [Volkel, Csanady, Filser, Dekant. 2002. Metabolism and kinetics of bisphenol A in humans at low doses following oral administration. Chem Res Toxicol 15: 1281-7.]
- A number of human studies have not found evidence of bioaccumulation, regardless of the method of dosing. Perhaps most persuasive are intervention-biomonitoring studies. These suggest BPA does not bioaccumulate since levels in the urine rapidly decreases when intake is reduced [Rudel RA, Gray JM, Engel CL, Rawsthorne TW, Dodson RE, Ackerman JM, Rizzo J, Nudelman JL, Brody JG. 2011. Food Packaging and Bisphenol A and Bis(2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate Exposure: Findings from a Dietary Intervention. Environ. Health Perspec. doi:10.1289/ehp.1003170.].
- Rodents are not necessarily good models for human toxicokinetics. Rodents have enterohepatic recirculation that is likely to lead to the persistence of BPA in the bloodstream [Kurebayashi, Betsui, Ohno. 2003. Disposition of a low dose of C14-bisphenol A in male rats and its main biliary excretion as BPA glucuronide. Toxicol Sci 73:17-25.]. Humans have a more direct route for excretion of BPA and therefore are likely to have a smaller internal dose from the same external dose.
- The doses tested were 100,000 times higher than the expected human dose and thus there likely are issues with accurate extrapolation to realistic dose levels.
More junk science from Freddie vom Saal! Your tax dollars at work, folks.
The study will appear in Environmental Health Perspectives. Of course, it is junk science. Why waste time reading it?