In response to In response to 0

They're both interesting. The ACSH article appears to ridicule without offering any reason.

But the article you didn't post was the Washington Post report, which includes:
"In some cases, the total amount of BPA on the receipt was 1,000 times the amount found in the epoxy lining of a can of food, another controversial use of the chemical."

THIS IS NOT TRUE. The EWG article never says this. What it says is:

"The Missouri scientists found that the total mass of BPA on a receipt is 250 to 1,000 times greater than the amount of BPA typically found in a can of food or a can of baby formula, or that which leaches from a BPA-based plastic baby bottle into its contents."


The CAN itself has much more BPA than that which leaches into its contents. The EWG report is comparing the total mass of BPA in a receipt to the mass of BPA in the CONTENTS of food package, not in the package itself. This is probably correct, and should lead to further study. How much BPA does a person receive from handling a BPA-laden receipt? What if that person is a store clerk who handles a thousand receipts a day?

This is EXACTLY the kind of thing that should be studied. But the need for more study doesn't match the alarmist tone of the Post's story.

The EWG article goes on to say:
"These data should not be interpreted to suggest that policymakers shift their focus from BPA contamination of food, which is widespread, to receipts. BPA exposure from food sources is ubiquitous and should remain the first priority of U.S. policymakers. However, a significant portion of the public may also be exposed to BPA by handling receipts. Since many retailers do not use BPA-laden thermal paper, this particular route of exposure is easy to correct."

BEAUTIFUL!!! Exactly correct and very sensible.