Do you put more stock in this

http://www.ewg.org/bpa-in-store-receipts

or this?

http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/newsid.1686/news_detail.asp

American Council of Science and Health appears to be a debunking group.

In response to Reply # 0

This comment here, "In fact, the whole crusade against 'toxic chemicals' is a psychiatric issue, not a scientific one," essentially says all anyone needs to know about the ACSH in regards to this issue. Sounds very similar to the bright minded experts who until recently assured us that off shore oil wells were completely safe.

In response to Reply # 1

Who knew that laboratory rats suffered from mass hysteria.

In response to Reply # 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.

In response to Reply # 3

The EWG paper appears to be a research summary page, more like a Wikipedia page, than a news page. There are other news pages on that site. The Post page is news, and is likely the first that anybody's heard of this topic.

And I've now determined that my problem is with ...... drum roll....... the newspaper, the Washington Post. They start their article thusly:

"As lawmakers and health experts wrestle over whether a controversial chemical, bisphenol-A, should be banned from food and beverage containers, a new analysis by an environmental group suggests Americans are being exposed to BPA through another, surprising route: paper receipts."

WRONG!!!! MISLEADING!!!! ALARMIST!!!!!!

A "new analysis" does not suggest anything. This topic is OLD and has been a concern for DECADES!!! The EPA didn't start its thermal paper probe last month because of this "new analysis". It started it after years of expressed concerns.

As always, the newspapers are misleading us, in this case to alarm us.

Sam