HOME > Chowhound > Not About Food >
What have you made lately? Get great advice

Significant exposure to BPA increased miscarriage risk by 80%

mcf Oct 16, 2013 04:24 PM


If there's a better reason to avoid foods in BPA plastics and lined cans/containers, other than general endocrine disruotion, I don't know of it.

  1. eclecticsynergy Oct 19, 2013 04:48 PM

    One of the least acknowledged sources of BPA contamination is cash register receipts and credit card slips. These in turn transfer BPA to our hands, our wallets and especially to cash.

    A 2010 study tested paper money from 21 countries worldwide. ALL were found to be contaminated with high levels of BPA.

    Two links to the Journal of Environmental Science & Technology:



    "Limit handling of paper money, and when you do touch it, rinse your hands with water," the researcher (a professor of environmental science and toxicology) says, "and don't let children handle money either."

    1. eclecticsynergy Oct 17, 2013 07:52 PM

      Here's a headline on the subject.

      1. westsidegal Oct 17, 2013 10:48 AM

        this is one of the reasons i try to limit my exposure to bpa.
        i've been buying and storing my food, as much as possible, in glass for eons.

        1 Reply
        1. re: westsidegal
          mcf Oct 17, 2013 10:53 AM

          I have, too, and in jars or cans without bpa in the lininig (Eden foods). I stopped using any plastic storage containers in my kitchen. And no longer drink soda from cans or buy seltzer in plastic bottles.

        2. p
          pollymerase Oct 16, 2013 04:47 PM

          BPA is certainly nasty stuff and numerous studies suggests that it affects fertility/development, however I think the title of this piece is rather misleading.

          They don't explain how they got the 80% figure. They state that the median level of BPA is higher in women who miscarried, but without knowing more metrics about the population they studied.

          Most importantly, this isn't peer reviewed data. It's data that someone is presenting at a meeting, which frequently does not pass inspection by peer review. This happens to be a reputable conference, but that doesn't mean that once other people actually look at the data and methods that it will be considered valid.

          I'm not saying the findings aren't valid, important, or won't hold up to peer review (and I certainly think BPA is bad), however I think numbers and stats (which are incredibly easy to manipulate to support what your hypothesis/agenda is) are being cherry picked to sensationalize the study.

          4 Replies
          1. re: pollymerase
            PotatoHouse Oct 17, 2013 09:33 AM

            1. It even says that it is "according to abstract data."

            2. 114 subjects is not a respectable data pool.

            I would want harder facts.

            1. re: PotatoHouse
              mcf Oct 17, 2013 10:00 AM

              The hard fact is that we all test positive for BPA in our systems, an limiting our exposure reduces them effectively. Another hard fact is that we don't have a good idea just how severe the manifestations of such endocrine abnormality is in humans yet, and this raises a question long overdue for answers.

              1. re: mcf
                ipsedixit Oct 17, 2013 08:08 PM

                The hard fact is that there is no causal link, only an association (at best).

                1. re: ipsedixit
                  mcf Oct 18, 2013 06:18 AM

                  Very strong association, even more so in shorter lived critters living in waterways.

                  It's kind of a no brainer to avoid unnecessary exposure to endocrine disruptors now, not later. Kind of like the wisdom of quitting smoking during the decades cigarette companies denied any proof of harm from it.

          Show Hidden Posts