Wednesday October 29, 2008 (foodconsumer.org) -- A new
Korean study published on Oct 9 in Archives of Toxicology suggests that
ingestion of bisphenol A or BPA may not increase risk of breast cancer.
The study led by Yang M at Sookmyung Women's University
in Seoul, Republic of Korea found there was no significant difference in blood
BPA levels between the breast cancer patients and women without the disease.
The researchers conducted the study to examine the
potential effect of bisphenol A exposure on breast cancer risk in Korean women.
They compared blood BPA levels in 167 breast cancer
patients and 167 controls. The blood samples were collected between 1994 and
1997.
"In age-matched subjects (N = 152), there were some
associations between BPA levels and risks of breast cancer, such as age at
first birth and null parity,' the researchers said in their report.
However, they found there were no significant differences
in blood BPA levels between the cases and the controls.
BPA has been suspected to affect the brain, reproductive
system and the immune system in humans. Animal studies have proved that BPA is
a dangerous chemical that affect a wide range of diseases including cancer.
Canada has banned use of BPA in plastic indicated to be
used for baby bottles or containers for baby formulas.
In the U.S. the
National Toxicology Program reviewed previous studies and found there is some
concern about the risk of BPA to young children and infants.
However, the Food and Drug Administration in August said
that BPA is safe at the current exposure level.
The way the FDA was handling the safety issue
has drawn criticism from lawmakers and safety advocates.
Recently, a subcommittee of the FDA Science Board
suggests that the agency's conclusion was flawed because the reviewers excluded
the studies that found an association between exposure to BPA and increased
risk of certain diseases.
The FDA argued that it only considered the
industry-funded studies, which found no risk whatsoever associated with BPA
exposure because these studies were better designed.
Disclaimer: What's published on this website should be considered opinions of respective writers only and foodconsumer.org which has no political agenda nor commercial ambition may or may not endorse any opinion of any writer. No accuracy is guaranteed although writers are doing their best to provide accurate information only.
The information on this website should not be construed as medical advice and should not be used to replace professional services provided by qualified or licensed health care workers. The site serves only as a platform for writers and readers to share knowledge, experience, and information from the scientific community, organizations, government agencies and individuals.
Foodconsumer.org encourages readers who have had medical conditions to consult with licensed health care providers - conventional and or alternative medical practitioners.
