Green Tips & Tricks

Science News has the scoop on the latest Bisphenol A revelation: Sales receipts may be as big a source of exposure as the hard polycarbonate plastics dominating news about the hormone-mimicking chemical.

The amount of Bisphenol A found in receipts is orders of magnitude greater than that found in plastics, Science News quotes John C. Warner, an organic chemist and co-founder of the Warner Babcock Institute for Green Chemistry, as saying. Additionally, the BPA in most coated paper receipts and credit card sales receipts is much more freely available than the BPA in plastics, which leach more chemicals after being damaged or heated. (BPA is also found in the lining of most canned goods.) Warner believes BPA might be absorbed through the skin, in a manner similar to birth control patches and other hormone-delivery medical treatments.

Considering more than 90% of U.S. currency has traces of cocaine, just imagine how much Bisphenol A is lingering around. You stuff a receipt in your wallet, some gets on your hands and some gets on your cash. You pay for a hot dog with that cash, and some gets on your hot dog.

Warner's research hasn't been published, so other scientists have not reviewed his results. Considering the many suspected health problems associated with exposure to the synthetic estrogen -- diabetes, prostate cancer, developmental and reproductive problems, breast cancer and recently behavioral problems -- it seems wise to check this research out.

In the meantime, consumers have little recourse but to avoid receipts whenever possible, and to wash hands frequently.

For more information about Bisphenol A and the other ubiquitous hormone-disrupting chemical of the moment, phthalates, see The Daily Green's How to Avoid Bisphenol A and Phthalates. Also see how to avoid exposure to Bisphenol A and other breast cancer risk factors.

This is the second inflammatory study I've read recently, with reports in the press but the study itself hasn't been published.  This can lead to a lot of fear without the benefit of the study being double-checked by an independent source.  It's rather like trying to edit your own book, and missing half the mistakes you made because they still look right to you.  Plus some bias because making a big splash about the study gets you a lot of attention and probably helps get it published.  And even if later scientists prove him wrong, the publicity and fear mongering are still out in the news, and a rebuttal won't be as exciting to publish or talk about.