Lowered Thyroid Hormones Found in Baby Boys Exposed to Bisphenol A

A new study is the first to link the ubiquitous chemical--found in hard plastics, canned foods and paper receipts--with altered thyroid hormones in babies















Share on Tumblr

Beautiful Baby Boy is Cute and Positive

A new study is the first to link the ubiquitous chemical with altered thyroid hormones in babies Image: Flickr/epSos.de

Pregnant women exposed to higher levels of the chemical bisphenol A gave birth to baby boys with lower thyroid hormones, according to a new study published today.

The study by University of California, Berkeley, scientists is the first to link the ubiquitous chemical – used in hard plastics, canned food liners and some paper receipts – to altered thyroid hormones in babies, and it adds to evidence that BPA may have some effects on fetuses.

For every doubling of the mothers’ BPA levels, there was 9.9 percent less thyroid-stimulating hormone in their baby boys. No significant effect was detected in the girls; animal studies suggest females may be able to metabolize the chemical better.

“Most work up to this point has focused on [BPA’s] estrogen properties. The fact that it’s also messing up thyroid function is very surprising,” said Laura Vandenberg, a postdoctoral fellow at Tufts University who studies BPA but was not involved in the new study.

Experts said they do not know what, if anything, the reductions in thyroid hormones might mean for the health of the babies because their levels remained within the range considered normal. But previous research suggests that reduced thyroid hormones might impair learning abilities and motor skills.

“Thyroid hormone is probably the best known factor in terms of influencing brain development,” said Thomas Zoeller, a biology professor at University of Massachusetts-Amherst who specializes in studying thyroid hormones and brain development. “The fact that the researchers see relationships at all is a very important issue that we should not ignore."

The scientists analyzed data from 364 pairs of moms and newborns in California’s Salinas Valley, a low-income community of mostly Mexican-American farm workers. Most of the mothers had low levels of BPA – 42 percent less than the average U.S. woman. Eighty-two percent had the chemical in their urine, compared with 95 percent of women of childbearing age tested nationwide.

While the study does not prove that BPA alters babies' thyroid hormones, scientists say it provides evidence that the link should be further investigated.

“Our data suggest that there is not a safe level of exposure,” said Jonathan Chevrier, an assistant researcher at the University of California, Berkeley, Center for Environmental Research and Children's Health and lead author of the study, which was published in Environmental Health Perspectives.

The American Chemistry Council, which represents chemical manufacturers, maintains that BPA is safe to use and questioned the validity of the study.

"The author's speculation that BPA is linked to health effects caused by thyroid hormone levels in women and newborns is not supported by the data," said Steven Hentges, of the council's Polycarbonate/BPA Global Group, in a prepared statement. "The authors themselves note that the thyroid hormone levels reported were within normal range and the study was not designed to measure any health effects."

He also said the testing was too limited to be an accurate representation of the mother's levels during pregnancy.

Thyroid hormones are continually produced, and BPA doesn’t stay in people’s bodies for long, but Chevrier said this doesn’t mean the findings aren’t cause for concern.

“This effect we see might not be permanent…Some people might think that’s good news,” he said. “But people are continually exposed to BPA. The effect isn’t permanent, but people are permanently exposed.”

However, Zoeller cautioned that "because BPA is not bioaccumulative, it is very difficult to get a good sense of what exposure is."



3 Comments

Add Comment
View
  1. 1. Ungolythe 06:04 PM 10/4/12

    I wonder if the ACC would be against any follow up studies. Though I am a bit skeptical of Jonathan Chevrier's comment “Our data suggest that there is not a safe level of exposure.” which seems to be overly broad. Still, any effect on thyroid function at all should be alarming and certainly calls for more study.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  2. 2. demon8 02:51 AM 10/5/12

    Have any of these studies controlled for BMI or other measure of fat? When I see something get associated with obesity, I wonder if the molecule is simply more soluble in fat than in water and thus tends to accumulate in fat like inorganic arsenic.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  3. 3. turtle2258 in reply to Ungolythe 05:24 AM 10/6/12

    I don't know who's data Johnathan Chevier is using. The deceptive "frankenfood" and industries that add unknown chemicals to their products? Many of these substances are banned in European countries. Places that are not "under the influance" of cherry picking research according to their own political preferances. Sometimes real change in our country only comes from the grass roots of society that come to understand what is happening. Thats how the Vietnam war was stopped which was needlessly killing and maiming people everywhere, simply because the polititicians HAD TO BE "RIGHT". That's wrong being too proud to change, you know?

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Leave this field empty

Add a Comment

You must sign in or register as a ScientificAmerican.com member to submit a comment.
Click one of the buttons below to register using an existing Social Account.

More from Scientific American

See what we're tweeting about

Scientific American Editors

More »

Free Newsletters


Get the best from Scientific American in your inbox

Solve Innovation Challenges

Powered By: Innocentive

  SA Digital
  SA Digital

Science Jobs of the Week

Email this Article

Lowered Thyroid Hormones Found in Baby Boys Exposed to Bisphenol A

X
Scientific American Magazine

Subscribe Today

Save 66% off the cover price and get a free gift!

Learn More >>

X

Please Log In

Forgot: Password

X

Account Linking

Welcome, . Do you have an existing ScientificAmerican.com account?

Yes, please link my existing account with for quick, secure access.



Forgot Password?

No, I would like to create a new account with my profile information.

Create Account
X

Report Abuse

Are you sure?

X

Institutional Access

It has been identified that the institution you are trying to access this article from has institutional site license access to Scientific American on nature.com. To access this article in its entirety through site license access, click below.

Site license access
X

Error

X

Share this Article

X