New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Is BPA Bad for You?

Bisphenol A, a common compound found in many plastics, has been listed as a toxic substance in Canada but is still deemed safe in the U.S.

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


[Below is the original script. But a few changes may have been made during the recording of this audio podcast.]


You may never have heard of bisphenol A, also known as BPA, but odds are you're carrying it around in your body right now. Researchers tested more than 2000 people between the ages of six and 85.  And 93 percent of them tested positive for BPA, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Why should you care? Well, BPA is a component of the polycarbonate plastic in eyeglass lenses and DVDs among other things.  And high levels of it have been linked to heart disease, diabetes and liver failure in humans, according to the Journal of the American Medical Association.

In fact, the National Toxicology Program warns that BPA may cause babies to develop abnormally. The Canadian government went so far as to ban it in baby bottles as well as listing it as a toxic substance. But the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency maintain that BPA is perfectly safe.

Congress, for its part, is considering banning the substance in some products. In the meantime, note that items made from BPA are typically marked with a number seven. These plastics should never be microwaved or exposed to hot liquids—heat can dissolve BPA into what you’re drinking.   Better safe than sorry.

60-Second Earth is a weekly podcast from Scientific American. Subscribe to this Podcast: RSS | iTunes

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe