The University of Cincinnati has used human tissue for their study on “average” BPA exposure. Their findings, though not surprising, supports other independent research that BPA does affect human health.
Excerpt:
In a laboratory study, using fresh human fat tissues, the UC team found that BPA suppresses a key hormone, adiponectin, which is responsible for regulating insulin sensitivity in the body and puts people at a substantially higher risk for metabolic syndrome.
Metabolic syndrome is a combination of risk factors that include lower responsiveness to insulin and higher blood levels of sugar and lipids. According to the American Heart Association, about 25 percent of Americans have metabolic syndrome. Left untreated, the disorder can lead to life-threatening health problems such as coronary artery disease, stroke and type 2 diabetes.
Nira Ben-Jonathan, PhD, and her team are the first to report scientific evidence on the health effects of BPA at environmentally relevant doses equal to “average” human exposure. Previous studies have primarily focused on animal studies and high doses of BPA.
How was the study conducted?
…the UC team collected fresh fat tissue from Cincinnati patients undergoing several types of breast or abdominal surgery. These samples included three types of fat tissue: breast, subcutaneous and visceral (around the organs).
Tissue was immediately taken to the laboratory and incubated with different concentrations of BPA or estrogen for six hours to observe how the varied amounts of BPA affected adiponectin levels. The effects of BPA were then compared to those of estradiol, a natural form of human estrogen.
What were the results?
They found that exposing human tissues to BPA levels within the range of common human exposure resulted in suppression of a hormone that protects people from metabolic syndrome.
“These results are especially powerful because we didn’t use a single patient, a single tissue source or a single occurrence,” she adds. “We used different fat tissues from multiple patients and got the same negative response to BPA.”
Again, very interesting findings. This does support other independent research, yet the FDA still claims the safety of BPA. I am really not all that surprised, yet I am in shock. I cannot believe with all this mounting evidence, they can stand by that claim.
Related Articles
BPA free bottles, sippy cups and more
BPA and phthalate free pacifiers
BPA and phthalate free teethers and rattles
Lead and PVC free lunch boxes
Avent introduces BPA free bottle
BPA in canned food
How to avoid BPA
BPA in infant formula
Natural families and lifestyle 
We love your blog. It is so important for people to help one another and to take responsibility for their choices in life. Your blog will help other stay healthy and you are addressing the exact things that cause problems for children and adults. We will link to you and you may find our blog – a new one – a good choice for you. check out drmaulfair.com and look at the links to find a doctor close to you so you can benefit from proper medical care.
Please continue and know that you are making a huge difference in the lives of others for real. Coleen Maulfair
Hello,
I want to congratulate you on your blog. It is so informative and it has open my eyes to the horrors of BPA and other toxins. I have my own blog (in Spanish) were I typically write about my daily experiences as a mother. However, I am now inspired to inform the Spanish speaking community about these dangers. I added a link to your blog from mine.
By the way, if you have the souce (any link or document) for the UC and Yale studies please send it to me, and let’s keep in touch because you have some good sources that I wish to explore in more depth.
Thanks and again, congratulations.
Glorimar
Never mind, I just saw the links to both studies!! 🙂
thank you both for your kind comments. maybe one day the government and manufacturers will wise up and there won’t be a need for blogs like mine, but until then, I will continue to share my findings…. thanks again!