BPA’s Lasting Effects on Kids May Start in the Womb

A new study tracked what happened to girls’ obesity rates when their moms were exposed to the chemical while pregnant.

<a href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-245936866/stock-photo-men-holds-hands-on-belly-of-pregrant-women-no-face.html?src=csl_recent_image-1">Maksim Fesenko</a>/Shutterstock

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


The US childhood obesity rate remains high and is probably still inching upward. A new study points to a possible contributing factor that’s often neglected: prenatal exposure to bisphenol A (BPA), a chemical widely used in plastic water bottles, metal food cans, and receipt paper.

A team of researchers from Columbia University, Johns Hopkins, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention tracked 369 mother-child pairs from the third trimester of pregnancy until the kids turned seven years old. They measured BPA levels in the moms’ urine during pregnancy and then checked the kids’ height, weight, waist circumference, and body fat as they aged, also measuring their BPA levels. They adjusted the results for factors that could potentially skew the results, including race and pre-pregnancy obesity among the moms.

The higher the mothers’ BPA exposure was during pregnancy, the more signs of obesity girls showed at age seven.

They found that 94 percent of the pregnant women in the study had measurable levels of BPA in their bodies. The kicker: The higher the mothers’ BPA exposure was during pregnancy, the more signs of obesity girls showed at age seven, as measured by body fat and waist circumference compared with height. There was no such association for boys; nor was there any relation between BPA levels in the kids’ urine and obesity as they grew.

The fetal period is when we’re most vulnerable to BPA and its ability to alter metabolism and the way our bodies generate fat cells, the results suggest. As for the finding that BPA seems to affect girls differently than boys: That’s not surprising, said the study’s lead author, Lori Hoepner of Columbia University’s Joseph L. Mailman School of Public Health. BPA is an endocrine-disrupting chemical, meaning it mimics or blocks hormones produced by the body. Boys and girls produce different hormones, so hormone-disrupting chemicals might be expected to affect them differently.

Hoepner added that other studies have linked prenatal BPA exposure to higher body fat in children up to age four. The current study is the first one to find an association at age seven. Hoepner and her team plan to follow the same mother-child pairs to see if the effect persists into puberty.

While the current study found evidence for an obesity effect from prenatal exposure, others—like this one—have also found an obesity association in older girls from childhood exposure. Previous studies have also linked to BPA to neurodevelopmental disorders and asthma in kids.

A Columbia University press release accompanying the study delivered this advice for avoiding BPA: “To reduce exposure to BPA, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences recommends avoiding plastic containers numbers 3 and 7, shifting from canned foods to fresh or frozen foods, and, when possible, choosing glass, porcelain, or stainless steel containers, especially for hot food and liquids.”

The US Food and Drug Administration has banned BPA from baby bottles and sippy cups, but that won’t protect pregnant women from exposing their fetuses to it via, say, eating canned food or handling receipts. For its part, the chemical industry insists BPA is safe. According to the US Department of Agriculture, two companies—Dow and Bayer—”produce the bulk of BPA in the world.”

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate