Excellent report on BPA in receipts should include low dose effects information.

In a web edition of Science News, reporter Janet Raloff provides an extremely well-rounded report on recent studies examining bisphenol A (BPA) in cash register receipts. The studies indicate that receipt papers are a likely source of significant BPA exposures and provide an important link between exposure levels that cause harm in animals and the possibility of harm in humans.

Overall, Raloff's article comprehensively summarizes the three independent studies and analyzes how these new findings could impact readers. 

A major point that Raloff fails to share with her readers, however, is that of low dose effects. While she does mention that BPA can adversely affect development, a large number of studies have examined the effects of low doses of BPA on animal development. Exposure to very low doses during fetal and neonatal life have been shown to affect the development of the mammary gland, the brain and the male and female reproductive tracts. Studies also show BPA exposures alter hormone levels and behaviors. These low doses are in the range of current human exposures.

In the article, Raloff compares results of the three studies examining BPA in the receipts and reports on the consistencies among the studies. She suggests that one population, store cashiers, may be at risk for higher exposures.

Because the levels found on the cash register receipts are close to the acceptable exposure levels set by government agencies, cashiers could be exposed to levels that are close to these safety limits, which is especially concerning for pregnant women who work as cashiers.

The levels that could be absorbed from receipts can be higher than those inadvertantly eaten along with canned food and drinks or otherwise in contact with polycarbonate plastics. These plastics and can linings contain BPA, and it can leach out of these containers, even when they are used properly. Raloff cites data suggesting that exposures from receipts could be seven times higher than levels ingested in the diet. This is because BPA is directly applied to receipt paper, and large amounts of the chemical can easily rub off.

BPA is likely to penetrate the skin – as Raloff notes – or could be eaten if transferred from skin to food or if fingers are placed in the mouth. Gloves will probably not be helpful for preventing BPA exposures, however. She quotes BPA researcher Koni Grob who states that gloves typically allow small molecules to pass through, therefore providing an environment where the skin is in constant contact and allowing even greater amounts to be absorbed.

Overall, including information on the low-dose effects would have strengthed the article and provided readers an understanding of how exposures to even small amounts of BPA – including exposures from receipts – should be avoided when possible.