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've never been very good at being conservative.

And usually, that serves us well in doing the ambitious, hard-hitting journalism that you turn to Mother Jones for. But it also means we can't afford to come up short when it comes to scratching together the funds it takes to keep our team firing on all cylinders, and the truth is, we finished our budgeting cycle on June 30 about $100,000 short of our online goal.

This is no time to come up short. It's time to fight like hell, as our namesake would tell us to do, for a democracy where minority rule cannot impose an extreme agenda, where facts matter, and where accountability has a chance at the polls and in the press. If you value our reporting and you can right now, please help us dig out of the $100,000 hole we're starting our new budgeting cycle in with an always-needed and always-appreciated donation today.

payment methods

We've never been very good at being conservative.

And usually, that serves us well in doing the ambitious, hard-hitting journalism that you turn to Mother Jones for. But it also means we can't afford to come up short when it comes to scratching together the funds it takes to keep our team firing on all cylinders, and the truth is, we finished our budgeting cycle on June 30 about $100,000 short of our online goal.

This is no time to come up short. It's time to fight like hell, as our namesake would tell us to do, for a democracy where minority rule cannot impose an extreme agenda, where facts matter, and where accountability has a chance at the polls and in the press. If you value our reporting and you can right now, please help us dig out of the $100,000 hole we're starting our new budgeting cycle in with an always-needed and always-appreciated donation today.

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