Report of Very Low Real-World Exposure to Bisphenol A is Unwarranted Based on a Lack of Data and Flawed Assumptions

The article by Teeguarden et al. (2011) contains numerous flawed assumptions, omissions, and misrepresentations of the published literature on bisphenol A (BPA) that demand our rebuttal. We herein raise serious issues regarding the validity of the conclusions reached by the authors. The title itself, ‘‘24-h Human Urine and Serum Profiles of Bisphenol A During High Dietary Exposure,’’ clearly states that study participants were exposed to high amounts of BPA. A fatal flaw of this study is the complete absence of the critical and necessary data concerning actual BPA levels in the meals fed to the small number (20) of adult participants isolated in a BPA-free clinical facility during the study. In fact, the results suggest that BPA exposure from many of the different meals was very low, the opposite of what the title states. Teeguarden et al. state: ‘‘Very little TOTBPA was eliminated after ingestion of all study breakfasts and lunches 1 and 2 evidence that these meals contained very little TOTBPA relative to the other meal.’’ This directly contradicts the misleading title and acknowledges that, in fact, an unknown but clearly low exposure to BPA occurred during much of the study. How this translates into ‘‘High Dietary Exposure’’ as used in the title is entirely unclear. The consequence was that all serum samples had no detectable unconjugated (biologically active) BPA, 86% of serum samples had no detectable total BPA, and 51% of urine samples taken between breakfast and lunch were below the level of detection for total BPA. The urine data vary sharply from detection of total BPA in urine from 93% of the U.S. general population, based on the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)