Stricter protocols combined with a clinical serum biomarker can increase replicability and causality for dietary intervention studies. Plus empirical data on BPA regrettable substitutions

W. Lewis Perdue, Victor I. Reus, Richard B. van Breemen, Ruth N. Muchiri, Rebecca L. Yeamans-Irwin
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.08.09.22278588

ABSTRACT

Effective regulation of harmful environmental chemicals found in wide variety of consumer products and consumables has been thwarted by the lack of agreement between government scientists and university/academic laboratories regarding the quantification of significant human harms. This is particularly relevant regarding plastic-derived chemicals (PDCs), such as Bisphenol A, now that the federal CLARITY-BPA program has failed to achieve any credible, human-significant scientific consensus. Because of this disagreement, direct, clinical human experimental data is vital to resolving this situation. In an effort to develop direct human-relevant data, some academic investigators have employed dietary intervention studies in an attempt to shed light on the controversy. Unfortunately, dietary intervention efforts thus far have not demonstrated causality or replicability.

Investigators of this study propose a novel human dietary intervention protocol that can be both replicable and causal. This first-of-a-kind dietary intervention study explores a potential causal relationship between human serum levels of BPA and High-Sensitivity C-Reactive Protein (hsCRP), a proven clinical indicator of inflammation. Investigators used the equivalent of a USDA-defined typical diet followed by a PDC-reduced diet to compare blood levels of hsCRP. This proof-of-concept investigation is the first to use an easily accessible, medically-accepted clinical laboratory test to directly measure human health effects of PDC reduction.

Unexpected phenomena discovered during the investigation offer study protocol modifications to enhance widespread replicability, and economically practical expansion to a substantial proportion of the approximately 84,000 mostly unregulated chemicals found in the human environment. In addition, our LC/MS-MS results offer the first direct quantitative human clinical evidence (of which we are aware) confirming the existence of regrettable substitutions in which product manufacturers have reduced BPA usage while substituting Bisphenol analogues that appear to equal or exceed BPA human toxicity. Bolstered by the unexpected results in this proof-of-concept investigation, novel lessons and techniques described herein may further specific and improved methods and best practices that can enable future dietary interventions to produce replicable, causal human results.

BACKGROUND

Exposure to environmental chemicals in the U.S. is widespread.1 As of June 2020, more than 86,000 chemicals were approved for use in the United States,2 and at least 4,000 of those are Plastic-Derived Chemicals (PDCs) present in food contact materials.3,4,5 PDCs such as Bisphenol A (BPA), phthalates, and other plastic derivations are present in approximately 97% of the U.S. population.6,7 Human and animal studies have also identified PDCs compounds as contributors to cancer10-21, cardiovascular disorders12,22-29, obesity30-36, type 2 diabetes35,37-39, metabolic syndrome31-33,40,41, neurological and behavioral disorders42,43 also including Alzheimer’s Disease12,40,44-48, as well as reproductive13,49-56, and developmental disorders13,57-62 and allergies63-70. PDCs such as BPA are classified as endocrine disrupters, even in low-level concentrations.7,9 More significantly, in a 10-year observational study of 3,883 adults in the United States, participants with higher urinary Bisphenol A levels were at a 49% greater risk for death from all causes.8

No clear scientific agreement exists about the nature and degree of health effects of most of these PDCs71. Even BPA, singled out for special attention by the U.S. government CLARITY-BPA program72 because of its ubiquity, failed to resolve a contentious scientific divide on safety. That divide persists as regulatory investigators have deemed current exposure levels as harmless73-75 while academic biomedical scientists continue to disagree and find BPA a public health threat.76-79

Routes of Exposure

Exposure to BPA and other PDCs come from both dietary and non-dietary sources.80

BPA and other PDCs are found in household products such as detergents, cosmetics, lotions, and fragrances81, as well as in water bottles and baby bottles, thermal paper for printers, dental sealants, and medical devices including intravenous fluid and chemotherapy bags and tubing.7,15,82-86

Food and beverage packaging are substantial contributors to PDC physiological burdens.7,87-91 Consumers are exposed to many PDCs from leaching and migration of chemicals from plastics and other food contact materials.7,88-96

Exposure routes for food and beverages also include preservatives, flavorings, scents, texture enhancers, and coloring agents5, migration/leaching of chemicals from harvesting and processing87, as well as home food-handling which can accelerate migration through heating, microwaving, ultraviolet light exposure (including fluorescent lighting), and the contact of contaminated oils and alcohols with plastics.

Ultra-processed foods (UPFs) that have undergone substantial chemical or physical modification through manufacturing methods also have numerous avenues of PDC contamination due to residual contamination in additives, from additional contacts with plastic components, and from the addition of fats which facilitate the transfer of lipid-soluble polymer components into the UPFs.98,99

UPFs and PDCs are both associated with many non-communicable dietary-related diseases and syndromes including obesity,100-107 diabetes,108-110 cardiovascular disease,111-113 and cancer10,18,114,115.

Could standard human clinical blood tests resolve the clarity issues with CLARITY?

CLARITY-BPA was established in 2014 as a joint effort by the Food and Drug Administration, National Institutes of Health, and the National Toxicology Program. The murine-based program, which has been conducted twice with rats accidentally contaminated with BPA prior to the trials, failed to reconcile differences, and has resulted in public acrimony between government and academic teams. Government teams using legacy regulatory methods insensitive to BPA have vocally accused academic teams of using state-of-the art techniques – such as those currently employed to develop new pharmaceuticals – that are not currently codified in government regulations. Academic teams assert that the legacy toxicology protocols – known as GLP (Good Laboratory Practices) are not sensitive enough to detect endocrinal, hormonal, and genetic impacts.

As a result, the current CLARITY-BPA debate centers on experimental protocol flaws, contrasting interpretations of published science, confounding factors, sources of contamination and other fine points of scientific experimental design as well as practice and fundamental differences concerning the existence of non-monotonic behavior of substances present at very low levels.

The CLARITY program has been criticized as irrelevant due to the failures of translating murine results to humans.116 Indeed, other published reports find that murine model results do not to translate accurately to humans as much as 92% of the time.117 Even pre-clinical research trials fail to be replicable118 from 51% to 89% of the time.119-120

Human dietary intervention studies, which might be able to shed light on the issue, have replication and scientific rigor flaws that prevent them from offering reliable clinical conclusions.121,122

Interpreting these factors by lay audiences can be all but impossible. Likewise, the current internecine arguments among scientists are unlikely to sway public, governmental or manufacturing opinion.

Enter the humble clinical blood test

Significantly, a source of reproducible, causally connected, and clinically valuable direct human data may lurk in standard laboratory blood profiles.

Because of the role of inflammation in many BPA-associated non-communicable diseases, High-Sensitivity C-Reactive Protein (hsCRP) may fill the need for clinical insights into numerous PDC-linked inflammation-linked conditions cardiovascular disease,123-125,131,137 Type 2 Diabetes,126-127 cancer,126,129,137Alzheimer’s Disease,130, 132 depression, and suicide,133-136 and auto-immune diseases137 including IBD,138 rheumatoid arthritis,139 and lupus.140

In addition, BPA has been found to activate the same NLRP3 inflammasome pathway activity141 implicated in cytokine storms which develop in research suspects along with bradykinin disorders142 as causes underpinning some of the most serious of COVID-19 cases.143-145

OBJECTIVES

Objective 1, Marker Validation: Can hsCRP serve as a marker for BPA exposures?

Objective 2, Duration Evaluation: Is a short (e.g. six-day) trial with three days each for contamination and intervention sufficient to affect measurable hsCRP outcomes?

Objective 3, Verify Causality and Improve Replication: Can replicability and causality of dietary intervention trials be increased by developing best practices and applying the discipline of standard laboratory practices to the sourcing, preparation, and serving of human food along with their complete data capture and reporting?

METHODS

Given that the use of clinical blood tests as possible direct human health effects indicators of environmental chemical contamination is an unknown field, investigators felt that a small proof-of-concept trial (n-of-1) would be sufficient to test the validity of the concept and protocols before beginning a larger, more expensive study. N-of-1 investigations have found wide acceptance and success in biomedical science146 and are proposed as a main tactic in precision medicine147 and pharmaceutical research.

This n-of-1, six-day study (SSHS) was approved by the Committee on Human Research/IRB at the University of California San Francisco School of Medicine.148 The study consisted of two legs - a three-day typical American diet (Typical) with known sources of plastic contamination followed by a three-day intervention diet (Intervention) of foods with measurably reduced BPA contamination.

This investigation was conducted in a 400-square-foot professional kitchen supervised and directed by investigators in the same manner as a bench lab experiment. Central air with HEPA filters ventilated the kitchen which was also equipped with two standalone HEPA filter machines. A 1,200 cubic-feet/minute, four-centrifugal-fan exhaust hoods were used over an eight-burner natural gas stove. Two electric ovens were used for baking.

Plastic items including utensils, containers, and cookware with non-stick coatings were removed from the kitchen prior to trial onset. Food preparation took place on stainless steel countertops. Kitchen-ready scales were obtained and calibrated using brass gram weights.

Indoor kitchen air quality (via PM2.5 levels) were monitored via sensors from PurpleAir.Com and maintained at an Air Quality Index of 0. Test subject consumed meals in an adjoining space with identical environmental conditions including the absence of plastic.

A. Menu Determination

The menu for each of the two diets (Typical and Intervention) was made as identical as feasible.

Typical

The typical American diet (i.e. PDC-contaminated diet) was drawn from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).149 Food for the typical diet was sourced from national brands available at a large national chain store (Safeway) to maximize availability.

Intervention

For the intervention diet, the menu from typical American diet was adapted to offer replicate food items with reduced or absent PDC contamination.

Intervention food was sourced in accordance with Appendix 2 of the revised protocol.148

The extensive requirements of the revised protocol included sourcing food close as possible to its actual production from a vendor capable of shipping nationally. Additionally, the producer:

  • Either dry-farmed or used well water for irrigation,

  • Did not irrigate with recycled wastewater or biosolids (sewage plant sludge)

  • Adhered -- as a minimum -- to USDA organic standards.

Because milk is sourced locally or regionally, even by large chains, milk samples were analyzed via LC-MS/MS performed by Eurofins (https://www.eurofins.com/) to ensure the same or similar BPA quantification. Cheese products were selected from nationally available dairy brands whose milk scored below the limit of quantification (LOQ) in the LC-MS/MS tests.

Fish and seafood were excluded because the aquatic environmental pollution variability made it impossible for consistency in BPA exposure.

Carbon-filtered water was used for food preparation and to rinse before use of all dishes, utensils, pots, pans, and food-contact appliances.

Multi-ingredient foods, such as a spaghetti and meatball frozen entrees, were reverse engineered from the dishes used in the contamination leg. Special attention was devoted to the health effects of micro- and nanoplastics, and to minimizing exposure to those particles of undeterminable composition.

B. Food Preparation

After lengthy research, this study’s protocols were extensively revised148 to include the development of best practices that included the imposition of specific, rigorous scientific practices common to bench laboratory investigations. This included rigorous requirements for sourcing food and beverages, and the realization that a kitchen needed to be treated as a proper laboratory environment.

These constraints required investigators to train and supervise all kitchen personnel to assure proficiency in precise measurements, and treating ingredients as reagents, recipes as procedures, appliances as equipment, and the paramount requirement to capture detailed and extensive data capture sufficient to allow replication of the trial under the exact same conditions. The most proficient were those with substantial baking experience.

In the kitchen, only glass, stainless steel, aluminum foil, and tight grain maple cutting boards were permitted for food preparation. 100% cotton dish towels were allowed; paper towels could only be used for cleanup. Nitrile gloves were used for all food preparation.

Intensive treatment of food in the revised protocol148 was designed to minimize BPA. For example, fresh organic vegetables were thoroughly rinsed or soaked in filtered water. Solid meat was first wiped with extra virgin olive oil obtained from a local mill which uses no plastic and packs the oil in glass. The meat was then scraped with a metal pastry divider and wiped dry again to remove lipid-solid PDCs such as BPA. Hamburger was prepared fresh using a grinder with all metal food contact surfaces.

No pre-prepared foods were allowed. Pasta was made and bread was baked using flour from a small mill that grinds wheat with no plastic contact obtained from small local organic, pesticide-free farms.

All measurements (including for liquids) were made by metric weight. All main ingredients were measured to the nearest gram, but small-weight items such as spices, herbs, other seasonings, and other items were measured to the nearest tenth of a gram.

Seasoning was with whole spices and fresh herbs with no PDC exposure grown for the purpose of this study by the investigators. When investigator-grown seasonings were not available, investigators specified organic whole spices (cinnamon sticks, whole nutmeg fruit, peppercorns) and hand ground them after wiping or rinsing with filtered water. Items with known or suspected plastic contamination (such as micro-plastic contamination of table salt150 were replaced with suitable reagents from Sigma-Aldrich.

C. Blood Sampling of Study Participants

Two blood samples (one for hsCRP and one for BPA levels) were taken from the subject three times during the study: the first day to establish baseline; the last morning after the typical menu leg; and the last morning after the intervention leg.

All blood draws were made at Sonoma Valley Hospital (SVH - an affiliate of UCSF).

Samples to be analyzed for hsCRP were drawn in light-green-topped tubes with standard concentrations of Li-heparin and centrifuged. Those were analyzed by the UCSF Parnassus campus medical laboratory.

The samples for BPA analysis were drawn by SVH using a vacutainer kit composed of polymers tested by Dr. Roy Gerona’s UCSF which had been analyzed and found not to leach BPA or other PDC.

The virgin whole blood samples were hand-delivered within four hours of blood draws to Dr. Gerona’s UCSF research lab where they were centrifuged and frozen to -80C.

LC-MS/MS Mass Spectrometry Analysis

The -80 cold chain was maintained for the samples which were later delivered to the Linus Pauling Institute at Oregon State University in Corvallis, OR There, the samples were analyzed using ultrahigh pressure liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry using a triple quadrupole Shimadzu mass spectrometer which allows the study of the presence of other chemical compounds.

The lab also used a high-resolution quadrupole time-of-flight mass spectrometer using untargeted scanning for BPA, BPF and BPS which may be studied for the presence of other compounds.

See Supplementary Information for details.

RESULTS

Levels of hsCRP decreased 21.4% from baseline to end of the Intervention leg: 1.1 mg/L from 1.4mg/L. The results demonstrated a final percentage reduction in hsCRP roughly parallel to (but smaller in magnitude) than that of a major NIH-funded dietary intervention by Hall, et al.105 published in 2019 approximately four months prior to our trial. (See Table 1)

View this table:
Table 1.

SSHS Study Results Versus Hall et al

DISCUSSION

This investigation’s primary goal was to determine whether inflammation levels as indicated by hsCRP would be sensitive enough to serve as a human clinical biomarker for Bisphenol A, and possibly other plastic derived chemicals. Because, at the time of this study, that relationship had not been previously established, an n-of-one cohort was chosen to avoid the expense of a larger cohort in the event that hsCRP was not sufficiently sensitive to the changes in levels of serum BPA resulting from dietary exposure.

This study was approved by UCSF-IRB on Nov. 15, 2014. That original IRB approval was substantially revised148 because the original protocol was patterned after existing published dietary interventions,73, 89,105, 150,151 whose designs were not capable of producing replicable results or credible causal relationships.121,152

While our data indicated an overall reduction in hsCRP from baseline to intervention, the data unexpectedly indicated a decrease at the end of the contamination leg.

The lower decline in hsCRP levels in our study versus Hall et al. could have been caused by our shorter trial duration (six days rather than 28) which affects the release of BPA from adipose stores and/or its metabolism. Indeed, the minor increase of hsCRP in the second leg of the trial may indeed be due to the delayed release of BPA from the test subjects’ dietary changes or relatively lower baseline BPA concentrations.

This could also be due to the fact that BPA may have a longer half-life than previously thought.154

An alternate explanation may lie in the known non-monotonic behavior of BPA, in which its effects become more powerful as the concentration falls into a specific range of influence.155,156

Non-monotonic behavior is counter-intuitive, but found in other compounds especially those that, like Bisphenol A, exhibit estrogenic effects active in the endocrine system. Breast-cancer treatment tamoxifen, for example, exhibits non-monotonic behavior and is most effective in tiny concentrations.156

Another significant difference between this trial and Hall et al., is that our trial was interrupted by Northern California wildfires that dramatically increased PM2.5 particulate pollution, a notorious promoter of inflammation.158 This exposed the n-of-1 investigator/test to environmental PM2.5 pollution in order to deliver blood draw samples to two UCSF laboratories at the Parnassus and Mt. Zion campuses. Those exposures lasted for a minimum of 2.5 hours on three occasions. That level of exposure may account for the overall smaller decrease in hsCRP in our study versus Hall et al.

Bisphenol A levels below the Lower Level of Quantification

Mass spectrometry analysis indicated Bisphenol A levels below the Lower Level Of Quantification (LLOQ). See Table 2.

This was not expected. Further, those results run contrary to NHANES published studies (See references Table 3) which indicate ubiquitous BPA-monoglucuronide levels in U.S. population. Because BPA-MG is the primary metabolic conjugate of BPA, the precursory compound – BPA – is assumed by the presence of BPA-MG

While BPA was not detected, mass spectrometry data indicated that two Bisphenol analogues, Bisphenol F (BPF) and Bisphenol S (BPS) were detected. Those two Bisphenol analogues demonstrated measurable variations that correlated with changes in measured hsCRP, thus lending credence for their sensitivity to Bisphenols.

Unexpected Result: Missing BPA

In looking at the unexpected absence of BPA, investigators reviewed all the aspects of the study, recipes, ingredients, preparation, and other aspects of the protocols and concluded that the most likely candidate would be a decrease in use of Bisphenol A and the substitution of BPF and BPS in its place: a regrettable substitution. Following that review, investigators believe these results may confirm often-mentioned, but uncited speculation in many published studies that product manufacturers had engaged in regrettable substitutions (180-181). by reducing BPA usage and substituting Bisphenol analogues which appear to equal or exceed BPA human toxicity(167-177).

However, unwilling to repeat previous speculative statements regarding BPA reduction and substitution, current investigators surveyed peer-reviewed journals seeking indications of that phenomenon. That search yielded no direct data because plastic polymer and additive compositions are closely held corporate secrets, investigators found no direct data for the regrettable substitutions.

As an alternative, investigators sought to determine if historical published data on levels of various Bisphenol levels in human serum could be indicative. Our search criteria focused on human studies in which BPA, BPF and BPS had been measured. Because serum measurements are uncommon and more demanding to conduct, we focused our search on those which had measured BPA levels in urine of residents of the United States.

The vast majority of studies located in the lengthy search were conducted in Asia and the European Union whose citizens consume different foods in often varying ways from people in the United States and whose environmental conditions can vary greatly.

As a result, our starting point of reference was the U.S. Center for Disease Control’s National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) which a program of studies designed to assess the health and nutritional status of adults and children in the United States.

While NHANES studies are conducted infrequently, the Bisphenol data points served as an anchor for additional studies.

Many studies were ruled out because they had not been conducted similar to currently-accepted mass spectrometric procedures, or because results were charted but raw data was not available. As a result, eight published studies measured BPA, but of those, only two measured BPF and three, BPS.

While the sparse results contained in Table 3 are certainly not numerous enough to attain statistical significance, they do appear to indicate that BPA usage is, indeed, decreasing while BPF and BPS are on the increase(159-166). The results are indicative, but not definitive especially when considering the evolution of Bisphenol testing procedures over time and protocols which can vary from lab to lab.

Significantly, we feel that our narrow focus on BPA due to its high visibility, regulatory focus, and its enormous body of published research created a tunnel vision distracted this investigation from a deeper scrutiny of analogues.

Similarly, the practice of regrettable substitutions has also misdirected the focus of other researchers, including CLARITY, and has further obscured scientifically valid efforts to reach regulatory consensus.

A Key Lesson In Replicability

Given that dairy products are a major component of the typical American diet, investigators, -- in the early stages of planning explored the possibility of obtaining minimally contaminated raw milk directly from the milking machine, then straining. pasteurizing it, separating the cream, and finally using the resulting milk for direct consumption, butter production and making cheese.

However, by the time appropriate equipment was obtained, investigators found that there were no organic dairies whose herds grazed on pastures not irrigated with recycled municipal wastewater and willing to cooperate. Investigators were forced to conclude that milk/dairy would be non-replicable because of the difficulty of sourcing milk from the same dairy, and that even that effort would fail due to milk variations due to seasonal variations of forage. The same replicability issues also applied to all fresh foods. As mentioned below, the only way to ensure maximum replicability would be to dose the same exact foods used in the contamination and intervention stages with the contaminant being studied.

Dairy: An Overlooked Clue To Regrettable Substitutions

Regardless of the inherent plastic contamination of milk, the adherence to a typical American diet demanded the inclusion of dairy products. To select dairy products appropriate for the contamination and intervention legs of the study, investigators contracted with Eurofins, a commercial analytic firm with extensive experience in food mass spectrometry to perform LC-MS/MS analyses for the presence of BPA in commercially available milk samples. The Eurofins results produced more unexpected results when data revealed that four of the six samples bought in supermarkets had BPA levels below the LOQ of 0.3 micrograms/Kg. Accordingly, investigators selected the most contaminated sample (1.7 micrograms/Kg) and one below LOQ. Both were selected from national supermarket chains.

In retrospect, the absence of BPA in two-thirds of the samples was a missed clue about BPA’s regrettable substitutions. Testing for BPF in our milk samples was not conducted because, at the time of our investigation, there was little recognition of its potential contamination of dairy183. Later published results184 confirmed the study’s protocol oversight in overlooking BPF. This oversight was further complicated by investigator’s narrow focus on developing human data to supplement the equivocal data from the CLARITY murine results

Other Unexpected Results

  • Levels of hsCRP unexpectedly decreased during contamination segment. That level was expected to increase. However, intervention level was lower than baseline.

  • BPF was approximately the same for Baseline and Intervention.

  • BPS was approximately same for all segments.

  • BPF-MG was approximately same for baseline and contamination legs. Higher after intervention

  • BPS-DG was higher in baseline than contamination. Substantially lower in intervention.

Total serum Bisphenol concentrations offered further confounding results with significant implications for replicability and causality (table 2). Total concentrations of Bisphenols F and S correlated with an increase in the contamination segment and subsequent decrease slightly below baseline for the intervention. This conforms roughly with expectations albeit with an intervention level higher than projected. On the other hand, total monoglucuronide levels showed a decrease during the contamination segment and a return to essentially the same level after intervention.

This may reflect a metabolism phenomenon on which investigators are reluctant to speculate.

As an additional confounding factor. the presence of BPS in serum test results could have resulted from the test subject’s handling of cash register receipts and currency184. That issue is addressed, below, in needed measures to control non-dietary environmental exposures

Limitations

An unfortunate limitation in our experimental design (as well as in Hall et al.105) would be the presence of Ultra-Processed Foods (UPFs) in the contamination leg, which may exert similar influences as BPA and its analogues. Complicating the situation further, is the existence of BPA and phthalates in UPFs due to their more extensive plastic contact due to processing and packaging. For these reasons, neither study can conclude whether observed changes are causally due to BPA, UPFs, or both. This situation rendered as irrelevant a further issue of whether nutritional differences in the two legs of the studies could influence the expression of relevant biomarkers. Further, neither this study, nor Hall et al., succeeded in matching the nutritional values of both study legs for calories, total fat, saturated fat, trans fat, sugar, total carbohydrate, dietary fiber, or protein in order to account for possible health effects of those items.

However, even if investigators had been successful, these eight Bisphenol analogues are but a small subset of the 26,000+ biochemicals found so far in foods,153 as wells as the 83,000 approved chemicals in the environment -- many of which are metabolically active and could influence clinical biomarkers.

A significant difference between Hall et al. and this trial is that our trial was interrupted by Northern California wildfires that dramatically increased PM2.5 particulate pollution, a notorious promoter of inflammation.158 The test subject was exposed to a measurable level of smoke in the process of blood draws That level of exposure may account for the overall smaller decrease in hsCRP in our study versus Hall et al.

CONCLUSIONS

Objective 1, validate marker

This trial did reveal a pattern of hsCRP behavior consistent with Hall et al., which measured hsCRP (among numerous other indicators) as an indicator of inflammation in its trial of ultra-processed foods. The sourcing, preparation and serving protocols used in the intervention phase indicated that hsCRP levels appear to have been affected by the trial legs and may serve as a valid indicator.

Objective 2, evaluate duration

The study protocol’s projections of the metabolic pharmacokinetics of Bisphenol A and hsCRP point to the usefulness of the shortened trial length and indicates that a trial period as short as 6 days could produce useful results

Objective 3, Verify Causality, and Improve Replication

This trial – like NIH/Hall105 and all other published human dietary interventions -- is neither causal nor replicable; conflicts with unknown chemicals and/or additives prohibit a clear relationship with a specific substance as ubiquitous as BPA.

In addition, limiting uncontrollable variables is hugely difficult because basic food substances even from the same source will vary in unknowable ways from month to month, and year to year depending upon weather conditions, water purity, the specific strain of the plant, cultivation, pest control, harvesting, time and conditions for storage, transportation to market, in store, and after purchase.

However, this study developed specific and replicable best practices concerning the training and supervision of kitchen staff along with the sourcing, identification, preparation, and serving of foods, the use of scientific protocols, rigorous data capture, and the control of non-dietary exposures to PDCs that can lead to replicability and causality of subsequent dietary intervention trials involving Plastic-Derived Chemicals.

Our experience showed that for similar studies to be replicable and lead to clinically relevant health recommendations or decisions, such studies must:

  1. Apply basic scientific principles and record-keeping,

  2. Conduct the study with human subjects,

  3. Use exactly the same foods in both legs of the study,

  4. Dose foods in the intervention stage using a single compound as an independent variable,

  5. Sequester subjects in a disciplined but human-centered dormitory environment to eliminate non-food exposures and other confounding environmental and stress-related psychological confounders.

  6. With proper attention to detail, these five requirements could possibly produce clinically useful methods for precision approaches to personalized dietary interventions.147

It is worth noting prominently that the use of a dormitory setting by Hall et al is a vital element to control environmental and personal behavior conditions that could bias a dietary intervention study such as those we believe complicated our own investigation. In addition, that study’s extensive set of clinical measurements is invaluable to future investigators seeking human biomarkers for indications of environmental chemical contamination and associated effects.

Initially, investigators did attempt to replicate the dietary portions of Hall et al, but discovered that investigation did not provide menu recipes or nutritional information. In addition, the online menu for the Hall study included many items which involve unknown plastic contact, and possible additives in preparation and packaging182.

Full menus, ingredients and nutritional values for this study can be found at the supplemental material online.

This proof-of-concept trial and associated research indicate that dietary intervention studies as a whole are inherently flawed and will not be replicable, causal, or lead to clinically relevant health recommendations or decisions unless they:

While the proof-of-concept study investigation was neither causal nor replicable, the results and knowledge gained merit the conduct of a series of slightly larger (n=10) human trials adhering to the above causality and replicability standards and avoiding the identified confounding factors. If these investigations can be honed to produce causal and replicable results, the protocol could be a time and cost-effective canary in the coal mine protocol that could be required of manufacturers of all chemicals and food additives. The results of these tiny tests would be expanded if sufficient preliminary results indicated reasons for concern.

Data Availability

Data, including supplemental materials, on request if not already posted and publicly available at https://stealthsyndromesstudy.com/

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL

Supplemental materials will be posted at https://stealthsyndromesstudy.com/ as they are formatted for upload.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Investigators are grateful to Ruth N. Muchiri, Ph.D, and Richard B. van Breemen, Ph.D. at the Linus Pauling Institute and College of Pharmacy: Oregon State University for the mass spectroscopy analysis of our human serum samples.

Invaluable assistance was provided by Dr. Roy Gerona, for his lab’s invaluable assistance in providing blood-draw, vacutainer kits, and for initial centrifuging, freezing of samples, and maintaining those at -80C.

We would also like to thank Dr. Alison Abritis Ph.D. for her helpful comments and invaluable discussions and suggestions.

This study was funded by the authors, and the Center for Research on Environmental Chemicals in Humans, Sonoma, CA - https://crechcenter.org/

Footnotes

  • Disclosure: Authors declare no conflicts or competing interests in this work. This study was approved by the IRB/Committee on Human Research at the University of California San Francisco School of Medicine, IRB #: 15-17703.

  • NOTE: This new paper supersedes: Investigating hsCRP as a clinical inflammation marker for human Bisphenol A food contamination offers protocol suggestions for conducting replicable, causal dietary intervention studies, https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.10.25.20212282v1 because it contains substantial new data, charts, additional named authors, and novel results.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    Vandenberg LN, Chahoud I, Heindel JJ, Padmanabhan V, Paumgartten FJR, Schoenfelder G. Urinary, Circulating, and Tissue Biomonitoring Studies Indicate Widespread Exposure to Bisphenol A. Cien Saude Colet. 2012;17(2):407–434. doi:10.1590/S1413-81232012000200015
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory. US EPA. Published August 15, 2014. Accessed August 31, 2020. https://www.epa.gov/tsca-inventory
  3. 3.↵
    European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Report of ESCO WG on non plastic FCMs. EFSA Supporting Publications. 2012;8(7):139E. doi:10.2903/sp.efsa.2011.EN-139
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  4. 4.↵
    Neltner TG, Kulkarni NR, Alger HM, et al. Navigating the U.S. Food Additive Regulatory Program. Compr Rev Food Sci Food Saf. 2011;10:342–368. doi:10.1111/j.1541-4337.2011.00166.x
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  5. 5.↵
    Muncke J, Myers JP, Scheringer M, Porta M. Food packaging and migration of food contact materials: will epidemiologists rise to the neotoxic challenge? J Epidemiol Community Health. 2014;68(7):592–594. doi:10.1136/jech-2013-202593
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  6. 6.↵
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Fourth Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals, Updated Tables. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2019. Accessed August 31, 2020. https://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/index.html
  7. 7.↵
    Vandenberg LN, Hauser R, Marcus M, Olea N, Welshons WV. Human exposure to bisphenol A (BPA). Reprod Toxicol. 2007;24(2):139–177. doi:10.1016/j.reprotox.2007.07.010
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  8. 8.↵
    Bao W, Liu B, Rong S, Dai SY, Trasande L, Lehmler H-J. Association Between Bisphenol A Exposure and Risk of All-Cause and Cause-Specific Mortality in US Adults. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(8):e2011620–e2011620. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.11620
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  9. 9.↵
    Diamanti-Kandarakis E, Bourguignon J-P, Giudice LC, et al. Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals: An Endocrine Society Scientific Statement. Endocr Rev. 2009;30(4):293–342. doi:10.1210/er.2009-0002
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  10. 10.↵
    Ferguson LR, Chen H, Collins AR, et al. Genomic instability in human cancer: Molecular insights and opportunities for therapeutic attack and prevention through diet and nutrition. Semin Cancer Biol. 2015;35:S5–S24. doi:10.1016/j.semcancer.2015.03.005
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.
    Keri RA, Ho S-M, Hunt PA, Knudsen KE, Soto AM, Prins GS. An evaluation of evidence for the carcinogenic activity of bisphenol A. Reprod Toxicol. 2007;24(2):240–252. doi:10.1016/j.reprotox.2007.06.008
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  12. 12.↵
    Fang L, Wuptra K, Chen D, et al. Environmental-stress-induced Chromatin Regulation and its Heritability. J Carcinog Mutagen. 2014;5(1). doi:10.4172/2157-2518.1000156
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  13. 13.↵
    Vega A, Baptissart M, Caira F, Brugnon F, Lobaccaro J-MA, Volle DH. Epigenetic: a molecular link between testicular cancer and environmental exposures. Front Endocrinol. 2012;3. doi:10.3389/fendo.2012.00150
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  14. 14.
    Tarapore P, Ying J, Ouyang B, Burke B, Bracken B, Ho S-M. Exposure to Bisphenol A Correlates with Early-Onset Prostate Cancer and Promotes Centrosome Amplification and Anchorage-Independent Growth In Vitro. PLoS One. 2014;9(3):e90332. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0090332
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    Vandenberg, L.N., Hauser, R., Marcus, M., Olea, N., Welshons, W.V. 2007. Human exposure to bisphenol A (BPA). Reproductive Toxicology 24: 139–177.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  16. 16.
    Zhang Z, Chen S, Feng Z, Su LJ. Pregnancy Exposures Determine Risk of Breast Cancer in Multiple Generations of Offspring. In: Su LJ, Chiang T, eds. Environmental Epigenetics. Molecular and Integrative Toxicology. Springer; 2015:75–103. doi:10.1007/978-1-4471-6678-8_5
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  17. 17.
    Gassman NR, Coskun E, Stefanick DF, et al. Bisphenol A Promotes Cell Survival Following Oxidative DNA Damage in Mouse Fibroblasts. PLoS One. 2015;10(2):e0118819. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0118819
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    Bishop KS, Ferguson LR. The Interaction between Epigenetics, Nutrition and the Development of Cancer. Nutrients. 2015;7(2):922–947. doi:10.3390/nu7020922
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  19. 19.
    Kim Y-S, Hwang K-A, Hyun S-H, Nam K-H, Lee C-K, Choi K-C. Bisphenol A and Nonylphenol Have the Potential to Stimulate the Migration of Ovarian Cancer Cells by Inducing Epithelial–Mesenchymal Transition via an Estrogen Receptor Dependent Pathway. Chem Res Toxicol. 2015;28(4):662–671. doi:10.1021/tx500443p
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  20. 20.
    Nahta R, Al-Mulla F, Al-Temaimi R, et al. Mechanisms of environmental chemicals that enable the cancer hallmark of evasion of growth suppression. Carcinogenesis. 2015;36(Suppl_1):S2–S18. doi:10.1093/carcin/bgv028
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. 21.↵
    Hajjari M, Salavaty A. HOTAIR: an oncogenic long non-coding RNA in different cancers. Cancer Biol Med. 2015;12(1):1–9. doi:10.7497/j.issn.2095-3941.2015.0006
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  22. 22.↵
    Gao X, Wang H-S. Impact of Bisphenol A on the Cardiovascular System — Epidemiological and Experimental Evidence and Molecular Mechanisms. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2014;11(8):8399–8413. doi:10.3390/ijerph110808399
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. 23.
    Rancière F, Lyons JG, Loh VHY, et al. Bisphenol A and the risk of cardiometabolic disorders: a systematic review with meta-analysis of the epidemiological evidence. Environmental Health. 2015;14(1):46. doi:10.1186/s12940-015-0036-5
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. 24.
    Bae S, Hong Y-C. Exposure to Bisphenol A From Drinking Canned Beverages Increases Blood Pressure. Hypertension. 2015;65(2):313–319. doi:10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.114.04261
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  25. 25.
    Belcher SM, Chen Y, Yan S, Wang H-S. Rapid Estrogen Receptor-Mediated Mechanisms Determine the Sexually Dimorphic Sensitivity of Ventricular Myocytes to 17β-Estradiol and the Environmental Endocrine Disruptor Bisphenol A. Endocrinology. 2012;153(2):712–720. doi:10.1210/en.2011-1772
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  26. 26.
    Gao X, Liang Q, Chen Y, Wang H-S. Molecular Mechanisms Underlying the Rapid Arrhythmogenic Action of Bisphenol A in Female Rat Hearts. Endocrinology. 2013;154(12):4607–4617. doi:10.1210/en.2013-1737
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. 27.
    Liang Q, Gao X, Chen Y, Hong K, Wang H-S. Cellular Mechanism of the Nonmonotonic Dose Response of Bisphenol A in Rat Cardiac Myocytes. Environ Health Perspect. 2014;122(6):601–608. doi:10.1289/ehp.1307491
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. 28.
    Melzer D, Osborne NJ, Henley WE, et al. Urinary Bisphenol A Concentration and Risk of Future Coronary Artery Disease in Apparently Healthy Men and Women. Circulation. 2012;125(12):1482–1490. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.111.069153
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  29. 29.↵
    Yan S, Song W, Chen Y, Hong K, Rubinstein J, Wang H-S. Low-dose bisphenol A and estrogen increase ventricular arrhythmias following ischemia–reperfusion in female rat hearts. Food Chem Toxicol. 2013;56:75–80. doi:10.1016/j.fct.2013.02.011
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. 30.↵
    Regnier SM, Sargis RM. Adipocytes under assault: Environmental disruption of adipose physiology. Biochim Biophys Acta Mol Basis Dis. 2014;1842(3):520–533. doi:10.1016/j.bbadis.2013.05.028
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  31. 31.↵
    Ellero-Simatos S, Claus SP, Benelli C, et al. Combined Ellero-Simatos S, Claus SP, Benelli C, et al. Combined Transcriptomic–1H NMR Metabonomic Study Reveals That Monoethylhexyl Phthalate Stimulates Adipogenesis and Glyceroneogenesis in Human Adipocytes. J Proteome Res. 2011;10(12):5493–5502. doi:10.1021/pr200765v
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  32. 32.
    Marmugi A, Ducheix S, Lasserre F, et al. Low doses of bisphenol a induce gene expression related to lipid synthesis and trigger triglyceride accumulation in adult mouse liver. Hepatology. 2012;55(2):395–407. doi:10.1002/hep.24685
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  33. 33.↵
    Hugo Eric R., Brandebourg Terry D., Woo Jessica G., Loftus Jean, Alexander J. Wesley, Ben-Jonathan Nira. Bisphenol A at Environmentally Relevant Doses Inhibits Adiponectin Release from Human Adipose Tissue Explants and Adipocytes. Environ Health Perspect. 2008;116(12):1642–1647. doi:10.1289/ehp.11537
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  34. 34.
    Menale C, Piccolo MT, Cirillo G, et al. Bisphenol A effects on gene expression in adipocytes from children: association with metabolic disorders. J Mol Endocrinol. 2015;54(3):289–303. doi:10.1530/JME-14-0282
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  35. 35.↵
    Savastano S, Tarantino G, D’Esposito V, et al. Bisphenol-A plasma levels are related to inflammatory markers, visceral obesity and insulin-resistance: a cross-sectional study on adult male population. J Transl Med. 2015;13(1):169. doi:10.1186/s12967-015-0532-y
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. 36.↵
    Seidlová-Wuttke D, Jarry H, Christoffel J, Rimoldi G, Wuttke W. Effects of bisphenol-A (BPA), dibutylphtalate (DBP), benzophenone-2 (BP2), procymidone (Proc), and linurone (Lin) on fat tissue, a variety of hormones and metabolic parameters: A 3 months comparison with effects of estradiol (E2) in ovariectomized (ovx) rats. Toxicology. 2005;213(1):13–24. doi:10.1016/j.tox.2005.05.001
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  37. 37.↵
    Alonso-Magdalena Paloma, Morimoto Sumiko, Ripoll Cristina, Fuentes Esther, Nadal Angel. The Estrogenic Effect of Bisphenol A Disrupts Pancreatic β-Cell Function In Vivo and Induces Insulin Resistance. Environ Health Perspect. 2006;114(1):106–112. doi:10.1289/ehp.8451
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  38. 38.
    Nadal A, Alonso-Magdalena P, Soriano S, Quesada I, Ropero AB. The pancreatic β-cell as a target of estrogens and xenoestrogens: Implications for blood glucose homeostasis and diabetes. Mol Cell Endocrinol. 2009;304(1):63–68. doi:10.1016/j.mce.2009.02.016
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  39. 39.↵
    Bouchard L, Thibault S, Guay S-P, et al. Leptin Gene Epigenetic Adaptation to Impaired Glucose Metabolism During Pregnancy. Diabetes Care. 2010;33(11):2436–2441. doi:10.2337/dc10-1024
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  40. 40.↵
    Hofmann PJ, Schomburg L, Köhrle J. Interference of Endocrine Disrupters with Thyroid Hormone Receptor–Dependent Transactivation. Toxicol Sci. 2009;110(1):125–137. doi:10.1093/toxsci/kfp086
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  41. 41.↵
    Schmutzler C, Bacinski A, Gotthardt I, et al. The Ultraviolet Filter Benzophenone 2 Interferes with the Thyroid Hormone Axis in Rats and Is a Potent in Vitro Inhibitor of Human Recombinant Thyroid Peroxidase. Endocrinology. 2007;148(6):2835–2844. doi:10.1210/en.2006-1280
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. 42.↵
    Patisaul HB. Achieving CLARITY on bisphenol A, brain and behaviour. J Neuroendocrinol. 2020;32(1):e12730. doi:10.1111/jne.12730
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  43. 43.↵
    Wiersielis KR, Samuels BA, Roepke TA. Perinatal exposure to bisphenol A at the intersection of stress, anxiety, and depression. Neurotoxicol Teratol. 2020;79:106884. doi:10.1016/j.ntt.2020.106884
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  44. 44.↵
    Fang F, Chen D, Yu P, et al. Effects of Bisphenol A on glucose homeostasis and brain insulin signaling pathways in male mice. Gen Comp Endocrinol. 2015;212:44–50. doi:10.1016/j.ygcen.2015.01.017
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  45. 45.
    El-Missiry MA, Othman AI, Al-Abdan MA, El-Sayed AA. Melatonin ameliorates oxidative stress, modulates death receptor pathway proteins, and protects the rat cerebrum against bisphenol-A-induced apoptosis. J Neurol Sci. 2014;347(1):251–256. doi:10.1016/j.jns.2014.10.009
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  46. 46.
    Kundakovic M, Champagne FA. Epigenetic perspective on the developmental effects of bisphenol A. Brain Behav Immun. 2011;25(6):1084–1093. doi:10.1016/j.bbi.2011.02.005
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  47. 47.
    Testa C, Nuti F, Hayek J, et al. Di-(2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate and Autism Spectrum Disorders: ASN Neuro. Published online May 30, 2012. doi:10.1042/AN20120015
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  48. 48.↵
    Clark-Taylor T, Clark-Taylor BE. Is autism a disorder of fatty acid metabolism? Possible dysfunction of mitochondrial β-oxidation by long chain acyl-CoA dehydrogenase. Medical Hypotheses. 2004;62(6):970–975. doi:10.1016/j.mehy.2004.01.011
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  49. 49.↵
    Hannon PR, Peretz J, Flaws JA. Daily Exposure to Di(2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate Alters Estrous Cyclicity and Accelerates Primordial Follicle Recruitment Potentially Via Dysregulation of the Phosphatidylinositol 3-Kinase Signaling Pathway in Adult Mice. Biol Reprod. 2014;90(6). doi:10.1095/biolreprod.114.119032
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  50. 50.
    Hannon PR, Flaws JA. The Effects of Phthalates on the Ovary. Front Endocrinol. 2015;6. doi:10.3389/fendo.2015.00008
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  51. 51.
    León-Olea M, Martyniuk CJ, Orlando EF, et al. Current Concepts in Neuroendocrine Disruption. Gen Comp Endocrinol. 2014;0:158–173. doi:10.1016/j.ygcen.2014.02.005
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  52. 52.
    Meeker JD, Ferguson KK. Urinary Phthalate Metabolites Are Associated With Decreased Serum Testosterone in Men, Women, and Children From NHANES 2011–2012. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2014;99(11):4346–4352. doi:10.1210/jc.2014-2555
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  53. 53.
    Braun JM, Just AC, Williams PL, Smith KW, Calafat AM, Hauser R. Personal care product use and urinary phthalate metabolite and paraben concentrations during pregnancy among women from a fertility clinic. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol. 2014;24(5):459–466. doi:10.1038/jes.2013.69
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  54. 54.
    Soares A, Guieysse B, Jefferson B, Cartmell E, Lester JN. Nonylphenol in the environment: A critical review on occurrence, fate, toxicity and treatment in wastewaters. Environ Int. 2008;34(7):1033–1049. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2008.01.004
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  55. 55.
    Lyche JL, Gutleb AC, Bergman Å, et al. Reproductive and Developmental Toxicity of Phthalates. J Environ Sci Health B. 2009;12(4):225–249. doi:10.1080/10937400903094091
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  56. 56.↵
    Wetherill YB, Akingbemi BT, Kanno J, et al. In vitro molecular mechanisms of bisphenol A action. Reproductive Toxicology. 2007;24(2):178–198. doi:10.1016/j.reprotox.2007.05.010
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  57. 57.↵
    Resendiz M, Mason S, Lo C-L, Zhou FC. Epigenetic regulation of the neural transcriptome and alcohol interference during development. Front Genet. 2014;5. doi:10.3389/fgene.2014.00285
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  58. 58.
    Mason S, Zhou FC. Editorial: Genetics and epigenetics of fetal alcohol spectrum disorders. Front Genet. 2015;6. doi:10.3389/fgene.2015.00146
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  59. 59.
    Kim JH, Sartor MA, Rozek LS, et al. Perinatal bisphenol A exposure promotes dose-dependent alterations of the mouse methylome. BMC Genomics. 2014;15(1):30. doi:10.1186/1471-2164-15-30
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  60. 60.
    Walker CL. Epigenomic reprogramming of the developing reproductive tract and disease susceptibility in adulthood. Teratology. 2011;91(8):666–671. doi:10.1002/bdra.20827
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  61. 61.
    Cao J, Rebuli ME, Rogers J, et al. Prenatal Bisphenol A Exposure Alters Sex-Specific Estrogen Receptor Expression in the Neonatal Rat Hypothalamus and Amygdala. Toxicol Sci. 2013;133(1):157–173. doi:10.1093/toxsci/kft035
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  62. 62.↵
    Crinnion WJ. Toxic Effects of the Easily Avoidable Phthalates and Parabens. Environmental Medicine. Published online 2010:7.
  63. 63.↵
    Wang I-J, Karmaus WJ, Chen S-L, Holloway JW, Ewart S. Effects of phthalate exposure on asthma may be mediated through alterations in DNA methylation. Clinical Epigenetics. 2015;7(1):27. doi:10.1186/s13148-015-0060-x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  64. 64.
    Dodson Robin E., Nishioka Marcia, Standley Laurel J., Perovich Laura J., Brody Julia Green, Rudel Ruthann A. Endocrine Disruptors and Asthma-Associated Chemicals in Consumer Products. Environ Health Perspect. 2012;120(7):935–943. doi:10.1289/ehp.1104052
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  65. 65.
    Hoppin Jane A., Jaramillo Renee, London Stephanie J., et al. Phthalate Exposure and Allergy in the U.S. Population: Results from NHANES 2005–2006. Environ Health Perspect. 2013;121(10):1129–1134. doi:10.1289/ehp.1206211
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  66. 66.
    Wang, I.-J., Karmaus, W. J., Chen, S.-L., Holloway, J. W., and Ewart, S. 2015. Effects of phthalate exposure on asthma may be mediated through alterations in DNA methylation. Clinical Epigenetics 7(1): 27.
    OpenUrl
  67. 67.
    Dodson, R.E., Nishioka, M., Standley, L.J., Perovich, L.J., Brody, J.G., and Rudel, R.A. 2012. Endocrine disruptors and asthma-associated chemicals in consumer products. Environmental Health Perspectives 120(7): 935.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  68. 68.
    Hoppin, J.A., Jaramillo, R., London, S.J., Bertelsen, R.J., Salo, P.M., Sandler, D.P., Zeldin, D.C. 2013. Phthalate exposure and allergy in the U.S. population: results from NHANES 2005–2006. Environmental Health Perspectives 121: 1129–1134.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  69. 69.
    vom Saal FS, Welshons WV. Large effects from small exposures. II. The importance of positive controls in low-dose research on bisphenol A. Environmental Research. 2006;100(1):50–76. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2005.09.001
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  70. 70.↵
    Baldi E, Muratori M, eds. Genetic Damage in Human Spermatozoa. 1st ed. Springer; 2014. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-7783-9
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  71. 71.↵
    Judson Richard, Richard Ann, Dix David J., et al. The Toxicity Data Landscape for Environmental Chemicals. Environ Health Perspect. 2009;117(5):685–695. doi:10.1289/ehp.0800168
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  72. 72.↵
    National Toxicology Program (NTP). NTP Research Report on the CLARITY-BPA Core Study: A Perinatal and Chronic Extended-Dose-Range Study of Bisphenol A in Rats.; 2018:9. doi:10.22427/NTP-RR-9
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  73. 73.↵
    Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Statement from Stephen Ostroff M.D., Deputy Commissioner for Foods and Veterinary Medicine, on National Toxicology Program draft report on Bisphenol A. FDA. Published March 24, 2020. Accessed September 25, 2020. https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/statement-stephen-ostroff-md-deputy-commissioner-foods-and-veterinary-medicine-national-toxicologyy
  74. 74.
    Schug TT, Heindel JJ, Camacho L, et al. A new approach to synergize academic and guideline-compliant research: The CLARITY-BPA research program. Reproductive Toxicology. 2013;40:35–40. doi:10.1016/j.reprotox.2013.05.010
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  75. 75.↵
    Camacho L, Lewis SM, Vanlandingham MM, et al. A two-year toxicology study of bisphenol A (BPA) in Sprague-Dawley rats: CLARITY-BPA core study results. Food Chem Toxicol. 2019;132:110728. doi:10.1016/j.fct.2019.110728
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  76. 76.↵
    Abbasi J. Scientists Call FDA Statement on Bisphenol A Safety Premature. JAMA. 2018;319(16):1644–1646. doi:10.1001/jama.2018.3288
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  77. 77.
    Vandenberg LN, Prins GS, Patisaul HB, Zoeller RT. The Use and Misuse of Historical Controls in Regulatory Toxicology: Lessons from the CLARITY-BPA Study. Endocrinology. 2020;161(5). doi:10.1210/endocr/bqz014
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  78. 78.
    Vandenberg LN, Hunt PA, Gore AC. Endocrine disruptors and the future of toxicology testing — lessons from CLARITY–BPA. Nat Rev Endocrinol. 2019;15(6):366–374. doi:10.1038/s41574-019-0173-y
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  79. 79.↵
    vom Saal FS. Flaws in design, execution and interpretation limit CLARITY-BPA’s value for risk assessments of bisphenol A. BCPT. 2019;125(S3):32–43. doi:10.1111/bcpt.13195
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  80. 80.↵
    Geens T, Aerts D, Berthot C, et al. A review of dietary and non-dietary exposure to bisphenol-A. Food Chem Toxicol. 2012;50(10):3725–3740. doi:10.1016/j.fct.2012.07.059
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  81. 81.↵
    Myers SL, Yang CZ, Bittner GD, Witt KL, Tice RR, Baird DD. Estrogenic and anti-estrogenic activity of off-the-shelf hair and skin care products. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol. 2015;25(3):271–277. doi:10.1038/jes.2014.32
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  82. 82.↵
    Nam S-H, Seo Y-M, Kim M-G. Bisphenol A migration from polycarbonate baby bottle with repeated use. Chemosphere. 2010;79(9):949–952. doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2010.02.049
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  83. 83.
    Biedermann S, Tschudin P, Grob K. Transfer of bisphenol A from thermal printer paper to the skin. Anal Bioanal Chem. 2010;398(1):571–576. doi:10.1007/s00216-010-3936-9
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  84. 84.
    Ehrlich S, Calafat AM, Humblet O, Smith T, Hauser R. Handling of Thermal Receipts as a Source of Exposure to Bisphenol A. JAMA. 2014;311(8):859–860. doi:10.1001/jama.2013.283735
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  85. 85.
    Kloukos D, Pandis N, Eliades T. In vivo bisphenol-A release from dental pit and fissure sealants: A systematic review. J Dent. 2013;41(8):659–667. doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2013.04.012
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  86. 86.↵
    Duty SM, Mendonca K, Hauser R, et al. Potential Sources of Bisphenol A in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit. Pediatrics. 2013;131(3):483–489. doi:10.1542/peds.2012-1380
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  87. 87.↵
    Sathyanarayana S, Alcedo G, Saelens BE, et al. Unexpected results in a randomized dietary trial to reduce phthalate and bisphenol A exposures. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol. 2013;23(4):378–384. doi:10.1038/jes.2013.9
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  88. 88.↵
    Bhunia K, Sablani SS, Tang J, Rasco B. Migration of Chemical Compounds from Packaging Polymers during Microwave, Conventional Heat Treatment, and Storage. Compr Rev Food Sci Food Saf. 2013;12(5):523–545. doi:10.1111/1541-4337.12028
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  89. 89.↵
    Rudel Ruthann A., Gray Janet M., Engel Connie L., et al. Food Packaging and Bisphenol A and Bis(2-Ethyhexyl) Phthalate Exposure: Findings from a Dietary Intervention. Environ Health Perspect. 2011;119(7):914–920. doi:10.1289/ehp.1003170
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  90. 90.
    Bang DY, Kyung M, Kim MJ, et al. Human Risk Assessment of Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals Derived from Plastic Food Containers. Compr Rev Food Sci Food Saf. 2012;11(5):453–470. doi:10.1111/j.1541-4337.2012.00197.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  91. 91.↵
    Yang CZ, Yaniger SI, Jordan VC, Klein DJ, Bittner GD. Most Plastic Products Release Estrogenic Chemicals: A Potential Health Problem That Can Be Solved. Environ Health Perspect. 2011;119(7):989/96. doi:10.1289/ehp.1003220
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  92. 92.
    Fasano E, Bono-Blay F, Cirillo T, Montuori P, Lacorte S. Migration of phthalates, alkylphenols, bisphenol A and di(2-ethylhexyl)adipate from food packaging. Food Control. 2012;27(1):132–138. doi:10.1016/j.foodcont.2012.03.005
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  93. 93.
    Serrano SE, Braun J, Trasande L, Dills R, Sathyanarayana S. Phthalates and diet: a review of the food monitoring and epidemiology data. Environmental Health. 2014;13(1):43. doi:10.1186/1476-069X-13-43
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  94. 94.
    1. Snedeker SM
    Rodgers KM, Rudel RA, Just AC. Phthalates in Food Packaging, Consumer Products, and Indoor Environments. In: Snedeker SM, ed. Toxicants in Food Packaging and Household Plastics: Exposure and Health Risks to Consumers. Molecular and Integrative Toxicology. Springer; 2014:31–59. doi:10.1007/978-1-4471-6500-2_2
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  95. 95.
    Hayasaka Y. Analysis of phthalates in wine using liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry combined with a hold-back column: Chromatographic strategy to avoid the influence of pre-existing phthalate contamination in a liquid chromatography system. J Chromatogr A. 2014;1372:120–127. doi:10.1016/j.chroma.2014.10.096
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  96. 96.↵
    Wagner M, Oehlmann J. Endocrine disruptors in bottled mineral water: total estrogenic burden and migration from plastic bottles. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2009;16(3):278–286. doi:10.1007/s11356-009-0107-7
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  97. 97.
    Bittner GD, Denison MS, Yang CZ, Stoner MA, He G. Chemicals having estrogenic activity can be released from some bisphenol a-free, hard and clear, thermoplastic resins. Environmental Health. 2014;13(1):103. doi:10.1186/1476-069X-13-103
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  98. 98.↵
    Perdue L. How Food Processing Adds Plastic-Derived Chemical Contamination | Stealth Syndromes Human Study. Accessed September 9, 2020. https://stealthsyndromesstudy.com/?p=1276
  99. 99.↵
    Perdue L. How Does the Food Chain Get Contaminated with Plastic-Derived Chemicals (PDCs)? | Stealth Syndromes Human Study. Accessed September 9, 2020. https://stealthsyndromesstudy.com/?p=1101
  100. 100.↵
    Srour B, Beslay M, Méjean C, Allès B, Fiolet T, et al. Consumption of ultra-processed foods and the risk of overweight and obesity, and weight trajectories in the French cohort NutriNet-Santé. 13th European Nutrition Conference - Malnutrition in an obese world: European perspectives (FENS 2019), Oct 2019, Dublin, Ireland. 2019, Abstracts of the 13th European Nutrition Conference - Malnutrition in an obese world: European perspectives. ⟨ hal-02377022⟩
  101. 101.
    Costa CS, Del-Ponte B, Assunção MCF, Santos IS. Consumption of ultra-processed foods and body fat during childhood and adolescence: a systematic review. Public Health Nutr. 2018;21(1):148–159. doi:10.1017/S1368980017001331
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  102. 102.
    Nardocci M, Leclerc B-S, Louzada M-L, Monteiro CA, Batal M, Moubarac J-C. Consumption of ultra-processed foods and obesity in Canada. Can J Public Health. 2019;110(1):4–14. doi:10.17269/s41997-018-0130-x
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  103. 103.
    Juul F, Martinez-Steele E, Parekh N, Monteiro CA, Chang VW. Ultra-processed food consumption and excess weight among US adults. Br J Nutr. 2018;120(1):90–100. doi:10.1017/S0007114518001046
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  104. 104.
    Mendonça R de D, Pimenta AM, Gea A, et al. Ultraprocessed food consumption and risk of overweight and obesity: the University of Navarra Follow-Up (SUN) cohort study. Am J Clin Nutr. 2016;104(5):1433–1440. doi:10.3945/ajcn.116.135004
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  105. 105.↵
    Hall KD, Ayuketah A, Brychta R, et al. Ultra-Processed Diets Cause Excess Calorie Intake and Weight Gain: An Inpatient Randomized Controlled Trial of Ad Libitum Food Intake. Cell Metabolism. 2019;30(1):67–77.e3. doi:10.1016/j.cmet.2019.05.008
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  106. 106.
    Laster J, Frame LA. Beyond the Calories—Is the Problem in the Processing? Curr Treat Options Gastro. 2019;17(4):577–586. doi:10.1007/s11938-019-00246-1
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  107. 107.↵
    Schulze K, Adams J, White M. Associations Between Sales of Ultra-Processed Food Products and Prevalence of Adiposity and Diabetes Mellitus: A Panel Analysis of 76 Countries Between 2001-2016. SSRN. 2019;Preprint. doi:10.2139/ssrn.3397190
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  108. 108.↵
    Srour B, Fezeu LK, Kesse-Guyot E, et al. Ultra-processed food intake and risk of type 2 diabetes in a French cohort of middle-aged adults. Eur J Public Health. 2019;29(Supplement_4). doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckz185.388
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  109. 109.
    Neuenschwander M, Ballon A, Weber KS, et al. Role of diet in type 2 diabetes incidence: umbrella review of meta-analyses of prospective observational studies. BMJ. 2019;366. doi:10.1136/bmj.l2368
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  110. 110.↵
    Schwingshackl L, Hoffmann G, Lampousi A-M, et al. Food groups and risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies. Eur J Epidemiol. 2017;32(5):363–375. doi:10.1007/s10654-017-0246-y
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  111. 111.↵
    Srour B, Fezeu LK, Kesse-Guyot E, et al. Ultra-processed food intake and risk of cardiovascular disease: prospective cohort study (NutriNet-Santé). BMJ. 2019;365. doi:10.1136/bmj.l1451
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  112. 112.
    Smiljanec K. Ultra-processed Food Consumption and Vascular Health. The FASEB Journal. 2020;34(S1):1–1. doi:10.1096/fasebj.2020.34.s1.05472
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  113. 113.↵
    Moreira PVL, Baraldi LG, Moubarac J-C, et al. Comparing Different Policy Scenarios to Reduce the Consumption of Ultra-Processed Foods in UK: Impact on Cardiovascular Disease Mortality Using a Modelling Approach. PLoS One. 2015;10(2):e0118353. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0118353
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  114. 114.↵
    Fiolet T, Srour B, Sellem L, et al. Consumption of ultra-processed foods and cancer risk: results from NutriNet-Santé prospective cohort. BMJ. 2018;360. doi:10.1136/bmj.k322
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  115. 115.↵
    Rico-Campà A, Martínez-González MA, Alvarez-Alvarez I, et al. Association between consumption of ultra-processed foods and all cause mortality: SUN prospective cohort study. BMJ. 2019;365. doi:10.1136/bmj.l1949
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  116. 116.↵
    Hagobian T. CLARITY-BPA Program in Rats: Is It Translatable to Humans? J Endocr Soc. 2019;3(7):1390–1392. doi:10.1210/js.2019-00126
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  117. 117.↵
    Mak IW, Evaniew N, Ghert M. Lost in translation: animal models and clinical trials in cancer treatment. Am J Transl Res. 2014;6(2):114–118.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  118. 118.↵
    Freedman LP, Cockburn IM, Simcoe TS. The Economics of Reproducibility in Preclinical Research. PLoS Biology. 2015;13(6):e1002165. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1002165
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  119. 119.↵
    Hartshorne JK and Schachner A. Tracking replicability as a method of post-publication open evaluation. Front. Comput. Neurosci. 2012;6:8. doi: 10.3389/fncom.2012.00008.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  120. 120.↵
    Begley CG, Ellis LM. Raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature. 2012;483(7391):531–533. doi:10.1038/483531a
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  121. 121.↵
    Garza C, Stover PJ, Ohlhorst SD, et al. Best practices in nutrition science to earn and keep the public’s trust. Am J Clin Nutr. 2019;109(1);225–243. doi:10.1093/ajcn/nqy337.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  122. 122.↵
    Ioannidis JPA. Implausible results in human nutrition research. BMJ. 2013;347. doi:10.1136/bmj.f6698
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  123. 123.↵
    Ridker PM. Inflammation in atherothrombosis: how to use high-sensitivity Creactive protein (hsCRP) in clinical practice. Am Heart Hosp J. 2004;2(4 Suppl 1):4–9
    OpenUrlPubMed
  124. 124.
    Denegri A, Boriani G. High sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) and its implications in cardiovascular outcomes [published online ahead of print, 2020 Jul 16]. Curr Pharm Des. 2020; doi:10.2174/1381612826666200717090334.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  125. 125.↵
    Carrero JJ, Franko MA, Obergfell A, Gabrielsen A, Jernberg T. hsCRP Level the Risk of Death or Recurrent Cardiovascular Events in Patients With Myocardial Infarction: a Healthcare-Based Study. JAHA. 2019;8(11):e012638; doi:10.1161/JAHA.119.012638
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  126. 126.↵
    Lancellotti P, Marechal P, Donis N, Oury C. Inflammation, cardiovascular disease, and cancer: a common link with far-reaching implications. Eur Heart J. 2019;40(48):3910–3912. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehz645.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  127. 127.↵
    Denegri A, Boriani G. High sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) and its implications in cardiovascular outcomes [published online ahead of print, 2020 Jul 16]. Curr Pharm Des. 2020;10.2174/1381612826666200717090334. doi:10.2174/1381612826666200717090334
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  128. 128.
    Ebrahimi M, Heidari-Bakavoli AR, Shoeibi S, et al. Association of Serum hs-CRP Levels With the Presence of Obesity, Diabetes Mellitus, and Other Cardiovascular Risk Factors. J Clin Lab Anal. 2016;30(5):672–676. doi:10.1002/jcla.21920
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  129. 129.↵
    Muller DC, Larose TL, Hodge A, et al. Circulating high sensitivity C reactive protein concentrations and risk of lung cancer: nested case-control study within Lung Cancer Cohort Consortium. BMJ. 2019;364:k4981. Published 2019 Jan 3. doi:10.1136/bmj.k4981
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  130. 130.↵
    Luan YY, Yao YM. The Clinical Significance and Potential Role of C-Reactive Protein in Chronic Inflammatory and Neurodegenerative Diseases. Front Immunol. 2018;9:1302. Published 2018 Jun 7. doi:10.3389/fimmu.2018.01302
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  131. 131.↵
    Nadrowski P, Chudek J, Skrzypek M, et al. Associations between cardiovascular disease risk factors and IL-6 and hsCRP levels in the elderly. Exp Gerontol. 2016;85:112–117. doi:10.1016/j.exger.2016.10.001
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  132. 132.↵
    Lai KSP, Liu CS, Rau A, et al. Peripheral inflammatory markers in Alzheimer’s disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 175 studies. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2017;88(10):876–882. doi:10.1136/jnnp-2017-316201
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  133. 133.↵
    O’Donovan A, Rush G, Hoatam G, et al. Suicidal ideation is associated with elevated inflammation in patients with major depressive disorder. Depress Anxiety. 2013;30(4):307–314. doi:10.1002/da.22087
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  134. 134.
    Mocking RJT, Nap TS, Westerink AM, et al. Biological profiling of prospective antidepressant response in major depressive disorder: Associations with (neuro)inflammation, fatty acid metabolism, and amygdala-reactivity. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2017;79:84–92. doi:10.1016/j.psyneuen.2017.02.019
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  135. 135.
    Courtet P, Giner L, Seneque M, Guillaume S, Olie E, Ducasse D. Neuroinflammation in suicide: Toward a comprehensive model. World J Biol Psychiatry. 2016;17(8):564–586. doi:10.3109/15622975.2015.1054879
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  136. 136.↵
    Brundin L, Erhardt S, Bryleva EY, Achtyes ED, Postolache TT. The role of inflammation in suicidal behaviour. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2015;132(3):192–203. doi:10.1111/acps.12458
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  137. 137.↵
    Connelly MA, Gruppen EG, Otvos JD, Dullaart RPF. Inflammatory glycoproteins in cardiometabolic disorders, autoimmune diseases and cancer. Clin Chim Acta. 2016;459:177–186. doi:10.1016/j.cca.2016.06.012
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  138. 138.↵
    Lochhead P, Khalili H, Ananthakrishnan AN, Richter JM, Chan AT. Association Between Circulating Levels of C-Reactive Protein and Interleukin-6 and Risk of Inflammatory Bowel Disease. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016;14(6):818–824.e6. doi:10.1016/j.cgh.2016.01.016
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  139. 139.↵
    Chen S, Ma BL, Cao MQ, Yu HJ, Ma XM. [Correlation among serum MBL, MASP-2, HsCRP and C3 levels in rheumatoid arthritis]. Nan Fang Yi Ke Da Xue Xue Bao. 2016;36(10):1340–1344.
    OpenUrl
  140. 140.↵
    Zhang TL, Niu JF, Liu JT, Hu TY, Li Q [Value of hsCRP and Alb in Evaluating the Prognosis of Patients with Systemic Lupus Erythematosus]. Zhongguo Shi Yan Xue Ye Xue Za Zhi. 2017;25(4):1218–1222. doi:10.7534/j.issn.1009-2137.2017.04.045
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  141. 141.↵
    Panchanathan R, Liu H, Leung Y-K, Ho S, Choubey D. Bisphenol A (BPA) stimulates the interferon signaling and activates the inflammasome activity in myeloid cells. Mol Cell Endocrinol. 2015;415:45–55. doi:10.1016/j.mce.2015.08.003
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  142. 142.↵
    Roche JA, Roche R. A hypothesized role for dysregulated bradykinin signaling in COVID-19 respiratory complications. FASEB Journal. 2020;34(6):7265–7269. doi:10.1096/fj.202000967
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  143. 143.↵
    Ratajczak MZ, Kucia M. SARS-CoV-2 infection and overactivation of Nlrp3 inflammasome as a trigger of cytokine storm and risk factor for damage of hematopoietic stem cells. Leukemia. 2020;34(7):1726–1729. doi:10.1038/s41375-020-0887-9
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  144. 144.
    Shah A. Novel Coronavirus-Induced NLRP3 Inflammasome Activation: A Potential Drug Target in the Treatment of COVID-19. Front Immunol. 2020;11. doi:10.3389/fimmu.2020.01021
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  145. 145.↵
    Freeman TL, Swartz TH. Targeting the NLRP3 Inflammasome in Severe COVID-19. Front Immunol. 2020;11. doi:10.3389/fimmu.2020.01518
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  146. 146.↵
    Porcino AJ, Shamseer L, Chan A-W, et al. SPIRIT extension and elaboration for n-of-1 trials: SPENT 2019 checklist. BMJ. 2020;368. doi:10.1136/bmj.m122
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  147. 147.↵
    De Roos B, Brennan L. Personalised Interventions—A Precision Approach for the Next Generation of Dietary Intervention Studies. Nutrients. 2017;9(8):847. doi:10.3390/nu9080847
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  148. 148.↵
    Perdue L. Revised Stealth Syndromes Human Study Protocol – APPENDIX 2 – Detailed parameters of intervention diet selections | Stealth Syndromes Human Study. Accessed September 9, 2020. https://stealthsyndromesstudy.com/?p=1270
  149. 149.↵
    Hamrick S. Karen and McClelland, Ket. Americans’ Eating Patterns and Time Spent on Food: The 2014 Eating & Health Module Data, EIB-158, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, July 2016.
  150. 150.↵
    Peixoto D, Pinheiro C, Amorim J, Oliva-Teles L, Guilhermino L, Vieira MN. Microplastic pollution in commercial salt for human consumption: A review. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci. 2019;219:161–168. doi:10.1016/j.ecss.2019.02.018
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  151. 151.↵
    Hutter H-P, Kundi M, Hohenblum P, et al. Life without plastic: A family experiment and biomonitoring study. Environmental Research. 2016;150:639–644. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2016.05.028
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  152. 152.↵
    Galloway TS, Baglin N, Lee BP, et al. An engaged research study to assess the effect of a ‘real-world’ dietary intervention on urinary bisphenol A (BPA) levels in teenagers. BMJ Open. 2018;8(2):e018742. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018742
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  153. 153.↵
    Sorkin BC, Kuszak AJ, Williamson JS, Hopp DC, Betz JM. The Challenge of Reproducibility and Accuracy in Nutrition Research: Resources and Pitfalls. Adv Nutr. 2016;7(2):383–389. doi:10.3945/an.115.010595
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  154. 154.↵
    Barabási A-L, Menichetti G, Loscalzo J. The unmapped chemical complexity of our diet. Nature Food. 2020;1(1):33–37. doi:10.1038/s43016-019-0005-1
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  155. 155.↵
    Stahlhut RW, Welshons WV, Swan SH. Bisphenol A Data in NHANES Suggest Longer than Expected Half-Life, Substantial Nonfood Exposure, or Both. Environ Health Perspect. 2009;117(5):784–789. doi:10.1289/ehp.0800376
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  156. 156.↵
    Lagarde F, Beausoleil C, Belcher SM, et al. Non-monotonic dose-response relationships and endocrine disruptors: a qualitative method of assessment. Environmental Health. 2015;14(1):13. doi:10.1186/1476-069X-14-13
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  157. 157.
    Vandenberg LN, Colborn T, Hayes TB, et al. Hormones and Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals: Low-Dose Effects and Nonmonotonic Dose Responses. Endocrine Reviews. 2012;33(3):378–455. doi:10.1210/er.2011-1050
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  158. 158.↵
    Ohlwein S, Kappeler R, Kutlar Joss M, Künzli N, Hoffmann B. Health effects of ultrafine particles: a systematic literature review update of epidemiological evidence. Int J Public Health. 2019;64(4):547–559. doi:10.1007/s00038-019-01202-7
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  159. 159.↵
    Ye X, Wong LY, Kramer J, Zhou X, Jia T, Calafat AM. Urinary Concentrations of Bisphenol A and Three Other Bisphenols in Convenience Samples of U.S. Adults during 2000-2014. Environ Sci Technol. 2015 Oct 6;49(19):11834–9. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.5b02135. Epub 2015 Sep 18. PMID: 26360019; PMCID: PMC7948051.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  160. 160.
    Fourth National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals, Updated Tables, March 2021, Volume One Volume 1 NHANES 1999-2010, Page 44 — https://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/pdf/FourthReport_UpdatedTables_Volume1_Mar2021-508-7.pdf. Accessed March 15, 2022.
  161. 161.
    Fourth National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals, Updated Tables, March 2021 - Volume Two, 2011-2016, Pages 93-98] — https://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/pdf/FourthReport_UpdatedTables_Volume2_Mar2021-508.pdf. Accessed March 15, 2022.
  162. 162.
    Marsha K. Morgan, Maliha Nash, Dana Boyd Barr, James M. Starr, M. Scott Clifton, Jon R. Sobus, Distribution, variability, and predictors of urinary bisphenol A levels in 50 North Carolina adults over a six-week monitoring period, Environment International, Volume 112, 2018, Pages 85–99, ISSN 0160-4120,
    OpenUrl
  163. 163.
    Liao C, Kannan K. Determination of free and conjugated forms of bisphenol A in human urine and serum by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Environ Sci Technol. 2012 May 1;46(9):5003–9. doi: 10.1021/es300115a. Epub 2012 Apr 19. PMID: 22489688.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  164. 164.
    Liao C, Liu F, Alomirah H, Loi VD, Mohd MA, Moon HB, Nakata H, Kannan K. Bisphenol S in urine from the United States and seven Asian countries: occurrence and human exposures. Environ Sci Technol. 2012 Jun 19;46(12):6860–6. doi: 10.1021/es301334j. Epub 2012 Jun 7. PMID: 22620267.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  165. 165.
    Calafat AM, Ye X, Wong LY, Reidy JA, Needham LL. Exposure of the U.S. population to bisphenol A and 4-tertiary-octylphenol: 2003-2004. Environ Health Perspect. 2008 Jan;116(1):39–44. doi: 10.1289/ehp.10753. PMID: 18197297; PMCID: PMC2199288.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  166. 166.↵
    Ye X, Kuklenyik Z, Needham LL, Calafat AM. Automated on-line column-switching HPLC-MS/MS method with peak focusing for the determination of nine environmental phenols in urine. Anal Chem. 2005 Aug 15;77(16):5407–13. doi: 10.1021/ac050390d. PMID: 16097788.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  167. 167.↵
    Winkler, Juliane, Pengyuan Liu, Kiet Phong, Johanna H. Hinrichs, Nassim Ataii, Katherine Williams, Elin Hadler-Olsen et al. Bisphenol A replacement chemicals, BPF and BPS, induce protumorigenic changes in human mammary gland organoid morphology and proteome. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 119, no. 11 (2022): e2115308119.
    OpenUrl
  168. 168.
    Zuowei Ji, Jie Liu, Sugunadevi Sakkiah, Wenjing Guo, and Huixiao Hong ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering 2021 9 (6), 2433–2446 DOI: 10.1021/acssuschemeng.0c09276
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  169. 169.
    Da Chen, Kurunthachalam Kannan, Hongli Tan, Zhengui Zheng, Yong-Lai Feng, Yan Wu, and Margaret Widelka Environmental Science & Technology 2016 50 (11), 5438–5453 DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.5b05387
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  170. 170.
    Huang M, Liu S, Fu L, Jiang X, Yang M. Bisphenol A and its analogues bisphenol S, bisphenol F and bisphenol AF induce oxidative stress and biomacromolecular damage in human granulosa KGN cells. Chemosphere. 2020 Aug;253:126707. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.126707. Epub 2020 Apr 9. PMID: 32289607.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  171. 171.
    Shamhari A’, Abd Hamid Z, Budin SB, Shamsudin NJ, Taib IS. Bisphenol A and Its Analogues Deteriorate the Hormones Physiological Function of the Male Reproductive System: A Mini-Review. Biomedicines. 2021 Nov 22;9(11):1744. doi: 10.3390/biomedicines9111744. PMID: 34829973; PMCID: PMC8615890.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  172. 172.
    Andújar N, Gálvez-Ontiveros Y, Zafra-Gómez A, Rodrigo L, Álvarez-Cubero MJ, Aguilera M, Monteagudo C, Rivas A. Bisphenol A Analogues in Food and Their Hormonal and Obesogenic Effects: A Review. Nutrients. 2019; 11(9):2136. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu11092136
    OpenUrl
  173. 173.
    Liao, C.; Liu, F.; Alomirah, H.; Loi, V.D.; Mohd, M.A.; Moon, H.B.; Nakata, H.; Kannan, K. Bisphenol S in urine from the United States and seven Asian countries: Occurrence and human exposures. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 6860–6866.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  174. 174.
    Kojima, H.; Takeuchi, S.; Sanoh, S.; Okuda, K.; Kitamura, S.; Uramaru, N.; Sugihara, K.; Yoshinari, K. Profiling of bisphenol A and eight its analogues on transcriptional activity via human nuclear receptors. Toxicology 2019, 413, 48–55.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  175. 175.
    Pelch, K.; Wignall, J.A.; Goldstone, A.E.; Ross, P.K.; Blain, R.B.; Shapiro, A.J.; Holmgren, S.D.; Hsieh, J.H.; Svoboda, D.; Auerbach, S.S.; et al. A scoping review of the health and toxicological activity of bisphenol A (BPA) structural analogues and functional alternatives. Toxicology 2019, 424, 152235.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  176. 176.
    Punt, A.; Aartse, A.; Bovee, T.F.H.; Gerssen, A.; Van Leeuwen, S.P.J. Hoogenboom RLAP, Peijnenburg AACM. Quantitative in vitro-to-in vivo extrapolation (QIVIVE) of estrogenic and anti-androgenic potencies of BPA and BADGE analogues. Arch. Toxicol. 2019, 93, 1941–1953.
    OpenUrl
  177. 177.↵
    Joseph Apau, Akwasi Acheampong & Eric Adua | Bryan M. Wong (Reviewing editor) (2018) Exposure to bisphenol A, bisphenol F, and bisphenol S can result in obesity in human body, Cogent Chemistry, 4:1, DOI: 10.1080/23312009.2018.1506601
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  178. 178.
    Soria Eladak, Tiphany Grisin, Delphine Moison, Marie-Justine Guerquin, Thierry N’Tumba-Byn, Stéphanie Pozzi-Gaudin, Alexandra Benachi, Gabriel Livera, Virginie Rouiller-Fabre, René Habert, A new chapter in the bisphenol A story: bisphenol S and bisphenol F are not safe alternatives to this compound, Fertility and Sterility, Volume 103, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 11–21
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  179. 179.
    Liu B, Lehmler HJ, Sun Y, Xu G, Sun Q, Snetselaar LG, Wallace RB, Bao W. Association of Bisphenol A and Its Substitutes, Bisphenol F and Bisphenol S, with Obesity in United States Children and Adolescents. Diabetes Metab J. 2019 Feb;43(1):59–75. doi: 10.4093/dmj.2018.0045. PMID: 30793552; PMCID: PMC6387872.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  180. 180.
    Maertens, A., Golden, E. and Hartung, T., 2021. Avoiding regrettable substitutions: Green toxicology for sustainable chemistry. ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering, 9(23), pp.7749–7758.
    OpenUrl
  181. 181.
    Qadeer, Abdul, Kelly L. Kirsten, Zeeshan Ajmal, Xia Jiang, and Xingru Zhao. Alternative Plasticizers As Emerging Global Environmental and Health Threat: Another Regrettable Substitution?. Environmental science & technology (2022).
  182. 182.↵
    Hall KD, et al. Supplemental Information. https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S1550413119302487-mmc1.pdf. Accessed May 30, 2022.
  183. 183.↵
    Mercogliano, Raffaelina, and Serena Santonicola. Investigation on bisphenol A levels in human milk and dairy supply chain: A review. Food and chemical toxicology (2018).
  184. 184.↵
    Santonicola, Serena, et al. Study on bisphenol F, a bisphenol A analogue, at a dairy company: Health hazard and risk assessment. Food and Chemical Toxicology 154 (2021): 112334.
    OpenUrl
  185. 185.
    Liao, Chunyang, Fang Liu, and Kurunthachalam Kannan. Bisphenol S, a new bisphenol analogue, in paper products and currency bills and its association with bisphenol A residues. Environmental science & technology 46.12 (2012): 6515–6522.
    OpenUrl
Back to top
Posted August 12, 2022.
Download PDF
Data/Code
Email
Stricter protocols combined with a clinical serum biomarker can increase replicability and causality for dietary intervention studies. Plus empirical data on BPA regrettable substitutions
W. Lewis Perdue, Victor I. Reus, Richard B. van Breemen, Ruth N. Muchiri, Rebecca L. Yeamans-Irwin
medRxiv 2022.08.09.22278588; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.08.09.22278588
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools

Subject Area