BPS is more dangerous than BPA

(NaturalNews) Now that almost every baby bottle manufacturer in the country has already voluntarily stopped using toxic bisphenol A (BPA) in its product formulations, the U.S.(FDA) has finally gotten around to issuing a formal ban on the chemical from baby bottles and children's drinking cups. But this ban means very little, as many manufacturers have already begun substituting bisphenol S (BPS), a potentially more deadly plastics chemical, in many BPA-free products, including children's products.Prompted by widespread consumer outrage over BPA's use in children's products despite its proven toxicity, the FDA reluctantly issued its basically useless ban, claiming that the decision "simply codifie[s] what the industry was already doing based on the preference of consumers," to borrow the words of(NYT) writer Sabrina Tavernise. The FDA, in other words, is trying to assert its (ir)relevance in the matter after the fact, even though the people have already made the decision with their wallets.Humorously, the FDA, while issuing its ban, made a point of reiterating its position that BPA is still safe, and that the ban has nothing to do with BPA's safety. FDA Deputy Commissioner Michael Taylor, former Monsanto lawyer-turned Vice President of Public Relations, stated publicly that his agency "continue[s] to support [BPA's] safe use," this after the agency stated in 2010 that it had concerns about the effects of BPA on "brain, behavior and prostate gland[s] of fetuses, infants and children."Fortunately, the FDA's dubious position on BPA reaffirms that the agency has no clue what it is talking about, and does not take actual science seriously. The FDA has long been in bed with the chemical industry, and its refusal to admit that BPA is toxic, especially to children, will eventually become the agency's demise.But an even bigger issue than BPA is its replacement, BPS, a chemical that was found in a recent study to have a significantly higher uptake in skin compared to BPA. Published in the journal, the first ever study on BPS' toxicity verified not only that the chemical is widely used, even in BPA-free products, but that it is also significantly more toxic because of its incredible absorption rate. ( https://www.naturalnews.com/036497_BPA_BPS_chemical.html Few people are aware of the existence of BPS because nobody is really talking much about it. Just like with BPA, the safety of BPS was never properly tested prior to its quiet introduction and use in consumer products, which is hardly surprising sinceof the chemicals used in consumer products today were never properly safety tested. ( https://www.naturalnews.com/029167_consumer_products_chemicals.html "Compared with when BPA was more widely used, people may now be absorbing 19 times more BPS through their skin, and people who handle thermal cash-register paper in their jobs may be absorbing even more BPS ," says a recentpiece on BPS, quoting the words of a research scientist at thewho led a study on BPS.