Sign In
Australia; International; VIC
Media release
From:
The Lancet Planetary Health: New study suggests that prenatal exposure to commonly-used BPA replacements might also be associated with early childhood behaviourExposure to certain everyday chemicals - methylparaben and bisphenol S (BPS) - during pregnancy may be associated with increased emotional and behavioural differences in young children, according to a new study published in The Lancet Planetary Health journal. Methylparaben and bisphenol S (BPS) are phenols found in products such as food packaging, cosmetics, and personal care products. Previous studies have shown a link between bisphenol A (BPA) and neurodevelopmental toxicity, leading BPA to be banned from several applications in the EU. BPS was introduced as a replacement to BPA.
In the study, researchers analysed urine samples collected multiple times from over 1,000 pregnant women across two cohorts in Spain and France to measure levels of exposure, explore the link between prenatal exposure to BPS and behaviour, and attempt to understand the biological pathways underlying this link.
Researchers found the association with methylparaben was strongest, and that concentration levels of these chemicals were associated with different behavioural effects in boys and girls. In particular, BPS appeared to have a stronger link to behaviour issues in boys. They also examined whether changes in stress hormones in pregnant women could explain how these chemicals influence children’s behaviour. However, the study didn’t find evidence linking these hormones to behaviour differences, which means more research is needed to understand the mechanisms behind any potential link between exposure to these chemicals and childhood behaviour.
The authors note that these findings suggest the need for stricter regulation around the use of these chemicals to reduce exposure during pregnancy. The researchers also emphasise that, while these findings highlight important potential connections, this study identified an association between exposure to these chemicals and behaviour in young children. It does not prove that behavioural problems are a direct result of prenatal exposure.
Differences between the two groups studied and other factors – such as variations in maternal age, breastfeeding habits, timing of behaviour assessments, and possible influences from unmeasured environmental or genetic effects – mean further research is needed to confirm these results and understand the potential health impacts of these chemicals.
Expert Reaction
These comments have been collated by the Science Media Centre to provide a variety of expert perspectives on this issue. Feel free to use these quotes in your stories. Views expressed are the personal opinions of the experts named. They do not represent the views of the SMC or any other organisation unless specifically stated.
Oliver Jones is Professor of Chemistry at RMIT University in Melbourne, Australia
“I think there are several factors that severely limit the conclusions we can draw from this paper.
“Firstly, the authors have only found an association between two factors. This is not the same as saying one thing caused the other. We probably find associations between a whole host of other factors (e.g. lack of sleep, low-quality diet, etc) and child behaviour, but that would not mean one caused the other; it could just be random chance – something the authors themselves note.
“The authors discuss endocrine disruption very generally without defining what they mean by it. There are at least 50 different major hormones in humans, and the ones assessed in this study seem to have had no effect, so where was the disruption?
“Urine concentration is used as a proxy for exposure, but if the compound is in the urine, it has been excreted and can’t be causing an effect. Additionally, only 6-7 urine samples were tested per mother. This is not an adequate sample size to accurately represent potential exposure throughout an entire 9-month pregnancy. On top of that, the behaviour assessment was not done until the child was 18-24 months old. We have no idea what the children were exposed to during the 1.5 – 2 gap between when the urine testing was done and when the surveys were filled in. The reported differences in early childhood behaviour could easily be due to an untested factor or simply to changes in diagnostic criteria over time.
“Methyl paraben has a very good safety profile, and while I think more data on BPS wouldn’t be a bad thing, given that it is less well studied than some other chemicals, that does not automatically mean it is dangerous.
“In short, I don’t think people need to worry based on this paper.”
Dr Ria Devereux, Environmental Research Fellow, Sustainability Research Institute at the University of East London, said:
“The study is a well-conducted observational study, but it is important to emphasise that it does not demonstrate causation. Behaviour in early childhood is influenced by multiple factors, including the home environment, socioeconomic conditions, and genetics, many of which were not fully accounted for in this study. Therefore, these results should be interpreted with caution until further research is conducted.
“This study adds to existing concerns regarding BPA replacements, which are currently used in plastics and some paper receipts in the UK. While previous research has raised questions about the potential effects of BPS and methylparaben on child behaviour, the evidence remains mixed, with some studies reporting associations and others finding no clear links.
“Although this study controlled for factors such as maternal age, education, and socioeconomic status, other important variables were not fully addressed. These include maternal mental health and parenting style. Additionally, the study focused exclusively on maternal exposure, despite evidence suggesting that paternal exposures may also influence child development.
“While this study does not provide definitive proof of affecting child behaviour, it raises important questions regarding the safety of BPS and other BPA alternatives. It is too early to call for stricter regulations based solely on current evidence. However, these findings, together with existing research, suggest that further investigation is needed to fully understand the potential public health implications.”
