Holding the receipts for 10 seconds absorbs enough bisphenol S to break California’s safety rule, research finds

Holding the receipts for 10 seconds absorbs enough bisphenol S to break California’s safety rule, research finds

Paper receipts from major retailers in the US are so laden with bisphenol S that holding one for 10 seconds can cause the skin to absorb enough of the highly toxic chemical to violate California’s safety threshold, new research has found.

The findings are being used as evidence in legal action aimed at pressuring retailers to stop using receipt paper treated with bisphenol S, or BPS, which is linked to cancer and reproductive problems.

The Center for Environmental Health (CEH) non-profit has sent violation notices to about 50 major retailers alerting them to the exceedance of California’s Proposition 65 limits for BPS.

  • tyler@programming.devEnglish
    7·
    7 days ago

    I thought this was known for over a decade now. I remember the number being 11 seconds that people normally hold onto receipts for and so almost everyone is exposed

    • Kbibble@lemm.eeEnglish
      7·
      7 days ago

      Summary: The old chemical was BPA and they switched to BPS, after BPA was found toxic, and now theres evidence that BPS is toxic but that is more recent. Suspicions extend back years prior but BPS is only getting added to toxiciry lists recently.

      • tyler@programming.devEnglish
        1·
        6 days ago

        I provided sources below that state that BPS were just as bad of a problem in receipts back in 2014.

    • BoulevardBlvd@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
      2·
      7 days ago

      That’s what I was thinking! Except last time I heard it a decade ago there wasn’t any actual evidence and it was only antivax homeschool weirdos talking about it. I’d love to hear from anyone who read the actual study to see if this is real this time. Not about to trust the same people that ran “a glass of wine a day is good for you” at one point. US news doesn’t have actual science communicators and their popsci headlines are universally trash

      Edit having now read the guardian article: only proved my point. The only thing they cite is the California prop 65 which is absolutely useless as evidence of possible harm. I’m genuinely asking for the real paper or someone who read it here because nothing from OP is of any use and the guardian doesn’t cite their sources (which sucks! because it might be genuinely dangerous and I have no idea! I don’t want to poison myself but this very well could be bullshit!)