RECEIPTS: first they prove you spent too much; then they fade before tax time; and now they could be bad for your health.
US researchers have found thermal receipt paper may be a significant source of Bisphenol A or BPA.
BPA has been a cause for concern for some time. There have been claims it can cause harm by acting like a female hormone, and studies in mice have shown that at very high concentrations BPA can be dangerous, particularly for pregnant and baby mice. However, Australian experts are divided on the US study. Two professors say the general population does not need to be concerned about touching receipts, while others believe further research is needed to learn more about the potential harm. Previous studies have shown cashiers have higher concentrations of BPA in their urine than the general public. In the new study published in the journal PLOS ONE, researchers found thermal paper, which is also used in ATMS and for some airline tickets, contains “very high” levels of BPA – around 20mg per gram of paper. They investigated how much BPA is absorbed by the body by devising experiments involving people handling receipts with and without the use of alcohol-based hand wipes and then eating French fries. The experiment mimicked “real-world behaviour”, they said, because around 50 million people eat in fast-food restaurants every day in the US. The University of Missouri researchers concluded that touching receipts, especially after using hand wipes, resulted in a significant transfer of BPA through the skin and into the bloodstream. The hand sanitisers would have allowed for more compounds such as BPA to be absorbed because they contain mixtures of skin penetration enhancing chemicals, as do skin care products. In 2010, the Australian Government announced the voluntary phase-out by major retailers of polycarbonate plastic baby bottles containing BPA. Many companies now have BPA-free baby products available. But BPA is still found in a huge range of things – from polycarbonate water bottles to the linings of tin cans. Commenting on the study, Dr Ian Musgrave of the University of Adelaide said the conditions used in the experiment are unlike any realistic use of thermal paper. “Even under these extreme conditions, the BPA levels in the subjects blood all remained well under levels shown to have a biological effect, and were quickly eliminated from the blood,” he said. Dr Oliver Jones of RMIT University said the authors did not provide enough evidence for their assertion that BPA in thermal paper poses a threat to human health. “To the best of my knowledge, nobody has yet conclusively proved that BPA is toxic at any realistic dose, or that it has ever harmed anybody, despite it being in use since the 1950s,” he said. “So, while I think that the present work is interesting, I don’t think the results are a cause for concern for the general public.” But Dr Anna Callan of Edith Cowan University said the study provides “an important starting point for the investigation of the role of skin contact in BPA exposure in the community”. Professor Ian Rae of the University of Melbourne suggested manufacturers of thermal receipt paper could find a replacement for BPA. “They are not trying hard enough,” he said.