Why BPA is just the tip of the (plastic-covered) iceberg.

We’ve all seen the labels.

“BPA free.”

Often stamped in green and designed to reassure, these labels signal that what you’re holding is safe.

But what those labels don’t say matters just as much as what they do.

Bisphenol A (BPA) is one of the most widely used chemicals in plastic production. It’s found in everything from food and drink packaging to thermal receipts and household items.

In 1993, researchers at Stanford University accidentally identified that BPA could leach from plastic laboratory equipment into samples, highlighting how readily it can migrate from materials into surrounding environments.

In the early 2000s, BPA made headlines around the world for its potential to disrupt hormones.

As research has developed, it has been associated with a range of health concerns, including hormone-related cancers such as breast, prostate, ovarian and endometrial cancers (Cimmino et al., 2020).

As concern grew, so did demand for alternatives.

And so, the labels followed.

“BPA free” quickly became shorthand for “safe”.

But removing BPA doesn’t mean removing risk.

It often means replacing one chemical with another.

There are thousands of chemicals used in plastics – around 16,000 in total – and yet the vast majority of these are not disclosed on product labels.

So while a product may be “BPA free”, it may still contain closely related chemicals such as BPS or BPF, which can behave in similar ways in the body.

This is known as regrettable substitution, a pattern where one concerning chemical is replaced with another, before its impacts are fully understood.

Regulators and researchers have raised concerns about this substitution effect for years, with evidence suggesting many BPA alternatives may also disrupt hormonal systems.

BPA is one of a large family of bisphenols, including BPS, BPAF, BPC, BPF and BPZ, many of which have similar chemical structures and potential endocrine-disrupting properties. However, there is limited research to fully understand their long-term safety.

From packaged food and drinks to kitchen utensils, receipts and personal care products, these materials are part of daily life.

At the same time, highly processed and packaged foods now make up a significant portion of modern diets. According to The Guardian, in Australia, the US and the UK, they account for close to half of what people consume.

This means exposure is not coming from a single source. It is cumulative, occurring across multiple products and environments over time.

Labels like “BPA free” can signal that one chemical has been removed.

But they do not reflect the broader pattern of exposure.

Led by a multidisciplinary team at The University of Western Australia and funded by Minderoo Foundation, The Plastic Exposure Reduction Transforms Health (PERTH) Trial has investigated plastic chemical exposure in Western Australians over the past four years.

Early findings identified a clear relationship between dietary patterns and exposure, particularly the consumption of packaged, highly processed and canned foods.

Plastic chemicals, including BPA, BPS and phthalates, were detected in 100 per cent of participants, with multiple chemical types present in each individual on any given day.

To better understand how exposure could be reduced, the research team implemented a low-plastic diet and lifestyle intervention. This involved removing known sources of plastic contact from food and drink, alongside replacing common household items such as kitchen utensils and personal care products with non-plastic alternatives.

Dietitians also worked with more than 100 farmers and food producers to adjust food handling and supply chain processes, reducing contamination from paddock to plate.

The study revealed an important finding.

When exposure was reduced, through changes to diet, food handling and everyday products, chemical levels dropped by around 50 per cent.

It shows that exposure is not fixed, it can be changed.

But it also highlights how deeply these chemicals are woven into the systems we rely on, from production and packaging, through to the way food is grown, transported and consumed.

This also reflects a broader challenge in how chemical risks are assessed.

Organisations such as CHEM Trust have highlighted that the long history of debate around BPA points to limitations in current hazard and risk assessment processes, particularly where the burden of proof required for regulatory action is high.

In practice, this can delay protective measures, even as exposure continues.

Over time, that gap between emerging evidence and action has implications for population health.

Reducing exposure at scale will require more than individual choice. It requires system-wide change.

And the findings raise important questions.

And what does a ‘safe level’ of exposure even look like?

There are complex questions that still need answers.

Plastic chemicals are now embedded across modern life, with exposure occurring through multiple contact points. As these materials are used, washed and reused, they can degrade and continue to leach chemicals.

This makes defining and maintaining a “safe level” of exposure increasingly difficult, particularly as the range of chemicals in use continues to evolve.

While alternatives to existing plastic compounds are being developed, their long-term interactions with the human body are not yet fully understood.

At a global level, the challenge is accelerating. Plastic production is projected to triple by 2060 according to the United Nations, increasing the scale and complexity of exposure.

The PERTH Trial demonstrates that reducing exposure is possible, particularly when changes are made across the supply chain, from production through to consumption.

These findings point to a broader opportunity: to better understand exposure, and to design systems that reduce it at scale.

The next phase of the PERTH Trial will continue to investigate the links between plastic chemical exposure and human health, including fertility outcomes.

Follow the PERTH Trial on Instagram and LinkedIn to stay up to date on research and findings.

To reduce your own plastic exposure, consider choosing glass, ceramic or stainless steel for food and drinks, and natural fibres for clothing and furnishings.