BPA Replacements May Be Just as Harmful as BPA Itself

The price sticker on your package of chicken breast looks harmless. But according to groundbreaking research from McGill University, the chemicals in that small adhesive label can leach through the plastic wrap and into your food, carrying endocrine-disrupting compounds that may be just as dangerous as the BPA they were designed to replace.

Published in August 2025 in the journal Toxicological Sciences, the study tested four common BPA substitutes found in grocery store price labels and thermal paper: TGSA, D-8, PF-201, and BPS. Researchers exposed lab-grown human ovarian cells to these chemicals and documented alarming results. At the highest doses, TGSA killed roughly 75% of the cells. Both TGSA and D-8 caused massive buildup of fat droplets inside cells and fundamentally altered the activity of thousands of genes that control DNA repair, cell growth, and replication.

The gene disruption numbers are staggering. TGSA altered 2,414 genes in human ovarian cells, while D-8 disrupted 2,563 genes. Many of these genes play critical roles in maintaining cellular health and preventing cancer. The study raises urgent questions about reproductive health, developmental impacts, and whether the chemicals we've embraced as safer alternatives are actually creating new risks we haven't yet measured.

The BPA-Free Label Is Meaningless

"'BPA-free' is an incredibly misleading label," said researcher Bernard Robaire from McGill University. "It usually means one bisphenol has been swapped for another, and there are more than 200 of them."

This pattern of regrettable substitution has become a recurring theme in consumer product safety. When public pressure forced manufacturers to remove BPA from baby bottles and food containers, the industry responded by replacing it with chemical cousins that shared similar molecular structures but lacked the decades of research that had condemned BPA in the first place. Consumers saw "BPA-free" labels and assumed the problem was solved. The McGill study reveals they were wrong.

More than 200 bisphenol alternatives currently exist on the market. Most are not regulated or routinely tested before entering commerce. Health Canada has now added all four substances tested in the McGill study to a list of chemicals requiring further investigation, but this reactive approach highlights a fundamental regulatory gap: replacement chemicals are approved based on the absence of proven harm rather than evidence of safety.

How Price Stickers Contaminate Your Food

The McGill research grew out of a 2023 discovery by food chemist Stéphane Bayen, who found that label-printing chemicals were leaching through plastic wrap into packaged food. These thermal printing chemicals are used on price stickers attached to meat, fish, cheese, and produce throughout grocery stores. The stickers sit directly on plastic wrap, and the chemicals migrate through the barrier to contaminate the food inside.

This migration pathway means consumers have no meaningful way to avoid exposure through purchasing choices alone. You can select BPA-free containers, avoid canned foods with epoxy linings, and refuse receipts, but you cannot prevent the price label on your groceries from transferring chemicals into your dinner.

The study focused on human ovarian cells because these cells are particularly vulnerable to endocrine disruption. Ovarian granulosa cells play essential roles in reproductive hormone production and egg development. Disruption to these cells during critical developmental windows—in utero or during puberty—could have lasting effects on fertility and reproductive health. The fat accumulation observed in exposed cells mirrors patterns seen in metabolic diseases and polycystic ovary syndrome.

A Pattern of Regulatory Failure

The BPA replacement story exemplifies a broader crisis in chemical regulation. The U.S. and Canada allow tens of thousands of chemicals in commerce without comprehensive safety testing. When a chemical finally accumulates enough evidence of harm to trigger regulatory action, industry replaces it with structurally similar alternatives that reset the clock on safety research.

This approach protects manufacturers from liability while shifting risk to consumers. The 200+ bisphenol alternatives now in use will each require years or decades of independent research before their health impacts become clear. Meanwhile, entire populations serve as unwitting test subjects for chemicals that may prove just as harmful as the compounds they replaced.

The current regulatory framework treats each bisphenol variant as a novel chemical requiring separate evaluation, despite structural similarities that suggest similar mechanisms of toxicity. A more protective approach would require manufacturers to demonstrate safety before introducing BPA alternatives, particularly for chemicals used in food contact materials.

What You Can Do

Understanding that "BPA-free" labels offer no guarantee of safety is the first step toward reducing exposure. Glass and stainless steel containers eliminate plastic food contact entirely. Avoiding thermal paper receipts limits exposure to bisphenols used in receipt printing. Choosing fresh, unwrapped produce over pre-packaged options reduces contact with price label chemicals.

However, individual consumer choices cannot fully address a systemic regulatory failure. Food packaging chemicals should be rigorously tested for safety before entering commerce, not pulled from shelves after years of population-wide exposure. Until that standard changes, families need tools to understand and navigate the chemical exposures embedded in the food supply.

The McGill findings underscore why independent testing and transparency matter. When "BPA-free" can mean "contains untested BPA substitute that disrupts 2,400 genes," consumers need better information than marketing labels provide. The path forward requires both regulatory reform and immediate access to data about what chemicals are actually in our food.

Sources

1. McGill University Newsroom - "Study raises red flags about BPA replacements" - August 2025. https://www.mcgill.ca/newsroom/channels/news/study-raises-red-flags-about-bpa-replacements-366691

2. Medical Xpress - "BPA replacements in food packaging may disrupt key ovarian cell functions" - August 26, 2025. https://medicalxpress.com/news/2025-08-bpa-food-packaging-disrupt-key.html

3. SciTechDaily - "BPA-Free? New Study Shows Popular Replacements May Harm Human Cells" - August 2025. https://scitechdaily.com/bpa-free-new-study-shows-popular-replacements-may-harm-human-cells/

4. Toxicological Sciences (Oxford Academic) - "High-content imaging and transcriptomic analyses of the effects of bisphenol S and alternative color developers on KGN granulosa cells" - 2025 (Volume 207, Issue 2). https://academic.oup.com/toxsci/article/207/2/401/8214026?login=false

5. Technology Networks - "BPA Replacements Disrupt Human Ovarian Cell Function" - August 2025. https://www.technologynetworks.com/cell-science/news/bpa-replacements-in-food-packaging-disrupt-ovarian-cell-function-403923