While writing a recent article on BPA-free labeling, I happened to mention the topic of bisphenol-A to a couple of smart people I know. “bis-what?” came the response. Thinking they just weren’t familiar with the chemical’s full name, I went on “you know, BPA – the chemical that all the fuss was about in baby bottles and water containers”. Still nothing.
I was astounded – supposed public uproar over the use of this chemical has changed manufacturing practices, fundamentally altered how the substance is used in consumer products, and influenced regulators. Yet in my admittedly small poll of two subjects, they had no idea what I was talking about.
As it turns out, my experience shouldn’t have been unexpected. In a recent study on how consumers make choices between BPA and non BPA-containing products, colleagues and I slipped in a couple of questions about familiarity with the substance. The responses suggested that familiarity with BPA amongst a representative sample of US consumers is patchy at best.
In an online survey of subjects over 18 years of age (administered by Survey Sampling International – see below for the demographics), we asked them to rank their familiarity with issues surrounding Bisphenol A, from 0 (not at all familiar) to 4 (very familiar). The average rating was 0.88 (standard deviation 1.19) – the vast majority of participants were not particularly familiar with issues associated with BPA.
We also asked participants to consider a list of six consumer products (cans, milk jugs, water bottles, baby bottles, grocery bags and paper receipts), and identify whether each item may contain BPA. The correct answers were: cans, water bottles, baby bottles and paper receipts contain BPA; milk jugs and grocery bags do not. The responses were combined to create a knowledge score ranging from 0 (no correct responses) to 6 (all responses correct). The mean knowledge score was 2.9 (standard deviation 0.93) – a score that would have been no different if participants randomly guessed the answers.
As part of the survey, we ran a second study using Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk). Mturk is a population of Internet users who participate in surveys in exchange for small monetary compensation and has been shown to be a good source for high-quality data. In this case, we found our participants to be moderately familiar with issues surrounding BPA – the familiarity score was 2.52 (standard deviation 1.27) on a scale of 0 (not familiar) to 5 (very familiar). When asked to identify which of the six products listed above could contain BPA, the mean knowledge score was 2.09 out of 6 (standard deviation 0.94).
While our MTurk participants were more familiar with issues surrounding BPA than our Survey Sampling International participants, neither indicated a moderate to high familiarity with BP and the issues surrounding the substance. The higher level of familiarity seen in the second study isn’t surprising given the bias of MTurk toward engaged, active internet users. In this respect, the first study is more likely to be closer to representing US consumers.
If this is the case, there something of a disconnect between consumer pressure to remove BPA from products as reported in the media and highlighted by activist groups, and consumers who are aware of the issue. At this point, it isn’t clear whether the removal of BPA and its substitution with often less well-characterized substances has led to a net decrease in health risk across consumers, whether it has had negligible impact, or whether it has inadvertently increased risks. What does seem to emerge from this study though is that commercial and regulatory decisions have been taken in the face of public opinions that many people didn’t realize that they had.
Those may well have been the appropriate decisions to take based on what is known about BPA and potential health risks. But it does worry me that, where perceived pubic opinion dictates risk-based decisions, there is little accountability if those decisions turn out to be ill-informed.
Survey participant demographics. Source: Paper: The psychology of ‘regrettable substitutions’: examining consumer judgements of Bisphenol A and its alternatives. Laura Scherer, Andrew Maynard, Dana Dolinoy, Angela Fagerlin and Brian Zikmund-Fisher. Heath, Risk & Society, 16:7-8, 649-666 (2014). DOI: 10.1080/13698575.2014.969687