The psychology of ‘regrettable substitutions’: examining consumer judgements of Bisphenol A and its alternatives

Abstract

Bisphenol A is a chemical used to make certain types of plastics and is found in numerous consumer products. Because scientific studies have raised concerns about Bisphenol A’s potential impact on human health, it has been removed from some (but not all) products. What many consumers do not know, however, is that Bisphenol A is often replaced with other, less-studied chemicals whose health implications are virtually unknown. This type of situation is known as a potential ‘regrettable substitution’, because the substitute material might actually be worse than the material that it replaces. Regrettable substitutions are a common concern among policymakers, and they are a real-world manifestation of the tension that can exist between the desire to avoid risk (known possible consequences that might or might not occur) and ambiguity (second-order uncertainty), which is itself aversive. In this article we examine how people make such trade-offs using the example of Bisphenol A. Using data from Study 1, we show that people have inconsistent preferences toward these alternatives and that choice is largely determined by irrelevant contextual factors such as the order in which the alternatives are evaluated. Using data from Study 2 we further demonstrate that when people are informed of the presence of substitute chemicals, labeling the alternative product as ‘free’ of Bisphenol A causes them to be significantly more likely to choose the alternative despite its ambiguity. We discuss the relevance of these findings for extant psychological theories as well as their implications for risk, policy and health communication.

Are Canned Beverages Industries Progressively Switching to Bisphenol AF?

“…Indeed, the endocrine disrupting potential of some BPs has been intensely investigated in recent years, with results showing that some analogues are more toxic than BPA (D. Chen et al., ; M. Y. Chen, Ike, & Fujita, ; Liu et al., ; Pelch et al., ; Ramilo, Valverde, Lago, Vieites, & Cabado, ; Rochester & Bolden, ; Roelofs, van den Berg, Bovee, Piersma, & van Duursen, ; Rosenmai et al., ; G. Russo et al., ). This resulted in products labeled as “BPA‐free” (Scherer, Maynard, Dolinoy, Fagerlin, & Zikmund‐Fisher, ). Bisphenol S (BPS), bisphenol F (BPF), bisphenol B (BPB), and bisphenol AF (BPAF) seem to be the BPA replacements most frequently employed by industries to date (Liao & Kannan, ; Mandrah, Satyanarayana, & Roy, ; Zhou et al., ).…”

“…Russo et al, 2018). This resulted in products labeled as "BPA-free" (Scherer, Maynard, Dolinoy, Fagerlin, & Zikmund-Fisher, 2014). Bisphenol S (BPS), bisphenol F (BPF), bisphenol B (BPB), and bisphenol AF (BPAF) seem to be the BPA replacements most frequently employed by industries to date (Liao & Kannan, 2014;Mandrah, Satyanarayana, & Roy, 2017;Zhou et al, 2019).…”

Endocrine Disruptors: Very Low Doses with Genuinely High Impacts on Male Reproduction

“…Nevertheless, the affection of hormonal balance represents a major sign of them, giving the name to endocrine disruptors [29]. Indeed, there is an increasing number of observations of exposure to EDs, across all age, race, profession, lifestyle, and health status categories [30]. These findings are in accordance with the ubiquity of EDs through the presence in daily need items.…”

“…n-Hexane and alternative bisphenols (BPS, BPF, and BPAF) have become widespread, such as alternatives to dichloromethane and bisphenol A (BPA), respectively, although the unambiguous safety of these substitutions has not been proved (chemical structure of selected bisphenols is presented in Figure 2). For instance, BPA usage has been banned in children's toys and baby bottles, and, in addition to these, BPA-free products were introduced based on the consumer preferences [30]. However, BPS to BPA exchange has taken place, although "endocrine" safety has not been elucidated.…”

Nature Biotechnology Responds to Melchett Correspondence

“…More than 40 jurisdictions have enacted laws and policies ranging across the restrictive-liberal continuum [3][4][5] . Similarly, international organizations such as the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO; Paris) 6 , the Council of Europe 7 , the Human Genome Organization (HUGO; Singapore) 8 and, most recently, the International Society for Stem Cell Research (ISSCR; Skokie, IL) 9 have taken a position on germ-line modification.…”