December 9, 2025

expert reaction to study on association between prenatal exposure to commonly used BPA replacements and early childhood behaviour

A study published in The Lancet Planetary Health looks at an association between prenatal BPA exposure and early childhood behaviour. 

Dr Ria Devereux, Environmental Research Fellow, Sustainability Research Institute at the University of East London, said:

“The study is a well-conducted observational study, but it is important to emphasise that it does not demonstrate causation. Behaviour in early childhood is influenced by multiple factors, including the home environment, socioeconomic conditions, and genetics, many of which were not fully accounted for in this study. Therefore, these results should be interpreted with caution until further research is conducted.

“This study adds to existing concerns regarding BPA replacements, which are currently used in plastics and some paper receipts in the UK. While previous research has raised questions about the potential effects of BPS and methylparaben on child behaviour, the evidence remains mixed, with some studies reporting associations and others finding no clear links.

“Although this study controlled for factors such as maternal age, education, and socioeconomic status, other important variables were not fully addressed. These include maternal mental health and parenting style. Additionally, the study focused exclusively on maternal exposure, despite evidence suggesting that paternal exposures may also influence child development.

“While this study does not provide definitive proof of affecting child behaviour, it raises important questions regarding the safety of BPS and other BPA alternatives. It is too early to call for stricter regulations based solely on current evidence. However, these findings, together with existing research, suggest that further investigation is needed to fully understand the potential public health implications.”

Prof Oliver Jones, Professor of Chemistry, RMIT University, said:

“I think there are several factors that severely limit the conclusions we can draw from this paper.

“Firstly, the authors have only found an association between two factors. This is not the same as saying one thing caused the other. We probably find associations between a whole host of other factors (e.g. lack of sleep, low-quality diet, etc) and child behaviour, but that would not mean one caused the other; it could just be random chance – something the authors themselves note.

“The authors discuss endocrine disruption very generally without defining what they mean by it. There are at least 50 different major hormones in humans, and the ones assessed in this study seem to have had no effect, so where was the disruption?

“Urine concentration is used as a proxy for exposure, but if the compound is in the urine, it has been excreted and can’t be causing an effect. Additionally, only 6-7 urine samples were tested per mother. This is not an adequate sample size to accurately represent potential exposure throughout an entire 9-month pregnancy. On top of that, the behaviour assessment was not done until the child was 18-24 months old. We have no idea what the children were exposed to during the 1.5 – 2 gap between when the urine testing was done and when the surveys were filled in. The reported differences in early childhood behaviour could easily be due to an untested factor or simply to changes in diagnostic criteria over time.

“Methyl paraben has a very good safety profile, and while I think more data on BPS wouldn’t be a bad thing, given that it is less well studied than some other chemicals, that does not automatically mean it is dangerous.

“In short, I don’t think people need to worry based on this paper.”

‘Prenatal phenol exposure and child behaviour: insights into the hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal axis from two prospective mother–child cohorts’ by Matthieu Rolland et al. was published in The Lancet Planetary Health at 23:30 UK time Tuesday 9th December 2025. 

DOI: 10.1016/j.lanplh.2025.101330

Declared interests

Dr Ria Devereux: She has no conflicts of interest to declare.

Prof Oliver Jones: “I have no direct conflict of interest, but I do research environmental contaminants. I have received funding from the Environment Protection Authority Victoria (https://www.epa.vic.gov.au/) and various water utilities for research on environmental pollution.”

For all other experts, no reply to our request for DOIs was received.