> Many toxicity studies have been done and seem promising.
The article implies a bit more of a mixed bag than that. Some were promising and some were troubling. I'm not a chemist but I think the most generous stance to give would be "cautiously optimistic" and I still think that's overselling it based on what I just read.
"Outside researchers didn’t deliver uniformly good news, however. Valspar approached scientists at Baylor Medical School, who found that TMBPF blunted estrogen’s effect on test cells and that a polymer made from the molecule had a similar effect on testosterone, according to a 2017 paper in PLOS ONE. Adam Szafran, a molecular biologist who helped lead the research, says the findings weren’t conclusive and could be specific to the prostate cells they tested.
"Mallen acknowledges that those results raise questions about the compound. But he says company-sponsored research showed that changes in test cells don’t translate into effects on an entire organism. That study, published online in Food and Chemical Toxicology in October 2019, showed no endocrine-related effects on rats fed TMBPF for 3 months."
The chance that this is a fairly safe chemical (or at the very least, a safer substitute for BPA) seems pretty promising so far. Of course, more studies should be and are planned to be done.
It's really hard to ignore the conflict of interest here. All of the company's research suggest it works, and the only other research mentioned in the article raises flags.
> All of the company's research suggest it works, and the only other research mentioned in the article raises flags.
That's not true. Soto, Maier, Maffini and Zoeller, all outside researchers, had findings in favor of TMBPF. I suppose it's fine to be skeptical though.
I too read that as a Call for Further Testing, and given the other tests, at least moving forward with using a likely safer coating based on the other tests.
It isn't unfathomable for a single study, pro or negative, to uncover a previously unconsidered test variable or other complication and it is entirely indicative that a followup study which has a larger sample size and better controls needs to be conducted to obtain more solid evidence.
The article implies a bit more of a mixed bag than that. Some were promising and some were troubling. I'm not a chemist but I think the most generous stance to give would be "cautiously optimistic" and I still think that's overselling it based on what I just read.