There are literally not. The review you've linked to cites a handful of papers involving minor effects observed in mouse studies.

Moreover, the paper you originally cited proves nothing even approximating a mechanism. I'm not suggesting anything about the safety of BPA, but it's utter nonsense to claim that it is a more plausible explanation for the diabetes epidemic than sugar consumption.

A few mouse studies do not change 50+ years of established science on the relationship between sugar and diabetes.

Elevated blood glucose, as in Type 2 Diabetes, has LONG been known to be primarily driven by excessive production of glucose by the liver due to liver insulin resistance. In fact, the way that the drug metformin improves diabetes is by shutting that pathway down.

http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/content/50/8/1807.short

Thats not dietary, thats the hormone insulin being ignored by the liver. This is further complicated by the fact that peripheral tissues, like muscle, are themselves insulin resistant.

The TCF7L2 pathway has been shown to be down-regulated in all of these tissues in diabetics.

Observing that it is downregulated in diabetics provides no evidence for or against any theories concerning BPA.

And out of a compound library of 20k chemicals, BPA had the top effect on it.

Seems significant to me

Also worth noting that BPA has been shown to specifically effect the occupancy of TCF7L2 at transcription factor binding sites in Chip-Seq experiments.

http://press.endocrine.org/doi/abs/10.1210/endo-meetings.201...

Lastly, before calling someone else's claims psuedoscientific, you may want to do some homework and check your previous biases. We could certainly use someone with your skills to help model BPAs interaction with the Androgen receptor. Might just save millions of lives....

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=bisphenol+a

Forgive me, but I don't have time for this.