BPA

Walking the Wrack Line: Thoughts on Plastic Pollution

Published on
4698 views
wrack line plastic pollution

The more clearly we can focus our attention on the wonders and realities of the universe about us, the less taste we shall have for destruction.

— Rachel Carson

The Wrack Line: An Ecological Bridge Between Land and Sea

For decades, I’ve been looking at the unimagined biological and genetic effects on planet earth caused by “better living through chemistry” capitalist mentality. While Rachel Carson’s seminal work, Silent Spring, cataloged just one aspect of the plethora of physiological effects on animal life, in 2021 we can confidently state there is so much evidence of all the pollutants, toxins, spewing gasses, pesticides, hormone disruptors, radioactive isotopes, forever chemicals, nanoparticles, fungicides, heavy metals and waste pits conspiring to completely disrupt all manner of life. Microplastics are a key contributor to this problem.

In that process of contemplating this recently, while railing against local older folk who will for Year Two have a Zoom Earth Day (April 22) instead of celebrating this day utilizing our amazing atmosphere and beachside waysides to bring people together, I walked the wrack line. This is that “line” of organic material that ends up on beaches when tides go back out. It is a biologically important micro-ecosystem of seaweeds, crustaceans, shells, decaying birds and fish, and mammals. This wrack line is studied by marine biologists. It provides an amazing supply of food and building components for living crustaceans.

Here on the Coast Surfrider Foundation and other groups have organized beach clean-ups, where the majority of junk found, collected, and disposed of, is plastic. The first part of the instruction for beach clean-up volunteers is to use gloves, and that the plastics can be super toxic, virtual magnets for heavy metals, poisons, and even radioactive materials as they float throughout the ocean and eventually end up on the beach, the wrack lines.

Homo sapiens pick through the wrack line for treasures like polished agates, whole shells, burled driftwood, and seeds from afar. These wrack lines, unfortunately, are now clogged with that deadline by-product of “better living with chemistry,” plastics. There is other rubbish from the by-products and by-processes of consumerism and industrialism, but by and far, plastics present the largest problem.

Plastics and Capitalism

The work of artist Chris Jordan on plastics and just on the consumer waste in our capitalist consumer society is amazing. His documentary, Albatross, stays with me as I walk the wrack lines on the Central Oregon Coast. I’ve walked wrack lines all over the world, and been in places where plastic bags and single-use plastic containers and bottles have destroyed ecosystems, on beaches, in harbors, and along riverways.

microplastic pollution birds

As a diver, an environmentalist, a deep green sustainability proponent, and as a journalist and teacher, and someone with a load of urban and regional planning under my belts, the reality for me is we have been at war with nature, with ourselves. Plastic is yet another symbolic manufactured element that is emblematic of our capitalism gone wild. Plastics are the thing of fossil fuels, and heavy natural gas consumption. Those fancy polymers are more than just a physical eyesore in the form of Pepsi bottles and single-serving ketchup packets. Every hour of every day, we touch plastic. Just imagine what teeny-tiny bits of plastic could do to our brains. This stuff is crossing the blood-brain barrier and is causing untold havoc on the human biological ecosystem. It is also linked to:

Deep Sea Plastics

Last year, I viewed online a Remote Operated Vehicle filming the deepest part of the globe, the Mariana Trench, with ghostly images of single-use plastic shopping bags floating by. It wasn’t a surprise, since I have been a scuba diver for more than 45 years. That revelation was, however, yet another cut in the 10,000 cuts of spiritual and intellectual death people like me have to steel themselves from.

deep sea plastic

The Consequences of All of This Plastic

Microplastics have been found in the liver, lungs, spleens, and other organs of humans and as one might expect, in feces too. BPA, also known as bisphenol A, is a chemical in the production of plastics. It is a reproductive, developmental, and systemic toxicant in animal and human studies. BPA levels in humans have been dramatically underestimated.

 It would be naïve to believe there is plastic everywhere but just not in us, said Rolf Halden at Arizona State University. We are now providing a research platform that will allow us and others to look for what is invisible – these particles too small for the naked eye to see. The risk [to health] resides in the small particles.

This bioaccumulation in tissues, that is, in the animals we eat, like tuna or salmon, is also part of the bioaccumulation of plastic particles in the food we eat, the air we breathe, and the water we drink. The US Environmental Protection Agency is concerned about BPA because “it is a reproductive, developmental and systemic toxicant in animal studies”. The researchers examined lung, liver, spleen, and kidney tissue as these organs are likely to be exposed to microplastics or collect them.

We never want to be alarmist, but it is concerning that these non-biodegradable materials that are present everywhere [may] enter and accumulate in human tissues, and we don’t know the possible health effects,” said Varun Kelkar of Arizona State University, part of the research team.

Just how is all of that plastic getting into our systems? With everything, we eat and drink. The latest research found:

Evaluating approximately 15% of Americans’ caloric intake, we estimate that annual microplastic consumption ranges from 39000 to 52000 particles depending on age and sex. These estimates increase to 74000 and 121000 when inhalation is considered. Additionally, individuals who meet their recommended water intake through only bottled sources may be ingesting an additional 90000 microplastics annually, compared to 4000 microplastics for those who consume only tap water.

The Great Pacific Garbage Patch: An Emblem of Plastic Pollution

The Great Pacific Garbage Patch is the largest accumulation of ocean plastic in the world and is located between Hawaii and California. It is the result of the billions of tons of plastic released into the environment since the 1950s. In total there are five large gyres around the world, so-called floating garbage patches where current and wave and wind conditions are set to harmonize where some of the refuse humans create end up as these dumps for anything that floats, plastic and its components being a large percentage of floating junk.

This is emblematic of the problem of throw-away societies and rampant consumerism that is predicated on disposability or one single-use product. As we can see, this is not just an eyesore – these plastics get ground down by wave action, wind, and sun, along with the chemical reactions of all of that combined. Hence, the very concept of micro-plastics ending up in the food chain, which ends up in humans as the apex predator or high on the food chain consumer. This article talks about how plastics and their components get to the human biome through more direct ways like plastic-lined canned foods, PFAS, and BPA. Breathing plastics from all the plastic fibers in clothes, furniture, carpeting, and other consumer sources is yet another vector that has created the Plastic Human.

The reality is we do not know all the possible negative health outcomes of microplastics alone, as opposed to microplastics mixing with all those nanoparticles and the other chemicals coming into play in human physiology. The convenience of plastic bottles and pipes in our homes represents the cancers of the future. Those plastics in the belly of whales, birds, and albacore are the bio-accumulated toxins in our daily meals. We don’t need to study the great Pacific plastic gyre to understand how plastics break down, unseen, or subsurface. We will at some point have more plastic particles in the oceans than all the organic biomass. These are not the fictions of Ursula La Guinn or Margaret Atwood. They are readily visible to anyone who looks, but there are especially visible at the wrack lines, where land and sea meet.

We Need Your Help

More people than ever are reading Hormones Matter, a testament to the need for independent voices in health and medicine. We are not funded and accept limited advertising. Unlike many health sites, we don’t force you to purchase a subscription. We believe health information should be open to all. If you read Hormones Matter, and like it, please help support it. Contribute now.

Yes, I would like to support Hormones Matter. 

This article was published originally on April 20, 2021.  

Related posts:

poisonous potatoesWalking the Wrack Line: Poisonous Potatoes dysmotility and dysbiosisQuick Thoughts: Bacterial Thiamine Synthesis, Dysmotility, and Dysbiosis cerebral palsyMiracle Maker Ollie: How a Plastic Scooter Outperformed Modern Medicine thiamine, hypoxia and bowel functionQuick Thoughts: Thiamine, Hypoxia, and Bowel Function

You might be interested in

ethics of it all

The Ethics Of It All

What if there is no future? We have always assumed that there would be a future, that somehow no matter

Could Altered Vitamin A Metabolism Be Responsible for Endometriosis and Fibroid Growth?

Published on
16064 views
vitamin A

Yes, and increased use of environmental toxicants may be partially to blame. Over the last decade researchers have uncovered connections between tissue level vitamin A activity – the retinoic acid pathway – hormone metabolism, and the cell cycle overgrowth noted in fibroid tumor development, breast and ovarian cancer, and endometriotic tissue growth. Moreover, researchers from the environmental side have found that the popular glyphosate-based herbicides alter vitamin A or retinoic acid metabolism which in turn alters androgen and estrogen metabolism. Connecting the dots, we may have a first step to reducing cell growth in these conditions; remove the toxicant exposure and increase nutritional resources. A second step may be to develop locally absorbed vitamin A, applied directly to the aberrant tissues.

What is Vitamin A?

Vitamin A, (retinol, carotene) is a fat-soluble nutrient that we derive solely from dietary sources. It is responsible for a myriad of functions in a vast number of tissues from the eye, to the ovary, to the heart. Historically, nutrition from diet, coupled with the old wives’ tales of good health, carrots for eyesight, and cod liver oil for all that ails you, were all that were needed to maintain healthy levels of Vitamin A in most individuals. However, with the increase in processed foods, modern farming, intense use of herbicides and pesticides, and the general replacement of the old wives’ nutritional wisdom with pharmaceuticals, many men, women, and children are vitamin A deficient and likely do not even know it. The WHO estimates vitamin A deficiency in 19 million pregnant women and 150 million children worldwide. When Vitamin A deficiency reaches its nadir night blindness, maternal mortality, and difficulty fighting infections are common. In women, the first signs of vitamin A deficiency may be unrecognized and include fibroids or endometriosis. Earlier signs of vitamin A deficiency in women could also be menorrhagia (heavy menstrual bleeding) that often precedes fibroid or endometriosis diagnosis, but research is lacking here, or even genital warts of the common HPV strains.

Why Retinoic Acid, Hormones, and Cell Growth

Retinoic acid (RA), is the form of vitamin A stored in the body. RA is what is called a paracrine, perhaps even an intracrine hormone regulator. That means it turns hormone metabolism on or off in the cells within its immediate vicinity (paracrine) or within its own cell (intracrine). This is compared to endocrine control of hormone metabolism – where hormones and the factors that regulate hormone synthesis and metabolism travel vast distances through the blood to reach their targets tissues (the hypothalamus-pituitary – ovarian system is an example of endocrine regulation) or autocrine where the hormone leaves its own cell only to turn around and bind to a receptor on that cell. In contrast, retinoic acid stays close to home and regulates local cell behavior, both internally and proximally. The vitamin A deficiency leading to fibroids or endometriosis represents a cell and tissue level disruption of the retinoic acid pathway that in turn interrupts the normal cell cycle (differentiation, proliferation, and apoptosis -cell death) and elicits all sorts of problems from decreased estrogen metabolism (too much estradiol at the cells), to cell overgrowth, or more specifically, not enough cell death where needed. The results include aberrant cell growth as in fibroids, tumors, and endometriosis.

Retinoic Acid, Progesterone and Estrogen Metabolism

With many women’s health conditions too much estradiol at the tissue level is at the root. Estradiol is an excitatory hormone that tells our cells to go forth and prosper. Progesterone, depending upon the tissue and the relative values of each circulating hormone can work synergistically to enhance estradiol’s actions or it can shut it down entirely via the upregulation of a specific estradiol metabolizing enzyme called 17 beta-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase type 2  (17B -HSD2).  When these enzyme levels are high, more estradiol is converted to estrone. Since estrone is a less potent estrogen than estradiol, metabolism of estradiol to estrone somewhat inactivates the estrogen and slows cell proliferation. When the enzyme levels are low, more estradiol remains, and cell growth is enhanced.  Vitamin A or retinoic acid mediates the progesterone-dependent activation of this enzyme, effectively regulating estradiol concentrations locally. Too little retinoic acid or a disrupted retinoic acid pathway and estradiol is not converted to estrone – e.g. it is not inactivated. Cell proliferation dominates, while normal cell death or apoptosis is reduced. Fibroids, tumors, or endometriosis ensue.

What Causes Low Retinoic Acid or Reduced Functioning?

Vitamin A is derived entirely from diet. Foods high in vitamin A include brightly colored vegetables, dark leafy greens, carrots, pumpkin, sweet potatoes, bell peppers, and fatty fish oils, like cod liver oil and organ tissues like the liver. Meat and dairy also have high concentrations of vitamin A. Diets high in processed food do not contain sufficient vitamin A to maintain the proper cell cycle balance and so we get too much proliferation and too little apoptosis. Tissues grow and grow and do not die.

Alcohol intake reduces the body’s ability to metabolize retinoic acid because alcohol and the retinoic acid pathway use the same enzymes – alcohol dehydrogenase (ADH1) and aldehyde dehydrogenase (ALDH1) for metabolism. Alcohol competes for the enzyme and so vitamin A from diet cannot be converted to the usable retinoic acid.

Can Toxins Disrupt the Vitamin A Pathway?

Yes, but here is where it gets complicated. Environmental toxins like glyphosate used in common weed killers such as Round-up have a complex relationship with the vitamin A pathway and hormone metabolism. These herbicides and many pesticides are endocrine disruptors, meaning they disrupt ‘normal’ hormone metabolism, often towards a hyper-estrogenic state. Similarly, plastics like BPA and a host of industrial chemicals are also endocrine disruptors that move us towards hyper-estrogenism – a key component of fibroid and endometriosis.

Glysophate activates an enzyme called retinaldehyde dehydrogenase which increases retinoic acid synthesis. This is argued to be the mechanism by which environmental exposures during pregnancy cause birth defects. However, glyphosate also inhibits vitamin A metabolism by a similar mechanism as alcohol, by competing for ADH1 availability, thereby having the ability to reduce vitamin A synthesis. Glyphosate also increases aromatase activity (the enzyme that converts testosterone to estradiol), creating a hyper-estrogenic state and depending upon the time course and the exposure concentration, completely wipes out aromatase activity. So like any true hormone system, that uses a complex chain of compensatory reactions to maintain homeostasis, the reactions to environmental toxins are complicated and non-linear. Nevertheless, they warrant attention, particularly when one is suffering from a condition affected by the environmental toxin in question.

Managing Vitamin A Levels

To determine if you are vitamin A deficient, seek out a lab that specializes in micronutrient testing. The recommended daily values of vitamin A can be found in the Dietary Supplement Fact Sheet.

Vitamin A is a fat-soluble vitamin, meaning that it will be stored in fat, and toxicity from too much vitamin A is possible. It is rare, but nevertheless, if supplementing, vitamin A levels should be monitored by micronutrient testing.

My Two Cents

Much of the research presented here linking local vitamin A deficiencies with endometriotic, fibroid, and cancer growth has not crossed over into clinical care. Moreover, it is complex and far from settled. Except for cancer trials, mostly in males and mostly with oral supplementation, the research regarding dietary vitamin A is limited and mixed. However, I think a local application of an absorbable form of vitamin A or retinoic acid should be investigated for the treatment of endometriotic and fibroid growth in women. Similarly, dietary supplementation within acceptable levels and changes combined with environmental ‘cleaning’ may be of use, if only to improve the overall health status of women currently suffering from fibroids or endometriosis.

Postscript: This article was published previously in August 2013. 

Photo by Tamanna Rumee on Unsplash.

Related posts:

endometriosis, heavy menstrual bleeding HIFEndometriosis and Heavy Menstrual Bleeding: Two Sides of the Same Molecular Coin the problem with glyphosateThe Glyphosate Problem

You might be interested in

Polar Bear Liposuction and the Hidden Estrogens in Drinking Water

Published on
5062 views
estrogens drinking water

Some people hydrate infrequently, drinking only frozen water surrounded by alcohol. Other people hydrate religiously but they jeopardize their weight, fertility, and hormone levels by naively drinking questionable water. Wait, questionable water!?

Absolutely. A 2010 Great Lakes Basin water study revealed that

“detectable concentrations of pharmaceutical compounds were present in 34% of the surface water samples”.

“But come on”, you might say, “that was merely surface water”.

Good point. What common chemicals or drugs end up in the final product, namely, our drinking water?

To answer this question, let’s investigate a “cool” [literally] scientific discovery.

In 2015, researchers did some globetrotting to investigate sea otters, dolphins, sperm whales, and even polar bears in Northern Alaska. Specifically, they were testing for parabens, especially parabens in fat cells. Why parabens and why fat?

Well, for one, as recently as 2017, parabens have been found in 90% of water samples from major drinking water reservoirs. Parabens are prevalent, washing into water from human use in cosmetic products (plus, they go through our skin but that’s a different story).

Are all these parabens in our water a genuine health issue?

Yes. Parabens have been associated with altered reproductive hormone levels during pregnancy. Many other health concerns have also been attributed to parabens (I’ll list more soon) but all these health issues have a common thread. Parabens cause health problems because they have a chemical structure similar to natural estrogen. This results in parabens having estrogen-like (“estrogenic”) health impacts on our bodies. Further, because of the similarity between parabens and estrogen, parabens store inside fat cells. That’s why researchers have been chilling in Alaska, performing polar bear liposuctions.

But, scientifically speaking, we are not polar bears (last time I checked). How long can a fat cell last in the human body? On average, fat cells survive 1.5 years but can last up to 10 years !! Obviously, this indicates that parabens can survive in our fat cells an extremely long time.

But are parabens actually being found in human fat?

Of course they’re found in human fat! We’re being exposed more frequently than polar bears! In fact, up to 17,400 nanograms of parabens per gram (ng/g) of fat has been discovered in humans and paraben numbers in fat commonly are present in an unhealthy high range!

What does this mean? Well, to put these numbers into context, natural estrogen in men is about 20 nanograms per liter (ng/L) of blood. Also, natural estrogen levels in women range between 20 – 400 ng/L in blood, depending on the time of the month and a woman’s cycle; 17,400 ng/g of estrogenic paraben cannot be good.

So, clearly, parabens end up in drinking water. Parabens then end up in our bodies. The levels are high. Is that the end of the story?

Unfortunately, no it’s not. Many other artificial estrogen chemicals are also ending up in the water supply.

Take the herbicide atrazine. This is the second most used herbicide in North America after the perennial “winner” glyphosate (RoundupTM).

Why is atrazine a concern?

Like parabens, atrazine herbicide is estrogenic. One study, for instance, tested two groups of rats, giving them identical calories, identical exercise, and identical everything except water. For drinking water, they gave one group pure water and the other group was given low dose atrazine in the water. Despite having the same calorie numbers and exercise, the group with atrazine gained significant amounts of extra fat. Tell me again how calorie counting is an ideal way to lose weight?

Atrazine is a chemical designed to have an extremely long shelf-life (even in dirt, for example, total atrazine degradation takes more than 1 year). Further, atrazine certainly ends up in many people’s drinking water directly from that agricultural spraying, especially in rural farm country (see image).  Don’t become like those lab rats, drinking low dose atrazine!

Atrazine Use in America 2015

What about drinking water outside this heat map? Is atrazine-free water free of estrogen chemicals? Let’s investigate.

First, don’t forget that areas with high population density gives rise to high artificial estrogen from birth control in the drinking water supply. People taking birth control urinate it into the water and it isn’t filtered by municipal water treatment facilities. Ahh, Sex and the City.

Furthermore, even phthalates leaching from plastics end up in drinking water at high levels (ref)…and you should realize that BPA-Free plastic still leaches plenty of phthalates. And BPA isn’t innocent, of course. Oh, wait: didn’t I mention that BPA acts like estrogen in our bodies?

Bisphenol A (BPA) is estrogenic as are other bisphenol analogues like BPS, BPF, BPAF, BPB …you get the idea. And BPA leaching is obviously an issue from liquid contact of any kind. Of course, where BPA is illegal, BPS, BPF, BPB, etc. are a growing concern in plastic water pipes as well as bottles and baby chew toys.

What health issues are associated with all these various artificial estrogens?

Well, besides accelerated aging, breast cancer risks that can be passed to future generations, obesity risks that are also likely to be passed to future generations, infertility risks that can be passed to future generations, and “testicular dysgenesis, obesity, asthma, and allergies”, you’re probably good.

How can you eliminate these estrogen chemicals from your drinking water? Hint: it’s embarrassingly easy. Use a charcoal filter. Most Brita, Pur, Berkey, etc. water filters have activated charcoal but be sure to double check.

I’ve published scientific research papers using activated charcoal and it works to remove any hormone-like substance, including artificial estrogens like BPA, parabens, atrazine, and birth control or even natural hormones like estrogen or testosterone. Since charcoal has no positive or negative chemical charge, oily substances (like sex hormones) adsorb onto the surface of charcoal.  What’s more: charcoal has a massive surface area due to its inherently porous nature so it can remove high levels of estrogenics.

Do activated charcoal pills or tablets help? Only in certain situations. You should first realize that these pills and tablets can cause vitamin deficiencies by removing vitamins from your food and causing these vitamins to be driven out of your body via your stools.

Also, activated charcoal supplements (obviously) don’t magically remove estrogen from places in your body like your fat cells  – they only grab fat-like “substances” (again: good or bad, healthy or unhealthy “substances”) that are in your gut. Since charcoal cannot pass through your gut and travel into your blood, charcoal does nothing to remove parabens and other estrogens from your blood where they may be already damaging your health. In other words, your best bet is to avoid artificial estrogen chemicals to begin with rather than ingest them and then try to cleanse them out.

Concluding words of wisdom: stop the madness. Raise awareness against artificial estrogens that end up in your daily environment starting with your drinking water. Next, invest and religiously use your water filter. Store your filtered water in glass or stainless steel. This has become a necessity today in our Estrogeneration. Beyond that, keep your ice cubes surrounded by alcohol and cheers!

We Need Your Help

Hormones Matter needs funding now. Our research funding was cut recently and because of our commitment to independent health research and journalism unbiased by commercial interests we allow minimal advertising on the site. That means all funding must come from you, our readers. Don’t let Hormones Matter die.

Yes, I’d like to support Hormones Matter.

This article was first published on October 30, 2017. 

Related posts:

drinking water, hydrationHydration, Thirst, and Drinking Water wrack line plastic pollutionWalking the Wrack Line: Thoughts on Plastic Pollution

You might be interested in

Early BPA Exposure Doubles Risk for Prostate Cancer

Published on
2303 views
BPA and prostate cancer

Bisphenol A or BPA is ubiquitous in the modern environment. Used to form plastics for array of products (and found in fracking waste water, as we just learned), BPA exposure is almost unavoidable these days. A study in 2008, showed just how unavoidable demonstrating high levels of BPA in 93% of the individuals tested. Like many environmental endocrine disruptors, BPA is estrogenic in nature. When exposure to environmental estrogens occurs during pregnancy or during early life, those estrogens affect male and female reproductive and neurological development significantly. Adding to the body of research against BPA and other estrogenic environmental endocrine disruptors (here, here, and here), a new study, Bisphenol A Promotes Human Prostate Stem – Progenitor Cell Self – Renewal and Increases in vivo Carcinogenesis in Human Prostate Epithelium links developmental BPA exposure to a significantly increased risk of prostate cancer for men later in life.

The study, conducted by researchers from the University of Chicago, Illinois, was rather unique in its approach. Researchers cultivated prostate stem cells from young, disease-free men and then conducted a series of both in vitro and in vivo exposure tests. In the in vitro tests they exposed the human cells, in culture, to the various levels of hormones over differing periods. With the in vivo tests, however, the researchers took those same human prostate progenitor cells and grafted them to host rats. The host rats were then exposed to the different hormones for different time periods. Hormones tested included: native testosterone, estradiol and BPA, the environmental estrogen that mimics native estradiol. In both series of experiments researchers were interested in the timing and length of hormone exposure on prostate carcinogenesis. What they found was striking.

Male prostate tissue, though dependent on testosterone for development, is also susceptible to native and environmental estrogens. Both types of estrogen receptors are present. Moreover, the timing and duration of estrogen exposure impacts prostate health health. Specifically, treatment of the host rodents for 1-4 months with native testosterone plus estradiol produced a relatively small incidence of cancer, only 13%. Treatment of the host rodents with BPA, however, increased the rate to 33-45%, with higher rates of carcinogenesis linked to longer exposures.

This study provides further evidence that early developmental exposure to environmental estrogens negatively affects male prostate health.

We Need Your Help

Hormones Matter needs funding now. Our research funding was cut recently and because of our commitment to independent health research and journalism unbiased by commercial interests we allow minimal advertising on the site. That means all funding must come from you, our readers. Don’t let Hormones Matter die.

Yes, I’d like to support Hormones Matter.

This post was published originally on Hormones Matter on January 10, 2014. 

Related posts:

cyclic vomiting syndromeContemplating Cyclic Vomiting Syndrome vitamin ACould Altered Vitamin A Metabolism Be Responsible for Endometriosis and Fibroid Growth? endometriosis, infertilityEmbracing Resilience: A Journey Through Endometriosis and Infertility endogenous oxythiamine pyrithiamineCan We Synthesize Oxythiamine and Pyrithiamine Endogenously?

You might be interested in

Evaluating Endocrine Disruptor Research

Published on
3460 views
evaluating endocrine disruptor research

Every now and again, we see a flurry of press releases flooding social media about new research purporting to prove that endocrine disruptors are safe. Most recently, the press has been focused Bisphenol A or BPA. New FDA proclamations suggest that it has no impact on health. When one reads the actual research upon which these statements are based, it says no such thing. Unless of course, the research is funded by industry, then it is almost always positive. A report in Newsweek found:

In 2013, for example, the American Chemistry Council spent more than $11 million on lobbying expenses, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Industry groups have also funded, and in some cases written up, research done by governmental scientists. One 2008 investigation, by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, found that “a government report claiming that bisphenol-A is safe was written largely by the plastics industry and others with a financial stake in the controversial chemical.”

The report goes on to state that the FDA

…dismissed as irrelevant the vast majority of the BPA safety studies its own scientists reviewed in preparation for that official position statement. According to the FDA, for example, all of the 48 epidemiological studies reviewed had ‘no utility’ for the agency’s risk assessment, the formal process it undertakes to decide if a chemical is safe for human health or not.

With such contradictory claims about safety, who should we believe? How do we evaluate the safety research about endocrine disruptors? Here is a primer.

Industry Sponsored Research Is Biased

In a mini-review of research on bisphenol A (BPA) – the endocrine disruptor in plastics, of the 115 studies published on adverse effects of BPA 81.7% (94) reported significant adverse health effects (2004). However, upon review, it was found that 90% of the government funded, academic research found significant adverse effects while 100% of the industry-sponsored research found no ill-effects of BPA – none. This is a common theme across all industries – pharmaceutical included. When billions of dollars are on the line, industry sponsored studies will show favorable results more often than not. Always check the author’s conflict-of-interest disclosures at the back the article. If none are reported though, don’t assume they do not exist. Not all conflicts of interests are disclosed. You may have to do additional digging to identify conflicts.

FDA or EPA Approved Does not Mean Safe or Risk-Free

Both agencies have long histories of approving and then failing to recall dangerous chemicals, drugs and devices from the market. Their work is particularly incompetent in reproductive (endocrine) and women’s health: thalidomide, DES, Yasmin/Yaz, HRT, Mirena, Prolift to name but a few that have garnered the seal of approval by the FDA. Phthalates, BPA, Glyphosate for the EPA.  Remember the EPA doesn’t even study the female reproductive dangers unless research shows that a chemical impacts the male reproductive system.

Research Methods Matter

Perhaps more so than in any other field of science, endocrine research requires serious consideration of all aspects of the study protocol. This means that you cannot rely on a press release about the research to determine the study’s relevance. You must read the original research and evaluate the methods. (Reading original research is a good habit to have for all matters that affect your health and well-being). Once you pull the research, here are some things to consider.

  • Length of study. Most hormone reactions are longer term and span generations. If the study is short duration, as in the case with the industry sponsored GMO research or doesn’t include third generation effects, as with BPA research – question the results.
  • Population studied. Whether one is investigating a chemical or a drug in humans or in rodents, the sample population matters. Ascertaining safety of efficacy by testing only healthy young men, when the drug or chemical is meant for the real world where women, children, elderly, healthy and not so healthy individuals reside, is common practice and recipe for disaster. Same is true for rodent research – the strain, sex, age and health of the animal must be considered if the work is to be extrapolated to real humans. I read one study claiming that BPA was safe, but they used a strain of rats that was resistant to environmental estrogens. Of course, BPA’s estrogens would not affect these estrogen-resistant rodents.
  • Outcomes measured.  What does the study measure and how does it evaluate change? More often than not, industry sponsored research will not measure the appropriate endpoints or reproductive dangers. Sometimes this is sleight of hand, other times it is simply ignorance of the endocrine system’s far-reaching regulatory control. In either case, one has to evaluate what the study actually measures before determining its validity. Here, you can use a bit of personal experience – what systems, organs or behaviors are affected by your hormones? If the study didn’t measure any of these variables, then it’s probably not a very solid protocol.
  • ‘Gold-standard’ protocols are not always golden. It takes years, decades even for ‘gold-standards’ to become the accepted methods – often well after their utility has run out and newer, more sophisticated tools have reached the market. This has been the case for endocrine testing and endocrine disruptor evaluation. If a study rests all of its findings using a gold standard, it may not be using the most sensitive testing methods.
  • Clinical significance is not the same as statistical significance. Clinical significance means the chemical/drug has some meaningful impact on the health or well-being of the individual or animal. Statistical significance is just a math equation. A simple increase in sample size while limiting or ‘restructuring’ outcome variables is all it takes to derive statistical significance in most research. Does that mean the drug or chemical has clinically relevant health effects – not necessarily. The opposite is also true. Want to obfuscate the dangers of a drug/chemical? Do a huge study (preferably by combining dozens of poor quality individual studies into a meta analysis), throw everything but the kitchen sink into the analysis, do simple stats and highlight the lack of statistical significance in the death or injury rates. Only a small fraction of the study population died – but it wasn’t statistically significant, so the drug/chemical is considered safe. If the study does not study distinguish between clinical and statistical significance or downplays the death and injury rates as statistically insignificant, approach cautiously.
  • Hormone reactions do not conform to linear statistics. Damn it, how dare our complex physiology not conform to the simplicity of linear statistics. A common dose-response curve is highly linear, where a small dose elicits a similarly small response and a larger dose increase the response size. This is not case when dealing with endocrine disruptors. Hormone systems are complex and highly non-linear. Hormone dose-response curves are often in the shape of an inverted U where low doses elicit huge responses, mid-level doses elicit minimal responses and high doses again elicit huge responses. And so, any study measuring hormone effects using simple, linear, dose response calculations is bound to miss the effects entirely.
  • Hormones have metabolites (as does everything else). Metabolites evoke their own reactions. We know that some of the metabolites from BPA are stronger, 1000X stronger in fact, than BPA itself. Studies that don’t address the full complement of hormone products that circulate in our bodies as a result of exposure to something like BPA will severely underestimate the safety issues.

In a nutshell, we have to do our homework. There is no simple ‘Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval’ for products that impact health and well-being. We wouldn’t trust the marketing put out by car manufacturers or, worse yet, a car salesmen, about the safety, gas efficiency, repair history and comfort of a new/used car; why do we trust the makers of chemicals to give us the straight story. We shouldn’t. We have to become educated consumers of health research in order to protect ourselves.

We Need Your Help

More people than ever are reading Hormones Matter, a testament to the need for independent voices in health and medicine. We are not funded and accept limited advertising. Unlike many health sites, we don’t force you to purchase a subscription. We believe health information should be open to all. If you read Hormones Matter, like it, please help support it. Contribute now.

Yes, I would like to support Hormones Matter. 

Photo by Markus Winkler on Unsplash.

This article was published previously in March 2013 and updated and edit for republication in 2015.

Related posts:

UndiagnosableUndiagnosable or Sustained Ignorance? wrack line plastic pollutionWalking the Wrack Line: Thoughts on Plastic Pollution women in clinical trialsWomen in Clinical Trials ethics of it allThe Ethics Of It All

You might be interested in

BPA and Other Gender Bending Plastics

Published on
5118 views
BPA and gender

An oft repeated theme in this journal is that measurement matters. From the basic concept that one cannot manage what is not measured to the more specific notion that research protocols in the lab should attempt to mimic real life as much as reasonably possible, we believe measurement is critical. In matters of health and hormones where complex systems with a myriad of ever-changing variables are the norm, this is difficult at best. Sometimes, however, the simple act of measuring these variables opens a world of insight. This is the case with BPA and other estrogenic plastics.

BPA and Estrogens

Bisphenol-A (BPA), the estrogenic activator leaching sperm from our men and damaging the ovaries of women came to the world’s attention several years ago after a vocal and strident outcry from moms. The FDA subsequently remitted, prohibiting BPA from baby bottles and sippy cups and a slew of newer ‘safer’ BPA-Free plastic products emerged, but are they really safer? Maybe not.

Simulating Real Life Usage: Measurement Matters

Until recently, no one had measured the estrogenic activity of the other compounds used to plasticize our food containers. Nor had anyone measured these compounds under real-world stressors, such as UV-radiation (sunlight), microwave radiation or in the dishwasher or with different types of solvent (to represent the food/drinks contained by these plastics). Indeed, as is often the case, we were lulled into a false sense of safety.  We believed that since BPA was removed from plastics, the endocrine disruptors were also removed, when in fact the other compounds had simply not been measured.

As one might expect, once those tests were conducted, researchers found that most plastic products on the market today release chemicals that are estrogenic – even those marketed as BPA-Free. Baby bottles, where much of the BPA outcry began, can leech as many as 100 different chemicals especially when exposed to real-life stressors, sunlight, microwaves and dishwashers, all estrogenic in nature.

Sunlight, in particular, was especially adept at maximizing the release of estrogenic chemicals into the solvent. Who hasn’t left their water bottle in the car? And when the plastics were tested in both polar and non-polar solvents (most foodstuffs/drinks are a combination of both), the majority showed reliably detectable estrogenic activity.

What to Do With All of These Estrogens

Not to worry, according to the authors of the study, there are ways to create plastics that don’t elicit estrogenic activity and they don’t cost any more or require different manufacturing than those that do. It’s simply matter of choosing to utilize those plasticizers and associated chemicals instead of what we currently use. The question is whether major plastics manufacturers will pay heed to these warnings and make the switch. Did I mention the man-boobs and infertility from the extra estrogens?

The study:  Most Plastic Products Release Estrogenic Chemicals: A Potential Health Problem That Can Be Solved 

Postscript

The article above was published originally in October 2012. Over two years later, I am sad to say that not much has changed. Industry has repeatedly denied the safety issues with BPA and the other, presumably safe, BPA-free plastics. The current campaigns, much like those of the tobacco industry, proffer industry financed research as proof of product safety while discrediting any scientist who brings evidence to the contrary. It’s a common script followed by all chemical manufacturers; one that has yet to be successfully curtailed.

 

Related posts:

wrack line plastic pollutionWalking the Wrack Line: Thoughts on Plastic Pollution

You might be interested in

BPA Exposure Linked to Egg Maturation Errors and Infertility

Published on
2913 views

Bisphenol A (BPA), the polycarbonate, endocrine disrupting plastic is pervasive in the environment.  A recent National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey detected BPA in the urine of 95% of the participants. Along with other toxins, BPA has been found in the placenta and follicular fluid of pregnant women.  Given its estrogenic actions and its ability to disrupt the normal equilibrium of maternal and placental hormones, scientists have begun to investigate what role BPA might have on infertility, pregnancy complications and fetal development. What they are finding is not good.

In the most recent set of experiments, researchers from Brigham and Women’s in Boston, found that in vitro BPA exposure to human eggs – oocytes, prevented the egg’s ability to mature and disrupted chromosome alignment and organization at the lowest dose possible; a dose lower than levels normally found in women’s ovaries.

The experiment used eggs discarded from patients undergoing IVF/ICSI cycles. The eggs were divided into two groups, those to be exposed to varying doses of BPA and a control group. Sibling pairs, eggs from the same mom, were placed into both the BPA and the control groups equally to reduce the possibility that any maturation errors in egg development might be linked other factors related to maternal infertility, such as age, weight or general health.

The eggs exposed to even the lowest doses of BPA failed to mature appropriately and higher doses were linked to an increased rate of error and maturation failure. Researchers note that this was preliminary study, but that their findings indicate BPA exposure might be linked into infertility at the most basic level – egg health and maturation.

From our perspective, this study suggests that couples contemplating pregnancy should eliminate BPA and other environmental toxicant exposure well before attempting to conceive. For couples having difficulties conceiving, it might be worth testing urinary BPA and other endocrine disruptors such as phthalates and reducing exposure to these chemicals prior to undergoing costly fertility treatments. Here are the four most effective ways you can minimize your exposure to BPA:

  1. Drink filtered tap water. This helps avoid water that has leached BPA from plastic containers.
  2. Use stainless steel water bottles or certified “BPA-free” containers.
  3. Avoid all canned foods, which are often lined with BPA containing resins. Eat fresh, non-processed, organic foods and avoid storing in plastic bags.
  4. Avoid the use of plastic utensils and dishes.

BPA is likely not the only source of endocrine disruptors. All plastics under normal conditions release estrogenic compounds. It may be wise to avoid plastics in general. Additional research on removing BPA and other chemicals from your diet can be found here.

Related posts:

treating infertility with specialized pelvic therapyTreating Infertility with Specialized Pelvic Therapy: A Natural Approach That Works birth control infertilityCan Birth Control Lead to Infertility?

You might be interested in

Of BPA and Endocrine Disruptors: New Research, Same Flaws

Published on
3559 views
BPA, MBP, estradiol

Bisphenol A or BPA is the ubiquitous estrogenic compound used to create plastics. It leaches into our food stuffs and because of its hormone-like qualities elicits a myriad of health issues in adults but especially in children and most especially when exposed in utero or during key developmental phases.

As we cover the expanding research base on BPA, it becomes increasingly clear that traditional methods of toxicology do not work for understanding endocrine disruptors – the man-made chemicals that alter our hormone pathways . A case in point, the latest research on BPA.

Exposure in Adults

A report published online in June of 2011 and presented at a prominent toxicology conference in February 2013, measured BPA exposure levels over a 24-hour period in adults fed a high BPA diet (lots of canned food and water from plastic bottles). The report showed that the concentration of BPA measured from blood was below the level of detection in most of the study participants, even though urine concentrations were extremely high and indicated exposure levels above the 95th percentile of the US population.

From urine tests, researchers were able to detect an average 84% – 97% of the dosed BPA and its metabolite, BPA glucuronide – indicating a high rate of clearance from the body. The ranges varied widely by time of day (morning tests showed significantly less clearance) and gender of participant (women did not process the hormone as well as men).

The researchers argue that their failure to detect BPA in blood, combined with the high concentration in the urine meant that risk was minimal. Their reasoning, even though BPA exposure was high, most of the BPA was cleared from the body rapidly and efficiently; no harm, no foul.

Medical and science marketers latched on to this and soon every major and minor media outlet was reporting that risks were minimal. Here are just a few headlines.

No Ill Effects Found in Human BPA Exposure, says the Wall Street Journal

Majestically Scientific Federal Study on BPA has Stunning Findings: So Why is the Media Ignoring it? – says Forbes

No toxic effects from controversial food packet, says expert – the Guardian

Ahh, where to begin?

Flaws in the Research

Conflicts of interest. Always look for industry sponsorship of for research, see my previous post on evaluating endocrine research for details. The relationship between the investigators in the present study and industry are muddled, but they do exist. For more information, click here.

Below the level of detection. When researchers report that their tests are unable to detect a visible pathology or measure a particular compound that any reasonable person would expect to be present, the test is likely at fault. Below the level of detection, means just that. It does not mean the compound was not present or that it was not exerting effects, only that the tests were not sensitive enough to measure the compound. This was case here and I suspect as testing methods improve, we’ll see higher detection levels in blood.

High clearance is not the same as never exposed.  In this study, not all of the hormone was recovered in the urine, only an average of 84% – 97%. That sounds like a lot. With hormones, however, small amounts do great damage. Why?  Because steroid hormones are stored in fat (and other tissues). They accumulate over time and metabolize into a myriad of different hormones (metabolites), some more potent than the parent compound. After the initial exposure and certainly after repeated exposures, our bodies become little (or big) hormone factories, storing and creating more and more hormones and hormone metabolites.

Metabolites matter. Hormones are shape shifters. Every time they meet an enzyme, the interaction between the enzyme and the hormone creates a new, similar, but differently shaped hormone. Hormones are never ‘one and done’ metabolizers. Even though a large percentage of the original hormone and its primary clearance metabolite were measured from urine in the present study, one cannot assume that there were not still other metabolites circulating within the body and wreaking havoc.

BPA has metabolites. This is critical and often ignored in toxicology research. BPA is a hormone like substance and as such, it metabolizes into many different forms. BPA has metabolites that are more potent than BPA itself. New research shows that BPA metabolizes into a compound called 4-methyl-2,4-bis(4-hydroxyphenl)pent-1-ene or MBP for short. MBP is 1000-fold stronger than BPA in its estrogenic effects. MBP binds strongly to both types of estrogen receptors (ERa and ERb) and may change the activity of the cell, displacing native or endogenous estradiol. So within that 3%-16% range of BPA not cleared, comes a compound 1000 times stronger than the BPA itself. As the research progresses, who knows how many other active and potent metabolites from BPA or MBP we’ll see. With hormones, nothing is simple or straightforward.

What this Means

Avoid medical marketing, it’s usually incorrect. Learn how to evaluate endocrine disruptor research. Once you get the hang of it, you’ll be able to dismiss faulty research at a glance. More importantly, learn about hormone systems and environmental hormone disrupting chemicals. Otherwise, our children will bear the brunt of our ignorance.

A good review article: Bisphenol A and the Great Divide: A Review of Controversies in the Field of Endocrine Disruption.

Related posts:

No related posts.

You might be interested in

1 2