endocrine disruptors - Page 2

A Matrifocal View of Endocrine Disruptors and Premature Birth

2437 views

In the spring of 2012, the results of a long-term study on one of the most overlooked problems in the human experience was released. Born Too Soon: The Global Action Report on Preterm Birth, jointly sponsored by The March of Dimes Foundation, The Partnership for Maternal, Newborn & Child Health, Save the Children and The World Health Organization revealed an annotated selection of possible causes as well as detailed plan for actions intended to reduce premature birth and death. It also presented a dismal report card of the childbearing management and outcomes of the world’s countries; the United States ranked shamefully at 131st in preterm births.

The United States’ ranking is particularly shocking in that the primary causes of premature birth and death have supposedly been ameliorated. Since the 1990’s, lung maturity has been addressed through use of steroid injections at the first signs of labor. Nutrition has been addressed since the 1980’s through increased maternal resources (Women, Infants and Children or WIC ). Issues of ill-health, notably under/overweight, diabetes, high blood pressure, smoking, infection, age, genetics, multiple pregnancy and closely spaced pregnancy are supposedly mitigated through our mind-boggling 35% average, surgical intervention rate.

The US is unique in that its obstetrical practices include a substantial number of pregnancies are introduced by in vitro fertilization (IVF) and artificial insemination (AI) (increasingly performed in other countries, with birth occurring within the US borders). Additionally, first time moms in the US are often older and cesarean sections, either elective or for perceived complications, add to the increasing rate of prematurity in the US. These facts are presumed to explain the dismal state of maternal health and rise of premature births seen over the last decades in the US. Using these circumstances to disregard a troubling trend, however, negates the fact that this same population where premature birth is increasing, represents some of the best fed and medically attended women in the world. And yet, our premature birth rate continues to increase, along with births in which unusual defects of placenta, cord and newborn become more prominent. Why is this?

Reproductive technology and other variables not-withstanding, the largest and most rapidly developing body of evidence suggests that being born too soon is just one of the consequences of long term chemical exposures from foods, medicines and environmental contaminants. Endocrine disrupting chemicals, whether by pharmaceutical or environmental exposure, elicit subtle but recognizable damage to broad swaths of mammalian cells; damage that is complex and chronic, likely spanning multiple generations. It is damage that we are only beginning to understand.

The Power of Small, Frequent Exposures to Endocrine Disruptors

February 19, 2013 – just 9 months after Born Too Soon was published, the massive 296 page, multi-continent report on the probable effects of endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) was published in joint by the World Health Organization and The United Nations Environment Programme. Though it hardly made a whimper in the common press, State of the Science of Endocrine Disrupting Chemical-2012 is a shocking narrative into the damage being done to all mammalian cells, especially and most importantly by small, frequent exposures.

In the earlier 2002 version of this report, the Global Assessment of the State-of-the-Science of Endocrine Disruptors concluded that “there is weak evidence that human health has been adversely affected by exposure to endocrine-active chemicals.”  Under then-current testing, toxicity was most frequently measured by highest tolerable dose.  Despite early works such as Silent Spring, it was not until anecdotal insight gained through the popular book Our Stolen Future: Are We Threatening Our Fertility, Intelligence and Survival? that science began to wonder if it was asking the right questions.  While it is clear that massive doses of any chemical has a level at which cellular death is inevitable, is it possible that the living cell is more impacted by low, consistent doses?

With the release of the updated State of the Science the evidence is clear and the answer is yes; human health is indeed being adversely affected by exposure to endocrine-active chemicals at remarkably low and varied levels. Further, it is clear that we have been accumulating both exposure and cellular change for many years, certainly at least as long as the earliest pesticides and hormones at the turn of the century.  Although scientists cannot agree on specifics about identification of and protection from endocrine disrupting chemicals, the global scientific chatter indicates that the State of Science is an urgent warning that most endocrinologists are taking very seriously. We are changing cellular behavior from the mitochondria (the cells furnace) outward and the consequences are profound and growing (here) and (here).

So substantive is the insight contained within State of the Science  that ACOG followed in October 2013 with its own 17-page report, Exposure to Toxic Environmental Agents, reiterating the dangers of, and potential consequences to, exposure to toxic chemicals and EDCs, including risk of infertility, miscarriage, prematurity, deformity and stillbirth. Deeming reducing pregnant women’s exposure through education “critical”, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists surveyed 2500 physicians over the following months and found that fewer than one in five ask patients about toxic exposure.

Citing lack of understanding of the issues and concerns over stressing pregnant women, doctors feel that they need to focus their time on other aspects of care, but these are precisely the issues that must be addressed if maternal and fetal health are to be protected. If doctors are not willing to protect maternal health, then others must step up. I would argue that midwives must fill that role. The first step is in understanding the role of endocrine disruptors in maternal fetal health.

Endocrine Disruptors and Preterm Birth

Consider the impact endocrine disrupting substances can have on reproduction and their potential relationship to prematurity. Women are born with all the eggs they will ever have, and thus, are particularly sensitive to any assault on individual cells. We understand this from dentistry where shields are required to prevent the cumulative damage of x-rays. In contrast, we have such difficulty considering that the minute doses of any endocrine disrupting chemicals or particles might change the course of human potential; but they can and do. Here are just a few examples of endocrine disruptors affecting maternal and fetal health.

Obesogens, Chronic Disease and Prematurity

Obesogens are compounds that can alter the lipid (fat) development and metabolic balance. They are present in plastic containers including bags, BPA, air fresheners, non-stick pans, pre-packaged foods, fructose, monosodium glutamate, nicotine, DES, Estradiol, pesticides, lead. They are found in plastic and melamine dishes and cups along with urea-formaldehyde resin.

Obesogens have a very specific relationship to fat, a relationship that has grown steadily and significantly over the past 50 years. The primary mechanism appears to be the transmutation of cortisone into the active hormone cortisol in the fatty tissues. Repeated trials indicated that it promotes adipgenesis; an energy component that processes substance into triglycerol, insulin, epinephrine, glucagon and ACTH in the body. They are time sensitive:  The longer a challenge is presented (exposure) the greater the impact; the greater the artificial exposure (such as chemical and EDC), the more complex the reaction at the cellular level.

They have been found in every fat cell in the body and their presence can have very far reaching consequences in the childbearing cycle. These compounds appear to create a profound deficiency in normal ratio of sex hormones, alter lipid regulation and derange glucose metabolism. Alone or combined these changes can have a profound relationship on maternal and fetal outcomes. Some have speculated a “probable link” between these endocrine disruptor initiated changes to pregnancy-induced hypertension.

There is evidence that exposure to obesogens can be epigenetic and heritable modifications to DNA, meaning that unchecked and uncontrolled continued exposure to obesogens may permanently alter our lipid and glycogenic biology progressively, and across current and future generations.

Flame Retardants and Preterm Birth

Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) are compounds that are uniquely disruptive to the neurological system through changes in the receptors. Their primary use is as flame retardants and have been used in building materials, electronics, household furnishings, motor vehicles, airplanes, plastics, polyurethane foam and textiles –including children’s sleepwear since the early 1970’s. PBDEs are dangerous in all forms but particularly insidious in one of their most readily found forms, dust, as they are taken up through both breath and skin absorption and moved throughout the body.  PBDEs have a profound effect on childbearing.

  1. PBDE reduces fertility at levels found in almost every household.
  2. PBDEs are indirectly associated with premature birth, low birth weight and stillbirth through first and second generation endocrine interruption.
  3. As little as a single dose has shown to impair neurodevelopment in the preborn and delayed development in young children including Autism spectrum disorders.
  4. PBDEs disrupt hormone levels in the thyroid gland of both mother and fetus.
  5. PBDEs evoke epigenetic dysregulation.

The EPA action plains have called for the removal PBDEs from our environment for years. Despite this, detectible levels remain high within the adult population; higher still in very young children.

Glyphosate Based Herbicides: A Danger to Maternal Fetal Health

Glyphosate is a glycine based broad spectrum kill-all herbicide which is, in large part, designed to work specifically with genetically modified organism which are tolerant of it.  Early and most on-going testing of this herbicide has tested the active ingredient in isolation. Very recent testing has shown the “inert” ingredients (adjuvants) to be aggressively toxic, one ingredient of which is extremely cytotoxic.

Unlike many of the other individual endocrine disrupting chemicals reviewed in State of the Science, the glyphosate substance has been slippery to fix within research. Many of the best research papers have been either dismissed out of hand or withdrawn from publication (a behavior which is rare indeed). The financial power of the major glyphosate producer (Monsanto) is well-connected in every government and research organization.

Of the studies that have been reasonably accepted and reviewed, glyphosate/adjuvant substances have been shown to be endocrine disruptors and further studies may confirm current research indicating the greatest danger in pregnancy to be:

  1. They are capable of vertebrate cranial faults during early gestation
  2. They have exhibited cytotoxic (cell killing) capacity in human cells at levels less than half the agricultural use
  3. Because of pure glyphosate’s ability to amplify the estrogenic effect of soy, gmo soy has shown to induce human breast cancer growth
  4. In 2013, the first solid evidence as to glyphosate’s impact on gut microbiome was released. Described as the “textbook example of exogenous semiotic entropy” it is shown to reduce or destroy tryptophan, tyrosine, phenylalanine, methionine, serotonin, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, autoimmune diseases.
  5. Also in 2013, Interdisciplinary Toxicology released research documentation that glyphosate is “pathway to modern diseases: celica sprue and gluten intolerance”.

Today’s report of permanent kidney damage in the farm workers of South America seems to confirm that glyphosate is not just an endocrine disrupting chemical with epigenetic and mutagenic properties. As weeds become progressively resistant to glyphosate, it would seem that the increasingly high concentrations and applications of this chemical are linked to evidence of carcinogenic damage on a large scale.

For midwifery and birth the single most remarkable statement about glyphosate’s impact in childbearing is the knowledge that glyphosate disrupts enzyme function the “cytochrome P450” enzymes regulate Vitamin D, cholesterol, sex hormones and stabilizes blood fibrinogen continuity, all important factors in healthy pregnancy. Glyphosate also causes cellular damage to the placenta, the one organ of regeneration everyone should care greatly about (here), (here),(here),(here).

The Precautionary Principle and Premature Birth

At the heart of the Born Too Soon report we are lead through the maze of what may be causing prematurity and then in State of the Science we are given an opportunity to reflect upon the cellular challenge of history; and quite possibly the single most important disturbances in our biological evolution. This is a critical moment in childbearing and one that we would do well to spend time in mindful consideration. If the research is even marginally accurate is there anything more important than understanding and putting a halt to the barrage of assaults to our mitochondria and cellular health?

Part of the global answer to this conundrum has been in place since 2005: The Precautionary Principle; “a strategy to cope with possible risks where scientific understanding is yet incomplete, such as the risks of nano technology, genetically modified organisms and systemic insecticides.” This UNESCO environmental mandate was ratified in 2005 and is part of the fundamental inquiry system outside the US. Something of a “prove its safe before you put it out there” perspective, the Precautionary Principle works antithetically to the American system of testing and releasing.

“The precautionary principle enables rapid response in the face of a possible danger to human, animal or plant health, or to protect the environment. In particular, where scientific data do not permit a complete evaluation of the risk, recourse to this principle may, for example, be used to stop distribution or order withdrawal from the market of products likely to be hazardous.”

Our work in the United States is complicated on a national level certainly as we are hindered by far too much by the politics of lobbies, big Agri-Business and Biotech companies. Evidence-based medical decision-making has been extremely slow in taking a position entirely because of the scientific corner it has boxed itself into. What then?

Born Too Soon and Midwifery: An Opportunity

Each individual world community is dealing with childbearing issues in unique ways; prematurity, birth defects and low birth weight have causal relationships that may look quite different from country to country, and yet, we are united in the truth that hunger, poverty, insufficient water, shelter and healthcare are an increasing problem worldwide.  The addition of the biochemical challenges of endocrine disrupting chemicals has turned childbearing toward a future none wants to see continue. Regardless of the promises made for more and better food through chemicals and genetic manipulation, we are watching a game-changing shift in human DNA through mitochondrial damage that is leading to more, not less, disease, disorder and childbearing loss.

Women and children are very much the canary in the coalmine of endocrinology.  If the choices we are making as a species so alter our potential for stable regeneration, we are ethically bound to not only study them without equivocation, but to soundly rebuke their presence in our world until their safety is assured.  Women are being labeled high-risk for high-blood pressure, obesity, thyroid imbalance, diabetes and reproductive challenges as consequences of the mitochondrial damage being inflicted by an indifferent industrial machine contaminating the environment with dangerous endocrine disrupting chemicals.

As midwives we are bound to stand beside women experiencing those challenges.  We have never been simply about birth. Midwifery has always been Matrifocal by definition; through our focus on the welfare of women and the communities we have stood beside in every issue.  It is time for us to remember that with or without scientific validation we are bound also by our role as teachers. We are called to educate toward sustainable behaviors, involve ourselves in community changes and focus our practices on least invasive technology, as we search for answers to the growing list of health problems within the community we serve.

Live without hesitation. Dwell not on outcome or reward. Act with full attention.

Midwives have been the guardians of the sacred in community and birth since the beginning of time. We have dared to speak the truth when none wanted to hear it; when the cost might have been our very lives. Despite the occasional feeling of loneliness, we have really never been alone in that journey and we are even less so today. There is a growing body of health practitioners asking the same questions, risking their reputations and often their livelihood in an effort to bring to light the path through the madness that is the current recklessness of science. Find resources within your area. Encourage and support their work. Comb the internet for research about hormone and endocrine disorders.  There are many online researchers that are asking good questions; endocrine research is becoming more approachable with websites like Hormones Matter. Women’s mental health is leaving the dark ages of toxic medications with a new breed of psychiatrists like Kelly Brogan, MD, providing the insight to make the shift.

There is a revolution brewing – in birth and in health – become part of it.

Chemicals in Sunscreens, Soaps, Plastics and Livestock Disrupt Sperm

2411 views

Guys, considering having children?  New research shows you might want to avoid endocrine disruptors lest you alter the swimming, navigational and fertilization capacity of your sperm. Yes, endocrine disruptors, those synthetic chemicals that enhance or reduce endogenous hormones and are found in sunscreens, soaps, plastics, herbicides, pesticides, human and animal antibacterials, can render your sperm incapable of fertilization by some pretty striking mechanisms.

Why Hormones Are Important

Hormones control every aspect of human life from the most basic sexual function and reproduction, through metabolism and even brain function, so disrupting the natural balance of hormones can, and often does, have serious consequences on human health. In recent years, researchers have begun to untangle those effects. Almost to a tee, the studies run by independent scientist, show a myriad of negative effects linked to hormone disrupting chemicals. The study published just this month: Direct action of endocrine disrupting chemicals on human sperm is no different, except that the researchers not only identified the direct mechanism by which these chemicals affect sperm, but also, how a combination of exposures magnifies the deleterious response.

Endocrine Disruptors and Sperm Competence

The process of fertilization is a remarkably complex act. After ejaculation, sperm must swim upstream, against a pressurized force, against a chemical gradient to reach and then penetrate the oocyte or egg. Before reaching the egg, the sperm has to shed part of its native endocrine structure (acrosomal exocytosis) in order to successfully withstand penetration. The navigation, motility, and penetration are mediated by complex and perfectly timed set of chemical reactions between endogenous hormones secreted from the female and the activity of a calcium (Ca2+) channel called CatSper in the sperm. Sperm from animals lacking the CatSper gene are infertile because they cannot respond appropriately to the hormones released by the female. Many endocrine disruptors inappropriately activate the CatSper Ca2+ channel by mimicking those female hormones (progesterone and prostaglandins), thus impairing the sperm’s ability to reach its destination and perform the task at hand.

The present study found that physiological concentrations of many endocrine disrupting chemicals, concentrations the average person is expected to be exposed to and designated as safe, were deleterious to sperm competence. The chemicals in sunscreens that provide the UV-filters, the precursors for surfactants in soaps and commercial resins, growth hormones in livestock, insecticides, antibacterial and antifungal preservatives in foods and personal products such as soap, toothpastes, incorrectly activated the CatSper Ca2+ channel rendering the sperm incompetent. Most interesting, the researchers found that combination exposures increased the endocrine disrupting capacity of these chemicals. Since these chemicals are pervasive in modern life, it is reasonable to suggest that almost all exposures to endocrine disruptors happen in combination rather than in isolation. The potential to magnify the negative affects on health is likely greater than fully understood, particularly when considering there are at least 1000 of these chemicals on the market today, used in common, everyday products.

Improve Fertility: Remove Exposures to Endocrine Disruptors

If you and your partner are having problems conceiving consider eliminating exposures to endocrine disrupting chemicals. Research done with female infertility shows that women are equally susceptible to these hormone disruptors. Bisphenol A or BPA in plastics has been linked to egg maturation errors. If couples are lucky enough to conceive, fetal development continues to be susceptible to maternal exposures to endocrine disruptors and can wreak havoc on the health the children and grandchildren.

Who’s in Charge of GMO Regulation?

3427 views

We’ve all seen, and probably shouted, the catchy slogans – Say No to GMO! Keep your genes out of our meats and greens! We’ve read countless articles on the dangers of the genetically modified organisms (GMO) as well as the chemicals and foods they are sprayed and fed. We sign petitions, hit the “share” button to the various social media outlets, and get into screaming matches with friends and family members who don’t see the harm in GMOs. But do any of us really know how GMOs are approved? Do we know the best way to fight them? I’m going to guess no since it’s the eighth day of an open public commenting period about the use of DOW’s 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D), one of the main components of Agent Orange used in Vietnam, at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and there are only a whopping 340 comments at this time. It actually didn’t occur to me that I didn’t really understand the full approval process until stumbling across the “public commenting period.” What I found was rather shocking.

Genetically modified foods and the chemicals that are sprayed on them as a result of their herbicide and pesticide resistance properties fall under the regulatory span of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and EPA. What follows is a brief explanation how each agency works and what acts have been passed to monitor, or attempt to monitor, GMOs. Under the regulations of all three of these agencies, only the following categories of GM crops are monitored:

Plant-Incorporated Protectant (PIP) – a plant that produced pesticidal proteins or other chemicals as a result of genetic material from a bacterium into the plant. In these plants, scientists add modify the genes of corn, for example, to express a pesticidal property so that when pests digest the crop it releases a bacterial protein that will kill the pest. Yes, if we digest this plant we are also digesting this poisonous bacterial protein.

Genetically Modified Microbial Pesticides – bacteria, fungi, viruses, protozoa, or algae that has been modified to express a pesticidal properties like a PIP. In this case, the microbial pesticides are sprayed on the crop.

Herbicide-Tolerant Crops – this is the answer to the problem of weed-killer killing the crop it’s sprayed on. Like PIPs, the crop has been genetically modified to withstand the herbicides by adding the herbicide to the genetic make-up of the crop. The most commonly herbicide-tolerant crop is tolerant to glyphosate, a known carcinogen and hormone disrupter. Like most chemical substances, the weeds are becoming resistant to glyphosate in Monsanto’s Round Up. Thus Monsanto has teamed up with DOW Chemical to create crops resistant to 2, 4-D, as I mentioned before this is the main chemical ingredient for Agent Orange. Like PIPs, we are not only ingesting and breathing 2,4-D, being sprayed on our food, but it is actually part of our food.

Other GMOs that interchange DNA from one plant or animal species to another do not fall under the regulation of these agencies (and as far as I have researched, they do not seem to fall under any other regulating agency either).

usda

USDA

The USDA is the U.S. federal executive department responsible for developing and executing federal government policy on farming, agriculture, forestry, and food. It aims to meet the needs of farmers and ranchers, promote agricultural trade and production, work to assure food safety, protect natural resources, foster rural communities and end hunger in the United States and abroad. The USDA is not responsible for monitoring the safety of GMOs for human or animal consumption, but rather how it affects plant health. Within the USDA is the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), which is responsible for protecting agriculture from pests and diseases. Under APHIS is the Biotechnology Regulatory Services (BRS) which is part of a science-based federal regulatory framework to protect America’s agricultural resources and the broader environment. The BRS has strict regulations for any new organism either imported, crossing state lines or being introduced, but only to ensure that it does not present a plant pest risk.

As long as GMOs either introduced to American farms or imported do not present a risk to plants, the USDA does not have regulate it. The responsibility of safety for human and animal consumption is passed to the FDA.

Fda-logo

FDA

The FDA is an agency of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, one of the United States federal executive departments. The FDA is responsible for protecting and promoting public health through the regulation and supervision of food safety, tobacco products, dietary supplements, prescription and over-the-counter pharmaceutical drugs (medications), vaccines, biopharmaceuticals, blood transfusions, medical devices, electromagnetic radiation emitting devices (ERED), cosmetics and veterinary products. As far as GMOs go, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as long as the bioengineered food is substantially equivalent to non-GM crops or is generally recognized as safe, it does not require pre-market approval. There are no specific regulations for GMOs and they fall under the same regulation as conventional foods. In 1992, the FDA published a policy statement titled: Food for human consumption and animal drugs, feeds, and related products: Foods derived from new plant varieties; policy statement, 22984. This policy statement specifically addresses genetically modified foods, but disturbingly there is little regulation within this policy:

Under this policy, foods, such as fruits, vegetables, grains, and their byproducts, derived from plant varieties developed by the new methods of genetic modification are regulated within the existing framework of the act, FDA’s implementing regulations, and current practice, utilizing an approach identical in principle to that applied to foods developed by traditional plant breeding. The regulatory status of a food, irrespective of the method by which it is developed, is dependent upon objective characteristics of the food and the intended use of the food (or its components).The method by which food is produced or developed may in some cases help to understand the safety or nutritional characteristics of the finished food. However, the key factors in reviewing safety concerns should be the characteristics of the food product, rather than the fact that the new methods are used.

In other words, as long as a protein remains a protein and a carb remains a carb, it doesn’t matter how it’s produced. In 1997, the FDA started a voluntary consultation process for GM crop developers, but seeing as it is voluntary, I would hardly call that legitimate legislation. In 1998, Monsanto’s then director of corporate communications, Phil Angell, stated:

“Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA’s job.”

The FDA’s role should be to monitor the safety of these new genetically modified plants that are used both as human food and animal food, however, there are simply no regulations specifically for GMOs.

GMO Labeling

In regards to labeling, per the FFDCA, the only labeling required from the producer is the common or usual name, or in the absence thereof, an appropriate descriptive term. The only exception is if a safety or usage issue exists due to the genetic mutation and consumers must be alerted. For example, if peanut genes are added to a tomato, the tomato can no longer be called a tomato because potential allergic reactions. I’lettersizeLogom sure in cases like this, the marketing department is full of clever titles like tomatut or peanato. Currently, 25 states have introduced mandatory GMO labeling legislation.  Vermont and Connecticut have actually passed laws forcing GMO products to be labeled. The Non-GMO Verification Project is a nonprofit organization that provides third party volunteer testing and labeling for products. I always look for Non-GMO Project Verified label when I shop.

The USDA only cares about the plant, the FDA doesn’t care as long as a tomato remains a tomato. A majority of people don’t believe the various reports of cancer and infertility caused in lab mice fed GMOs and ignore the fact that there have not been any comprehensive studies on the affects of human consumption of GMOs, but even if we deny that GMOs could be dangerous, there is no denying that spraying dangerous chemicals such as glysophate and Agent Orange on fields and backyards is dangerous and should be regulated, right? That’s where the EPA comes into play.

0412epaEPA

The EPA is another regulatory agency. It has primary responsibility for enforcing many of the environmental statutes and regulations of the United States. Congress authorizes the EPA to write regulations that explain the critical details necessary to implement environmental laws and Presidential Executive Orders.

The EPA’s role in the environmental safety of GMOs falls under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). According to the EPA website:

FIFRA provides for federal regulation of pesticide distribution, sale, and use. All pesticides distributed or sold in the United States must be registered (licensed) by EPA. Before EPA may register a pesticide under FIFRA, the applicant must show, among other things, that using the pesticide according to specifications “will not generally cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment. FIFRA defines the term ”unreasonable adverse effects on the environment” to mean: “(1) any unreasonable risk to man or the environment, taking into account the economic, social, and environmental costs and benefits of the use of any pesticide, or (2) a human dietary risk from residues that result from a use of a pesticide in or on any food inconsistent with the standard under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.”

FIFRA was first passed into law in 1947, but has been amended since then. In 1972, FIFRA was essentially rewritten and amended by the Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act. In 1996, it was again significantly amended as the Food Quality Protection Act.

While the EPA seems to hold the strictest regulations of the three agencies discussed in this article, it seems they are still coming up short. In order for a new pesticide to acquire a license from the EPA, the producer must provide more than a hundred scientific tests and studies. But, like the FDA, the producer of the pesticide provides the tests and the EPA does not actually conduct any tests on the new product. Furthermore, if it is being licensed for use on a crop less than 300,000 acres it is not considered sufficient economic incentive for registration.

EPA and GMO Regulation

Whether or not the EPA is actually regulating safe limits of pesticide aside, let’s look at their role in GMOs. Under FIFRA, the EPA provides legal requirements for registration and licensing of pesticides and therefore only monitors GMOs that are pesticidal in nature (PIP, Genetically Modified Microbial Pesticides, or Herbicide-Tolerant Crops).

The EPA also sets tolerances, and exemptions from tolerances, for the allowable residues of pesticides applied to food and animal feed under the FFDCA. However, given the pollution levels and a new study conducted by the California Department of Public Health showing a high number of California children being exposed to high level of pesticides at schools located near farms, I don’t have much faith in the EPA’s ability to safely regulate the use of pesticides.

Are GM Foods Safe?

In the end you have to ask – are GMOs safe for me and my family? Some people GMObelieve that the USDA, FDA, and EPA regulations are enough proof that they are safe, however, studies in rats fed GMO food over the course of a life time suffered premature deaths (up to 50% of males and 70% of females) and had severe organ damage (specifically liver and kidney). Also, the rats drank trace amounts of Roundup in their water (within legal limits set by these regulatory agencies) and had a 200% to 300% increase in large tumors (for more information and photos, click here).

What can YOU do?

Learn more. Do your own research on whether or not GMOs and the chemicals used on our crops are safe for consumption and the environment.

Spread the news. My friends and family are sick of hearing me telling anyone who will listen about the dangers of GMO, but I believe one person can make a difference so I keep fighting the good fight.

Buy organic, non-GMO foods. There are plenty of websites, like the Environmental Working Group, dedicated to helping families buy organic on a tight budget. Buying from local farmers can reduce cost (depending on where you live) or even buying your online. Another budget friendly tip – don’t eat out. We vote for or against GMO every time we check out at the grocery store or favorite fast food chain – make your vote count!

Get involved. I don’t mean you should quit your job to travel across the country leading protests (although if you can, go for it!). Simply watching legislation and writing in to the EPA and FDA and telling them you DON’T want Agent Orange sprayed in your backyard, is something everyone can do. We have until May 30th to tell the EPA we do not approve. Click here to add your comments. There are numerous organizations that write and submit petitions against GMOs. The Center for Food Safety is running a campaign against the use of DOW Chemical’s 2,4-D.

What do you and your family do to stop the spread of GMOs? What are your favorite NON-GMO products?

A Global Contamination: Persistent Organic Pollutants

2032 views

For personal reasons, I have been investigating environmental toxins and their effects on hormonal, neurological and reproductive health. The bioaccumulation of Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) within our bodies and the proliferation of POPs across the entire planet is frightening, but like most, I was not aware of the dangers. Despite the abundance of research linking POPs to many of the health epidemics we face here in the United States, such as Type II Diabetes and obesity, the public’s attention has not been directed to this man-made creation. Here is some of the research I found on persistent organic pollutants and what is being done to control our exposure to them.

What are Persistent Organic Pollutants?

Persistent Organic Pollutants, or POPs, are a number of organic (mostly man-made) compounds resistant to degradation by natural environmental processes. A number of POPs became widely utilized during the increase in industrial production post-World War II, a time when thousands of chemicals were introduced into commercial use. Many of these chemicals were proven effective in pest and disease control, crop production, manufacturing and industrial processes. Also in existence are a number of POPs which are “unintentionally produced chemicals” as the result of combustion (e.g., trash burning or municipal/medical waste incineration).

Why are Persistent Organic Pollutants So Bad?

Since they cannot be broken down via natural degradation in the environment, they are transported by wind and water. POPs are known for bioaccumulation in human and animal tissue and have become a part of the food chain, affecting all life on earth. Isolated communities, such as indigenous populations in the Arctic Circle, have a particularly high exposure risk to POPs.  POPs have been linked to disruption of our endocrine, reproductive and immune systems, neurological problems, diabetes, obesity and cancer. According to The United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), the international community has been calling for “urgent global actions to reduce and eliminate releases of these chemicals.” A number of POPs are compounds the reader may be familiar with, such as DDT, PCBs, and HCH.

“The Dirty Dozen” and the Stockholm Convention

Coordinated by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), The Stockholm Convention serves as “a global legally-binding instrument for targeting persistent organic pollutants.” The purpose of the Convention is to direct us toward a future free of POPs and re-shape the global economy in order to eliminate reliance on such dangerous pollutants.

The Convention initially identified twelve POPs (“The Dirty Dozen”) considered to be the most detrimental to the well-being of humans, animals and the environment. This measure created a system that allows for a greater number of chemicals to be identified as “unacceptably hazardous.” In accordance with the Convention, governments are obliged to eliminate or reduce the introduction of POPs into the environment. Such is done by channeling resources into “cleaning up existing stockpiles and dumps of POPs that litter the world’s landscapes.” The Convention was ratified May 17, 2004, with 150 signatory countries. As of February 20, 2013, Afghanistan acceded to the Convention as its 179th party. According to Kyoto Energy, the Convention aims to prohibit the production of POPs, with the exception of equipment currently in use; they have set a deadline for the elimination of the remaining usage for 2025.

Destroying and Transforming POPs in the Environment

The UNIDO website suggests that POPs stockpiles “must be destroyed in a manner which does not further degrade the environment by generating or releasing POPs.” The Convention calls for community participation, safety of the community, full disclosure of information, monitoring and release of data.

Details regarding the destruction process on the UNIDO website are vague; they suggest that traditional methods use “landfilling, ground storage, deepwell injection and combustion by open burning, incineration or in cement kilns or metal furnaces.” UNIDO stresses that there are “serious limitations” to the “normal incineration process,” considering that incineration can lead to the creation of dioxins, PCBs and HCBs. The quantities of POPs are rather difficult to estimate; almost no inventory exists. Kyoto Energy estimates that one million tons of PCBs and 100,000 tons of obsolete pesticides exist within countries that are not member to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

Are We Burying POPs for Future Generations?

Many of these methods do not entirely eliminate the problem. Rather, we are, quite literally, burying them for future generations to deal with – if we don’t burn this stuff and release it into the atmosphere first.

The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) suggests that high temperature incinerators, incineration in cement kilns and chemical treatment are proven methods of destruction. There is no evidence of this being true, and most research indicates that POPs are created as a result of incineration.  

A number of countries have continued to produce POPs such as DDT, with a staggering 3,314 tons (7,306,119 pounds) produced globally in 2009. On the bright side, this signifies a 43% reduction in DDT production from 2007. Considering the stability of POPs (i.e., resistant to degradation), it’s difficult to imagine any concerted effort can “undo” the damage that has already been dealt to the planet, especially since a number of POPs like DDT continue to be produced and exported in such exorbitant quantities.

It’s time to rethink our reliance on dangerous chemicals and the industries that use them. Though, many of these chemicals were developed before we understood their dangers, now that we know, it is difficult to support their continued use. With all of the advances in science, one would think we could design better, safer tools for industry, than the non-degradable, persistent organic pollutants we have now.

What is DES and Why You Should Care

6773 views

Diethylstilbestrol or DES is synthetic estrogen developed in the late 1930s. It was initially approved by the FDA in 1941 for vaginitis and as an early hormone replacement therapy for menopausal women.  It was later approved a variety of low estrogen indications. In 1947, the FDA approved its use in pregnant women with a history of miscarriage. DES had been used off-label for miscarriage prevention since the early 1940s, despite the fact that little evidence supported its use and animal studies indicated clear carcinogenic and congenital reproductive abnormalities in the offspring.

After 10 years of widespread use and marketing, a double-blind, placebo-controlled study on the efficacy of DES was finally conducted. As one might expect, it was found ineffective in preventing miscarriage. In fact, women on DES had a higher risk of miscarriage. Later studies in the 1960s began detailing the adverse events associated with this drug. Despite mounting evidence of the dangers of diethylstilbestrol, it remained on the market and widely used through the early 1970s in the US and into the 1980s in some European countries.  In the US alone, it is estimated that between 5-10 million women and their children were exposed to DES.  Because the compound was never patented, 287 drug companies sold DES under a multitude of brands  and for an array of low-estrogen conditions.

In addition to diethylstilbestrol use in humans, it was used widely in farm animals to fatten up the chickens and cattle, beginning in the early 1950s and through the 1970s. DES was found to cause cancer and interestingly enough, cause gynecomastia (man boobs) and sterility in the poultry workers. Well before DES was banned in humans, the FDA banned it in poultry under the newly enacted Delaney Clause to the FDA 1958.  It seems man boobs and sterility was all it took to ban the product in chicken farms.  Miscarriage, congenital abnormalities and cross-generation cancer risks, on the other hand, were not sufficient to initiate its ban in large cattle or humans. It was another 20 years before diethylstilbestrol was banned in cattle or humans and many years after before it was removed from the food chain (if it even is now).  “In 1980, half a million cattle from one hundred and fifty-six feedlots in eighteen states were found with illegal DES implants.”  Even upon FDA’s decision to withdraw its approval of DES in cattle and feed, it did so on grounds of the procedural non-compliance of the manufacturers, erstwhile maintaining the safety of diethylstilbestrol, “because there is no evidence of a public health hazard.”  Despite its clear carcinogenic and teratogenic risks, it is still used in veterinary care.

Diethylstilbestrol Risk for Humans

Amongst those suffering the most from DES exposure are men and women who were exposed in utero as developing fetuses.  DES was given to pregnant women from the 1940 through 1971 in the US and into the 1980s in some European countries. If you were born anytime between 1940 and 1980, ask your mom if she was given DES to prevent miscarriage. It was sold under dozens of brand names (click here for brand names).

Sons and Daughters of DES

The range of depth of reproductive abnormalities, endocrine and health issues found in the children and grandchildren of DES moms, is expanding regularly. If your mom or grandmother was given DES, here is a list of health issues to look for:

DES Daughters

In a large cohort study comparing the reproductive health of the daughters of women prescribed DES during pregnancy to the health of women whose mothers had not been given DES, researchers found a 2-8 times higher incidence of the following conditions:

  • Infertility
  • Spontaneous abortion
  • Ectopic pregnancy
  • Second trimester pregnancy loss,
  • Preterm delivery
  • Preeclampsia
  • Stillbirth
  • Neonatal death
  • Early menopause
  • Breast cancer
  • Cervical neoplasia
  • Clear cell adenocarcinoma

The increased risk of miscarriage and adverse pregnancy outcome in DES daughters is overwhelmingly linked to structural abnormalities with uterus. Fully 69% of DES daughters who have had difficult with infertility and miscarriage have an abnormally shaped uterine cavity or structural changes to the cervix (44%).

DES and Endometriosis

Of particular interest to Hormones Matter followers, DES exposure in utero is linked to an 80% increase in endometriosis. We will be digging deeper into the DES – endometriosis connection in the coming weeks.

DES Sons

Sons of women given DES during pregnancy are three times more likely to have structural abnormalities of the genitals including:

  • epididymal cysts
  • undescended testes
  • extremely small testes
  • hypospadias (misplaced urethral opening)
  • micropenis (some, but not all)
  • increased risk of infertility
  • increased risk of testicular and prostate cancer (although the research has just begun)

In the animal research, offspring of DES exposed mothers shows a vast array of structural and morphological changes across multiple physiological systems ranging from sex reversal in male fish to structural and functional changes in pancreatic cells. The full scope of damage from DES is yet to be determined.

DES Grandchildren

Yes, there are third generation effects from this drug. Researchers are just beginning to untangle the third generation effects. In women, menstrual irregularities appear more common as do the various forms of cancer, but the data are unclear. In men, hypospodias may be more frequent, but again the data are mixed.

Endocrine disruptors like diethylstilbestrol impact human health in ways we are only just beginning to understand. The current methods for measuring and calculating risk for endocrine disruptors is out-dated and based on standard, linear, dose-response curves that not only fail to account for how hormone systems work, but also fail to address possible transgenerational effects. Hormones matter and sooner or later we must address the broader endocrine system in pharmaceutical and environmental regulation. As women, we ought to be fighting for sooner.

100 Toxic Chemicals Found in Pregnant Women

3445 views

Environmental toxins are everywhere. Not a day goes by that some report doesn’t warn us about this pesticide or that plastic or the host of toxic chemicals floating in the atmosphere. One has to wonder how we survive the toxic soup that has become our environment; but somehow we do – well, mostly.  The rate of cancers, immune, endocrine and a myriad of other diseases are on the rise. Though experts argue about direct links between specific chemicals and diseases (correlation does not equal causation), no one can argue that bathing in a chemical cocktail is healthy. Yet that is exactly what we do and when we become pregnant so do our babies.

As part of the National Health and Nutritional Examination Survey (NHANES), 163 toxic chemicals from 12 chemical classes were measured from the blood, urine and serum of a representative group of 268 pregnant women. The results were not good. Researchers found widespread exposure to many toxic chemicals. Exposure to several classes of toxic chemicals were detected in 99–100% of the pregnant women tested including:

  • Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) – are used as coolants and lubricants in electrical systems. Though no longer produced in the US, PCBs are still present in the environment, mostly in contaminated streams and rivers. Eating contaminated food (fish, meat or dairy) is the primary source of exposure. PCBs are also found in old (>30 years) fluorescent lights, refrigerators and TVs. PCBs are carcinogenic and exposure during pregnancy can cause developmental delays in infants and children.
  • Organochlorine pesticides – DDT and other pesticides (mosquito control) used in US from 1940-1960s. Many, though not all, are banned in the US. Organochlorines are neurotoxic and cause reproductive failure in animals.
  •  Perfluorinated compounds (PFCs) – are used to create stain and water resistant fabrics such as StainmasterTM, ScotchgardTM, TeflonTM and represent one of the most pervasively present chemical toxins today. PFCs do not appear to break down in the environment – ever, are linked liver and bladder cancer and cross the placental barrier. PFCs are linked to developmental and reproductive toxicity.
  • Phenols  –  are pervasive in the environment, found the resin in plywood, automotive and construction materials, the effluent of oil refineries and in the manufacturing of plastics (bisphenol A – BPA). Phenols are also found in a of medical products such as: mouthwashes, toothache drops, throat lozenges, analgesic rubs, and antiseptic lotions and tobacco. According to the EPA, no human studies have been done to determine the developmental or reproductive affects of phenol exposure, though animal research suggests phenols are weak carcinogens. Research on bisphenol A clearly suggests it is a highly estrogenic endocrine disruptor. Research on a class of phenolic compounds used oil refinery effluent that often leaches into nearby water supplies, reduces thyroid functioning in fish who swim in those streams.
  • Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) – are flame retardants that appear to be highly environmentally persistent – they don’t degrade – and have bio-accumulative affects that can be toxic to humans and the environment.  PDBEs were only recently phased out of use in 2004. Exposure comes through eating foods grown in contaminated soils. The toxins can cross the placental barrier and are passed through breast milk. Though human research is still limited, PDBEs are thyroid toxic in rodents.
  • Phthalates, are pervasive in our environment from vinyls and plastics, to pesticides and solvents. Phthalates are present in most cosmetics and perfumes, though because of a loophole in the regulations phthalates are not often listed in the ingredients. They are also used in the coatings of many medications.  Phthalates are endocrine disruptors and can cause congenital abnormalities in offspring of women who have been exposed.
  • Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) represent a group of over 100 different chemicals emitted when burning coal, oil and gas, garbage, tobacco and even  charbroiled meat.  Exposure comes from breathing, except in the case of charbroiled meats. Don’t burn the steak the bar-b-que!
  • Perchlorate or rocket fuel disrupts iodide uptake into the thyroid gland.

Though individually and with high enough exposure any one of these chemicals can have serious reproductive consequences. It is unclear, however, what chronic, lower level exposure to multiple chemicals would do, and yet that is exactly what most women face. How many products from the above list have you been exposed to?   Chances are, most of them.

 

The Bottom Line: BPA and Endocrine Disruptors

2445 views

Unless you have been living under a rock for the past ten years, you probably know about BPA. Bisphenol A is a chemical used in the manufacturing of some hard plastics and liners for canned foods, including infant formula. In recent years, more and more plastic products, especially items like baby bottles, have adopted the “BPA-free” label. Why? It turns out that BPA mimics some effects of estrogens in the body.  BPA and chemicals like it, known collectively as endocrine disruptors, have been implicated in a disturbing variety of health problems, ranging from early puberty to cancer. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration banned the use of BPA in manufacturing of baby bottles and sippy cups in July, 2012. However, its use in can liners and other plastic products is still essentially unregulated. The science of endocrine disruptors is still in its infancy, and consumers are left to decide what constitutes an acceptable level of exposure. So, how concerned should we be?

Is BPA Safe?

This turns out to be a complicated question. The vast majority of studies on BPA and other endocrine disruptors have been done in rodents, whose endocrine systems are not equivalent to those of humans. Many of the early studies of these compounds exposed animals to doses much higher than humans might ever experience or administered the compounds via routes that were unlikely in humans (e.g. intravenously). There was also a widespread lack of consistent methodology across studies, with different labs examining different endpoints, so that results were nearly impossible to compare and interpret. Recent efforts by the FDA, National Institutes of Health and Centers for Disease Control have helped to coordinate multiple, large scale studies and improve methodology.

The Good News and the Bad News about BPA

Based on these more recent studies, there’s good and bad news. The good news: recent estimates of exposure levels for infants are 10-fold lower than previous estimates (0.24 micrograms/kg body weight/day vs. 2.4 micrograms/kg body weight per day) [1]. This may be partly due to increased inaccurate assumptions about how parents prepare bottles. Also, studies in primates, whose endocrine metabolism is closer to humans, suggest that most orally-administered BPA is rapidly metabolized to an inactive form and excreted [2].

Now, the bad news.  A recent study, in which pregnant rhesus monkeys were exposed continuously to low concentrations of BPA, similar to those found in human tissues, found that the ovaries of female fetuses had more unenclosed follicles [3]. This could mean that the female offspring of exposed monkeys would have fewer viable eggs and diminished reproductive success as adults, though this study did not follow the offspring to adulthood. Another study examined the effects of BPA on human breast epithelial cells grown in culture [4]. BPA increased expression of genes involved in DNA repair, including the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. Women who carry specific mutations in these genes are at five times greater risk for developing breast and ovarian cancers than the general population. The study suggests that women who carry these mutations may be unable to repair DNA damage induced by BPA and may be especially vulnerable to its effects on estrogen-sensitive tissues.

How Concerned Should We Be about BPA?

So, back to our original question: how concerned should we be? While exposure levels are probably fairly low, and much of the BPA we ingest is likely metabolized, there are certain populations, including pregnant women, infants and women at high risk for breast and ovarian cancer, who should be especially concerned. In the absence of tighter regulatory controls on BPA use in manufacturing, there are simple steps consumers can take to reduce their exposure. Bottom line, am I going to stop buying canned foods? Not entirely, but fresh is always nutritionally superior to canned anyhow. Do I buy BPA free bottles for my infant son? Absolutely.  Do I spend a lot of time worrying about my family’s exposure to BPA? No. Not because it’s not important, but because there are many other known endocrine disruptors in our environment, and probably many more that haven’t yet come to our attention. BPA is just a small piece of a very complex puzzle.

References

[1]Department of Health and Human Services. Memorandum: Exposure to Bisphenol A (BPA) for infants, toddlers and adults from the consumption of infant formula, toddler food and adult (canned) food. 2009

[2]Doerge D.R., Twaddle N.C., Woodling K.A., Fisher J.W.  Pharmacokinetics of bisphenol A in neonatal and adult rhesus monkeys, Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 2010; 248: 1–11.

[3] Hunt P.A., Lawson C., Gieske M., Murdoch B., Smith H., Marre A., Hassold T., Vandevoort C.A. Bisphenol A alters early oogenesis and follicle formation in the fetal ovary of the rhesus monkey. PNAS USA;  2012 Sep 24. [Epub ahead of print].

[4] Fernandez S.V., Huang Y., Snider K.E., Zhou Y., Pogash T.J., Russo J. Expression and DNA methylation changes in human breast epithelial cells after bisphenol A exposure. International Journal of Oncology 2012; 41(1): 369-77.

Hair Relaxers Tied to Uterine Tumors

2144 views

A number of black women in America are turning away from the chemicals that relax and straighten their hair, which the New York Times referred to as a movement “characterized by self-discovery and health.” Now, more black women are embracing their natural hair as a part of who they are, a movement that may have a bigger impact on their health than many realize.

Studies suggest that the chemicals in hair relaxers may possibly be “endocrine disruptors,” or chemicals that disrupt the endocrine system, which regulates our hormones. The Slone Epidemiology Center of Boston University published research in the American Journal of Epidemiology, indicating a possible link between the use of hair relaxers and uterine leiomyomata, or benign tumors in the uterus.

The skin is the human body’s largest organ and is capable of absorbing chemicals into the body, which is why many turn to natural cosmetic options. It is possible that the chemicals in hair relaxers are absorbed into the scalp, or introduced into the body via scalp lesions or chemical burns. An increased incidence of uterine leiomyomata was observed in women that were either exposed to the chemicals for longer periods of time or in women who had more burns. The scientists also observed that the frequent use of hair relaxers increased the risk of uterine leiomyomata.

It is possible that hormonal disruption may be due to a woman’s weight, her percentage of fat tissue, and/or the use of other products. Though this study is limited and does not confirm that hair relaxers cause uterine leiomyomata, it is important to be aware of health implications associated with hair relaxers, just as we should be aware of how other cosmetic products can affect our health. Embracing our natural beauty is the first step towards improving our overall well-being and health.