Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Senior Member carolinamtnwoman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Asheville, Carolina del Norte
    Posts
    4,396

    Endocrine Society Releases Public Statement on EDC Risks

    Sunday, June 28, 2009


    Endocrine Society Releases Public Statement on Risk From Pollutants


    The Endocrine Society, "the world's oldest, largest, and most active organization devoted to research on hormones and the clinical practice of endocrinology," just published an ominous 50-page statement, their first, reflecting the concern building in the scientific community over certain environmental pollutants. (Diagram to the right is of the endocrine system.)





    "There is growing interest in the possible health threat posed by endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs), which are substances in our environment, food, and consumer products."

    - Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals: An Endocrine Society Scientific Statement, Endocrine Reviews, June 2009


    http://edrv.endojournals.org/cgi/conten ... t/30/4/293


    They presented evidence (animal studies, human clinical trials, epidemiological studies) that EDCs can affect:

    Production and activity of hormones (insulin, estrogen, testosterone, adrenaline)

    Male and female reproduction (endometriosis, sperm counts)

    Breast development and breast cancer

    Prostate cancer

    Thyroid function

    Brain development and function

    Metabolism and obesity

    Cardiovascular health

    This is a big deal. The Society is now on record as claiming EDCs are "a significant concern to public health."

    Where are EDCs found?

    Pesticides

    Industrial chemicals

    Plastics

    Fuels

    Everyone has been, and is being, exposed.

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the lead here. They initiated a testing program (from a 1996 Congressional go-ahead) and in April (2009) are still publishing lists of chemicals, mostly pesticide ingredients, to be screened "to determine whether certain substances may have hormonal effects."

    http://www.epa.gov/endo/pubs/final_list_frn_041509.pdf

    Given the Endocrine Society's evidence-filled warning, I think we need to set a fire under the EPA's screening activities. Thirteen years seems like a long time to still be making lists. Although I can see that having reps from "agrichemical companies" and "commodity chemical companies" on the EPA's Validation Task Force might slow things down.

    http://fanaticcook.blogspot.com/2009/06 ... ublic.html

  2. #2
    Senior Member carolinamtnwoman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Asheville, Carolina del Norte
    Posts
    4,396
    'Endocrine disruptor' won't be on label


    Updated 10/31/2007
    By Liz Szabo, USA TODAY


    Though scientists, environmentalists and manufacturers probably will debate the dangers of chemicals in popular products for years to come, many consumers wonder what they can do today to make "greener" choices at the store.

    Unfortunately, experts say, deciphering the labels of personal and household products isn't as simple as selecting organic produce. There's no standard, enforceable definition of a "non-toxic" or "environmentally friendly" household cleaner, says Urvashi Rangan, senior scientist and policy analyst at Consumers Union. Such terms don't provide consumers with any real guarantees about products' ingredients, she says.

    There's no real standard for "natural" or "organic" cosmetics, either, says Jane Houlihan, vice president for research at the Environmental Working Group.

    The Food and Drug Administration requires that cosmetics companies test their products for safety so consumers don't develop a rash or eye infection. But it doesn't require companies to study whether products contain chemicals such as endocrine disruptors.

    These chemicals — which include preservatives called parabens that are found in many shampoos and conditioners — act like hormones and are linked to reproductive and development problems in infants, Houlihan says.

    Because scents can be considered trade secrets, hundreds of ingredients can be lumped together under the heading of "fragrance." Some fragrances are made with endocrine-disrupting chemicals called phthalates, several of which are listed as reproductive or developmental toxins by California and have been banned in cosmetics by the European Union.

    For household cleaners, companies must disclose certain active ingredients, or substances that the government considers "chemicals of known concern," Rangan says. But manufacturers don't need to list everything that they put in their products, Rangan says. Consumers may want to avoid products with a "danger" or "warning" label, which probably include stronger chemicals.

    John Bailey, executive vice president for science at the Cosmetics, Toiletry and Fragrance Association, says manufacturers have confidence in their products' safety. He says phthalates used in cosmetics have been extensively tested and pose no health risks.

    The Environmental Working Group recommends that consumers adopt a "better safe than sorry" approach. The group says consumers may want to watch out for certain products and ingredients:

    •Fragrance, which often is included in ingredient lists as a catch-all term for dozens of chemicals, including phthalates.

    •Sunscreens, which may contain estrogen-like chemicals. Houlihan recommends that consumers choose sunscreens made with zinc or titanium, which don't appear to pose this threat.

    •Sodium laurel/laureth sulfate, a surfactant that Houlihan says is often contaminated with the carcinogenic substance 1,4 dioxane.

    Some potentially risky chemicals aren't listed on labels, Houlihan says, because they're found in packaging. Manufacturers use a hormone-like substance called bisphenol A to line metal cans and add flexibility to plastics, such as baby bottles made with polycarbonate plastic, says Stanford University pediatrician Alan Greene, author of Raising Baby Green.

    Although manufacturers say bisphenol A is safe and there are no human studies showing it poses a threat, tests in animals have linked the chemical to early puberty and cancer. Greene recommends avoiding plastics with certain recycling codes: #7 may include bisphenol A, and #3 may contain phthalates. Plastics with recycling codes 1, 2 and 5 are safer, he says.

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/200 ... main_N.htm

  3. #3
    Senior Member carolinamtnwoman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Asheville, Carolina del Norte
    Posts
    4,396
    It’s Time to Learn From Frogs


    By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
    Published: June 27, 2009
    The New York Times


    Some of the first eerie signs of a potential health catastrophe came as bizarre deformities in water animals, often in their sexual organs.

    Frogs, salamanders and other amphibians began to sprout extra legs. In heavily polluted Lake Apopka, one of the largest lakes in Florida, male alligators developed stunted genitals.

    In the Potomac watershed near Washington, male smallmouth bass have rapidly transformed into “intersex fishâ€

  4. #4
    Senior Member carolinamtnwoman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Asheville, Carolina del Norte
    Posts
    4,396
    Endocrine Disruptors in the NYT


    By a.r.e. on June 29, 2009
    © 2009 Acronymrequired.com


    Nicholas Kristof wrote about endocrine disruptors in his column this weekend. He cites some of the evidence for disturbances in sexual development -- "bizarre deformities in water animals" -- and accumulating evidence of the same disturbances occurring in humans.

    Acronym Required first wrote about endocrine disruptors back in 2005, with Plastic Bottles- Protecting Your Baby, by the ACC". Hundreds of studies in the past 20 years have documented disturbing effects of endocrine disruptors, which are widely used in industry and agriculture to make the food you eat, the containers you eat out of, and the products that surround you as you sit and read this post. Endocrine disruptors act like hormones to effect physiological actions in species from fishes to humans. Here's some of the evidence Kristof cites from the research literature on different chemicals:

    "Frogs, salamanders and other amphibians began to sprout extra legs."

    "In heavily polluted Lake Apopka, one of the largest lakes in Florida, male alligators developed stunted genitals."

    Researchers found in 2003 that "in the Potomac watershed near Washington, male smallmouth bass have rapidly transformed into "intersex fish" that display female characteristics." Today 80% of these male fish lay eggs.

    Scientists are concerned with "large increases in numbers of genital deformities among newborn boys."

    "7 percent of boys are now born with undescended testicles, although this often self-corrects over time."

    "And up to 1 percent of boys in the United States are now born with hypospadias, in which the urethra exits the penis improperly, such as at the base rather than the tip."

    "DES, a synthetic estrogen given to many pregnant women from the 1930s to the 1970s to prevent miscarriages, caused abnormalities in the children."

    "evidence from both humans and monkeys [suggests] that endometriosis, a gynecological disorder, is linked to exposure to endocrine disruptors."

    "Researchers also suspect that the disruptors can cause early puberty in girls."

    "research has also tied endocrine disruptors to obesity, insulin resistance and diabetes, in both animals and humans."

    "mice exposed in utero even to low doses of endocrine disruptors appear normal at first but develop excess abdominal body fat as adults."

    Kristof notes a recent statement from the Endocrine Society. The group of scientists says: "In this first Scientific Statement of The Endocrine Society, we present the evidence that endocrine disruptors have effects on male and female reproduction, breast development and cancer, prostate cancer, neuroendocrinology, thyroid, metabolism and obesity, and cardiovascular endocrinology."

    Kristof quoted Dr. Ted Schettler of the Science and Environmental Health Network, who said, "'this can influence brain development, sperm counts or susceptibility to cancer, even where the animal at birth seems perfectly normal."'

    There's a lot more evidence showing that chemical disruptors produce widespread harm over the environment to produce abnormal reactions. As one John Hopkins scientist told Kristoff: "It's scary, very scary."

    But in a completely curious turn, halfway through the article, Kristof capitulates to the winds of "50-50 science journalism". Here's how "50-50 science journalism" works.

    Accumulate your evidence.

    Make a strong case for your point, citing the evidence.

    Then abruptly cripple your whole point, smash it across the knees, by writing a one or two statements for the "other side", thus appeasing some readers and advertisers.

    Kristof writes: "The scientific case is still far from proven, as chemical companies emphasize, and the uncertainties for humans are vast." To be fair, Kristof's reference to the "other side" could be considered merely a polite and politic mention. "Vast uncertainty" for humans could mean anything. But even at best this doesn't line up with the rest of his article and all the evidence he cites. What about his lists of studies?

    Scientists are "connecting the dots" he writes. I know this may sound trifling but scientists are well into the data. It's only recently that the public is realizing that this problem is real -- a realization that's more substantial, quite un-dot-like. Some journalists are farther behind, but again, the evidence is accumulating at a brisk pace.

    My small reservations with his article aside, Kristof often takes on controversial issues, especially in international development, that are easy for the mainstream press to ignore. While coverage of bisphenol A is surprisingly robust, now that states and cities have initiated legislation restricting its use, the larger questions of pervasive chemical use without regulation remain largely ignored. Importantly, this topic has been very easy for federal agencies to ignore. Therefore, it's great to see coverage of endocrine receptors by an influential New York Times journalist who will help inform the public, who will in turn demand that government act more aggressively on chemical oversight.

    Acronym Required writes frequently on journalism that remains faithful to all sides of science policy issues despite the evidence, for instance Climate Change: Fueling the "Debate", "Science Editors Sell You Short", and Phthalates and Bisphenol A: Media and Politics

    http://acronymrequired.com/2009/06/endo ... e-nyt.html

  5. #5
    Senior Member vmonkey56's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Tarheel State
    Posts
    7,134
    carolinamtnwoman: Thank you for this collection. Congress is working on letting China Ban on Chicken to be lifted.
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  6. #6
    ELE
    ELE is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    5,660

    Government is so corrupt.

    And with all the chemicals and stuff that hurts us in prepared foods the government wants to stop us from growing our own safe organic foods.


    The government may decide to use this information to tax us on food saying that they must pay for research and subcommitee's and form group think orgnanizations. And too, they probalby would give Acorn jobs to oversea that we don't contaminiate ourselves.
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •