Skip to content

2

Image result for lobster meal wikipedia A recent study provided evidence that higher levels of cadmium in women may increase the risk of endometrial cancer. Endometrial cancer is the fourth most common cancer in women, and it occurs primarily in postmenopausal women. Endometrial cancer is associated with estrogen exposure (for example, being obese, and also from external or environmental sources of estrogen).

Cadmium is a metal commonly found in foods such as kidneys, liver, and shellfish, but also tobacco (cigarette smoking). Cadmium is toxic, it accumulates in the body, it is an estrogen-mimicking chemical, and it is associated with several hormone-dependent cancers. The researchers found that a doubling of cadmium exposure (as compared to those with low levels) was associated with a 22% increased risk of endometrial cancer.  Bottom line: Go ahead and enjoy these foods, but try to eat foods with naturally high levels of cadmium in moderation - such as shellfish, kidneys, and liver. From Science Daily:

Increased endometrial cancer rates found in women with high levels of cadmium

More than 31,000 new cases of endometrial cancer are expected to be diagnosed in 2017. Through a five-year observational study recently published in PLOS One, researchers at the University of Missouri found that women with increased levels of cadmium -- a metal commonly found in foods such as kidneys, liver and shellfish as well as tobacco -- also had an increased risk of endometrial cancer. It's an observation the researchers hope could lead to new treatments or interventions to prevent the fourth most common cancer in women.

"Cadmium is an estrogen-mimicking chemical, meaning it imitates estrogen and its effects on the body," said lead author Jane McElroy, Ph.D., associate professor in the Department of Family and Community Medicine at the MU School of Medicine. "Endometrial cancer has been associated with estrogen exposure. Because cadmium mimics estrogen, it may lead to an increased growth of the endometrium, contributing to an increased risk of endometrial cancer."

The research team partnered with cancer registries in Missouri, Arkansas and Iowa to identify cases of endometrial cancer. The team enrolled 631 women with a history of endometrial cancer in the study and 879 women without a history of the cancer to serve as a control group. The participants were asked to complete a survey of more than 200 questions about risk factors potentially associated with endometrial cancer. Once they completed the questionnaire, participants were sent a kit to collect urine and saliva samples. Through tests conducted at the MU Research Reactor, the samples were analyzed for cadmium levels.

While more research is needed to better understand the risks associated with cadmium, researchers say there are steps individuals can take to limit their cadmium-associated cancer risks. "We all have cadmium present in our kidneys and livers, but smoking has been shown to more than double a person's cadmium exposure," McElroy said. "Also, we recommend being attentive to your diet, as certain foods such as shellfish, kidney and liver can contain high levels of cadmium. You don't necessarily need to cut these from your diet, but eat them in moderation. This is especially true if women have a predisposition to endometrial cancer, such as a family history, diabetes or obesity." [Original study.]

Image result for human sperm, wikipedia The last post discussed the steep ongoing decline in sperm counts and sperm concentration in men from North America, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand. It mentioned a number of environmental causes that could be contributing to this, including the huge increase of chemicals, especially endocrine disruptors (chemicals that disrupt our hormones) over the past few decades.

But another study was also just published that showed (in mice) that effects of chronic exposure to endocrine disrupting chemicals are amplified over 3 generations - and each generation has even lower sperm counts, sperm concentration, and reproductive abnormalities. So each generation gets progressively worse with continued exposure.

As the researchers state: "Our findings suggest that neonatal estrogenic exposure can affect both the reproductive tract and sperm production in exposed males, and exposure effects are exacerbated by exposure spanning multiple generations. Because estrogenic chemicals have become both increasingly common and ubiquitous environmental contaminants in developed countries, the implications for humans are serious. Indeed, it is possible effects are already apparent, with population-based studies from the U.S., Europe, Japan, and China reporting reductions in sperm counts/quality and male fertility within a span of several decades." Yikes...

The World Health Organization (WHO) considers an impairment in ability to fertilize an egg at 40 million sperm per milliliter or below, and the level where WHO considers fertilization unlikely is 15 million sperm per milliliter. This is why the sperm count study discussed in the last post is so frightening: North American, Canadian, Australian, and New Zealand men  whose partners are not yet pregnant nor do they have children (i.e., they are not confirmed fertile men) have experienced a drop in average sperm count of about 50 percent over four decades, to 47 million sperm per milliliter. Niels Skakkebæk, a Danish pediatrician and researcher working on this topic said: "Here in Denmark, there is an epidemic of infertility."and "Most worryingly [in Denmark] is that semen quality is in general so poor that an average young Danish man has much fewer sperm than men had a couple of generations ago, and more than 90 percent of their sperm are abnormal." Uh-oh...What will it take for governments to address this serious issue?

In the meantime, see the last post for some tips on how to reduce your own exposure to endocrine disrupting chemicals. Just note that you can reduce exposure, but you can't totally eliminate exposure. Excerpts from Environmental Health News:

Science: Are we in a male fertility death spiral?

Margaret Atwood's 1985 book, The Handmaid's Tale, played out in a world with declining human births because pollution and sexually transmitted disease were causing sterility. Does fiction anticipate reality? Two new research papers add scientific weight to the possibility that pollution, especially endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs), are undermining male fertility.

The first, published Tuesday, is the strongest confirmation yet obtained that human sperm concentration and count are in a long-term decline: more than 50 percent from 1973 to 2013, with no sign that the decline is slowing. "The study is a wakeup that we are in a death spiral of infertility in men," said Frederick vom Saal, Curators’ Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Biological Sciences at the University of Missouri and an expert on endocrine disruption who was not part of either study.

The second study, published last week by different authors, offers a possible explanation. It found that early life exposure of male mouse pups to a model environmental estrogen, ethinyl estradiol, causes mistakes in development in the reproductive tract that will lead to lower sperm counts. According to vom Saal, the second study "provides a mechanistic explanation for a progressive decrease in sperm count over generations." What makes this study unique is that it examined what happened when three successive generations of males were exposed—instead of just looking only at the first. Hunt, in an email, said "we asked a simple question with real-world relevance that had simply never been addressed."

In the real world, since World War II, successive generations of people have been exposed to a growing number and quantity of environmental estrogens—chemicals that behave like the human hormone estrogen. Thousands of papers published in the scientific literature (reviewed here) tie these to a wide array of adverse consequences, including infertility and sperm count decline. This phenomenon—exposure of multiple generations of mammals to endocrine disrupting compounds—had never been studied experimentally, even though that's how humans have experienced EDC exposures for at least the last 70 years. That's almost three generations of human males. Men moving into the age of fatherhood are ground zero for this serial exposure.

So Horan, Hunt and their colleagues at WSU set out to mimic, for the first time, this real-world reality. They discovered that the effects are amplified in successive generations. They observed adverse effects starting in the first generation of mouse lineages where each generation was exposed for a brief period shortly after birth. The impacts worsened in the second generation compared to the first, and by the third generation the scientists were finding animals that could not produce sperm at all. This latter condition was not seen in the first two generations exposed. Details of the experimental results actually suggested that multiple generations of exposure may have increased male sensitivity to the chemical[Original study.]

Once again a study (this time a review and meta-analysis of other studies) found an alarming and steep decline in sperm counts in men from Western countries over a 40 year period. This steep decline for both sperm concentration (SC) and total sperm count (TSC) is for men in North America, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand. The sperm count and sperm concentration declined 50 to 60% in the period between 1973 to 2011 - with a downward slope showing a decline of -1.4% to -1.6% per year. On the other hand, men from South America, Asia and Africa did not show a decline.

The authors of the study were very concerned over the results showing this decline in Western countries, with no evidence of the decline leveling off. As these declines continue, more and more men will have sperm counts below the point at which they can reproduce. Instead they will be infertile or "sub-fertile" (with a decreased probability of conceiving a child). The threshold level associated with a "decreased monthly probability of conception" is considered to be 40 million/ml. Shockingly - this study found that in 1973 when Western men who were not selected for fertility, and didn't know their fertility status (e.g., college students, men screened for the military) - the average sperm concentration was 99 million/ml, but by 2011 it was 47.1 million/ml. These men were called "unselected" and are likely to be representative of men in the general population. Men known to be fertile (e.g., had fathered a child) were at 83.8 million/ml in 1976, but were down to 62.0 million/ml in 2011. Both groups had consistent declines year after year.

What about the men from South America, Asia, and Africa? There, studies showed that the "unselected" men (not selected for fertility and who didn't know their fertility status) started out at 72.7 million/ml in 1983, and were at 62.6 million/ml in 2011, while men known to be fertile started out on average at 66.4 million/ml in 1978 and were at 75.7 million/ml in 2011. They did not show the decline of the North American, European, Australian, and New Zealand group of men.

What does this mean? And what is going on? These results go beyond fertility and reproduction. The decline is consistent with other male reproductive health indicators over the last few decades: higher incidence of testicular cancer, higher rates of cryptorchidism, earlier onset of male puberty, and decline in average testosterone levels. Instead, it appears that sperm counts of men are "the canary in the mine" for male health - evidence of harm to men from environmental and lifestyle influences. These Western developed countries are awash in chemicals and plastics, also with endocrine disruptors (hormone disruptors) in our foods, our personal care products, etc - and so studies find these chemicals in all of us (in varying degrees). Same with flame retardants, pesticides, "scented" products. Exposure to all sorts of environmental pollutants - whether in air, water, soil, our food - such as high levels of aluminum. All of these can have an effect on sperm counts and reproductive health. And note that chemicals that can depress sperm counts  are also linked to many health problems, including chronic diseases.

What can I do?  You can lower your exposure to many chemicals (e.g., pesticides), plastics, and endocrine disruptors, but you can't avoid them totally. Yes, it'll mean reading labels and ingredient lists on foods, personal care products (such as soaps, shampoo, lotion), and products used in the home. TRY TO AVOID OR LOWER EXPOSURE TO: phthalates, parabens, BPA, BPS, and even BPA-free labeled products (all use similar chemicals), flame-retardants (e.g., in upholstered furniture and rugs), stain-resistant, dirt-resistant, waterproof coatings, Scotchgard, non-stick cookware coatings, dryer sheets, scented products (including scented candles and air fresheners), fragrances, pesticides in the yard and home, and "odor-free", antibacterial, antimicrobial, anti-mildew products. Don't microwave foods in plastic containers (including microwave popcorn bags). 

INSTEAD: Try to eat more organic foods, look for organic or least-toxic Integrated Pest Management (IPM) alternatives for the home and garden. Store foods as much as possible in glass, ceramic, or stainless steel containers. Buy foods, if possible, that are in glass bottles - not cans (all lined with endocrine disrupting chemicals) and not plastic bottles or containers (plastics leach). Some people use water filters because there are so many contaminants in our water, even if they meet federal guidelines on "allowable levels" in the water. Avoid cigarette smoke or smoking. Try to lose weight if overweight. Open windows now and then in your residence to lower indoor air pollution. The list is long - yes, a lifestyle change! (see posts on ENDOCRINE DISRUPTORS, FLAME RETARDANTS, and PESTICIDES)

From Medical Xpress: Study shows a significant ongoing decline in sperm counts of Western men

In the first systematic review and meta-analysis of trends in sperm count, researchers from the Hebrew University-Hadassah Braun School of Public Health and Community Medicine and the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai report a significant decline in sperm concentration and total sperm count among men from Western countries.

By screening 7,500 studies and conducting a meta-regression analysis on 185 studies between 1973 and 2011, the researchers found a 52.4 percent decline in sperm concentration, and a 59.3 percent decline in total sperm count, among men from North America, Europe, Australia and New Zealand who were not selected based on their fertility status. In contrast, no significant decline was seen in South America, Asia and Africa, where far fewer studies have been conducted. The study also indicates the rate of decline among Western men is not decreasing: the slope was steep and significant even when analysis was restricted to studies with sample collection between 1996 and 2011.

The findings have important public health implications. First, these data demonstrate that the proportion of men with sperm counts below the threshold for subfertility or infertility is increasing. Moreover, given the findings from recent studies that reduced sperm count is related to increased morbidity and mortality, the ongoing decline points to serious risks to male fertility and health.

"Decreasing sperm count has been of great concern since it was first reported twenty-five years ago. This definitive study shows, for the first time, that this decline is strong and continuing. The fact that the decline is seen in Western countries strongly suggests that chemicals in commerce are playing a causal role in this trend," Dr. Shanna H Swan, a professor in the Department of Environmental Medicine and Public Health at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

While the current study did not examine causes of the observed declines, sperm count has previously been plausibly associated with environmental and lifestyle influences, including prenatal chemical exposure, adult pesticide exposure, smoking, stress and obesity. Therefore, sperm count may sensitively reflect the impact of the modern environment on male health across the lifespan and serve as a "canary in the coal mine" signaling broader risks to male health. [Original study.]

  Human sperm. Credit: Wikipedia

 Another study was just published with worrisome findings about phthalates. Phthalates are a group of chemicals used widely in common consumer products such as food packaging, toys, medical devices, medications, and personal care products. They are endocrine disruptors (can interfere with normal hormonal function) and are linked to a number of health problems (here, here, and here).

The study looked at urban Australian men and found that the higher the level of phthalates, the higher the rate of cardiovascular disease, type-2 diabetes, and hypertension. The researchers also found that higher levels of chronic low-grade inflammatory biomarkers (meaning higher levels of low-grade inflammation) was associated with higher levels of phthalates. All these findings confirm what other studies, done in other countries, have found.

Phthalates, which are measured in the urine,  were detected in 99.96% of the 1504 men. Eating a western dietary pattern (fast food, highly processed, low fiber) was also associated with higher phthalate levels.  However, they did not find an association of phthalate levels with asthma and depression. From Science Daily:

Everyday chemicals linked to chronic disease in men

Chemicals found in everyday plastics materials are linked to cardiovascular disease, type-2 diabetes and high blood pressure in men, according to Australian researchers. Researchers from the University of Adelaide and the South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute (SAHMRI) investigated the independent association between chronic diseases among men and concentrations of potentially harmful chemicals known as phthalates.

Phthalates are a group of chemicals widely used in common consumer products, such as food packaging and wrappings, toys, medications, and even medical devices. Researchers found that of the 1500 Australian men tested, phthalates were detected in urine samples of 99.6% of those aged 35 and over. "We found that the prevalence of cardiovascular disease, type-2 diabetes and high blood pressure increased among those men with higher total phthalate levels," says senior author Associate Professor Zumin Shi, from the University of Adelaide's Adelaide Medical School and the Freemasons Foundation Centre for Men's Health, and a member of SAHMRI's Nutrition & Metabolism theme.

"While we still don't understand the exact reasons why phthalates are independently linked to disease, we do know the chemicals impact on the human endocrine system, which controls hormone release that regulate the body's growth, metabolism, and sexual development and function. "In addition to chronic diseases, higher phthalate levels were associated with increased levels of a range of inflammatory biomarkers in the body," he says.

Age and western diets are directly associated with higher concentrations of phthalates. Previous studies have shown that men who ate less fresh fruit and vegetables and more processed and packaged foods, and drank carbonated soft drinks, have higher levels of phthalates in their urine.... Associate Professor Shi says that although the studies were conducted in men, the findings are also likely to be relevant to women. "While further research is required, reducing environmental phthalates exposure where possible, along with the adoption of healthier lifestyles, may help to reduce the risk of chronic disease," he says. [Original study.]

 This week a forceful statement paper was issued by more than 200 hundred scientists and health professionals expressing serious concerns about triclosan and triclocarban. This statement, called The Florence Statement on Triclosan and Triclocarban, asked that the use of these widely used antimicrobials be restricted due to their risks to human health, to wildlife, and its accumulation in water, land, wildlife, and humans. They stated that the negatives outweigh any benefits, and they also questioned the use of other antimicrobials (because they also have similar health and environmental concerns).

Not only do triclosan and triclocarban persist in the environment, they are also a source of toxic and carcinogenic compounds including dioxins, chloroform, and chlorinated anilines. They are endocrine disruptors that bioaccumulate (build-up) in humans and wildlife. They are toxic to aquatic and other organisms, yet they are found in the majority of people and freshwater streams. In other words, the chemicals are all around us and in us!

More than 2000 personal and consumer products, as well as building materials, contain triclosan and triclocarban. For example, they are found in soaps, toothpastes, detergents, clothing, toys, carpets, plastics, kitchen items, and paints. But the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee have concluded, “No evidence is available to suggest that use of [antimicrobial-impregnated articles and consumer items bearing antimicrobial labeling] will make consumers and patients healthier or prevent disease”. According to the FDA, which is responsible for regulation of foods, drugs, cosmetics, medical devices, and similar products, there is no evidence that antibacterial soaps are more effective than nonantibacterial soap and water. So why is it in so many products? It's a marketing gimmick!

What should one do? Read labels and avoid products containing triclosan, triclocarban, or anti-microbials, and products labeled anti-odor, antibacterial, or anti-germ. No, you don't need antibacterial or anti-odor socks or cutting boards! See earlier posts on this topic (here, here, and here). From Environmental Health News:

Hundreds of scientists call for caution on anti-microbial chemical use

Two ingredients used in thousands of products to kill bacteria, fungi and viruses linger in the environment and pose a risk to human health, according to a statement released today by more than 200 scientists and health professionals. The scientists say the possible benefits in most uses of triclosan and triclocarban—used in some soaps, toothpastes, detergents, paints, carpets—are not worth the risk.

The statement, published today in the Environmental Health Perspectives journal, urges “the international community to limit the production and use of triclosan and triclocarban and to question the use of other antimicrobials.” They also call for warning labels on any product containing triclosan and triclocarban and for bolstered research of the chemicals' environmental toll.

The statement says evidence that the compounds are accumulating in water, land, wildlife and humans is sufficient to merit action. The chemicals are used to kills microbes such as bacteria and viruses that make people ill. However, both chemicals affect animals’ hormone systems, causing reproductive and development problems.  And there is nascent evidence that the impacts may extend to humans as well—having been linked to reduced growth of fetuses, earlier births, and lower head circumference in boys at birth.

U.S. manufacturers are phasing out triclosan from hand soaps after the Food and Drug Administration banned it last year amid concerns that the compound disrupted the body's hormone systems. The FDA noted in the restriction that antibacterial hand soaps were no more effective than non-antibacterial soap and water at preventing illness. .... More worrisome, Lindeman said some manufactures of personal care products are simply substituting other antimicrobials for triclosan—some of which may pose the same risks to people and the environment. Because of the widespread use, most people have some levels of triclosan in them. A 2008 study of U.S. residents found it in the urine of about 75 percent of people tested.

Once the compounds get into the environment, they don’t readily go away.  Researchers have detected triclosan and triclocarban in water and sediment all over the world—including drinking water, oceans and streams. The U.S. Geological Survey found triclosan in 60 percent of U.S. streams. Studies have shown triclosan toxic to some algae, fish and other crustaceans.

The compounds impact hormones in animal studies. And there’s evidence that they may do the same to developing babies. Properly functioning hormones are critical for babies’ proper development. Last month Brown University researchers reported that mothers’ triclosan exposure during pregnancy was linked to lower birth weights, smaller heads and earlier births. ...In addition to endocrine disruption concerns, Lindeman and other signers outline two other potential human health impacts from exposure to triclosan: heightened sensitivity to allergens, and antibiotic resistance. Large studies of children in the United States and Norway have linked triclosan to allergies and worsening asthma. And there is evidence bacteria that develop resistance to triclosan also become resistant to other antibacterial compounds.

 Stop using the damn antibacterial products! Yes, stop using stuff that says "antibacterial", "antimicrobial", "germ-killing",  or "anti-odor". Whether in personal care items, or bedding, or socks, or hand wipes, or wherever else you see those labels - don't buy them and try to avoid using them. Plain soap works just as well for cleaning hands (see FDA page). The "antibacterial" chemicals in soaps, toothpastes, body washes, etc. are absorbed by the body where they may do harm. Yes - HARM. The harms may not be known initially, but over and over, at some later point, the various chemicals are shown to cause harm - whether in humans or the environment, or both.

A case in point is the antimicrobial triclosan. It has been used for years in soooo many products, and religiously used by those concerned with "killing germs". It is now finally banned by the FDA from soaps and body washes because of the harms it causes. These include various health effects - and also because it's an endocrine disruptor (disrupts hormones).  And yes, it also crosses the placenta and has been associated with effects on the developing baby. For example, a recent study found an "inverse relationship" - that higher levels of triclosan in the mothers' urine during pregnancy (meaning they had used and absorbed more triclosan products) were associated with lower birth weight, length, head circumference, and gestational age (length of pregnancy). Of special concern to us at Lacto Bacto is that it also disrupts our microbes - remember that antimicrobial products (whether Triclosan in soap or antibiotics) kill off both beneficial and harmful bacteria.

As a recent study shows - triclosan is absorbed by pregnant women (and can be measured in their urine) and, it is absorbed and found in the urine of children who washed their hands or brushed their teeth with products containing triclosan.  And the higher the socioeconomic status, the more triclosan in the body - after all, people pay a premium for products that are "antimicrobial". While triclosan is now banned from being used in certain products (soaps and body washes), it is still allowed in many, many other products. And there are all those other antimicrobials that also should NOT be used. So please read the labels, especially the ingredient lists, and try to avoid antimicrobial, antibacterial, germ-killing, and anti-odor products. From Environmental health News:

Hygiene leaves kids with loads of triclosan

Levels of a controversial chemical meant to kill bacteria spike in the bodies of young children after they brush their teeth or wash their hands, according to a new study. U.S. manufacturers are phasing triclosan out of hand soaps after the Food and Drug Administration banned it effective last year amid concerns that the compound disrupted the body's hormone systems. It remains in Colgate Total toothpaste, some cleaning products and cosmetics. Health experts say exposure is best avoided for babies in the womb and developing children.

The latest study, published in the journal Environmental Science & Technology, is one of the first to show that children’s levels rise through their first few years of life. Hand washing and teeth brushing have speedy, significant impact on levels, the researchers found. Braun and colleagues tested the urine of 389 mothers and their children from Cincinnati, collecting samples from the women three times during pregnancy and from the children periodically between 1 and 8 years old.

They found triclosan in more than 70 percent of the samples. Among 8 year olds, levels were 66 percent higher in those that used hand soap. And more washing left the children with higher loads—those who reported washing their hands more than five times per day had more than four times the triclosan concentrations than those washing once or less per day. Children who had brushed their teeth within the last day had levels 2.5 times higher than those who had a toothpaste-free 24-hour span.

Braun said the levels of triclosan rose as the children aged, eventually leveling off. “Their levels were almost to moms’ levels by the time they reached 5 to 8 years of age.” This, he said, is likely due to more frequent use of personal care products as the kids aged. Despite the hand soap ban, triclosan remains on the market because it is effective at fighting plaque and gingivitis. Colgate uses 0.3 percent of the antibacterial to “fight harmful plaque germs.”.

Braun, however, said there is “quite compelling” evidence from animal studies that triclosan decreases thyroid hormone levels. Properly functioning thyroid hormones are critical for brain development. Just last month, using the same mothers and children, Braun and others reported that mothers’ triclosan exposure during pregnancy was linked to lower birth weights, smaller heads and earlier births. In addition, Pessah and colleagues reported triclosan hinders proper muscle development. The researchers used mice and fish, finding that triclosan affects the process responsible for muscle contraction.

 Since my last post on the most commonly used pesticide in the world - glyphosate - there have been a number of important developments. Glyphosate is the active ingredient in the weed-killer or herbicide Roundup, which is manufactured by the chemical giant Monsanto. There have been more questions raised about the safety of glyphosate, and also what went on behind the scenes recently between Monsanto and some officials at the EPA, especially EPA deputy division director Jess Rowland.

Was there a downplaying of the pesticide's health effects or squashing of researchers and studies that raised health concerns? (Remember that the International Agency for Research on Cancer, a branch of the World Health Organization, found glyphosate to be a "probable carcinogen" in 2015, but the manufacturer Monsanto has fought long and hard against that designation) Was there corruption? Or ...?

A big problem is that the EPA relies on industry-funded studies to determine if something is safe or not - which is like the fox guarding the chicken house. Also, were the so-called "independent" research articles actually ghost-written by industry (Monsanto), which is what some documents are suggesting? And why was a government review of the pesticide squashed? Tsk.... tsk.... Another problem is that the EPA can choose which studies to include when making a decision - and they can choose to disregard independent peer-reviewed research (the better research) and rely on industry studies that are not peer-reviewed (definitely bias in these studies). And yes, this happened here. For example, the EPA has ignored more than 1500 published (and peer reviewed) studies on glyphosate from the last decade and instead relied largely on less than 300 unpublished, non-peer-reviewed studies. Another tsk...tsk....

Now a published paper by noted researchers (see below) makes the case that the debate over glyphosate remains unsettled and requires further review. The researchers recommend such things as better testing of glyphosate levels and its metabolites in the human body. They pointed out that some studies with rodents found that glyphosate is a carcinogen (can "induce cancers"), and other studies find glyphosate is associated with negative health effects in humans, such as chronic kidney disease and some cancers. Some research suggests that glyphosate is an endocrine disruptor. Also, chemical mixtures can be more toxic than individual chemicals - this is a concern with the chemicals in Roundup. Studies are needed examining people exposed through their occupations (e.g., pesticide applicators), and also "vulnerable populations (e.g., pregnant women, babies, children). The researchers added that current safety standards are outdated and may fail to protect public health and the environment.

I would like to add that this is why glyphosate residues need to be studied in food - we are eating the stuff unless we only eat organic food. Due to the practices of "preharvest application" of glyphosate (Roundup) and the increasing use of genetically modified crops (such as Roundup Ready crops) that allow the herbicide to be applied without killing the crop (but which means the pesticide is in the crop), the use of glyphosate is increasing rapidly. And then there is the use on school grounds, in suburban yards, and properties. Yikes! This is not a political issue - this is a health issue, and of having the right-to-know what is in our food, our bodies, and our environment (you don't think it just stays on the fields where it is used, do you?)

Excerpts from the NY Times article: Monsanto Weed Killer Roundup Faces New Doubts on Safety in Unsealed Documents

The reputation of Roundup, whose active ingredient is the world’s most widely used weed killer, took a hit on Tuesday when a federal court unsealed documents raising questions about its safety and the research practices of its manufacturer, the chemical giant Monsanto.... A case in federal court in San Francisco has challenged that conclusion, building on the findings of an international panel that claimed Roundup’s main ingredient might cause cancer.

The court documents included Monsanto’s internal emails and email traffic between the company and federal regulators. The records suggested that Monsanto had ghostwritten research that was later attributed to academics and indicated that a senior official at the Environmental Protection Agency had worked to quash a review of Roundup’s main ingredient, glyphosate, that was to have been conducted by the United States Department of Health and Human Services. The documents also revealed that there was some disagreement within the E.P.A. over its own safety assessment.

Excerpts from an article about the BMJ paper (see below) at Science Daily: Weedkiller chemical (glyphosate) safety standards need urgent review

But most of the science used to support the safety standards applied in the US was carried out more than 30 years ago, and relatively little of it was subject to peer review, they point out. More than 1500 studies have been published on the chemical over the past decade alone. "It is incongruous that safety assessments of the most widely used herbicide on the planet rely largely on fewer than 300 unpublished, non-peer reviewed studies while excluding the vast modern literature on glyphosate effects," say the experts. And despite the rapid increase in use there is no systematic monitoring system for tracking levels in human tissue, and few studies have looked at potential harms to human health.

But recent animal studies have suggested that glyphosate at doses lower than those used to assess risk, may be linked to heightened risks of liver, kidney, eye and cardiovascular system damage. And weed-killers, which combine glyphosate with other 'so-called inert ingredients,' may be even more potent. But these mixtures are regarded as commercially sensitive by the manufacturers and are therefore not available for public scrutiny, say the experts.

Excerpt from the BMJ Journal of Epidiomology and Community Health: Is it time to reassess current safety standards for glyphosate-based herbicides?

Use of glyphosate-based herbicides (GBHs) increased ∼100-fold from 1974 to 2014. Additional increases are expected due to widespread emergence of glyphosate-resistant weeds, increased application of GBHs, and preharvest uses of GBHs as desiccants. Current safety assessments rely heavily on studies conducted over 30 years ago. We have considered information on GBH use, exposures, mechanisms of action, toxicity and epidemiology. Human exposures to glyphosate are rising, and a number of in vitro and in vivo studies challenge the basis for the current safety assessment of glyphosate and GBHs. We conclude that current safety standards for GBHs are outdated and may fail to protect public health or the environment.

Image result for fast food wikipedia  Another study is adding to the evidence that food packaging  is frequently coated  with harmful chemicals - called perfluorinated chemicals or PFCs. The chemicals are used because they resist grease and stains, but unfortunately they then leach into the food, and when people eat the food - it gets into them. The evidence is also growing that these chemicals have all sorts of harmful health effects, including endocrine disruption (they are hormone disruptors) - even in low doses. They are linked to kidney and testicular cancer, high blood cholesterol levels, thyroid problems, development and immune system problems, low birth weights, and decreased sperm quality. (See earlier post) The list keeps growing each year.

Researchers tested about 400 pieces of food packaging from 27 fast food chains,  including McDonald’s, Burger King, Taco Bell, Chick-Fil-A, Quiznos, Starbucks, and Dunkin’ Donuts (see how they scored). Overall, about 33 percent of the packages contained fluorine (a chemical not found in paper, but is an indicator of perfluorinated chemicals present to make the packaging grease and stain resistant). What is even more disturbing is that when the researchers more closely examined 20 samples to find out exactly what fluorinated compounds they contained - they found that 6 of the more rigorously tested packages contained PFOA (which was used in Teflon). PFOA was phased out for use in the USA years ago due to it being so long-lasting in the environment and its serious health effects, but other countries still produce it. Unfortunately, even the replacement chemicals  seem to be similarly harmful (not surprising because of the chemical similarities), and they also persist in the environment.

It should be pointed out that perfluorinated chemicals are also used in products such as stain and water resistant coatings on clothing, upholstery, carpeting and floor waxes. They are in non-stick coatings in pots and pans. The chemicals leach or migrate out of products and degrade very slowly — thus showing up in air, household dust, water, dirt, wildlife, and people. Yes, studies show that almost everyone in the U.S. has these chemicals in their blood, and unfortunately some of them can stay in the body for years. PFCs pass from mothers to their babies during pregnancy, and in breast milk after birth. Exposure to perfluorinated chemicals from fast food packaging is of big concern for children, because one-third of U.S. children consume fast food daily, and children may be especially susceptible to the adverse health effects.

Yes, we are surrounded by a sea of harmful chemicals that are tough to avoid, but we should at least try to minimize our exposure. Fast food restaurants should be encouraged to use nontoxic alternatives (e.g., aluminum foil or wax paper) - after all, the study showed that there is packaging out there without these chemicals.

What can we do to avoid PFCs? 1) Try to avoid or eat less fast food and food that comes in "grease-proof" containers. 2) Don't use non-stick pots and pans - use stainless steel instead. 3) Try to avoid clothing, upholstered furniture, and carpets with stain and water-resistant coatings. 4) Don't use microwave popcorn bags, and try to avoid microwaving foods in their packaging - use a glass dish instead. 5) Don't use dental floss such as Oral-B Glide dental floss (uses PFC), and use unwaxed or natural wax floss instead. 6) Avoid personal care products that contain ingredients that include the words “fluoro” or “perfluoro". *Please check out the Environmental Working Group site for more information (here and here).

From Science Daily: Extensive use of fluorinated chemicals in fast food wrappers: Chemicals can leach into food

Americans may be consuming fast food wrapped in paper treated with perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs) -- the same chemicals used in stain-resistant products, firefighting materials and nonstick cookware, according to a new study published in the journal Environmental Science & Technology.

Researchers tested more than 400 samples of packaging materials, including hamburger and sandwich wrappers, pastry bags, beverage cups and French fry containers, and found evidence of fluorinated compounds called per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs). Of the materials tested, these chemicals were found in 56 percent of dessert and bread wrappers, 38 percent of sandwich and burger wrappers and 20 percent of paperboard.

Previous studies have shown that these PFASs can migrate, contaminating the food and, when consumed, accumulating in the body....Previous studies have linked PFASs to kidney and testicular cancers, thyroid disease, low birth weight and immunotoxicity in children, among other health issues. The chemicals have an especially long half-life and take many years before just 50 percent of the intake leaves the human body. The results are concerning when considering the role of fast food in the American diet. The National Center for Health Statistics reported one-third of U.S. children consume fast food daily.

Samples were collected from a total of 27 fast food restaurant chains including McDonald's, Burger King, Chipotle, Starbucks, Jimmy Johns, Panera and Chick-Fil-A, in and around Boston, San Francisco, Seattle, Washington, D.C., and Grand Rapids, Michigan. The study did not include takeout containers, such as Chinese food boxes or pizza boxes. [Original study]

ez-2016-00435z_0002 Credit: From L. Schaider et al., Fluorinated Compounds in U.S. Fast Food Packaging.

Image result for household dust  Flame retardants are in many products around us, both in and out of the home, but there is much concern over their health effects on humans. Older flame retardants (PBDEs) were phased out by 2013, but it turns out that the newer replacements (TBB and TBPH, including Firemaster 550) also get into people and also have negative health effects. So it shouldn't be a surprise that every single toddler tested in a study in New York City showed evidence of flame retardants on their hands (both the old kind and newer replacements), and that they had more on their hands than their mothers. Flame retardants were also found in all house dust samples. Since they are linked to many negative health effects, you really, really want to minimize the amounts in your body.

More and more research is finding health problems with flame retardants because they are "not chemically bound" to the products in which they are used - thus they escape over time. and get into us via the skin (dermal), inhalation (from dust), and ingestion (from certain foods and dust on our fingers). And because flame retardants are persistant, they bioaccumulate (they build up over time). They can be measured in our urine and blood. Evidence suggests that flame retardants may be endocrine disruptors, carcinogenic, alter hormone levels, decrease semen quality in men, thyoid disruptors, and act as developmental neurotoxicants (when developing fetus is exposed during pregnancy)  so that children have lowered IQ and more hyperactivity behaviors.

Where are flame retardants found? All around us, and in us. They are so hard to avoid because they're in electronic goods, in upholstered furniture, polyurethane foam, carpet pads, some textiles, the foam in baby items (car seats, bumpers, crib mattresses, strollers,nursing pillows, etc.), house dust, building insulation, and on and on. What to do? Wash hands before eating. Try to use a vacuum cleaner with a HEPA filter. Try to avoid products that say they contain "flame retardants". Only buy upholstered furniture with tags that say they are flame retardant free. From Science Daily:

NYC toddlers exposed to potentially harmful flame retardants

Evidence of potentially harmful flame retardants on the hands and in the homes of 100 percent of a sample of New York City mothers and toddlers has been uncovered by researchers. The study also found that on average toddlers in New York City had higher levels of common flame-retardants on their hands compared to their mothers.

Researchers at the Columbia Center for Children's Environmental Health (CCCEH) within the Mailman School of Public Health report evidence of potentially harmful flame retardants on the hands and in the homes of 100 percent of a sample of New York City mothers and toddlers. The study also found that on average toddlers in New York City had higher levels of common flame-retardants on their hands compared to their mothers. The Center's previous research has linked early life exposure to a common class of flame-retardants called PBDEs with attention problems and lower scores on tests of mental and physical development in children.

Beginning in the 1970s, manufacturers added PBDEs, persistent brominated flame-retardants, to couches, textiles, electronics and other consumer products to comply with flammability standards. They began phasing out PBDEs in 2004 and started using newer alternative flame-retardants, including TBB and TBPH, which are components of the commercial mixture Firemaster 550®. TBB and TBPH are brominated flame retardants for which little is known about their health effects in humans, though they have been linked to reduced fertility and endocrine disruption in animal models.

Researchers visited the homes of 25 mother-child pairs enrolled in the CCCEH Sibling-Hermanos birth cohort, which began in 2008. When children were 3 years old, dust was collected from their homes and hand wipes were collected from the mother and child; these samples were analyzed for flame retardant compounds....Results are consistent with other studies, which demonstrate that toddlers tend to have higher exposure to flame retardants when compared with adults, likely because of the amount of time they spend on the floor.

 The research finding of dogs having elevated levels of the endocrine disruptor bisphenol A (BPA) from eating canned food mirrors what is happening to humans - eating canned food raises BPA levels in a person. The study also found that elevated BPA levels resulted in changes in the gut microbiome (the community of microbes living in the gut). Specifically, they found the abundance of a number of bacteria species increased or decreased depending on BPA levels in the dogs. This is not good.

This is of concern because BPA  is linked to a variety of health problems. [See all posts.] So it's best to minimize exposure to BPA, BPS, and other hormone disrupting chemicals, and also "BPA-free" products (which usually contain BPS). The BPA is in the lining of the cans used in canned food, and this leaches into the food. Unfortunately, dog food cans thought to be BPA-free in the study also contained BPA, which then leached into the dog food.  From Futurity:

Dogs have 3X more BPA after eating canned food

Researchers saw a three-fold increase in BPA levels in dogs who ate canned dog food for two weeks. They also saw changes in the dogs’ gut microbesBisphenol A (BPA) is a widely used industrial chemical found in many household items, including resins used to line metal storage containers, such as food cans. The chemical can disrupt hormones and is linked to a range of health problems. “Bisphenol A is a prevalent endocrine-disrupting chemical found in canned foods and beverages,” says Cheryl Rosenfeld, an associate professor of biomedical sciences in the University of Missouri College of Veterinary Medicine....

Dog owners volunteered their healthy pets for the study. Blood and fecal samples were collected prior to the dogs being placed on one of two commonly used, commercial canned food diets for two weeks; one diet was presumed to be BPA-free. Robert Backus, an associate professor in the veterinary medicine and surgery in the College of Veterinary Medicine, and other researchers on the team then analyzed the cans and the food contained in the cans for BPA levels and performed gut microbiome assessments.

“The dogs in the study did have minimal circulating BPA in their blood when it was drawn for the baseline,” Rosenfeld says.“However, BPA increased nearly three-fold after being on the either of the two canned diets for two weeks. We also found that increased serum BPA concentrations were correlated with gut microbiome and metabolic changes in the dogs analyzed. Increased BPA may also reduce one bacterium that has the ability to metabolize BPA and related environmental chemicals.”

“We share our homes with our dogs,” Rosenfeld says. “Thus, these findings could have implications and relevance to humans. Indeed, our canine companions may be the best bio-sentinels for human health concerns.”

A chemical frequently used in place of BPA called BPS (bisphenol S) and found in "BPA-free" products is also an endocrine disruptor. This also has negative health and behavioral effects. In this study the effects were seen in mice, but they are worrisome. Makes you wonder, what are all the effects in humans? From Science Daily: Plastics compound, BPS, often substituted for BPA, alters mouse moms' behavior and brain regions

In the first study of its kind, environmental health scientists and neuroscientists examined the effects of the compound bisphenol S (BPS) on maternal behavior and related brain regions in mice. They found subtle but striking behavior changes in nesting mothers exposed during pregnancy and lactation and in their daughters exposed in uteroBPS, found in baby bottles, personal care products and thermal receipts, is a replacement chemical for BPA and was introduced when concern was raised about possible health effects of that plastic compound.