Skip to content

Category: endocrine disruptors

Published on Leave a comment on New Report About Harms of Endocrine Disruptors

A report released this week by the Endocrine Society states that the list of health problems that scientists can confidently link to exposure to hormone-disrupting chemicals has grown to include: diabetes, cardiovascular disease, obesity, reproductive and developmental problems, thyroid impairment, certain reproductive cancers, and neurodevelopmental problems such as decreased IQ. This statement (report) is based on the summaries of 1300 studies on endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs), and it also adds support to the idea that even minute doses of these chemicals can interfere with the activity of natural hormones, which play a major role in regulating physiology and behavior. The statement also stated that most industrial chemicals released into the environment—numbering in the tens of thousands—have never been tested for endocrine-disrupting potential. EDCs include such common chemicals as bisphenol A (BPA), phthalates, parabens, some pesticides (e.g., atrazine), flame retardants, some persistent organic pollutants, and dioxins.

Where are endocrine disruptors found? People are exposed to chemicals with estrogenic effects in their everyday life, because endocrine disrupting chemicals are found in low doses in thousands of products. Many plastic products, including those advertised as "BPA free", have been found to leach endocrine-disrupting chemicals (the substitute chemicals are no better than BPA, and may be worse). Examples: plastic food containers which then leach into foods, linings of metal beverage, formula, and food cans, soft plastic toys, dental sealants, consumer goods, receipts, personal care products that contain parabens or phthalates (e.g., found in lotions,sunscreens, fragrances), household products (such as cleaning products, vinyl shower curtains) , cars (that new car smell in car interiors), etc. Americans love plastics, but there is a serious human health cost.

NOTE: To minimize EDC exposure - try to avoid plastic food and beverage containers. Instead try to use glass, stainless steel, or ceramics. Eat as many unprocessed and fresh foods as possible. Use cloth shower curtains. Read labels and avoid BPA, phthalates, parabens. Avoid fragrances. Don't use or buy non-stick pans, stain and water-resistant coatings on clothing, furniture and carpets. When buying new furniture, check that it doesn't have added fire retardants.

Of course any public discussion of the harms from endocrine disrupting chemicals, as well as the newly released Endocrine Society report, is drawing sharp criticisms from the chemical industry (especially the American Chemistry Council, the largest trade group for the chemicals industry). Of course. We all know that the lobbying efforts by the chemical industry to suppress and deny the evidence of harm to humans from EDCs has been and will continue to be massive. Sadly, but at this point EDCs are found in almost everyone on earth. More about the report, from Science Daily:

Chemical exposure linked to rising diabetes, obesity risk

Emerging evidence ties endocrine-disrupting chemical (EDC) exposure to two of the biggest public health threats facing society -- diabetes and obesity. EDCs contribute to health problems by mimicking, blocking or otherwise interfering with the body's natural hormones. By hijacking the body's chemical messengers, EDCs can alter the way cells develop and grow. Known EDCs include bisphenol A (BPA) found in food can linings and cash register receipts, phthalates found in plastics and cosmetics, flame retardants and pesticides. The chemicals are so common that nearly every person on Earth has been exposed to one or more.  ...continue reading "New Report About Harms of Endocrine Disruptors"

Published on

A recent report found that when a person is exposed to a little bit (or low doses) of a lot of different commonly encountered chemicals, than the combinations over time may cause changes that increase the risk of cancer (they may initiate cancer). Think about it - we are not exposed to just one chemical at a time (which is how chemicals are tested), but to mixtures or a "chemical soup". It is almost impossible to avoid them. As one of the researchers said: "We urgently need to focus more resources to research the effect of low dose exposure to mixtures of chemicals in the food we eat, air we breathe and water we drink." Testing mixtures of chemicals is currently not required by law.

The effects may be synergistic  - an enhanced effect that is more than the sum of the individual chemicals. And some chemicals may have bigger effects at smaller doses (typical of endocrine or hormone disruptors), than at larger doses - which is not how chemicals are typically viewed (typical view: the more you are exposed to a chemical, the greater the effect). A global task force of 174 scientists looked at 85 common everyday chemicals (at everyday low doses), and 50 were found to support cancer-related mechanisms (processes essential to cancer development). Examples of problematic chemicals that are common in everyday life: triclosan (in many soaps and personal care products), bisphenol A (in many plastics, including can linings), and atrazine (common herbicide or weedkiller). From the LA Times:

Combinations of 'safe' chemicals may increase cancer risk, study suggests

Lots of chemicals are considered safe in low doses. But what happens when you ingest a little bit of a lot of different chemicals over time? In some cases, these combinations may conspire to increase your risk of cancer, according to a new report. “Many [chemicals] have the possibility, when they are combined, to cause the initiation of cancer,” said Hemad Yasaei, a cancer biologist at Brunel University in England, one of the authors of the report. “They could have a synergistic or enhanced effect.”

This is not the way regulators typically think about cancer risk when they evaluate a compound’s safety.Normally, they test an individual chemical on laboratory animals, exposing them to progressively smaller amounts until it no longer causes malignant tumors to grow. Then they take that dose, determine the equivalent for humans, and apply what is called a “margin of safety” by declaring that some small fraction of that low dose is safe for people.

The big assumption driving the margin of safety is that a smaller amount of a chemical is less dangerous than a larger amount. (Think of the familiar axiom, “The dose makes the poison.”) But that’s not true for all chemicals, experts say. Some chemicals, such as those that mimic hormones, may actually be more dangerous at lower doses because the human body is exquisitely attuned to respond to minute amounts of natural hormones such as estrogen and testosterone.

And regulators haven’t required testing of mixtures of chemicals at all...Leroy Lowe, president of Canadian nonprofit Getting to Know Cancer and leader of the report published this week by the journal Carcinogenesis. The new report raises questions about whether this approach is adequate...Humans are exposed to about 80,000 man-made chemicals over their lifetimes, experts say. These chemicals are in the foods we eat, the water we drink and the air we breathe. "We live in a chemical soup,” said toxicologist Linda Birnbaum, director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, who was not involved in the new study.

The research team — a coalition of 174 researchers from 28 countries — set out to determine whether mixtures of these chemicals, at the very tiny concentrations found in the environment, could plausibly trigger the formation of cancerous tumors. They focused on 85 particular chemicals that were impossible to avoid in modern life, that were likely to disturb biological function and were not thought to pose cancer risks at the very low doses that people tend to ingest them.

The researchers scoured the scientific literature to understand how each of these chemicals could affect 10 important processes that are essential to cancer development. Among them: tumor-promoting inflammation, resistance to cell death and the formation of new blood vessels to feed malignant cells. In addition, they categorized whether each of the chemicals exerted biological effects at very low doses to which humans are ubiquitously exposed. (These doses are so small that they tend to be measured in parts per million or parts per billion.)
Of the 85 chemicals researchers examined, 50 were found to affect cancer-causing processes in the body, even at very low doses.

These 50 everyday chemicals included bisphenol A (used in manufacturing plastics), triclosan (often found in hand sanitizer and anti-bacterial soap) and atrazine (a commonly used herbicide). Since each of these chemicals affects different processes that could lead to cancer — bisphenol A makes cells less sensitive to signals to stop reproducing, for example, while atrazine encourages inflammation — it’s plausible that consuming mixtures of these chemicals is riskier than consuming any one individually.

More details about this report. From Science Daily: Cocktail of common chemicals may trigger cancer

Published on

There is growing evidence that women around a lot of endocrine disrupting chemicals at home or in jobs such as cleaners, hairdressers and laboratory workers during pregnancy are more likely to have baby boys with a genital defect called hypospadias (a condition where the opening of the urethra is on the underside of the penis rather than at the tip). From Environmental Health News:

Genital defect in baby boys linked to moms’ chemical exposure

Mothers around a lot of endocrine disrupting chemicals at home or in jobs such as cleaners, hairdressers and laboratory workers during pregnancy are more likely to have baby boys with a genital defect, according to a new study in the south of France.The study adds to mounting evidence that fetal exposure to chemicals that mimic people’s natural hormones may cause hypospadias, a condition where the opening of the urethra is on the underside of the penis rather than at the tip.

French researchers examined more than 600 children in the south of France and found that babies exposed to endocrine disrupting chemicals while their genitals were developing were more likely to suffer from hypospadias. Half the boys had hypospadias and half did not. The risk for those exposed was 68 percent higher than the unexposed boys. The researchers ruled out baby boys with known genetic risks for such defects.

The defect, which can be minor or quite severe depending on how far the opening is from the tip, can lead to problems with urination and, later in life, sexual difficulty....It is one of the most common genital defects in baby boys, and most cases require surgery, often done before they reach two years old. In the United States, an estimated five out of 1,000 boys are born annually with hypospadias, while Europe’s rate is slightly less than two out of 1,000.

The researchers estimated the unborn babies’ exposure by looking at their parents’ jobs and where they lived. Working with hormone disrupting chemicals and living in homes near heavy polluters were both linked to more baby boys having the defect. However, the researchers did say a limit of the study was attempting to estimate fetal exposure to such chemicals.Mothers were most likely to have boys with hypospadias if they worked as a cleaner, hairdresser or beautician.  

Some of the endocrine disrupting chemicals linked to the professions involved in the study were bisphenol-A (BPA), phthalates, polychlorinated compounds, alkylphenolic compounds and organic solvents. Most exposures—78 percent—occurred in the window of development when babies’ genitals are forming.... but detergents, pesticides, and cosmetics accounted for 75 percent of the cases,” the authors wrote in the study published in the European Urology journal this month.

Other possible causes of the birth defect include older, obese mothers, and fertility or hormone treatments during pregnancy, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

This wasn’t the first time scientists have found a link between certain chemicals and hypospadias. Mothers in southeast England who were heavily exposed to endocrine disrupting phthalates on the job were about three times as likely to have a baby boy with hypospadias. Phthalates are used in some cosmetics, fragrances, food packaging and PVC plastics.

Published on

Finding endocrine disrupting chemicals in 2 out of 10 baby teethers, which are supposedly safe products for babies, is disturbing. Unfortunately the study did not give the manufacturers names. There was even an 11th teether made of natural rubber that was found to leach compounds that were "cytotoxic"(toxic to living cells), but the manufacturer recalled the product before the study results were published. One of the teethers leaching parabens was made of EVA plastic filled with a cooling gel, and the researchers thought the parabens came from the gel used. Note that this study occurred in Europe where the regulations regarding endocrine disrupting chemicals are stricter than in the USA. The researchers themselves suggest that manufacturers should use "green chemistry" when manufacturing products - that is, design products without using problem ingredients right from the start. Problem solved. From Science Daily:

Endocrine disrupting chemicals in baby teethers

In laboratory tests, two out of ten teethers, plastic toys used to sooth babies' teething ache, release endocrine disrupting chemicals. One product contains parabens, which are normally used as preservatives in cosmetics, while the second contains six so-far unidentified endocrine disruptors. 

"The good news is that most of the teethers we analyzed did not contain any endocrine disrupting chemicals. However, the presence of parabens in one of the products is striking because these additives are normally not used in plastic toys," says Dr. Martin Wagner, of the Department Aquatic Ecotoxicology at the Goethe University. The substances detected -- methyl, ethyl and propyl parabens -- can act like natural oestrogen in the body and, in addition, inhibit the effects of androgens such as testosterone. The EU Commission recently banned two parabens in certain baby cosmetics, because of concerns over their health effects.

"Our study shows that plastic toys are a source of undesirable chemicals. Manufacturers, regulatory agencies and scientists should investigate the chemical exposure from plastic toys more thoroughly," Wagner concludes from the study. The additives have only limited benefits for the quality of the product, but can represent a potential health issue. This is especially true for babies and infants, whose development is orchestrated by a delicately balanced hormonal control and who are more susceptible to chemicals exposures than adults.

Published on

Scientists warn about endocrine disruption from 4 common chemicals in an analysis just released. This is absolutely depressing because the 4 chemicals (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene) are so pervasive in indoor air. Especially that at levels considered "safe" by the EPA there may be disruption of our hormones (endocrine systems).

Of course the 4 chemicals are already known to have health effects on the human body other than what is discussed in this study. For example, toluene has a number of central nervous system effects. The EPA says toluene , which is found in highest concentrations in indoor air from the use of common household products (paints, paint thinners, adhesives, synthetic fragrances, and nail polish). Outside - the biggest source of toluene is from automobile emissions.

Some ways to lower exposure to these 4 chemicals: Read product labels. When using a product that says to use with proper ventilation - open the windows and let the room ventilate!  Don't smoke. (For example: the EPA says tobacco smoke contains benzene and accounts for nearly half the national exposure to benzene) The study researchers themselves said the EPA should be paying more attention to these air contaminants. I read this at Scientific American, but the following excerpts are from EHN.

From EHN: Scientists warn of hormone impacts from benzene, xylene, other common solvents.

Four chemicals present both inside and outside homes might disrupt our endocrine systems at levels considered safe by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, according to an analysis released today. ...continue reading "More Problems With Four Common Chemicals"

Published on

The following study raises the question  of how to lower BPA levels in all people, not just children with autism spectrum disorder.

The absolute quickest and easiest is to buy (whenever possible) loose foods (fresh fruits, vegetables, breads, etc) or foods in glass containers (and not plastic bottles, jars, or containers), store food in glass, porcelain, or stainless steel containers, and microwave in glass dishes (and not plastic containers).

In other words, think glass and not plastic. This is because BPA is in polycarbonate containers or packaging.

Lower your use of canned foods and avoid soda in cans. This is because cans have a lining that contains BPA or a BPA substitute (and research suggests it has the same effects as BPA). By the way, clear cling wrap made from polyethylene is considered safe to wrap and store food in.

From Medical Express: New study links BPA exposure to autism spectrum disorder

A newly published study is the first to report an association between bisphenol-A (BPA), a common plasticizer used in a variety of consumer food and beverage containers, with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in children. The study, by researchers at Rowan University School of Osteopathic Medicine (RowanSOM) and Rutgers New Jersey Medical School (NJMS), shows that BPA is not metabolized well in children with ASD. The research appears online in Autism Research.

"It has been suspected for a lot of years that BPA is involved in autism, but there was no direct evidence," said T. Peter Stein, of RowanSOM and the study's lead author. "We've shown there is a link. The metabolism of BPA is different in some children with autism than it is in otherwise healthy children."

The research team – which included Margaret Schluter and Robert Steer, of RowanSOM who were responsible for laboratory analysis, and child neurologist Xue Ming, of NJMS who recruited and ascertained the study populations – examined urine specimens from 46 children with ASD and 52 healthy control children for both free BPA and total BPA concentrations.

Like many chemicals, BPA becomes water soluble when it is bound to glucose in the liver – a process called glucuronidation. Conversion to a glucuronide and then excretion of the glucuronide in the urine is a major pathway for removing toxins from the body.

The researchers also conducted a metabolomic analysis to screen for all the chemicals found in the children's urine. The metabolomics analyses showed the mean number of statistically significant correlations between metabolites detected and total BPA excreted to be approximately three times greater with the ASD group than the controls, and the number of statistical significant correlations with fraction of BPA bound was approximately 15 times higher in the children with ASD (p<0.001).

"Other studies involving rodent data have shown that BPA functions as an endocrine disruptor, but ours is the first to show this in humans and the first to associate it to autism," Stein said. "The observations show that for some children there was a relationship between intermediary metabolism, the ability to conjugate BPA and symptoms of autism."

Although the study involves a relatively small number of subjects, Stein said, "The key point is that the study seems to link BPA to autism and creates an open area for further research. One implication of our study is that there might be a benefit to reducing BPA exposure for pregnant women and for children with autism."

Published on

More than a year after California revised its flame retardant standards so that new furniture (the polyurethane foam in upholstered sofas, sofa beds, and chairs) does not have to use flame retardants, it is still hard to find out whether the furniture is flame retardant free. This is what I have experienced in the last few months - the store doesn't know and the manufacturer won't respond to emails.

The new furniture label should say TB 117-2013 , and then you still need to ask the retailer if there are flame retardants in the upholstered furniture. The new label means that the manufacturer does NOT have to use flame retardant chemicals anymore, but it does NOT mean they are chemical free. And flame retardants are still found in many baby products (car seats, bumpers, crib mattresses, strollers, nursing pillows, etc), some personal care products, and electronics. It's a buyer beware situation.

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.

How does one know if the foam in your furniture has flame retardants in it? Duke University will test it for free if you send them a small piece of the furniture's foam. http://sites.nicholas.duke.edu/superfund/whats-in-my-foam/ I originally read about this service a few months ago in The Atlantic,

From The Atlantic: How to Test a Couch for Toxins

It began with a smell. Kerri Duntley had just bought a pair of large, cream-colored couches....As the scent continued to fill her living room, Duntley asked herself a troubling question: What was causing the couches to smell like industrial chemicals? The answers weren’t easy to find. Duntley searched in web forums and even tried contacting the couches’ manufacturer. “I called and called and called,” she said. “They just would not give me the information.” She grew frustrated and began looking for new couches. It was then that she discovered an unusual service run by a Duke University lab.

The lab’s offer was simple. First, the lab instructed, wield a pair of scissors. Grab something made with polyurethane foam—say, a mattress or the innards of a couch cushion. Cut a small chunk from the foam. Wrap the surgical work in tinfoil, ziplock seal it and mail the crime-scene-looking evidence off to Durham, North Carolina. Wait up to 45 days, the lab said, and it’ll arrive: a report detailing toxic flame retardants embedded in the foam.

Duntley complied. When the results came back, she learned that her couch sample had tested positive for two flame retardants, including one that has proven harmful in animal studies, a finding that she called heartbreaking. Her experience points to a vast gap in safety information about consumer goods. With the U.S. government’s limited power to regulate chemicals, many consumers, like Duntley, are left to piece together their own crude health-risk assessments. That fabric softener? It may smell like the Elysian Fields, but what if its unlisted ingredients cause cancer? 

Government officials , academic researchers, the chemical industry and environmentalists agree: The U.S. system of chemical regulation is broken. But while the fight over reform continues in Washington, consumers remain blind to many of the chemicals that enter their homes.

Duke’s service is looking in its small way to change that. The lab—which offers anyone a free chemical analysis of polyurethane foam—has informed hundreds of Americans about their furniture’s toxicity. At the same time, the foam samples have given Duke’s team a large bank of crowdsourced research. By offering a free service to an anxious public, Duke’s scientists are gaining a clearer view of chemical manufacturing. And they’re learning just how much we don’t know about the chemicals that enter our homes.

Stapleton was part of a scientific cohort that found ingesting dust—say, getting our dusty hands on a burger—is by far our largest source of exposure to flame retardants; flame retardants aren’t chemically bound to their products, and so they attach themselves to airborne dust.

But what began in California soon became a de facto national standard, since furniture companies didn’t want to manufacture separate lines. Stapleton was interested to see how chemically saturated our furniture really is. So she and her colleagues asked families for samples of their baby products’ foam. After reviewing 101 samples from across thirteen states, Stapleton’s 2011 study reached a startling conclusion: Flame retardants accounted for about 5 percent of the products’ weight, and the chemicals were found in 80 percent of the samples.

Some of the chemicals were carcinogens. Others were from a chemical class known as polybrominated diphenyl ethers, or PBDEs, which have been linked to lower IQ scores, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and thyroid disorders. The most common flame retardant among the samples was tris (1,3-dichloroisopropyl)phosphate, or TDCPP, which researchers say is likely to harm the neurological development of infants. TDCPP, in fact, was used throughout the 1970s in children’s pajamas, until critical health research led manufacturers in 1977 to stop using it. Yet the chemical had reemerged in products like strollers and baby mattresses.

The lab offered to test some of these strangers’ furniture for free. But the requests kept coming. That’s when Stapleton and her colleagues decided to expand the scope of the testing and conceived of a free service for the public. They’d test anyone’s polyurethane foam for a suite of seven common flame retardants as something of a public service, since it would be funded by a federal grant (itself funded by taxpayer dollars). The service would also aid Stapleton’s research, offering a valuable stream of crowdsourced data about the chemicals used in furniture.

By crowdsourcing her research, Stapleton has also uncovered a flame retardant that academic literature has yet to identify. The flame retardant is a chlorinated organophosphate, like TDCPP, and its health effects are unknown, she said. Stapleton said that this recent discovery-by-accident followed the same pattern as her research on Firemaster 550, a popular flame retardant that replaced two widespread PBDEs after they were withdrawn from the market... But emerging research has raised concerns about Firemaster 550, too. One study from Boston University and Duke researchers found that the chemical mixture may cause obesity in humans. Stapleton found the same effect in rats.

Published on

U.S. government agencies (such as FDA) say phthalates are OK, but evidence is mounting that they definitely are not OK. It's impossible to totally avoid phthalates, but one can lower exposure amounts by eating whole unprocessed foods, not microwaving or storing food in plastic containers (best is glass), and read ingredient lists on labels, including personal care products. From Medical Xpress:

Plastics chemical tied to changes in boys' reproductive development

When expectant mothers are exposed to plastics chemicals called phthalates during the first trimester, their male offspring may have a greater risk of infertility later in life, a new study suggests.Boys exposed to the chemical diethylhexyl phthalate (DEHP) may be born with a significantly shorter anogenital distance than those not exposed to these chemicals. Anogenital distance is the distance between the anus and the genitals. A shorter anogenital distance has been linked to infertility and low sperm count, the researchers explained.

"We saw these changes even though moms' exposure to DEHP has dropped 50 percent in the past 10 years," said lead researcher Shanna Swan, a professor of preventive medicine and obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City. "Therefore, we have not found a safe level of phthalate exposure for pregnant women," she contended.

Swan said that this study cannot prove that these boys will have fertility problems as adults or that DEHP causes these problems. However, animal studies have implicated the chemical in male reproductive problems. Based on the data from this study, Swan believes there is a strong association between exposure to DEHP and fertility in human males.

DEHP is used to soften plastics. Most exposure results from eating foods that pick up the chemical during processing, Swan said. "Since food is the largest source of DEHP for consumers, it is difficult for pregnant women to minimize exposure," she said. "Eating unprocessed food will likely help. However, eliminating DEHP from food really has to be done by food producers."The chemical is also found in medical tubing and in a variety of products, including flooring, wallpaper, lacquers and personal care products, Swan said.

For the study, Swan's team collected data on almost 800 pregnant women and their infants.Specifically, the researchers found that exposure in the womb to three types of DEHP was associated with a significantly shorter anogenital distance in boys, but not in girls.

A group representing the chemical industry took issue with the study, however. In a statement, the American Chemistry Council (ACC) stressed that the study only examined one type of phthalate, not all versions of the chemical... The ACC added that DEHP "is known to break down into its metabolites within minutes after it enters the body. 

But another expert says phthalate exposure may not be benign. Dr. Kenneth Spaeth, director of the Occupational and Environmental Medicine Center at North Shore University Hospital in Manhasset, N.Y., said, "virtually everyone in the U.S. experiences continual exposure to phthalates."And, a number of studies have tied the chemicals with changes in developing fetuses. "Phthalates, in particular, have been shown in both human and animal studies to interfere with normal fetal development," he said.

This study supports what has been demonstrated before, that phthalate exposure in the first trimester is linked to male reproductive development, Spaeth said. "This study is an important step forward in establishing this effect because the study included a much larger number of individuals than prior studies and helps identify one particular agent, DEHP, as an important contributor to this effect," he said.Additionally, this study shows the importance of exposure in the first trimester as a critical window for the effect of phthalates on the male reproductive system. 

Published on

Think about all the plastics we use, and all the chemicals we are exposed to. Read labels on personal care products and try to avoid: phthalates, parabens, BPA, triclosan, fragrances. If possible, use glass containers to store and microwave food. Avoid unnecessary pesticides, for example on lawns, and consider organic lawn care and gardening.  From Science Daily:

Earlier menopause linked to everyday chemical exposures

Women whose bodies have high levels of chemicals found in plastics, personal-care products, common household items and the environment experience menopause two to four years earlier than women with lower levels of these chemicals, according to a new study at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis.

The researchers looked at levels in blood and urine of 111 chemicals that are suspected of interfering with the natural production and distribution of hormones in the body. While several smaller studies have examined the link between so-called endocrine-disrupting chemicals and menopause, the new research is the first to broadly explore the association between menopause and individual chemicals on a large scale, using a nationally representative sample of patients across the United States.

“Chemicals linked to earlier menopause may lead to an early decline in ovarian function, and our results suggest we as a society should be concerned,” said senior author Amber Cooper, MD, an assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology. A decline in ovarian function not only can adversely affect fertility but also can lead to earlier development of heart disease, osteoporosis and other health problems. Other problems already linked to the chemicals include certain cancers, metabolic syndrome and, in younger females, early puberty.

“Many of these chemical exposures are beyond our control because they are in the soil, water and air,” Cooper said. “But we can educate ourselves about our day-to-day chemical exposures and become more aware of the plastics and other household products we use.”...Although many of the chemicals included in the study have been banned from U.S. production because of their negative health effects, they still are produced globally and are pervasive in the environment.

In the study, Cooper and researchers at the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Medicine and the Wadsworth Center at the State University of New York at Albany analyzed data collected from 1999-2008 as part of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.The survey included data from 31,575 people, including 1,442 menopausal women who had been tested for levels of endocrine-disrupting chemicals. The average age of these women was 61, and none was using estrogen-replacement therapies or had had surgery to remove ovaries.

The women’s blood and urine samples were analyzed for exposures to 111 mostly man-made chemicals, which included known reproductive toxins and/or those that take more than a year to break down. Chemicals from the following categories were analyzed in the survey: dioxins/furans (industrial combustion byproducts); phthalates (found in plastics, common household items, pharmaceuticals and personal-care products including lotions, perfumes, makeup, nail polish, liquid soap and hair spray); phytoestrogens (plant-derived estrogens); polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs, coolants); phenolic derivatives (phenols, industrial pollutants); organophosphate pesticides; surfactants; and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (combustion products).

The researchers identified 15 chemicals — nine PCBs, three pesticides, two phthalates and a furan (a toxic chemical) — that warrant closer evaluation because they were significantly associated with earlier ages of menopause and potentially have detrimental effects on ovarian functionagefurans

Published on

This is so sad, but it's the new reality in the USA. Less discussed, but also problematic is the increase in early puberty in boys.The research as to causes is ongoing, but increasingly our exposure to chemicals, especially endocrine disruptors is suspected to be a cause. What to do? Once again: try to reduce exposure to plastics (ha!) by buying and storing food in glass containers, and do not microwave food in plastic containers. Avoid fragrances or perfumed products. From Newsweek:

Puberty Comes Earlier and Earlier for Girls

At age 6, Rebecca’s body began to develop in ways that seemed unusual. Her mother, Ellen, had noticed a change in Rebecca’s breast area...But there was also the hair that had begun to appear under her daughter’s arms. When a test showed Rebecca’s bone age to be 10½, a pediatric endocrinologist diagnosed “precocious puberty.” While the exact cause is unknown, this endocrine disorder is triggered by the early release of hormones in the brain, a circumstance that hurls a child into sexual maturation years before the usual age.

This sudden sexual development in a child so young can be unnerving to parents. “My daughter is 7 years and 10 months old. She started having body odor at 5 and breast buds at 6,” one mother wrote recently in a group chat about the condition. She wrote, too, of her daughter’s “roller-coaster emotions,” a common complaint from parents observing massive mood swings, PMS-like symptoms and other “teen emotions” in daughters just beginning the first grade—and in some cases even younger. The condition affects individuals in different ways. ”...Unlike Rebecca, many precocious kids lose their interest in Disney and little-girl things and begin to act, well, the age of their bodies.

In girls, puberty is commonly defined as breast development, growth of pubic hair and menarche, the beginning of the menstrual cycle. At the turn of the 20th century, the average age for an American girl to get her period was 16 to 17. Today, that number has plummeted to less than 13, according to data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. The trend has been attributed to the epidemic of overweight children and a greater exposure to pollution, which does bad things to developing bodies and accelerates the timing of a girl’s first menstruation.

Environmental toxins also cause many girls to develop breasts at an earlier age than in the past. Compared with 20 years ago, American girls today begin developing breasts anywhere from one month to four months earlier, a significant difference. At the same time, the number of girls who begin to develop early is increasing. “Just a generation ago, less than five percent of girls started puberty before the age of 8; today that percentage has more than doubled,” note Dr. Louise Greenspan and Dr. Julianna Deardorff in The New Puberty: How to Navigate Early Development in Today’s Girls.

Among the toxins causing this trend, the biggest offenders are plastic compounds, in particular phthalates, man-made chemicals found all over the place: in plastic food and beverage containers, carpeting, shampoos, insect repellents, vinyl flooring, shower curtains, plastic toys and in the steering wheels and dashboards of most cars. Our bodies cannot metabolize phthalates, which interfere with the endocrine system—the body’s system of glands and hormones—and harm fat cells. Indirectly, phthalates may cause weight gain and so influence the timing of puberty. 

Our children are living in a “sea of chemicals,” says Dr. Marcia E. Herman-Giddens, a professor of public health at the University of North Carolina. She argues that children are speeding into puberty before they’re ready, and that this early maturation is both the symptom of bodily damage that has already occurred and the probable cause of health consequences they may expect in the future.

Along with higher rates of depression, younger girls who enter puberty earlier than their peers are more prone to obesity and drug abuse...Meanwhile, no matter how physically developed a girl is, her psychosocial maturation remains anchored to her chronological age. 

“Puberty is considered one of those windows of susceptibility,” says Biro, when the body is especially sensitive to the negative health impact of social and environmental stressors. In particular, the actively maturing breast tissue of a girl, unlike the breast tissue of a full-grown woman, is more vulnerable to damaging environmental pollutants.

Today’s girl is both starting puberty earlier and going through it more slowly, according to Biro, which means a girl remains in this high-risk state for a longer amount of time. In an article he co-authored with Deardorff and others, Biro found up to a 30 percent increased risk for breast cancer when a woman experiences her first period at a younger age. And “for each year that age of menarche was delayed, the risk of premenopausal breast cancer was reduced by 9 percent, and risk of postmenopausal breast cancer was reduced by 4 percent.”

Early breast development also opens the door to reproductive tract cancers, says Herman-Giddens, since “if you’re starting to develop breasts, your body is making estrogen.” Estrogen, especially when combined with stress hormones, is a known cancer-causing agent. Having had an earlier start to puberty, an early-maturing girl produces more estrogen over the years and so elevates her lifetime risk of reproductive cancers.

There is a medical solution for patients who, like 6-year-old Rebecca, are diagnosed with precocious puberty. Hormone treatments can essentially halt the process of sexual maturation. Then, at an appropriate age, the drugs are withdrawn and puberty plays out.Some girls diagnosed with precocious puberty have no choice but to medicate in order to prevent serious bone and growth problems.