Happy Friday! Big news: Scientific groups representing more than 40,000 researchers and clinicians have come together in the pages of the super-influential journal Science to insist that federal regulators do more—and do more, more quickly—to assess the human safety of the 12,000 new substances registered every day at the American Chemical Society.
“The need for swifter and sounder testing and review procedures cannot be overstated,” the letter says.
The letter’s corresponding author Patricia Hunt, a professor in the Washington State University School of Molecular Biosciences, said:
“As things stand now,” she added, “things get rapidly into the marketplace and the testing of them is tending to lag behind.”
Hunt told ScienceDaily that the letter was inspired by growing concerns about BPA, which more than 300 studies have found to cause adverse health effects in animals. Hormone disruptors more broadly, were also of concern. She says:
“Hormones control everything—our basic metabolism, our reproduction. We call them endocrine disruptors. They’re like endocrine bombs to a certain extent because they can disrupt all these normal functions.”
Boom. She also said one of the problems is that the methods used to assess safety—primarily toxicology—are insufficient. “The FDA and EPA need to look beyond the toxicology of substances to the other ways chemicals can affect us. … One of the problems they have is they look at some of the science and don’t know how to interpret it because it’s not done using the traditional toxicology testing paradigm,” she said. “We need geneticists, we need developmental and reproductive biologists and we need the clinical people on board to actually help interpret and evaluate some of the science.”
I think this qualifies as a sign that things are changing, no?
Turns out it’s not just canned food and bottled water we have to worry about—which we kind of new anyway, but this is no less easier to hear. In addition to customer receipts at chain store, a new study shows that:
“Higher exposure was correlated with exposure to cashier receipts, cigarette smoke and the family of chemicals known as pthalates, which are used in plastics, fragrances and many other common household products.”
BPA, in case you don’t know, is an estrogen-mimicking chemical found in some plastics and can linings, as well as a whole host of other things we come into contact with on a regular basis. It’s virtually impossible not to have some exposure to it, which is why some legistlators—and Canada—is moving to ban the stuff outright.
A few other highlights from the study, according the The Daily Green:
—Choice of organic produce made no difference in BPA levels.
—Women who were cashiers had the highest concentrations.
—Elevated levels also were seen in women who smoked cigarettes and women exposed to phthalates.
Another reason to not wear synthetic perfumes, smoke cigarettes, or buy bottled water.
Le. Sigh.
Image via
Well, probably not all on their own—generally weight is influenced by a variety of factors including diet, exercise, sleep and genetics. But a new study has linked the ever-controversial BPA (found in cans, among other things), along with certain phthalates commonly used in your beauty products, to obesity. From Environmental Health News:
Researchers identified two common environmental chemicals – bisphenol A and benzyl butyl phthalate – that can modulate the signals controlling the number of fat cells produced and the uptake and storage of fats in those cells.
Cute right? Especially since these hormone disruptors are already tied to a host of other terrible things. Canada is looking to ban BPA, and Europe has already eliminated the phthalates in question from their beauty products. So what gives America? Would you support a ban?
Super cool can image via National Geographic
We’ve invented a word because Canada is having a great week on toxics regulation. According to Environment Canada, BPA has been added to the agency’s toxic substances list—a big, big deal, especially after the disturbing revelation last week that 90% of the people tested had the hormone disruptor in their urine. (A similar study in the United States found it in 93% of those sampled.)
The American Chemistry Council is predictably miffed, and last year said that classifying it as a toxic is “pander[ing] to emotional zealots.” Well, color us emotional zealots because we are thrilled.
BPA, in case you have been living under a rock, has been linked to obesity, neurological issues, impaired thyroid function and other hormonal issues. Humans are exposed to it from soda cans, canned foods, baby bottles, school lunches, in plastics and more.
This is pretty game-changey. We’re excited to see what happens next, and we hope Environment Canada is ready to duck, because we imagine there’s going to be some mudslinging.
Luca with a BPA-free bottle (and Siobhan)
According to a new study, young girls are developing breasts as early as 7 and 8 years old these days. As the New York Times is reporting, a survey of 1,239 girls aged 6 to 8 found the following:
At 7 years, 10.4 percent of white, 23.4 percent of black and 14.9 percent of Hispanic girls had enough breast development to be considered at the onset of puberty.
At age 8, the figures were 18.3 percent in whites, 42.9 percent in blacks and 30.9 percent in Hispanics. The percentages for blacks and whites were even higher than those found by a 1997 study that was one of the first to suggest that puberty was occurring earlier in girls.
Reasons for the racial disparity are inconclusive, though obesity definitely plays a role in early onset puberty because body fat can produce sex hormones. But the author of the study, Dr. M. Frank Biro, doesn’t think weight tells the whole story.
Exposure to environmental chemicals—many of which are estrogen-mimickers—may also be playing a role. You know where this is going right? Several suspected hormone disruptors are found in personal care products.
Among the many reasons this study is so disconcerting? Seven and 8 year old girls are not psychologically ready to be in women’s bodies, let alone deal with the attention that engenders. We couldn’t say it better than the Dr. Biro:
“I think we need to think about the stuff we’re exposing our bodies to and the bodies of our kids. This is a wake-up call, and I think we need to pay attention to it.”
For months now I can’t stop thinking about Tupperware. Not the actual brand, but the weird variety of plastic food containers I’ve collected over the years, some probably just left at my house, others maybe bought at the dollar store.
As the discussion around BPA and pthalates has heated up, so too has my own concern over these plastic containers. Our friends over at the Daily Green were onto this a while ago and posted about which plastic containers are safe, and which may not be. But I’m going to summon the mantra Siobhan and I have held to since we first starting reading about chemicals in beauty products: Why bother? As in, why bother if you can’t be sure something is safe?
Especially when there are such attractive alternatives. Last week, an unhappy trip to Bed, Bath and Beyond to replace a broken coffee grinder—I don’t recommend going to such stores uncaffeinated—turned into a happy discovery. For 20 bucks I got this lovely stainless steel canister set which I’ve been using for just about everything since, including my coffee beans and favorite beet soup.
But if steel isn’t for you, this ceramic set (also pictured above) may be. Nothing wrong with the more traditional glass set from Pyrex either. All of these feel like pretty reasonable investments to help guarantee things like normal genitals in your unborn son—wouldn’t you agree?
