Endocrine disrupters are chemicals that mimic the hormones in our bodies (often estrogen), and just like the natural versions, they cause our cells to stop, start, or change their functions. Exposure to these chemicals is known to cause birth defects, cancer, and a host of other health problems in animals, and is suspected of doing the same to people. Still, plenty of people, but especially the chemical industry, will tell you that these chemicals are perfectly safe at the levels at which we’re exposed.
The problem and source of controversy is two-fold: (1) no one really knows how much we’re exposed, and recent pilot studies indicate that it’s a lot more than the chemical industry claims, and (2) if you decide you would rather play it safe while more research is conducted, too bad. The industry and government have already decided for you that you’re going to get lots and lots of these chemicals in almost every product you buy.
Is this a cause for panic? Better to say it’s a cause for getting off your comfy assumptions and getting involved. Too busy or confused? Join the party, and here’s some motivation to help with that:
Where are these endocrine disrupters found? Here are just a few:
Atrazine: A weed killer widely used in US agriculture, and now widely found in our drinking water and food, it is linked to reproductive cancers, and chemically reverses the effect of some breast cancer treatment drugs. It has been banned in several European countries.
PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls): Environmentally persistent chemicals used widely in manufactering and electronics. Most individuals tested have them in their blood, and you continue to absorb them from your food, water, and even your indoor environment. Because they have been used so long with so little regulation, they are now endemic in the US.
PBA (Bisphenol A): Widely used in plastics, including the lining in canned foods and some “green” products like SIGG water bottles, clear plastic baby bottles, and some plastic drinking water bottles, often at levels exceeding the controversial EPA exposure limits. The highest levels of BPA have been found in the blood of infants and children, the population most susceptible to BPA’s harmful effects.
Phthalates: You name it. These compounds are found in household products (detergents, plastic bags, food packaging), children’s toys, and the vast majority of personal care products (often disguised with the term “fragrance”).
Parabens: Preservatives found in almost every personal care product on the market, from soap to shampoo to moisturizers to baby products. Most importantly, they are in products labeled “all natural”, though most (but not all) products labeled organic omit them.
PBDE’s (polybrominated diphenyl ethers): Flame retardants that are so toxic they’re controversial even among firefighters’ unions, these compounds are now in your house, in carpeting, furniture, your mattress, and your children’s pajamas. They are persistent and accumulating in the environment, and in human breast milk, and in animal products including milk, meat, and fats.
Endocrine disrupters have been investigated for their links to disease for some time, but interest has recently increased when higher-than-expected quantities were found in drinking water and in human blood samples, and when environmental health scientists began to push for more research into the effects of multiple exposures. Most of the existing research on industrial chemical safety (in general, not limited to endocrine disrupting chemicals) is flawed in two important respects: (1) it was conducted by the manufacturer, with limited controls on the obvious conflict-of-interest, and (2) it is limited to the effects of individual chemicals, though it is a fact that we are exposed to a cocktail of chemicals every day that affect the health of our cells.
To quote a recent Endocrine Society Scientific Statement (which was adopted by the American Medical Association):
The evidence for adverse reproductive outcomes (infertility, cancers, malformations) from exposure to endocrine disrupting chemicals is strong, and there is mounting evidence for effects on other endocrine systems, including thyroid, neuroendocrine, obesity and metabolism, and insulin and glucose [balance].
So, as a consumer, you have to ask yourself: in the face of strong but not conclusive evidence, do you want to continue to expose yourself and your family to these chemicals, or would you rather play it safe and avoid exposure? Does it matter to you that the American Medical Association agrees that these chemicals are contributing to cancer, birth defects, obesity, blood sugar control issues, and neurological defects? Regardless of your answer, or if you’re too young to have an answer, federal regulators and chemical manufacturers have already decided for you: you’re going to be exposed, like it or not. No one consulted you, you had no say in the matter.
Unhappy about this? Want to do something about it? Are you already “going green” with your wallet? It turns out that simply voting with your wallet isn’t enough. For example, even women who shopped organic and stopped using any personal products containing “fragrance” still had excessive levels of phthalates in their blood, and were passing these chemicals right through to their babies. While I’m all for supporting genuinely organic products, and not just the phony “green” marketing label (go ahead and read the ingredients next time you pick up a product labelled “natural”), it’s not remotely enough. Using organic soap won’t protect you from the chemicals in your clothes, house, and food. Buying organic produce won’t protect you when the water they are irrigated with contains PCBs. Wearing organic cotton won’t protect you from the chemicals oozing out of your carpet pad, sofa, and bed.
There’s really only one way to solve this problem, and that’s to overhaul the way we safety check and control artificial and even naturally occurring chemicals. True, Congress has taken baby steps. The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 will ban phthalates in some children’s products. Some PBDEs have been banned but others have not. And how will those bans be enforced when less than 5% of all imported products are inspected? And even with perfect enforcement, getting phthalates out of kids’ toys doesn’t come close to getting phthalates out of your body and breast milk. Ditto for every chemical listed above.
If you would rather not be a guinea pig, and you would rather not turn your children into guinea pigs, there’s only one thing you can do that will make a difference: vote with your voice, and with your real vote, not just your wallet. Talk to people about this stuff, especially your elected officials. Contact your city, state, and federal governments and let them know how you feel. And because that’s a meaningless statement without a means of taking action, I’m adding a few links to organizations who make it easy. Know of another group you’d like to add to this list? Please email me, so we can expand this list!
As always, questions and comments are welcome!
Take Action, Get Involved, Add Your Voice:
These organizations all have a “take action” newsletter that will keep you in touch with government decisions affecting your exposure to endocrine disrupters and other chemicals. They each put consumer safety first, not economics or politics or jobs. If that causes economic “dislocations”, then let’s address them — subsidize, train, repurchase or reinforce our way into a healthy environment — but doing nothing just because “it’s complicated” is slowly poisoning us. The first step, though, is to start banning some of these chemicals. (Remember how eliminating CFC’s to fix the ozone hole was going to destroy the economy?)
Breast Cancer Fund
Safer States
Food and Water Watch
Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
Campaign For Safe Cosmetics
Local consumer-interest groups devoted to environmental toxics exposure:
Washington Toxics Coalition
Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition
References:
Atrazine
Atrazine’s hormone-mimicking action reported here:
Atrazine-Induced Aromatase Expression Is SF-1 Dependent: Implications for Endocrine Disruption in Wildlife and Reproductive Cancers in Humans
The Breast Cancer Action interview that first exposed the corporate ties between atrazine production and aromatase inhibitor production:
A Hormonal Seesaw: The Atrazine and AI Connection
BPA (Bisphenol-A)
Human exposure to BPA and health effects:
Human Exposure to Bisphenol A
BPA exposures and research history summary:
Exposure of the US population to bisphenol A and 4-tertiary-octylphenol: 2003-2004
Flaws exposed in industry-sponsored BPA safety research:
Why public health agencies cannot depend on good laboratory practices as a criterion for selecting data: the case of bisphenol A
Medscape BPA exposure and health effects summary (free registration required):
Bisphenol A: A Scientific Evaluation: What Is the Magnitude of BPA Exposure?
How BPA exposure predisposes infants to breast cancer later in life:
Does breast cancer start in the womb?
Environmental Working Group – Tips for Avoiding BPA Exposure (insufficient, but slightly better than nothing):
Bisphenol A: Toxic Plastics Chemical in Canned Food: Consumer tips to avoid BPA exposure
PBDEs (polybrominated diphenyl ethers)
PBDE Exposure levels in Adults and Children, and Health Effects:
http://www.ehponline.org/members/2008/116-5/focus.html
PBDEs and Your Health
Developmental harm from in utero exposure to PBDEs in rats:
Developmental Exposure to Low-Dose PBDE-99: Effects on Male Fertility and Neurobehavior in Rat Offspring
Exposure to PBDEs through food:
Red Meat and Poultry source of PBDEs
Environmental Working Group – Tips for Avoiding PBDE Exposure (insufficient, but slightly better than nothing):
Reducing your exposure to PBDEs in your home
Washington State flyer on reducing PBDE exposure (insufficient, but slightly better than nothing):
How Can You Reduce Your Exposure to PBDEs?
And by the way, don’t be fooled by fake consumer groups set up by chemical industry PR firms:
Citizens for Fire Safety Exposed
Phthalates
Effects of phthalate exposure in animals:
Perinatal Exposure to [Phthalates] Alters Sexual Differentiation of the Male Rat
Human exposure to phthalates through household products and some drugs may exceed EPA threshholds:
More concerns about phthalates: Effects may be cumulative
Possible link between phthalate exposure and ADHD symptoms in school-aged children:
Phthalate Exposure Linked To ADHD
Phthalates may adversely affect emotional/psychological development of boys:
Pilot study relates phthalate exposure to less-masculine play by boys
This article discusses phthalates’ impact on the psychological development of boys, and emphasizes that “shopping green” ain’t enough to protect yourself:
Toxins in toiletries harming unborn kids
5 Comments
Wow–
I guess you better also stop eating soy and all vegetables, which contain very potent endocrine disruptors, as well.
BTW–ERs are not necessarily a bad thing, either, as soy is protective against breast and prostate cancer.
http://www.healthnewsdigest.com/news/contributing%20columnist0/Another_Stake_Through_The_Heart_Of_Phthalate_Fears.shtml
http://www.healthnewsdigest.com/news/contributing%20columnist0/Disrupting_The_-Endocrine_Disruptor-_Hypothesis.shtml
You’re raising a good point about phytoestrogens and estrogens in general. What matters with external estrogens, like any potential carcinogen, is the strength and the duration of exposure. In the case of phytoestrogens from soy, what we know (so far) is that it is a weaker estrogen than that produced by a woman’s body, so that when it binds to estrogen receptors (thereby preventing the body’s stronger estradiol from binding) it has a protective effect. However, for women who are already post-menopause, and whose endogenous estrogen is at extremely low levels, constant bombardment with high levels of soy protein could actually inch breast cancer risk upward. This question has not yet been resolved, although large epidemiological studies are exploring the issue. Current medical evidence suggests that soy is protective against breast cancer when consumed regularly early in life (before and during puberty), may have a neutral effect at mid-life, and may have a cancer-promoting effect late in life. This says nothing of soy’s benefits for the heart, only its role as a source of phytoestrogens.
But, that’s soy phytoestrogen. The estrogen mimics found in chemicals like BPA are a whole ‘nother matter. For starters, no one understands how potent they are. Originally, BPA was believed to be a very weak estrogen, but a recent study found that, once bound to a certain type of receptor, it can actually have a much stronger effect than a woman’s natural estradiol. Secondly, no one knows the dose that anyone in this country is actually exposed to for any one of these chemicals, let alone the whole chemical soup we’re exposed to daily. Until we begin to answer those questions (and we have not even begun), people need to understand that they are playing with fire. Or, more accurately, playing with carcinogens. Nothing wrong with personal choice (smokers play with carcinogens, as do people whose work or hobbies involve exposure to gasoline, oil paints, turpentine, etc. etc.). The problem is: people are taking these risks UNKNOWINGLY, because someone whose sole interest was profit made the decision for them, based on grossly inadequate safety information. That’s where we have a problem.
Kathy–
I assume that your comment of BPA “having a much stronger effect than a woman’s natural estradiol” is taken from the absurd commentary by Consumer Reports, in which they flat-out lie about the results presented in an EPA funded study, published in Toxological Sciences.
In the study, researchers fed BPA to female rats during pregnancy and lactation at dosage levels approximately 40 to 4,000 times above estimated median human consumption, and the female offspring were studied for effects on behavior and reproductive function. In contrast, the well-known estrogen ethinyl estradiol had significant effects on the rodents, demonstrating the sensitivity of the study and the validity of the results for BPA.
In a pathetic effort to dismiss these results, Consumer Reports reported on its blog that the rats used in the study were insensitive to the very estrogen used as a control, which—as stated above—actually caused significant effects on the animals. Bereft of any argument, they turned to mendacity.
BPA has been tested countless times, and has been determined safe by essentially every government organization in the Western world.
Sad to say, the fear entrepreneurs are now resorting to flagrant lies to scare the public, and keep the checks coming in.
Actually, I was not aware of the Consumer Reports article at all. I was referring to a cluster of studies that have found that BPA can interact with an estrogen receptor on a cell’s nuclear membrane, precipitating a reaction that can result in DNA damage. These effects are seen at extremely low exposures (low serum levels) and this is viewed as at least a partial answer to why BPA, despite being “weakly” estrogenic, causes such catastrophic developmental damage as a result of fetal exposures. Here are a handful of examples of studies that all come to this conclusion in a variety of contexts (cancer, developmental harm, etc). This is not remotely exhaustive, but your comments seemed a little too dismissive, and since I have no idea what Consumer Reports said, I wanted to point you at some independent evidence.
References (note: “very low dose” means levels far below EPA exposure limits):
Very low dose BPA affects male germ cell proliferation: http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/members/2009/0800367/0800367.html
Very low dose BPA triggers pancreatic cell DNA transcription factor: http://www.fasebj.org/cgi/reprint/16/12/1671.pdf
Very low dose BPA triggers chemotherapy resistance in estrogen and non-estrogen dependent breast cancers: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2649216/
Summary of how extremely low doses of BPA can trigger cancer-promoting effects: http://www.ehhi.org/reports/plastics/bpa_health_effects.shtml
And now I have a question for you:
I can’t help noticing that your language is a tad caustic (”lie” “mendacity” “flagrant lies”) so I have to ask — do you work in the chemical or plastics industries, or have you been hired to blog/write/opine on behalf of a corporation or trade group? To put it another way: are you commenting entirely on your own, or on behalf of a third party? No problem with the latter, but since this blog is all about sharing information, I’d ask that you identify your affiliation.
By the way, as for the “checks coming in” — I strongly suspect that BPA manufacturers are collecting far, far bigger checks than, say, Environmental Health Perspectives journal or a handful of greenie blogs. I don’t see any greenie groups trading in the Dow Industrials index yet. Let me know when you spot ‘em there…. (LOL)….