THIS study (report below), written in a peer reviewed journal, should make us all sit up and really think about how much we know about the long term effects of chemicals, such as endocrine disruptors.
What will our great grandchildren say about our rationale in allowing these chemicals to be used indiscriminately in our water catchments and on our food?
The CEO of National Association of Forest Industries in a news release on 7 May 2005 said that atrazine (an endocrine disruptor) was “necessary and safe”, and in the same group of toxic chemicals with regard to its carcenogenicity as coffee and talcum powder.
Really?
What are we actually comparing here? And if I am to be accused of scaremongering, then he may be accused of protesting a little too much.
The Canadians and Americans are leading the way by calling their combined environmental science/public health approach “forensic ecotoxicology”. The term has a lot of merit. Frequently the issues are identical, and the actions that need to be taken are very similar. So resources are shared, and outcomes can be produced quickly with the maximum of cooperation.
The wellbeing of communities is at stake, and who advocates for them? Who is ensuring just and fair social policies that are based on reliable information sharing, common sense and grounded in reasonable, broad-based, community consultation?
Rat study shows grandpa’s poisons may affect you
Thu Jun 2, 2005 04:23 PM ETWASHINGTON (Reuters) – Toxic chemicals that poisoned your grandparents, or even great-grandparents, may also affect your health, U.S. researchers suggested on Thursday.
A study in rats shows the effects of certain toxic chemicals were passed on for four generations of males.
The finding, published in the journal Science, suggests that toxins may play a role in inherited diseases now blamed on genetic mutations.
“It’s a new way to think about disease,” said Michael Skinner, director of the Center for Reproductive Biology at Washington State University in Pullman.
“We believe this phenomenon will be widespread and be a major factor in understanding how disease develops.”
For their study, Skinner and colleagues injected pregnant rats with vinclozolin, a fungicide commonly used in vineyards, and methoxychlor, a pesticide that replaced DDT.
Both are endocrine disrupters — synthetic chemicals that interfere with the normal functioning of reproductive hormones, notably testosterone and estrogen. Animal studies have shown they can affect fertility and the development of genitals, for example.
Scientists knew that treating pregnant rats with high doses of vinclozolin every day produces sterile male pups.
Skinner’s team injected vinclozolin into pregnant rats during a specific time during gestation when the developing embryos take on sexual characteristics.
Male rat pups born to these mothers had a 20 percent lower than normal sperm count, their sperm were less motile, meaning they did not swim as well, and they were less fertile.
There were similar results with methoxychlor.
When these male offspring were mated with females that had not been exposed to the toxins, 90 percent of the new male offspring had similar problems. The effect held for a fourth generation.
That has never been seen before, although radiation and cancer chemotherapy are known to affect fertility and the children of people affected.
Radiation can also cause “germline” genetic mutations — mutations in DNA in egg and sperm cells that can be passed from one generation to the next. But it happens only rarely.
These changes were not mutations, Skinner’s team said. Instead, they were changes in a process called methylation, in which chemical compounds attach to and affect DNA.
Such changes might play a role in diseases such as breast cancer and prostate disease, both of which are on the rise, Skinner said.
http://www.reuters.com/printerFriendlyPopup.jhtml?type=healthNews&storyID=8683295
Dr Alison Bleaney is a GP at St Helens.
David Obendorf
June 7, 2005 at 16:40
This is perhaps relevant to research into the Devil Facial Tumour Disease involving malignant cells of neuro-endocrine origin.
Being the top-order carnivore in the island State, the Tasmanian Devil populations would have been exposed to number of man-made chemicals, including the Triazines.
As the activation of oncogenes (genes associated with cancer expression) has been associated with changes in the methylation processes occurring in certain parts of the genome in some mammals, maybe it is at the genesis of this serious cancer in Devils too.
Dave Groves
June 8, 2005 at 01:30
It is commendable that Alison Bleaney has the knowledge and the courage to lift her head above the Tasmanian radar and try to motivate some debate on a subject that we are all affected by.
The chemicals we place into our environment must have some kind effect on our wellbeing, either in the short or long term.
As Newton’s law states, “for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.â€
What that may be will be uncovered in years to come. There have already been many chemicals once supposedly safe that have over time had tragic consequences by their use.
For a “clean and green†state, we live in a fool’s paradise and the progress of greed and ignorance seems to know no bounds.
Good luck on your quest, St Helens folk are blessed to have you as a GP, your care for the community and its health I’m sure are much admired.
David Obendorf
June 9, 2005 at 06:24
Gerry Mander says: “Look out messengers, you could be about to be shot!”
Thanks for the warning, Gerry……I think any so-called ‘messenger’ understands the stakes.
What is critical here is to ask, what is the motivation of those who act as ‘messengers’?
Is it compassion for Others or for purely self interest?
“Shooting the messenger” is the ultimate form of censorship because it causes other humans to practice; “See no evil, Hear no evil and Speak no evil”. It’s called SELF-CENSORSHIP and has worked on humans for Millenia.
Political assassination or mysterious deaths have been the traditional means of silencing views of politically-incorrect messengers that challenge a ‘the business as usual’ approach. Other sub-lethal means of silencing such adversaries are also well recorded. In most instances these methods work!
The world is a dangerous place, not because of the evil that men do but because good human beings do nothing.
Maybe to see a danger and not confront it is a valid form of self-protection. To put your own life in danger is to take a risk….but maybe the motivation is to think of the Other.
Self-protection can be very wise when you live in a dangerous world. Gerry, even having a true ‘identity’ is part of that personal decision-making.
Is being a ‘messenger’ fool-hardy or wise?
Maybe Christ’s life & fate was the ultimate lesson in self-censorship for all Christians.
“To be or not to be that is the question”…..a very personal question each one of us has to live and ultimately die by.
Paul de Burgh-Day
August 6, 2005 at 10:35
Atrazine gets muchwell deserved attention as a chemical nasty. All too many who use chemicals in forestry, agriculture and other activities think that Monsanto’s ROUNDUP is safe!
It is NOT safe!
Here is a report on a study that everyone who uses Roundup MUST READ!
The study, from the June 2005 issue of Environmental Health Perspectives, is summarised here. You can look at the study by using the url below.
Pesticide Action Network Updates Service (PANUPS)
Rethinking Roundup
August 5, 2005
A recent study of Roundup presents new evidence that the glyphosate-based herbicide is far more toxic than the active ingredient alone. The study, published in the June 2005 issue of Environmental Health Perspectives,
http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/members/2005/7728/7728.html
reports glyphosate toxicity to human placental cells within hours of exposure, at levels ten times lower than those found in agricultural use. The researchers also tested glyphosate and Roundup at lower concentrations for effects on sexual hormones, reporting effects at very low levels. This suggests that dilution with other ingredients in Roundup may, in fact, facilitate glyphosate’s hormonal impacts.
Roundup, produced by Monsanto, is a mixture of glyphosate and other chemicals (commonly referred to as “inerts”) designed to increase the herbicide’s penetration into the target and its toxic effect. Since inerts are not listed as “active ingredients” the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does not assess their health or environmental impacts, despite the fact that more than 300 chemicals on EPA’s list of pesticide inert ingredients are or were once registered as pesticide active ingredients, and that inert ingredients often account for more than 50% of the pesticide product by volume.
The evidence presented in the recent study is supported by earlier laboratory studies connecting glyphosate with reproductive harm, including damaged DNA in mice and abnormal chromosomes in human blood. Evidence from epidemiological studies has also linked exposure to the herbicide with increased risk of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and laboratory studies have now begun to hone in on the mechanism by which the chemical acts on cell division to cause cancer. A Canadian study has linked glyphosate exposure in the three months before conception with increased risk for miscarriage and a 2002 study in Minnesota connected glyphosate exposure in farm families with increased incidence of attention deficit disorder.
Studies have also documented glyphosate’s toxicity to wildlife and especially to amphibians. Recently, studies conducted in small ponds with a variety of aquatic populations have presented evidence that levels of glyphosate currently applied can be highly lethal to many species of amphibians.
Glyphosate is the world’s most commonly used agricultural pesticide, and the second most-applied residential pesticide in the U.S. Recent evidence notwithstanding, glyphosate is considered less hazardous than other herbicides, an attitude that has increased the pesticide’s use and desensitized policymakers to its impacts. The spraying program in Colombia to eradicate coca and opium poppy-the raw materials for cocaine and heroin-is one example. A mixture of glyphosate and several inerts has been sprayed aerially over more than 1.3 million acres of farm, range and forest lands in that biologically diverse nation for five years. The U.S. Drug Czar recently noted that despite the spraying, which is funded by the U.S. government, the number of hectares in coca production has remained essentially unchanged.
A report on the impacts of the spraying produced for the Organization of American States has been sharply criticized by AIDA, an environmental organization, because the analysis failed to assess the impacts of deforestation resulting from movement of illicit crops into previously forested areas, adverse effects on endangered and endemic species, substantial collateral loss of food crops, livestock and fish, and human health effects.
The herbicide is used in forestry in North America to reduce grasses, shrubs and trees that compete with commercial timber trees. Glyphosate is also widely introduced into the environment and the human food chain through cultivation of transgenic, or genetically engineered crops that are tolerant to the herbicide and contain glyphosate residues. “Roundup Ready” crops have been responsible for increased use of the herbicide in recent years. Monsanto’s sales of glyphosate have expanded approximately 20% each year through the 1990s, accounting for 67% of the company’s total sales as of 200l. EPA estimates glyphosate use in the U.S. is 103-113 million pounds annually.