Tasmanian Times

The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. No price is too high for the privilege of owning yourself. ~ Friedrich Nietzsche

The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. No price is too high for the privilege of owning yourself. ~ Friedrich Nietzsche

Economy

Chronic diseases and chemical exposure. The Burden of Diabetes

The risk that a 50-year-old white woman will develop breast cancer has soared to 12 percent today from one percent in 1975. Likewise, asthma rates have tripled over the last 25 years and childhood leukemia is increasing by one percent per year.

Such statistics map the alarming rise in incidences of chronic diseases in U.S. populations over the past few decades and are increasingly thought to be linked to the ballooning number of chemicals, including pesticides, that people in the U.S. have been exposed to since the Second World War, reports The New York Times. (HERE)

In a symposium held in November this year, Dr. Philip Landrigan, chair of the Department of Preventive Medicine at New York’s Mount Sinai Hospital, noted that over 80,000 new chemicals have been developed since WWII, of which less than 20 percent have been tested for toxicity to children. One class of chemicals that creates concern — although the evidence is not definitive — is endocrine disruptors, which may fool the body into setting off hormonal changes and can increase incidences of breast cancer.

Endocrine disruptors are found in everyday things like plastic containers, cosmetics and household cleaning products.

Many pesticides — such as atrazine and endosulfan — are potent endocrine disruptors demonstrating health impacts including increased incidences of certain cancers and reproductive harm. The disease incidence numbers and the suffering of countless people speak for themselves:

Pesticide Action Network and other environmental health groups have been calling for adoption of a precautionary approach by regulatory agencies and industry to protect everyone from unnecessary exposures to chemicals that appear likely to cause a wide range of health harms.

Among those who attended Dr. Landrigan’s talk was New York City chef Rob Endelman. He was moved to write about endocrine disruptors in his popular cooking and healthy eating blog, The Delicious Truth, pointing out that until precaution becomes the regulatory standard, consumers must claim their right to a healthy environment by choosing safer products and buying food that is free of pesticides and other harmful additives. “Don’t we owe it to our kids,” chef Rob concluded, “to become more familiar with these issues?”

And,

The world is in the midst of a Type II Diabetes epidemic.

In 2008 and 2009, many new studies have been published concerning links between pollutants and the onset of Type II Diabetes. The key study which got world scientists looking into these links in the last several years was the one conducted by Dr. Duk-Hee Lee (full text of that study is below). She has also published subsequent studies on this topic. Here is a quote from Dr. Miquel Porta from the prestigious journal ‘The Lancet’ regarding Dr. Lee’s findings:

“Another striking finding in Lee and co-workers’ study is that there was no association between obesity and diabetes in individuals with non-detectable levels of persistent organic pollutants. Obesity was a risk factor for diabetes only if people had blood concentrations of these pollutants above a certain level. This finding might imply that virtually all the risk of diabetes conferred by obesity is attributable to persistent organic pollutants, and that obesity is only a vehicle for such chemicals. This possibility is shocking.”

Here also, is the full text of Dr. Porta’s letter to The Lancet regarding that important Lee study. I hope you will share this email with anyone who has not seen it and might find it of interest for their research. All the best to you.

For Land and Life,

John H.W. Hummel,

Pollution/Health Researcher,

611 Eighth Street,

Nelson, British Columbia,

Canada V1L 3A6

(250) 505-2165

jhwhummel@shaw.ca

The Lancet

August 12, 2006

Persistent organic pollutants and the burden of diabetes
Miquel Porta a, b, mporta@imim.es

Studies from the USA1,2 have drawn attention to the possibility that persistent organic pollutants might contribute to cause diabetes.3-6 Dioxins, polychlorinated biphenyls, dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene (DDE, the main degradation product of the pesticide dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane [DDT]), trans-nonachlor, hexachlorobenzene, and the hexachlorociclohexanes (including lindane) are some of the persistent organic pollutants most commonly found in human beings.7,8 Lipophilic and highly resistant to degradation, these pollutants are present in many fatty foods, usually at low concentrations.9 Because they contaminate virtually all people, even if they confer only a low individual risk of diabetes, these pollutants might have a substantial overall population effect.10

Dae-Hee Lee and colleagues’ recent study1 is the first to analyse serum concentrations of persistent organic pollutants and fasting plasma-glucose concentrations in a random sample of a general population. Previous studies have focused on selected populations, often occupationally or accidentally exposed to high levels of such pollutants. Not studying a less-exposed group might have led to a blurring of risks. Widely prevalent exposures are particularly difficult to isolate as causal agents.3 Concentrations of persistent organic pollutants in the study are typical of levels in many societies globally, and the risk of diabetes seems higher than ever. After adjustment for age, sex, race, income, lipids, body-mass index, and waist circumference, Lee and colleagues showed that the prevalence of diabetes was more than five times higher in groups with higher concentrations of polychlorinated biphenyl 153, oxychlordane, or trans-nonachlor than in those with lower concentrations. The prevalence of diabetes doubled and tripled in those in the upper quintiles of DDE and other compounds.1

Lee and co-workers adjusted their results by multiple factors.1 Such adjustment is fine if we wish to isolate the “pure” effect of persistent organic pollutants on diabetes separately from that of obesity, age, or income. However, adjustment by body-mass index and waist circumference might be an overadjustment, because dietary fats are the main source of persistent organic pollutants for human beings, and the body burden of these lipophilic chemicals often increases with increasing body-mass index. Crude or less adjusted prevalence odds ratios would provide information about the actual prevalence of diabetes in people with specific concentrations of these pollutants. Indeed, a priority should be to assess the validity of the study’s1 main finding: diabetes might be several times more prevalent in people with higher concentrations of these pollutants than in those with lower or no detectable levels. Causal inferences need to be extremely cautious. The cross-sectional nature of Lee’s study, in particular, prompts assessment of the direction of the association: might diabetes cause a higher accumulation of persistent organic pollutants? Unfortunately, data for the toxicokinetics of these pollutants in patients with diabetes are scarce, while many studies indicate that most persistent organic pollutants are resistant to active metabolism.1,7,8 Even if diabetes is some day shown to be the first major disease favouring accumulation of persistent organic pollutants, patients and clinicians would need to cope with the consequences: individuals with diabetes would be more likely to experience the adverse effects of these pollutants.6

Another striking finding in Lee and co-workers’ study is that there was no association between obesity and diabetes in individuals with non-detectable levels of persistent organic pollutants. Obesity was a risk factor for diabetes only if people had blood concentrations of these pollutants above a certain level. This finding might imply that virtually all the risk of diabetes conferred by obesity is attributable to persistent organic pollutants, and that obesity is only a vehicle for such chemicals. This possibility is shocking. Standard measures were used for body-mass index, but weight changes were not considered. Weight gains and weight losses in individuals with and without diabetes will be difficult to measure in large studies. But cohort studies with repeated measurements of individual weight and blood could help solve the puzzle.

An association between diabetes and blood concentrations of polychlorinated biphenyls has also been reported in a study from Michigan.2 Although the study was prospective, diabetes was self-assessed and participants had had accidental food contamination 30 years previously. Women in groups with higher serum concentrations of polychlorinated biphenyls had a twofold increased incidence of diabetes (again adjusted by several factors, including age and body-mass index). The crude incidence also doubled in men with the highest levels of polychlorinated biphenyls, but adjusted results were non-significant.

Exposure to many persistent organic pollutants has fluctuated in the past 60 years: birth cohort and period effects are plausible. But time-series and age-period cohort analyses of the potential link between persistent organic pollutants and diabetes are not available. Ecological and individual-based studies would allow estimations to be made of the fraction of diabetes that is influenced by persistent organic pollutants, other environmental agents, genetic factors such as susceptibility haplotypes, and by their interactions.3-6

The causal role of persistent organic pollutants in diabetes is more likely to be contributory and indirect-eg, through immunosuppressant, non-genotoxic, perhaps epigenetic mechanisms.3-7,11,12 A proper understanding of how genes and persistent organic pollutants interact to cause diabetes is important both for primary prevention and to advance basic knowledge on diabetogenic mechanisms. When assessing the mechanisms linking diet, fat intake, obesity, and diabetes, persistent organic pollutants should also be considered. We need a better understanding of the burden of diabetes that these pollutants might contribute to cause.

I declare that I have no conflict of interest.

NOTES: AFFILIATION:
a Institut Municipal d’Investigació Mèdica, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, E-08003 Barcelona, Spain;
b University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA

References

1 DH Lee, IK Lee, K Song, A strong dose-response relation between serum concentrations of persistent organic pollutants and diabetes: results from the national health and examination survey 1999-2002, Diabetes Care, Vol. 29, 2006, p. 1638-1644, .

2 O Vasiliu, L Cameron, J Gardiner, P DeGuire, W Karmaus, Polybrominated biphenyls, polychlorinated biphenyls, body weight, and incidence of adult-onset diabetes mellitus, Epidemiology, Vol. 17, 2006, p. 352-359, .

3 M Rewers, P Zimmet, The rising tide of childhood type 1 diabetes: what is the elusive environmental trigger?, Lancet, Vol. 364, 2004, p. 1645-1647, .

4 D Daneman, Type 1 diabetes, Lancet, Vol. 367, 2006, p. 847-858, .

5 RB Remillard, NJ Bunce, Linking dioxins to diabetes: epidemiology and biologic plausibility, Environ Health Perspect, Vol. 110, 2002, p. 853-858, .

6 MP Longnecker, JL Daniels, Environmental contaminants as etiologic factors for diabetes, Environ Health Perspect, Vol. 109, Iss. suppl 6, 2001, p. 871-876, .

7 LG Hansen, Stepping backward to improve assessment of PCB congener toxicities, Environ Health Perspect, Vol. 106, Iss. suppl 1, 1998, p. 171-189, .

8 Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Environmental Health, Third National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals, http://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/3rd/, 2005, (accessed July 13, 2006), .

9 KS Schafer, SE Kegley, Persistent toxic chemicals in the food supply, J Epidemiol Community Health, Vol. 56, 2002, p. 813-817, .

10 M Porta, E Zumeta, Implementing the Stockholm treaty on POPs, Occupat Environ Med, Vol. 59, 2002, p. 651-652, .

11 A Luch, Nature and nurture-lessons from chemical carcinogenesis, Nat Rev Cancer, Vol. 5, 2005, p. 113-125, .

12 P Alonso-Magdalena, S Morimoto, C Ripoll, The estrogenic effect of bisphenol A disrupts pancreatic ?-cell function in vivo and induces insulin resistance, Environ Health Perspect, Vol. 114, 2006, p. 106-112,

Author Credits: [show_post_categories parent="no" parentcategory="writers" show = "category" hyperlink="yes"]
17 Comments

17 Comments

  1. ned

    January 8, 2010 at 11:26 am

    #19 you are not alone, I live in rural tassie and live next door to a “low-browed, red-necked knuckle-draggers” who seems to think that since he is “3rd generation” he is like royalty and can do whatever he likes, particularly when it comes to him and his fellow “low-browed, red-necked knuckle-draggers” mates and forestry. He hates “greenies” but can not articulate why. Unfortunately these types represent the forestry industry in my part of the world and seem to be working a closed shop when it comes to converting the local area into plantations. AND their use of chemicals is very gungho, not caring about water catchments downstream. But to them its all OK because they are making money out of it. This is the real Tasmania!

  2. Neither Clean or Green

    January 7, 2010 at 4:40 pm

    Re #16 I also have considered the notion of a class action. However the claim I would put forward would be how the Tas state government is being unconstitutional on many fronts.

    As for our families being misled by state government advertising the “clean green’ moniker, that would be a case for the ACCC.

    As far as I am, and many other people around the state are concerned, the Tas state government and the (weak as water) opposition are traitors to the state and country. They place corporate greed first, and the citizens of the state very last.

  3. amyb

    January 7, 2010 at 1:48 pm

    I’ve lived in many places other than Tasmania, but my tenure in rural Tasmania with a water supply that is drawn downstream from the “forestry operations” in the south-central forests is the first place I’ve ever lived where drinking the water periodically makes me physically sick, even after boiling.

    Bailing out is not an option, I choose to stay to fight the moronic laws and practices which have allowed this to happen. “F*ck off back to where you came from” ain’t going to work with me, sorry guys. I decided to move here when I visited with my parents on a 1967 holiday. It took 28 years of work to finally enact that decision and anger doesn’t begin to describe my feelings at what a bunch of low-browed, red-necked knuckle-draggers have been encouraged to do to the wonderful place I remember from back then.

  4. David Obendorf

    January 7, 2010 at 10:08 am

    For those similarly suckered into the Tasmania’s “Clean & Green” image, I have a couple of suggestions:

    1. Check out “Pollution Information Tasmania” and the link to the Sourcewatch wikipedia website; it was set up mid-2009. [Please provide your intelligence and research knowledge to those involved in building the site.]

    2. Talk to the local pollies you voted for or will vote for in 2010 and ask them whether they are committed to the REALITY of a genuinely ‘Clean & Green’ Tasmania or just the marketing RHETORIC?

    Tasmania has traded on this image with minimal compliance – e.g. antibiotic usage in the salmon industry, contaminated sites converted into suburbia, persistent ortganic pollution of wildlife, heavy metal residues particularly mercury in Derwent River wild fish and historical discharge of polychlorinated biphenyls into the pristine environment after hydro-electirity impoundments….Tasmania, explore the corruption.

    I’ve had enough too, but I’m sticking around because we can stop this Government-sponsored charlatanry.

  5. Neither Clean or Green

    January 5, 2010 at 11:25 am

    Re-#8. I was suckered into the ‘clean & green’ image been portrayed by the marketing hype that prompted my family to move here from the mainland.
    What a disappointment it turned out to be.The state quite honestly has been trashed and destroyed by the state government.
    We are stuck here for the forseeable future, but as soon as we have the chance, we will leave never to return ever again. It is quite ironic that the place we left behind on the maniland, turned out to be cleaner and greener than Tas.

  6. Steve

    January 3, 2010 at 10:03 pm

    10; What a fascinating line of discussion Gerry. I’d never really thought about it much but it’s certainly interesting. I’ve a nasty feeling that PC will prevent open discourse, which is sad.
    Some might see Gaia using a natural means to regulate the growth of a destructive species?

  7. Valleywatcher

    January 3, 2010 at 6:29 pm

    Re #8 Good luck finding somewhere to avoid this very pervasive stuff, Greenwitch00. The CBD of Melbourne or Sydney might be a good option!

    I think I’ll stay here do all I possibly can to change the way things are done.

  8. Russell

    January 1, 2010 at 7:13 pm

    Re #4
    “Sunday 27th railway workers sprayed the line in very heavy winds, [is it still double pay]…”

    I can’t answer the pay rate question, but I do know that no-one at DPIWE will answer your call about “Spray Drift” (1800 005 244) on weekends because the office is shut and that’s probably why most spraying seems to be done on weekends.

    As someone who is ChemCert qualified I can tell you that it is inadvisable and illegal to spray in heavy winds.

    Were the railway sprayers qualified?

  9. Gerry Mander

    January 1, 2010 at 12:16 pm

    Research in animals, however, is robust. It indicates that BPA may disrupt reproductive tract development, sex-specific neuroendocrine circuitry and fertility, even at doses considered relevant for humans.

    For several years I have been trying to get informed opinion on the rise of the number of gay people in the world. The only answer I get is, ‘that now the closet door has opened, they are coming out. They were always there.’

    I am not homophobic, but quite frankly don’t believe this answer. I think their numbers ARE on the increase.

    Originally I suggested that this might have some bearing on women taking ‘the pill’, which is basically an artificial hormone and more stable than the natural ones, and the effect of missing their daily dosage increasing their fertility. However, resumption of the the pill, or residual hormones, could than affect their pregnancy in the earliest stages where the sex of the embryo is being determined. The natural processes pulling one way, and the artificial hormones pulling another, so that the gender of the baby becomes a compromise?

    Now we add to this pre-natal soup surrounding the embryo the possible effects of 80 000 chemicals we come into contact within our daily lives, many of which we know have deletrious consequences for many small animals and reptiles, are poisons or are deliberately structures to kill or affect certain aspects of growth or development of ‘pests’.

    Seeing that much of the research is funded by the manufacturers of these chemicals, and in America, the Data Protection Laws actually PREVENT research into cancer forming effects of some chemicals, and specifically atrizine, can we ever trust the outcomes of this research?

    The increase of the number of gays since the seventies, as far as I can judge, may just be one symptom of what we are subjecting ourselves to. (I spent several years in all-male boarding schools and later at Uni, but there didn’t seem to be anywhere near the number of transgender people around in those days.) I wonder if there is such a frequency among the less advanced nations or tribes where they do not come into contact with such a proliferation of chemicals? It would make an interesting and maybe a telling piece of research – provided, of course, that this were an independent study!

  10. Alison Bleaney

    December 31, 2009 at 9:46 pm

    Administrator of EPA Lisa Jackson said “At the same time, I will continue to fight for comprehensive reform of the nation’s outdated chemical management laws that ensures a full assessment of the safety of chemicals on the market today and effective actions to reduce risks where chemicals do not meet the safety standard. Chemical safety is an issue of utmost importance, especially for children, and this will remain a top priority for me and our agency going forward.”
    Why have the Australian (and Tasmanian) regulators not also taken this course of action?
    Dr Alison Bleaney

    EPA Announces Actions to Address Chemicals of Concern, Including Phthalates

    Agency continues efforts to work for comprehensive reform of toxic substance laws

    WASHINGTON – As part of Administrator Lisa P. Jackson’s commitment to strengthen and reform chemical management, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today announced a series of actions on four chemicals raising serious health or environmental concerns, including phthalates. For the first time, EPA intends to establish a “Chemicals of Concern” list and is beginning a process that may lead to regulations requiring significant risk reduction measures to protect human health and the environment. The agency’s actions represent its determination to use its authority under the existing Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to the fullest extent possible, recognizing EPA’s strong belief that the 1976 law is both outdated and in need of reform.

    In addition to phthalates, the chemicals EPA is addressing today are short-chain chlorinated paraffins, polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) and perfluorinated chemicals, including PFOA. These chemicals are used in the manufacture of a wide array of products and have raised a range of health and environmental concerns.

    EPA also recently announced that three U.S. companies agreed to phase out DecaBDE, a widely used fire retardant chemical that may potentially cause cancer and may impact brain function.

    “The American people are understandably concerned about the chemicals making their way into our products, our environment and our bodies,” said Administrator Jackson. “We will continue to use our authority under existing law to protect Americans from exposure to harmful chemicals and to highlight chemicals we believe warrant concern. At the same time, I will continue to fight for comprehensive reform of the nation’s outdated chemical management laws that ensures a full assessment of the safety of chemicals on the market today and effective actions to reduce risks where chemicals do not meet the safety standard. Chemical safety is an issue of utmost importance, especially for children, and this will remain a top priority for me and our agency going forward.”

    On September 29, 2009, Administrator Jackson outlined a set of agency principles to help inform legislative reform and announced that EPA would act on a number of widely studied chemicals that may pose threats to human health. When TSCA was passed in 1976, there were 60,000 chemicals on the inventory of existing chemicals. Since that time, EPA has only successfully restricted or banned five existing chemicals and has only required testing on another two hundred existing chemicals. An additional 20,000 chemicals have entered the marketplace for a total of more than 80,000 chemicals on the TSCA inventory.

    The actions announced today include:

    • Adding phthalates and PBDE chemicals to the concern list.
    • Beginning a process that could lead to risk reductions actions under section 6 of TSCA for several phthalates, short-chain chlorinated paraffins, and perfluorinated chemicals.
    • Reinforcing the DecaBDE phaseout – which will take place over three years – with requirements to ensure that any new uses of PBDEs are reviewed by EPA prior to returning to the market.

    This is the first time EPA has used TSCA’s authority to list chemicals that “may present an unreasonable risk of injury to health and the environment.” The decision to list the chemicals further signals this administration’s commitment to aggressively use the tools at its disposal under TSCA. Inclusion on the list publicly signals EPA’s strong concern about the risks that those chemicals pose and the agency’s intention to manage those risks. Once listed, chemical companies can provide information to the agency if they want to demonstrate that their chemical does not pose an unreasonable risk.

    More information on EPA’s legislative reform principles and a fact sheet on the complete set of actions on the four chemicals: http://www.epa.gov/oppt/existingchemicals

  11. sanguine

    December 31, 2009 at 1:03 am

    #6 Ho Ho Ha Ha !!
    Steady on the shandy now!

  12. jim

    December 30, 2009 at 4:08 pm

    #4….This can’t be true ?…. I thought only forestry sprayed insecticides / herbicides in Tasmania..

  13. alison bleaney

    December 30, 2009 at 12:46 pm

    This fell out of PANNUPS, 30 Dec 2009.
    Honesty and integrity in investigating adverse effects of certain practices allowed and affirmed by Governments? And the consequences in financial, social and health costs to so many communities- non-consenting, not even aware of what is happening around them?

    Independant scientific research used to be exactly that. He who pays the piper……

    -Syngenta setting the terms of Honeybee research?
    Over one third of U.S. honeybees have vanished recently in a phenomena called colony
    collapse disorder (CCD). While the causal factors appear to be complex and
    interactive, exposure to one class of common pesticides, neonicotinoids, is
    associated with the die-offs. [
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/may/23/wildlife.endangeredspecies
    ]Honeybees are vital to agriculture for the pollination services they provide, so
    scientists and government agencies are mobilizing significant funding streams to
    look into CCD’s causes. Meanwhile, Syngenta’s pesticide thiamethoxam, a
    neonicotinoid, which scientists theorize affects the development of the bee larvae
    and the queen’s production of eggs, is among the bee-toxic pesticides on scientists’
    radar. Bayer’s imidicloprid and clothianidin (also neonicotinoids) are also
    implicated as among the causal factors behind CCD.

    A recent “Guardian” article [
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/oct/14/bees-scientific-research ]
    sheds light on how chemical companies funding science have a way of dictating
    research agendas. Warwick University is researching the “complex of interacting
    factors” – a study commissioned by the government’s Biotechnology and Biological
    Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) “in partnership with Syngenta,” who is funding 10%
    of the project. The university says it intends to investigate “parasitic diseases
    caused by the varroa mite” and the “link between these diseases and the quality of
    pollen and nectar that the bees are feeding on,” but fails to mention pesticides in
    its press release. Leading Warwick researcher Dr. David Chandler confirmed that
    there is “no pesticide component in it at all.” According to the Guardian, the BBSRC
    doesn’t reveal who its committee members are and how they allocate public money, but
    in 2003 this information was publicly available on their website and listed
    executives from Syngenta, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, Merck Sharp
    & Dohme, Pfizer, Genetix plc, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Celltech and Unilever.

  14. warren goodearth

    December 28, 2009 at 6:58 pm

    I live in the midlands { the foodbowl of tasmania}
    This month cropduster’s bombarded all the poppy crops for days on end, {poppy food??] hundreds of bees died, we don’t have many, in fact they import them for pollination here. Sunday 27th railway workers sprayed the line in very heavy winds, [is it still double pay] we also had the council spray our fence lines and electric poles. I thought I was going to have a healthy lifestyle in the country.
    NOT THIS COUNTRY.

  15. roger

    December 28, 2009 at 4:03 pm

    wow. That’s actually pretty damning and seemingly credible, unlike all the b.s. chain emails that attribute all diabetes – because these d—bags don’t know the difference betwee T1 and T2 – to artificial sweeteners. science usually trumps conspiracy, eh. Good article.

  16. Alison Bleaney

    December 28, 2009 at 12:37 am

    Assessing risks from bisphenol-a. Evaluating human health risks from endocrine disruptors such as BPA is difficult, but animal studies suggest trouble is afoot. American Scientist
    http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/2010/1/assessing-risks-from-bisphenol-a/1

    I quote from this excellent article…and for BPA insert atrazine, simazine, endosulfan, alpha-cypermethrin, carbendazim… the list goes on and on…
    The messages to our public health bodies and chemical regulators are very clear.
    The risks are just not worth taking…with OUR health and future.

    “It is not ethically sound to expose people to a suspect compound and watch what happens. Even if it were, it would take many years for our slow-to-mature species to display any effects from the encounters. Research in animals, however, is robust. It indicates that BPA may disrupt reproductive tract development, sex-specific neuroendocrine circuitry and fertility, even at doses considered relevant for humans. Since laboratory animals are used in other aspects of human health research, including drug development, it is reasonable that evidence obtained from them should play a central role in any comprehensive human-risk assessment for BPA. When combined with human epidemiological studies, cell-culture assays and high-throughput genomic studies, evidence from experimental animals is likely the best tool we have to make predictions about human risk. That is especially true for the long-term consequences of early exposures during critical developmental windows. ”
    and
    “It is time to develop a clear and comprehensive strategy for assessing the potential public health consequences of endocrine disruptors such as BPA that may contribute only economic value. Failing to do so may put future generations at unnecessary risk. While the international debate over BPA’s safety continues, we continue to be exposed, not only to BPA, but also to the many compounds like it.”
    Dr Alison Bleaney

  17. john hayward

    December 27, 2009 at 3:28 pm

    One correlation that can easily be demonstrated is that between a wide variety of POPs, the litany of diseases associated with them, and rule by politicians critically dependent on corporate donations from chemical industries.

    It just needs a modest government grant to verify it.

    John Hayward

Leave a Reply

To Top