Monsanto's Roundup Linked to Cancer - Again

Monday, 06 October 2014
 By Jeff Ritterman, M.D., Truthout

A brilliant and celebrated inventor, John Franz, gave us an herbicide, Roundup, which has changed the face of agriculture. This herbicide has become the foundation for an entirely novel approach to farming - biotech agriculture - that has expanded rapidly throughout the globe.

Monsanto makes seeds for soy, corn, canola, cotton, alfalfa and sugar beets that are genetically engineered to be tolerant to Roundup. The seeds are marketed in 120 countries. Throughout the world, Roundup is sprayed heavily as a weed killer without fear of damaging the cash crops, which have been engineered to survive the herbicide's effects.

"The change in how agriculture is produced has brought, frankly, a change in the profile of diseases. We've gone from a pretty healthy population to one with a high rate of cancer, birth defects and illnesses seldom seen before."

Roundup seemed, at first, to be the perfect herbicide. It blocks the ESPS synthase enzyme, which prevents the synthesis of amino acids that plants need for growth. Since animals don't have this enzyme, it was initially hypothesized that they would be safe from Roundup's effects.

Unfortunately, Roundup has now been shown to affect much more than the EPSP synthase enzyme. The herbicide has been proven to cause birth defects in vertebrates, including in humans, and it may also be the cause of a fatal kidney disease epidemic.

An increasing number of studies are now linking the herbicide to cancer.

Roundup Linked to Increased Cancer in "Soy Republic"
Roundup is now heavily sprayed in what is known as the "Soy Republic," an area of Latin America larger than the state of California. This region has undergone a profound transformation since genetically modified (GM) crops were first introduced in 1996. Some 125 million acres in Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Uruguay and Paraguay are now devoted to GM soy production.

Doctors serving these areas have documented an alarming increase in cancers. A group of dedicated physicians formed an organization, Doctors of Fumigated Towns. They held a national conference in August of 2010 in Córdoba, the center of Argentina's soy region. The Department of Medical Sciences of the National University at Córdoba sponsored the conference. An estimated 160 doctors from throughout the country attended.

Dr. Medardo Avila Vazquez, a pediatrician specializing in environmental health, explained his concerns:
"The change in how agriculture is produced has brought, frankly, a change in the profile of diseases. We've gone from a pretty healthy population to one with a high rate of cancer, birth defects and illnesses seldom seen before. What we have complained about for years was confirmed and especially what doctors say about the sprayed towns and areas affected by industrial agriculture. Cancer cases are multiplying as never before in areas with massive use of pesticides."

Dr. Avila Vazquez blamed the biotech agricultural corporations for placing their profits over the public's health:

"The tobacco companies denied the link between smoking and cancer, and took decades to recognize the truth. The biotech and agrochemical corporations are the same as the tobacco industry; they lie and favor business over the health of the population."

It was the health of the population that concerned Dr. Damian Verzeñassi, professor of social and environmental health from the National University at Rosario. In 2010, he began a house-to-house epidemiological study of 65,000 people in Santa Fe, also in Argentina's soy region. He found cancer rates two to four times higher than the national average, with increases in breast, prostate and lung cancers.\

Dr. Verzeñassi commented on his findings: "Cancer has skyrocketed in the last fifteen years."

Much the same was found in Chaco, Argentina's poorest province. In 2012, two villages were compared, the heavily sprayed farming village of Avia Terai and the non-sprayed ranching village of Charadai. In the farming village, 31 percent of residents had a family member with cancer while only 3 percent of residents in the ranching village had one.

Carlos Fria lives in Avia Terai. He has complained about glyphosate spraying in close proximity to his home:
"If the wind changes, the agrochemicals come into the house. My uncle just died of cancer. My wife too, passed away from cancer. Now many, many people are dying of cancer. It didn't used to be like that. In my opinion, this has to do with the poison they put on the fields."

Roundup Linked to Lymphoma
Research has also been done in the United States, Canada, Europe, Australia and New Zealand investigating possible links between glyphosate, Roundup's active ingredient, and cancer. A large number of studies have focused on glyphosate's possible association with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.

Scientists from the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) have analyzed studies spanning almost three decades. The IARC is the branch of the World Health Organization that promotes cancer research. Scientists throughout the world with skills in epidemiology, laboratory sciences and biostatistics are brought together to identify the causes of cancer so that preventive measures may be instituted. The agency views cancers as linked, directly or indirectly, to environmental factors.

The research shows that Roundup is linked to a host of cancers in those living in the heavily sprayed regions of Latin America. It has also been linked to B cell lymphoma, and to brain cancer.

In April of 2014, scientists at the IARC published their review of twenty-five years of research on the relationship between pesticide exposure and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. They found a positive association between organo-phosphorus herbicides, like glyphosate, and this cancer. The B cell lymphoma sub-type, in particular, was strongly associated with glyphosate exposure.
 
Roundup Linked to Brain Cancer
The linkage to lymphoma is the most recent research raising concerns about glyphosate's connection to cancer. Scientists from the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, a branch of the US Department of Health and Human Services, specialize in illnesses caused by toxic substances. They published the results of the US Atlantic Coast Childhood Brain Cancer Study in 2009. Children with brain cancer from Florida, New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania were compared to age matched controls. The researchers found that if either parent had been exposed to Roundup during the two years before the child's birth, the chances of the child developing brain cancer doubled.

Roundup and Cancer: Human Observations Summarized
The research shows that Roundup is linked to a host of cancers in those living in the heavily sprayed regions of Latin America. It has also been linked to B cell lymphoma, and to brain cancer.

While the epidemiological studies show close correlation, they cannot prove causality. The gold standard for scientific proof is a randomized controlled trial, which would be unethical in this instance. You cannot ethically expose humans to an herbicide. Scientists therefore use a variety of experimental models to assess cancer risk.

Roundup Causes DNA Damage,  Errors During Cell Division
Cancer risk can be evaluated by experiments that measure Roundup's ability to induce DNA damage.
One of the initial steps in the development of cancers is often damage to our DNA. Each of our cells gets its operating instructions from its DNA. If the DNA is damaged, the faulty operating instructions can re-program cells to divide rapidly and chaotically. When this happens, cells become transformed into cancers.

A number of experiments have been done using various animal models, all showing the same results: after exposure to Roundup, cells exhibited DNA damage. This was true in fruit fly larvae, in mice, in the blood cells of the European eel and in the lymphocytes of cows.

Another experimental model that has been used to judge glyphosate's cancer risk focuses on the herbicide's impact on cell division. Cells are vulnerable to being turned into cancers if an error is made during this delicate process. In the process of cell division, the DNA must be copied precisely. Each daughter cell must receive from its parent cell an identical copy of the DNA. If a mistake is made, the daughter cells will receive faulty DNA copies. Cells with damaged DNA can turn into cancers.

In a 2004 study done at the National Scientific Research Center and the University of Pierre and Marie Curie in France, Roundup caused significant errors in the cell division of sea urchin embryos. The scientists commented that these abnormalities are hallmarks of cancer and delivered a particularly chilling warning: The concentration of Roundup needed to cause these errors was 500 to 4,000 times lower than the dose to which humans may be exposed by aerial spraying or handling of the herbicide.

Roundup Damages Human DNA
The most worrisome of the DNA studies are the ones that show DNA damage in humans.

Dr. Fernando Manas, a biologist at the National University of Rio Cuarto in Argentina, has been investigating the effects of pesticides for years. He believes that glyphosate spraying is causing cancer by inducing DNA damage. His research has documented genetic damage in those exposed. When Dr. Manas studied pesticide sprayers working in the soy industry in Córdoba, he found significantly more DNA damage in their lymphocytes than in those of an unexposed group of controls. Roundup was one of the most commonly used pesticides.

The pesticide sprayers in Córdoba, the Ecuadorians living in Sucumbíos, and the normal volunteers all developed Roundup-induced DNA damage in their lymphocytes.

Genetics researchers from the Pontifical Catholic University in Quito, Ecuador evaluated Ecuadorians living in the Sucumbíos district in northern Ecuador for evidence of DNA damage. This area was heavily sprayed with Roundup by the Colombian government to eradicate illicit crops. Those exposed to the herbicide developed a number of acute symptoms, including abdominal pain, vomiting, diarrhea, fever, heart palpitations, headaches, dizziness, numbness, insomnia, depression, shortness of breath, blurred vision, burning of eyes, blisters and rash. When compared to a control group, they also showed significantly more DNA damage.

Interestingly, scientists have known since 1998 that when normal human lymphocytes were exposed to Roundup in a test tube, the lymphocytes developed DNA damage.

The pesticide sprayers in Córdoba, the Ecuadorians living in Sucumbíos, and the normal volunteers all developed Roundup-induced DNA damage in their lymphocytes. A cancer of the lymphocytes is known as a "lymphoma," the very same type of cancer that the International Agency for Research on Cancer showed to be strongly associated with glyphosate exposure.

Roundup Boosts Cancer in Tissue Culture Studies
Another method that scientists have used to assess Roundup's cancer risk is to expose cells grown in "tissue culture" to the herbicide. Sheets of cells are grown on a small dish with nutrients. Glyphosate is added and its effects are observed.

In 2010, researchers in India exposed mouse skin cells grown in tissue culture to Roundup. When the herbicide was added, the cells became cancerous.

Scientists in Thailand studied the impact of Roundup on human estrogen-responsive breast cancer cells in tissue culture. They published their results in 2013. Hormone-responsive breast cancer cells are known to grow when exposed to estrogen. Roundup also stimulated these cells to grow. The herbicide was able to bind to the cancer's estrogen receptors, thus mimicking the effects of estrogen and accelerating tumor growth.

Roundup's effects have been assessed in studies with a variety of test animals for more than three decades.
One of the earliest studies was done in 1979-1981, under the auspices of the United Nations Environmental Program, the International Labor Organization and the World Health Organization. Rats exposed to low levels of the herbicide developed testicular cancer. A larger dose did not produce the cancer. Unfortunately, at the time of the experiment, it was not understood that certain substances have more potent effects at lower doses than at higher doses. The evaluators erroneously dismissed the results showing the low-dose effect.

In a study from the Institute of Biology at the University of Caen in France, researchers studied glyphosate's effects on rats. Originally published in 2012, the resulting report was retracted after the biotech agriculture industry complained. After extensive review failed to show any fraud or problem with the data, the report was re-published in 2014. In this study, Roundup was shown to double the incidence of mammary gland tumors. These cancers developed much faster in rats exposed to Roundup than in controls. There was also an increase in cancers of the pituitary gland.

Rounding Up the Evidence
Epidemiological studies in humans, in the soy regions of Argentina and in Europe, the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand have shown Roundup to be linked to an increase in cancer risk. There is a strong association between Roundup and B cell lymphoma, brain cancer and a variety of other cancers in those living in heavily sprayed areas.

In addition to these epidemiological observations, laboratory studies have shown that Roundup causes DNA damage, disturbs cell division, increases cancer growth in tissue culture and induces cancer when fed to test animals.

Proving Causality
Does the evidence linking Roundup to cancer prove causality? In the 1964 landmark Surgeon General's Report, which for the very first time linked tobacco to cancer, Surgeon General Dr. Luther Terry presented criteria for the establishment of a cause and effect relationship in a scientific study.

To meet Dr. Terry's criteria, an association must be strong, specific and consistent. Cause must precede effect. And the association must be biologically plausible.

Biotech agriculture's most powerful backer, it seems, is the government of the United States.

How well does the association between Roundup and cancer fit these criteria?

Roundup exposure is consistently and specifically associated with precancerous abnormalities in a wide variety of experimental settings. Epidemiological observations show a tight linkage between glyphosate and cancer. In the laboratory research, as well as in the epidemiological studies in the field, exposure to the herbicide precedes the development of the abnormalities. There are plausible biological mechanisms that explain how glyphosate can transform cells into cancers.

In citing the Surgeon General's report, Drs. Wild and Seber, in their highly regarded statistics textbook, Chance Encounters, provide an example of a strong association. If an "illness is four times as likely among people exposed to a possible cause as it is for those who are not exposed," the association is considered strong.

Most of the glyphosate exposure experiments and epidemiological observations show a doubling of cancer risk. This leaves some room for doubt.

But who, given the science, would want to expose their loved ones to Roundup?

The State of the Science vs. the Science of the State
Roundup has now been conclusively proven to cause birth defects and to be closely linked to cancer. If we do not want this herbicide to accumulate in our water, land, and food, we need to stop using it.

In the final sad irony, when the cancer cells reach their growth peak, they kill their host and die in the process.

The science is clear, but powerful economic interests have, thus far, prevailed. The executives of the biotech agricultural corporations and their backers have ignored or denied the science documenting Roundup's harm.
Biotech agriculture's most powerful backer, it seems, is the government of the United States.

This official policy was explained in a 2010 US State Department cable from former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton:

"Our biotech outreach objectives for 2010 are to increase access to, and markets for, biotech as a means to help address the underlying causes of the food crisis, and to promote agricultural technology's role in mitigating climate change and increasing biofuel production."

The US government has been willing to exercise its muscle in support of the biotech agricultural corporations.
In El Salvador, for example, the United States recently pressured the government to buy Monsanto's GM seeds or risk losing $277 million in development aid. El Salvador refused and stood firm, preferring to buy the seeds from its own struggling farmers.

Cancer's Lessons
There is a disturbing parallel between the exponential growth of biotech agriculture and the spread of a cancer in the human body.

Cancers are cells that reproduce rapidly and haphazardly with no regard for the greater good of the organism. Cancer cells consume valuable energy, starving out normal cells. They grow so wildly and so quickly that they crowd out their neighbors. They send off emissaries to start new cancer colonies. They make harmful substances that damage healthy cells. They spread relentlessly. In the final sad irony, when the cancer cells reach their growth peak, they kill their host and die in the process.

Like a cancer, biotech agriculture has crowded out its neighbors and is spreading relentlessly. Also like a cancer, it makes harmful substances. Roundup is one of them. As more acreage comes under GM cultivation, we can expect Roundup use to continue to increase.

Roundup kills plants, causes birth defects in vertebrates, and is linked to cancer. Can a living planet withstand the continuous assault from this poison any more than the human body can withstand the attack from an aggressive cancer?

Do we need to fight biotech agriculture with the same persistence, commitment and force that we bring to bear in battling cancers?

Monsanto the devil’s Roundup (Glyphosate) Linked to Parkinson’s and Similar Diseases

Elizabeth Renter | Activist Post

We already know the links between herbicides and sterility in men, birth defects, mental illness, obesity and cancer—but now we have something new to add to the nasty effects of pesticides list — Parkinson’s disease and similar neurodegenerative conditions.

New research, published in the journal Neurotoxicology and Teratology, indicates a connection between a component in Monsanto the devil’s Roundup and Parkinson’s disease. Glyphosate is said to induce cell death, with frightening repercussions.

GreenMedInfo.com reports the study was investigating the links between herbicides (weed killers) and brain damage. These chemicals, the study’s authors say, “have been recognized as the main environmental factor associated with neurodegenerative disorders,” like Parkinson’s.

Parkinson’s disease is a degenerative nervous system disease. It slowly progresses as time goes on with common symptoms like tremors, rigidity, difficulty walking, poor posture, lack of movement, and slowness of movement, according to the University of Maryland Medical Center.

The CDC reports Parkinson’s as the 14th leading cause of death in the U.S. In 2010 (the last year for which data is available), there was 4.6% increase in the number of deaths attributed to this disease. One has to wonder if there is a connection between this jump and the ever-growing prevalence of herbicides like Roundup in our air, food, and water.

Studies indicate that glyphosate is toxic to human DNA “at concentrations diluted 450-fold lower than used in agricultural applications.” Worded differently—the levels considered safe by our government are 450 times the levels at which glyphosate has been found to damage and destroy human DNA. Yes, it’s that serious.

One case study found a woman who was exposed to glyphosate in the workplace for 3 years at a chemical factory. She wore gloves and a face mask. She was initially a healthy, middle-aged women. But, she developed “rigidity, slowness, and resting tremor in all four limbs.” She was also experiencing severe dizziness, weakness, and blurred vision. And hers isn’t the only such case.

What’s so scary about the growing body of research on Monsanto the devil’s Roundup, its components, and their presence in nearly everything around us, is that the federal government refuses to recognize the risk. Despite a growing concern on an international level, the powers-that-be are seemingly content to turn their eyes while the people demand accountability and safe food.

Until pesticides and herbicides are no longer used on a mass scale, the growth of these diseases will likely continue. Eat 100% organic produce whenever possible to bypass exposure to destructive pesticides and herbicides.

Additional Sources:

PubMed
GreenMedInfo
The Huffington Post

Toxic Time Bombs

Chemicals Can Alter Development for Generations

by STEVEN HIGGS

 

The pernicious impact of toxic chemicals in the body, from suspected roles in autism to human response to everyday stress, can manifest themselves in future generations, according to a new study from researchers at the University of Texas (UT) and Washington State University (WSU).

Published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the animal study found DNA changes wrought by a common fungicide are passed down from parents to offspring, according to a May 22, 2012, UT news release. The researchers studied how the animals respond to stress.

“The ancestral exposure of your great-grandmother alters your brain development to then respond to stress differently,” said WSU professor Michael Skinner.

Along with UT’s David Crews, Skinner and colleagues exposed gestating female rats to the popular fruit and vegetable fungicide vinclozolin and monitored for “epigenetic changes,” which can be passed on to subsequent generations.

Crews and Skinner subjected the exposed rats’ third generation of offspring to a variety of behavioral tests and found them to be more anxious and sensitive to stress. They also had greater activity in stress-related regions of the brain than descendants of unexposed rats.

“We are now in the third human generation since the start of the chemical revolution, since humans have been exposed to these kinds of chemicals,” Crews said in the release. “This is the animal model of that.”

Crews, whose contributions to the paper focused on the neuroscience, behavior and stress aspects, said increases in disorders like autism and bipolar disorder may be connected to the kind of “two-hit” exposure that the experiment is modeling.

“It’s more than just a change in diagnostics,” he said of the documented increases in mental disorders in recent decades. “The question is: Why? Is it because we are living in a more frantic world, or because we are living in a more frantic world and are responding to that in a different way because we, or our ancestors, have been exposed to environmental contaminants. I favor the latter.”

***

The stress study is the second that Crews and UT colleague Andrea Gore have authored on vinclozolin in five years. In 2007 they found exposure to the toxin can affect mate choice in later generations.


Also published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences journal, the study found that female rats avoid males whose great-grandmothers were exposed to the fungicide and preferred males whose ancestors were uncontaminated, according to a March 27, 2007, UT news release.

“Even across generations, your attractiveness as a mate is decreased if your great-grandmother has been exposed to environmental chemicals,” said Gore. “That will have an impact on your ability to reproduce and could take you out of the gene pool.”

Vinclozolin is also linked early onset of cancer and kidney disease in males, they said.
Crews and Gore studied the early onset of disease in rats caused by initial exposure to vinclozolin and found it was passed down generation to generation through the males.

“The female is able to detect which male is likely to get early onset disease and which male is not before they show any manifestation of disease,” Crews said.

Gore added, “The female rats can sense something is wrong, although they can’t see it.”
Males exhibited no preference for female type and generally move on to other populations to mate, the release said. So the effect of vinclozolin exposure in the natural setting would not only span generations but could also reach other populations of animals through male migrations.

“Males disperse, and if they were to mate, it would be at times that they aren’t manifesting signs of disease,” said Crews. “They are literally time bombs.”

***

Crews and Gore write blogs on the Huffington Post and on March 19, 2012, penned a joint column titled “Our Contaminated World” that focused on the Food & Drug Administration’s (FDA) pending decision to allow the toxic chemical bisphenol-A (BPA) in food packaging like coated metal cans and plastic wraps.

“There is a long scientific history showing a link between exposure to endocrine disruptors and reproductive disorders such as infertility and early puberty.” - Professors David Crews and Lauren Gore, University of Texas

“Epidemiological evidence in humans shows associations between BPA and cardiovascular disease, metabolic disorders and reproductive impairments,” they wrote. “Beyond BPA, endocrine disruptors are linked to cancer, obesity, reproductive disorders and mood disorders like anxiety and depression.”

Endocrine disruptors, according to the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), are chemicals that interfere with the endocrine or hormone system and can produce “adverse developmental, reproductive, neurological, and immune effects in both humans and wildlife.”

In response to a complaint from the Natural Resources Defense Council, the FDA decided to continue allowing BPA in food packaging, Huffington Post blogger Lynne Peeples reported on March 20, 2012.

Chemicals like vinclozolin and BPA are undeniably useful, protecting grapes from fungus, leafy greens from pests and children from fire ants and flammable pajamas, Crews and Gore wrote the day before the FDA decision on BPA.

“They’re also in us, and transforming our bodies and minds,” they said. “There is a long scientific history showing a link between exposure to endocrine disruptors and reproductive disorders such as infertility and early puberty. Furthermore, the evidence is growing that the damage is much more widespread.”

Chemicals have been shown to increase the risk of various cancers, to contribute to obesity and to influence the activity of neurotransmitters in the brain, they continued.

“In fact, there are even hints that exposure to the chemicals may have something to do with the dramatic rise in autism and mental disorders over the past few decades,” they said.

With geneticists beginning to appreciate the fundamental role of the environment in shaping who humans are, the question is no longer simply “nature or nurture?”

“We know that nature (the environment) has been changed by contamination, and this leads to changes in how organisms are nurtured,” Crews and Gore wrote.

Europe Bans X-Ray Body Scanners Used at U.S. Airports

(But they pose no health risk, we were told in the US by the proper authorities...were they dishonest..?--jef)

Wednesday, November 16, 2011 by ProPublica

by Michael Grabell, ProPublica 

 

The European Union on Monday prohibited the use of X-ray body scanners in European airports, parting ways with the U.S. Transportation Security Administration, which has deployed hundreds of the scanners as a way to screen millions of airline passengers for explosives hidden under clothing.

The European Commission, which enforces common policies of the EU's 27 member countries, adopted the rule “in order not to risk jeopardizing citizens’ health and safety.”

As a ProPublica/PBS NewsHour investigation detailed earlier this month, X-ray body scanners use ionizing radiation, a form of energy that has been shown to damage DNA and cause cancer. Although the amount of radiation is extremely low several research studies have concluded that a number of cancer cases would result from scanning hundreds of millions of passengers a year.

European countries will be allowed to use an alternative body scanner, on that relies on radio frequency waves, which have not been linked to cancer. The TSA has also deployed hundreds of those machines – known as millimeter-wave scanners – in U.S. airports. But unlike Europe, it has decided to deploy both types of scanners.

The TSA would not comment specifically on the EU’s decision. But in a statement, TSA spokesman Mike McCarthy said, “As one of our many layers of security, TSA deploys the most advanced technology available to provide the best opportunity to detect dangerous items, such as explosives.

“We rigorously test our technology to ensure it meets our high detection and safety standards before it is placed in airports,” he continued. “Since January 2010, advanced imaging technology has detected more than 300 dangerous or illegal items on passengers in U.S. airports nationwide.”

Body scanners have been controversial in the United States since they were first deployed in prisons in the late 1990s and then in airports for tests after 9/11. Most of the controversy has focused on privacy because the machines can produce graphic images. But the manufacturers have since installed privacy filters.

As the TSA began deploying hundreds of body scanners after the failed underwear bombing on Christmas Day 2009, several scientists began to raise concerns about the health risks of the X-ray scanner, noting that even low levels of radiation would increase the risk of cancer.

As part of our investigation, ProPublica surveyed foreign countries’ security policies and found that only a few nations used the X-ray scanner. The United Kingdom uses them but only for secondary screening, such as when a passenger triggers the metal detector or raises suspicion.

Under the new European Commission policy, the U.K. will be allowed to complete a trial of the X-ray scanners but not to deploy them on a permanent basis when the trial ends, said Helen Kearns, spokeswoman for the European transport commissioner, Siim Kallas.

“These new rules ensure that where this technology is used it will be covered by EU-wide standards on detection capability as well as strict safeguards to protect health and fundamental rights,” Kallas said.

Five-hundred body scanners, split about evenly between the two technologies, are deployed in U.S. airports. The X-ray scanner, or backscatter, which looks like two large blue boxes, is used at major airports, including Los Angeles International Airport, John F. Kennedy in New York and Chicago's O’Hare. The millimeter-wave scanner, which looks like a round glass booth, is used in San Francisco, Atlanta and Dallas.

Within three years, the TSA plans to deploy 1,800 backscatter and millimeter-wave scanners, covering nearly every domestic airport security lane. The TSA has not yet released details on the exact breakdown.

Bisphenol-A (BPA): Unhealthy Epigenetic is in Most Everything (7 articles)

 (You might hear that banning BPA is "anti-science" if you read blogs like Science 2.0 or the American Chemistry Council website. But even though they have "scientific-sounding names," they are industry funded groups who are really just marketing and PR groups well paid to distribute disinformation--like Monsanto did when rGBH was found to cause so many problems, and most notably, like the tobacco industry did when it was learned that tobacco causes cancer. It was the tobacco industry who first coined the term "junk science" to refer to evidence that their product causes cancer. "Junk science" is still used by anyone who wants to debunk evidence against their cause (profiteering). But the new buzz word is "anti-science." But by definition, using science to prove a product causes health problems pretty much disqualifies any term such as "anti-science."

See, when big corporations spend a ton of money manufacturing and introducing a chemical/product into the market, the LAST thing they want to hear is that their product causes health problems. But rather than do what is best for their fellow human beings and pull the product off the market, or at least submit it to an independent study, these profit whores instead set up these bogus PR firms with official or scientific sounding names and they fund extremely pro-"product"(in this case, pro-BPA) biased studies undertaken by "scientists" on their payroll. Of course, when you fund your own study, you are going to get the results you want because you paid handsomely for them. Only an idiot would think the manufacturer would gamble on the risk that an independent/unbiased study would go their way after so many previous adverse findings led to having to launch their media saturation warpath disinformation PR blitz claiming that anyone concerned about their product causing health problems, is "anti-science." Right, and tobacco doesn't cause cancer, either. Right!

And as for the FDA, does anybody take that ridiculous PR firm seriously as an actual regulatory agency? They pass products sight unseen, in many cases, meaning they pass them without consulting the results of studies for safety and effectiveness. In fact, you will live a long life if you do the opposite of what the FDA states is safe/healthy. If they pass it, leave it alone. If they ban it, it must be good for you. FDA is just another industry shill. If you want a future job at a big pharma co., you better make business profitable for them while supposedly regulating them.--jef)

++++

BPA ban passes California Legislature
Saturday, September 3, 2011 - San Francisco Chronicle

The Senate this week passed a ban on the chemical bisphenol A in the manufacturing of sippy cups and bottles for babies and the bill now heads back to the Assembly for one more vote on amendments. It is likely to pass - a broader version passed that house already - and then head to the desk of Gov. Jerry Brown.

BPA is used to harden plastic and has been a cause of concern worldwide. There are bans on it in children's products in the European Union, China and several states, among many other places. The federal government has "some concern" (a bureaucratic term that basically makes it a "3" on a scale of 1 to 5) for its "effects on the brain, behavior, and prostate gland in fetuses, infants and children."

Recent history has suggested that this most sensible act of child protection is never a done deal as long as chemical industry lobbyists are working the halls of the California State Capitol.

"They're working it big time," said Assemblywoman Betsy Butler, D-Marina Del Rey, author of AB1319, the latest effort to keep BPA out of products aimed at young children.

BPA is a common industrial chemical that has been linked to an array of hormonal and behavioral problems - including early puberty, hyperactivity, breast and prostate cancer, infertility and obesity.

The movement to ban BPA from children's products gained traction with the 2006 passage of a San Francisco ordinance. A year later, the Board of Supervisors backed off the ban, yielding to possible state action.

Each year not only has produced more conclusive scientific evidence of the health hazard of BPA - manufacturers of plastic toys and containers have found alternatives in response to public concerns. A walk down a store aisle stocked with prominently labeled "BPA-free" products shows how thoroughly the industry's no-alternatives claim has been debunked.

Eleven states have moved to ban BPA products from baby bottles and sippy cups. The American Medical Association recently lent its weight in support of such efforts.

Regrettably, Butler's bill is not as comprehensive as earlier incarnations of BPA legislation. It was amended to remove formula containers from the list of banned products.

The scaled-back AB1319 is the bill that passed. It remains a modest but essential - and long overdue - move to protect children's health.

2008

What happened: SB1713 (author: Sen. Carole Migden, D-San Francisco) died on the Assembly floor in the final days of session. The vote was 31 yes, 36 no - and 13 members failing to vote.

Outrage: The American Chemistry Council ran a shamefully disingenuous scare campaign, with targeted robo-calls and mailers warning low-income Californians that the bill would raise grocery prices and threaten food safety.

2009

What happened: SB797 (author: Sen. Fran Pavley, D-Agoura Hills) died in the Assembly at the end of session. It cleared the Senate without a vote to spare (21-16), then was rejected on the Assembly floor.

Outrage: Even though more Assembly members voted for (35) than against (32) the bill this time, passage required a majority of all members - and 13 failed to vote.

2010

What happened: SB797 cleared the Assembly, but the chemical industry lobbyists worked their magic in the Senate at the end of session, where it fell two votes short of passage - 19 yes, 18 no.

Outrage: The bill nearly died in the Assembly when one of its co-authors, Democrat Alberto Torrico of Fremont, flipped to opposition. Public pressure led to Assembly reconsideration and passage, but Torrico remained opposed.

 +++++

Bisphenol A Health Effects — Should You Be Worried About BPA Exposure?

Written on August 30, 2011 by Alexander Rinehart, MS, DC, CCN 

Our envi­ron­ment is sick and it may be mak­ing us sick too.

Each year thou­sands of man-made chem­i­cals are added into our envi­ron­ment with lit­tle knowl­edge as to the poten­tial long-term side effects on health.

One of the chem­i­cals that has received increas­ing atten­tion in the last five years is Bisphe­nol A (BPA).

Should you be concerned?

Sources of BPA
Over six bil­lion pounds of Bisphe­nol A are pro­duced each year and it is esti­mated that 100 tons of it is released into the atmos­phere, mostly through indus­trial waste water  ^[1] [2]

Pub­lic con­cern, how­ever, has been over its wide­spread use in “hard” poly­car­bon­ate plas­tics (includ­ing many baby bot­tles, paci­fiers, & sippy cups) and epoxy resins found in the lin­ings of canned food, canned bev­er­ages, den­tal sealants and even flame retar­dants used in elec­tron­ics.  ^[3]

Health Con­cerns Regard­ing BPA
BPA is known to exert weak estro­gen activ­ity in ani­mal and human stud­ies. In fact, BPA has been shown to be mainly respon­si­ble for estro­genic activ­ity leach­ing from our land­fills into the sur­round­ing ecosys­tem.  ^[4]

Sim­i­lar con­cerns exist with weak estrogen-like com­pounds in soy and pop­u­lar sup­ple­ments. ^[5] Some clin­i­cians sug­gest that food chem­i­cals with low estro­genic activ­ity (such as flax and soy) may actu­ally exert some health ben­e­fits, while man-made estrogen-like chem­i­cals may be more likely caus­ing harm.

What we know is that up to 95% of indi­vid­u­als tested have lev­els of BPA in their urine.  ^[6] BPA has also been found in breast­milk, amni­otic fluid, neona­tal blood, pla­centa, and cord blood.  ^[7]and almost all organic and non-organic canned foods, soups, juice, tuna, and green beans con­tain some BPA.

Bisphe­nol A is widely cat­e­go­rized as an “endocrine dis­rup­tor”. Endocrine dis­rup­tors are man-made chem­i­cals that have poten­tial to cause repro­duc­tive abnor­mal­i­ties, and some like BPA have been shown to behave like estro­gen in the body.

The Envi­ron­men­tal Pro­tec­tion Agency (EPA) defines an endocrine dis­rup­tor as:

An exoge­nous agent that inter­feres with the pro­duc­tion, release, trans­port, metab­o­lism, bind­ing, action, or elim­i­na­tion of nat­ural hor­mones in the body respon­si­ble for the main­te­nance of home­osta­sis and the reg­u­la­tion of devel­op­men­tal processes  ^[8].

Sim­ply put, these chem­i­cals dis­rupt hor­mone func­tion by mim­ic­k­ing or even block­ing the nor­mal activ­ity of hormones.

The Emerg­ing Role of Epigenetics

Epi­ge­net­ics (“above the gene”) is the sci­ence behind how dietary and chem­i­cal sig­nals from our envi­ron­ment help reg­u­late how our genes are expressed for bet­ter or for worse.

Those changes in gene expres­sion can then be passed to our off­spring with­out any involve­ment of genetic mutations.

Cur­rently tens of thou­sands of man-made chem­i­cals are released in to our envi­ron­ment with lit­tle to no under­stand­ing of their poten­tial impact on human and ecosys­tem health. Our under­stand­ing of how tox­ins inter­act with our phys­i­ol­ogy to pro­duce health effects is grow­ing rapidly. The field of tox­i­col­ogy will be espe­cially affected by advances in our under­stand­ing of epi­ge­net­ics. ^[9].

What is excit­ing about the research is that we are dis­cov­er­ing clues as to how our genetic risk to cer­tain dis­eases can be increased or decreased through toxin expo­sure, as well as diet and lifestyle choices.

Endocrine dis­rup­tors such as bisphe­nol A have actu­ally been shown to alter gene expres­sion and cause epi­ge­netic changes in those exposed.  ^{[10]  [11]}.

In April 2011, a  Nature Reviews. Endocrinol­ogy arti­cle offered this statement:

“Expo­sure to endocrine dis­rupt­ing chem­i­cals (EDCs) is asso­ci­ated with dys­func­tions of metab­o­lism, energy bal­ance, thy­roid func­tion and repro­duc­tion, and an increased risk of endocrine can­cers. These mul­ti­fac­to­r­ial dis­or­ders can be ‘pro­grammed’ through mol­e­c­u­lar epi­ge­netic changes induced by expo­sure to EDCs early in life, the expres­sion of which may not man­i­fest until adult­hood. ”  ^[12]

Despite wide­spread excite­ment in the emerg­ing field of epi­ge­net­ics, most BPA research has still largely been based on ani­mal mod­els. Despite grow­ing pub­lic con­cern, new guide­lines regard­ing chem­i­cals such as BPA have been slow to develop.

Safety reports on BPA sug­gest that BPA has a half-life of two hours, with all metabo­lites being recov­ered in the urine ^[].

I still won­der whether expo­sures are large and/or fre­quent enough to over­come the bod­ies abil­ity to flush it out, and what effect the sub­stance (even at low doses) may have long-lasting effects despite short-term expo­sures — espe­cially when it comes to genetic expression.

Esti­mated expo­sure to BPA tends to be below lev­els proven to be safe, but in rat mod­els, even low-dose expo­sure has been cor­re­lated with health effects ^[13].

BPA may actu­ally exert dif­fer­ent effects at both very low and very high dosages ^[3].
Despite the con­tro­ver­sial nature of BPA research, what have these stud­ies shown?

Pos­si­ble Health Effects of BPA

Fer­til­ity, Repro­duc­tive Health & Preg­nancy Outcomes:
Because of its estro­genic behav­ior, there has been con­cern of BPA’s impact on fer­til­ity, repro­duc­tive health, and preg­nancy outcomes.

A 2009 arti­cle pub­lished in the jour­nal  reviewed evi­dency of BPA’s direct influ­ence on the pla­centa. The arti­cle noted that BPA expo­sure may be asso­ci­ated with adverse preg­nancy out­comes such as:

• preeclamp­sia
• intrauter­ine growth restriction
• pre­ma­ture births
• & preg­nancy loss^[14] and indi­rect asso­ci­a­tion with recur­rent
  mis­car­riages.^[15]

 A pop­u­lar 2008 Cana­dian doc­u­men­tary called “The Dis­ap­pear­ing Male” noted the con­cern over man-made “endocrine dis­rup­tors” and their effect on male fer­til­ity. The film noted that male sperm counts have declined 50% in the last fifty years, and that expo­sures dur­ing key moments of devel­op­ment can be cru­cial in deter­min­ing sex and repro­duc­tive health.

There is also  evi­dence that a mother’s expo­sure to BPA while preg­nant can affect the fer­til­ity of male chil­dren  ^[16] and expo­sure may also be asso­ci­ated with early puberty in females. ^[17] Long-term risk of excess estro­gen expo­sure for females may include breast, endome­trial, ovar­ian, and colon can­cers. In males, BPA is sug­gested to lower testos­terone lev­els by its effects on testis and the pitu­itary ^[18].

Accord­ing to the Cleve­land Clinic, uter­ine fibroids occur in 25–80% of women. Although causes are not com­pletely iden­ti­fied, alter­na­tive providers tend to blame “estro­gen dom­i­nance” for their presence.

Signs and symp­toms of uter­ine fibroids may include:

• Dis­or­dered men­strual bleed­ing & severe men­strual cramps
• A feel­ing of full­ness in the lower abdomen
• Prob­lems with uri­na­tion (frequent/infrequent)
• Pain dur­ing intercourse
• Low back pain
• Con­sti­pa­tion
• Chronic vagi­nal discharge
• Infer­til­ity

Human stud­ies have shown asso­ci­a­tions of BPA and sim­i­lar chem­i­cals with low sperm for­ma­tion, low testos­terone, gen­i­tal mal­for­ma­tion, and higher inci­dence of breast can­cer. ^[18]

Addi­tion­ally, BPA may be asso­ci­ated with cryp­torchidism (unde­scended tes­ti­cles), hypospa­dias (defect in open­ing of the ure­thra) in males, and mis­car­riages, impaired fer­til­ity, and a dis­rupted men­strual cycle in females. ^[19]

Preg­nancy and Infancy:
Cer­tain groups such as preg­nant moth­ers and young chil­dren may be more vul­ner­a­ble to the effects of BPA. ^[20]. (As noted ear­lier, BPA has been found in breast­milk, amni­otic fluid, neona­tal blood, pla­centa, and cord blood. ^[7])

Toxic lev­els in infants and chil­dren tend to be higher in con­cen­tra­tion due to their small body size & they are con­sid­ered high risk because of the rapid devel­op­ment of their immune and ner­vous systems.

Time Mag­a­zine noted in May 2011 that BPA expo­sure in Preg­nancy may be con­nected to Child­hood asthma.

There is also seri­ous con­cern of genetic changes being induced by toxic expo­sures to a devel­op­ing fetus or infant, and that those changes may be less reversible than the effect of toxic expo­sure in adults ^[3]

Brain and Ner­vous System:
Because most brain and ner­vous sys­tem devel­op­ment occurs dur­ing the first few months and years of life, young chil­dren may be more vul­ner­a­ble to BPA exposure. Beyond repro­duc­tive abnor­mal­i­ties, con­cern over the poten­tial neu­ro­log­i­cal effects of bisphe­nol A and expo­sure dur­ing preg­nancy and the first few years of life has sparked fierce polit­i­cal debate over the neu­ro­log­i­cal impli­ca­tions of BPA exposure.

Stud­ies in rats and non-human pri­mates have shown evi­dence of an asso­ci­a­tion of BPA with a 70–100% loss of nerve synapses in the hip­pocam­pus (area of brain involved in mem­ory) and the spine by block­ing nor­mal estro­gen and andro­gen (i.e. testos­terone) activity.

Cog­ni­tive decline, depres­sion, and schiz­o­phre­nia are con­di­tions asso­ci­ated with a sim­i­lar loss of nerve synapses ^[21].

Inter­na­tional pub­lic­ity and debate over bisphe­nol A has been re-fueled largely because of recent insights into how BPA may neg­a­tively affect the brain and ner­vous system.

Dia­betes and Obe­sity:
There is a pos­i­tive asso­ci­a­tion of BPA and sim­i­lar endocrine-disrupting chem­i­cals with obe­sity in both human and ani­mal stud­ies. ^[3] Some believe that pre-natal and post-natal expo­sure to BPA may play a role in weight gain ^[22]. BPA may also increase the amount of inflam­ma­tory chem­i­cals released from exist­ing fat tis­sue ^[23].

Bisphe­nol A has shown to alter con­trol of blood sugar in both rats and humans and may pro­mote the devel­op­ment of type 2 dia­betes ^[24].

Prostate Health:
Chronic expo­sure to low lev­els of estro­genic chem­i­cals like BPA over time increased the rates of prostate can­cer in rats ^[25].

Alter­ations in testos­terone and estro­gen lev­els have been linked to ele­vated prostate spe­cific anti­gen (PSA) and the poten­tial to pro­mote prostate can­cer devel­op­ment ^{[26] [27]}; ^[28].

Thy­roid Function:
Some evi­dence sug­gests an antag­o­nis­tic effect of BPA on Thy­roid hor­mone func­tion ^[29]. Addi­tion­ally, epi­ge­net­ics may also play a role between endocrine dis­rup­tors and thy­roid func­tion  ^[12].

Should I Be Wor­ried About BPA?

The Euro­pean Food Safety Author­ity released an opin­ion on BPA in 2008 that because of dif­fer­ences in the metab­o­lism of rodents and humans, rats are likely at greater risk than humans. In 2010, upon push to review their opin­ion based on an inter­na­tional push to ban BPA from baby bot­tles, the EFSA recon­firmed their 2008 opin­ion stat­ing that there was flaws in the research designs that had been used as ratio­nale for a ban.

A 2011 review pub­lished in Crit­i­cal Reviews in Tox­i­col­ogy, noted the “dead­locked con­tro­versy” over BPA. The review sup­ported that the tol­er­a­ble daily intake of BPA remain set at 0.05 mg/kg per day (50 ug/kg/day). The authors remarked that no adverse health effects have been con­sis­tently observed at doses ≤5 mg BPA/kg/day ^[30].
 
It’s impor­tant to note that the study was partly funded by a BPA-interest group

A sep­a­rate review arti­cle pub­lished in Repro­duc­tive Tox­i­col­ogy in 2007 stated:

We are con­fi­dent that adult expo­sure to BPA affects the male repro­duc­tive tract, and that long last­ing, orga­ni­za­tional effects in response to devel­op­men­tal expo­sure to BPA occur in the brain, the male repro­duc­tive sys­tem, and meta­bolic processes. We con­sider it likely, but requir­ing fur­ther con­fir­ma­tion, that adult expo­sure to BPA affects the brain, the female repro­duc­tive sys­tem, and the immune sys­tem, and that devel­op­men­tal effects occur in the female repro­duc­tive sys­tem ^[31].

More recently, a June 2011 issue of the jour­nal Human Repro­duc­tion Update, the authors claimed that there is enough evi­dence present to take “pre­cau­tion­ary actions” regard­ing women’s repro­duc­tive health and endocrine dis­rup­tors such as bisphe­nol A ^[32].

Addi­tion­ally, a Har­vard study pub­lished in April 2011 in Cur­rent Opin­ion in Pedi­atrics sug­gested “Even in the absence of epi­demi­o­log­i­cal stud­ies, con­cern over adverse effects of BPA is war­ranted given the unique vul­ner­a­bil­ity of the devel­op­ing fetus and child. Health­care providers are encour­aged to prac­tice pri­mary pre­ven­tion and coun­sel patients to reduce BPA expo­sures,”^[33].

BPA is just one of many sources of endocrine dis­rup­tion that are becom­ing ubiq­ui­tous in our env­ioron­ment.…a small stress here, and a small stress there, and the hypo­thet­i­cal pos­si­bil­ity of com­bi­na­tion effects have some alter­na­tive health pro­fes­sion­als concerned.

Despite research claims that BPA is safe at the cur­rent guide­lines, there is debate over the poten­tial bias of industry-sponsored research.

Other reviews have painted a dif­fer­ent story, and con­sumer pres­sures against BPA have been build­ing over the last decade.

Uniquely, BPA expo­sure has been shown a “U-shaped” response-curve, mean­ing an effect is only seen at low and high doses, mak­ing it impos­si­ble to make con­clu­sions on the effect of low expo­sure based on high-exposure stud­ies ^[3], and may also com­pli­cate “tol­er­a­ble intake” guidelines.

As pub­lic con­cern clearly affects both pol­icy and research dol­lars, it is impor­tant to voice any of your con­cerns as the indus­try is surely spend­ing money to voice its opin­ions as well.

The good news is that because of con­sumer pres­sure, at least $30 mil­lion has recently been set aside to fund ten, two-year stud­ies on the safety of BPA.

Epi­ge­netic influ­ences may take longer than two years to develop. Whether the results of these two-year stud­ies will add to the con­fu­sion regard­ing the safety of BPA is still to be deter­mined, but it’s a good sign that pol­i­cy­mak­ers are listening.

Tips on Avoid­ing BPA Exposure:

Tak­ing “pre­cau­tion­ary actions” can be more sim­ple than you can think:

• Pur­chase prod­ucts stored in glass containers
• Eat foods and herbs that sup­port detox­i­fi­ca­tion such as broc­coli, cau­li­flower, brus­sel sprouts and turmeric.
• Pur­chase BPA-free baby bot­tles, paci­fiers and infant feed­ing cups.
• Avoid the use of #7 labeled plastics.
• Do not microwave or heat food in plas­tic containers.
• Ensure proper ven­ti­la­tion for rooms & offices con­tain­ing com­put­ers and electronics.
• Do not store food in scratched or dam­aged plas­tic con­tain­ers, or other con­tain­ers with plas­tic lining.
• Con­sider ask­ing a health pro­fes­sional about spe­cial urine test­ing espe­cially if there is his­tory of repro­duc­tive dif­fi­cul­ties, uter­ine fibroids, breast can­cer, men­strual abnor­mal­i­ties, or his­tory of infertility.

 +++++

CA moves towards BPA ban as more damning evidence released of health effects

Posted by Meg Bohne on 08/31/11

California took one step closer yesterday towards a ban on BPA in baby bottles and sippy cups for children as the State Senate voted 21-19 in support of the Toxin-Free Infants and Toddlers Act. The legislation passed the Assembly earlier this year, but as amendments were made to the bill’s language in the Senate, it must return to the Assembly for final approval before heading to the Governor’s desk.

Consumers Union, a sponsor of the bill, applauds the Senate for approving the measure with hopes that California will become the eleventh state to pass a ban on BPA.   Canada, the European Union and China have also already banned the chemical in baby bottles.

Evidence against the safety of BPA continues to mount. Known to leach from plastic containers into food and beverages, BPA is an endocrine disruptor that has been linked to an increased risk of cancer, diabetes, reproductive, neurological and developmental disorders.

A new study released in the journal Birth Defects Research offers further reason for concern, showing BPA exposure in utero to adversely affect the development of male genitalia.  The study was based on exposure of pregnant women to BPA in the workplace.
California’s bill, which would go into effect July 1, 2013, would require manufacturers to replace BPA in baby bottles and sippy cups with the least toxic alternative available.

“We urge the Assembly to quickly finalize this bill so that parents will no longer worry about this hazardous chemical when purchasing these products for their children,” said Elisa Odabashian, West Coast Director of Consumers Union.

 +++++

Will BPA ever be taken off the US market? Not if the ACC has anything to do with it!

Fri Sep 02, 2011- Daily Kos

For more than 30 years Tennessee Eastman was my neighbor when I lived in Kingsport. I can find many ways to praise this company.  While certainly not perfect in many ways, Eastman is still the life blood to Northeast Tennessee.  

I hope this relationship will continue as the company soon begins a second century there.

Some of the most conscientious people I know are employed at Eastman in Kingsport.

You can usually trust the integrity and consistency of the decisions and policies that flow from their work at the plant and in its corporate headquarters.

But sometimes I become very cynical when I see what happens to some corporations when they become a part of a lobbying group.

Less than 10 years ago, I was honored to be invited to sit on the Community Advisory Panel that Eastman sponsors.  During my four years on this council I learned so much about the company’s dedication to quality control, responsible care and strategic plans to curtail emissions.

You can imagine my surprise when I heard that former CEO and current Chairman of Eastman’s Board of Directors, J. Brian Ferguson, who, as chair also of the American Chemistry Council (ACC), was putting big lobbying bucks and time to defeat the Sen. Diane Feinstein (D, CA) Amendment to ban synthetic sex hormone bisphenol A (BPA). Simply put, this “line in the sand” for chemical reform, an amendment to the Food Safety Act, would have stopped BPA exposure to infants and toddlers in baby bottles and sippy cups.

Could this be the same Brian Ferguson who led this company into a new era of stability after some rather uncertain times before he took the reins of the company?

During Ferguson’s tenure as CEO of the company, Eastman appeared to be trying to move into the 21st century by developing safer chemicals. While it manufactured an endocrine disrupting chemical phthalate called DEHP, banned in the European Union, it also developed a non-DEHP substitution. And in response to rising consumer awareness about another endocrine disrupting chemical, bisphenol A (BPA), used in polycarbonate bottles, it developed Tritan, a substitution for BPA. BPA, even at low does exposure, is linked to breast cancer, prostate cancer, obesity, diabetes, erectile dysfunction, sperm damage and DNA damage in fetuses.

But Brian Ferguson, as chair of the ACC, led the choir from a different song book.  Why would he act to continue the use of BPA in our most vulnerable persons’ containers…..their baby bottles and sippy cups…. when there are other materials out there, even one that Eastman itself makes, that could be used instead?  I just don’t get it!

On November of 2010, Chairman of the Board for ACC Ferguson reportedly led an action aimed at Congress that might have shocked his Eastman investors, shareholders, customers, and employees who really are trying to believe that the company wants to do the right thing.

While Chairman of the Board for Eastman Ferguson has promoted the company as being sustainable, even gaining awards for this, and promoting their Tritan as “BPA-Free,” Chairman of the Board for ACC Ferguson led the full scale attack on the amendment to the Food Security Act that would have removed BPA from baby bottles and children’s sippy cups.

With considerable money spent lobbying, Chairman of the Board ACC Ferguson torpedoed an amendment that, had it gone through, would have sent his new Tritan product sales soaring, plus he would have removed a dangerous chemical from exposing children – something Eastman’s competitor, BPA-maker Sunoco, has already done in its own sales policies by refusing to sell BPA to customers whose products would expose children. Even the United Arab Emirates have announced plans to ban BPA and the European Commission has announced they are banning BPA, it’s been labeled a toxic chemical in Canada, and efforts to restrict it are happening in 20 U.S. states.

As a child I was always told that “a stitch in time saves nine.”  Ferguson, as chair of the American Chemistry Council’s recent heavily funded lobbying of Congress, worked to defeat what would have been a small change in the way baby containers are made.  This defeat could haunt us years down the road as these children contend with expensive health problems.  Is that something Eastman folks can point to with pride from the chair of their board?  As a stock holder myself in Tennessee Eastman, I would like an explanation.

 +++++

In Utero exposure to BPA May Adversely Affect Male Genital Development

8/29/2011

OAKLAND, Calif., -- In utero exposure to Bisphenol-A may adversely affect male genital development, according to a Kaiser Permanente study published online in the journal Birth Defects Research.

The observational study found that the sons of BPA-exposed Chinese workers had a shortened distance between their genitals and anus -- known as anogenital distance -- compared with sons whose parents were not exposed to workplace BPA.

The association between BPA exposure during pregnancy and anogenital disease also showed a dose-response relationship, meaning the greater the BPA exposure a mother had during her pregnancy, the shorter her son’s AGD measured, according to researchers.

“Although the finding needs to be confirmed by additional research, this study provides the first epidemiological evidence that parental exposure to BPA in the workplace during pregnancy is associated with shortened AGD in male offspring,” said De-Kun Li, MD, PhD, the principal investigator of the study and a reproductive and perinatal epidemiologist at the Kaiser Permanente Division of Research in Oakland, Calif. “This finding indicates that BPA may interfere with testosterone function during fetal development because the shortened AGD indicates under-developed male genitalia, likely due to an abnormal testosterone function.”

This study is the fifth in a series published by Dr. Li and his colleagues that examine the effect of BPA in humans:

• The first study, published in November 2009 in the Oxford Journals Human Reproduction, found that exposure to high levels of BPA in the workplace increases the risk of reduced sexual function in men. 

• The second study, published in May 2010 in the Journal of Andrology, found that increasing BPA levels in urine are associated with worsening male sexual function. 

• The third study published in Fertility and Sterility showed that an increasing urine BPA level was significantly associated with decreased sperm concentration, decreased total sperm count, decreased sperm vitality and decreased sperm motility. 

• The fourth study, published in 2011 in the Journal of Reproductive Toxicology showed that parental exposure to BPA during pregnancy was associated with decreased birth weight in offspring.

For this study, workers in participating factories with and without BPA exposure in the workplace were identified. They were divided into three groups: unexposed (neither parents exposed to BPA in workplace), father directly exposed (representing maternal indirect exposure through the father), and mother directly exposed during the index pregnancy.

Then 153 sons, age ranging from infancy to 17 years old with 81 percent being less than 10 years old, were examined. The study found that maternal exposure to BPA in the workplace during pregnancy was associated with a 2.8 millimeter (approximately 0.11 inch) shortened AGD in sons if the mother was indirectly exposed through the father’s direct exposure, and 8.1 millimeter (approximately 0.32 inch) shortened AGD in sons if the mother was directly exposed, compared to unexposed parents.

Funded by the U.S. National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, this new study adds to emerging human evidence questioning the safety of BPA, a chemical created in the production of polycarbonated plastics and epoxy resins found in baby bottles, plastic containers, the linings of cans used for foods and beverages, and in dental sealants.
The researchers explained that BPA is considered to be a highly suspect human endocrine disrupter with estrogen-like effect.

“This new epidemiological study of in utero BPA’s effects on the fetal male reproductive system provides direct evidence from human studies that is urgently needed as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and various other U.S. government panels are evaluating this controversial topic,” Li said.

This new finding is also consistent with a recent report from animal studies that in-utero exposure to BPA made male offspring less attractive to female mating counterparts.

 +++++

What is bisphenol A?
By Miranda Hitti
 
Bisphenol A is a chemical found in polycarbonate plastic and epoxy resins.

Polycarbonate plastics are used in certain food and drink packaging and also in compact discs, computers, impact-resistant safety equipment (such as helmets and goggles), and medical devices.

Polycarbonate plastics that contain bisphenol A usually have a No. 7 on the bottom, within the "chasing arrows" used to sort plastics for recycling, according to the National Institute on Environmental Health (NIEHS).

Epoxy resins line metal products such as canned foods, bottle tops, and water supply pipes.

 +++++

NRDC Sues FDA to Remove BPA from Food Packaging and Items that Contact Food

September 1, 2011

By Frommer Lawrence & Haug on September 1, 2011 |


On August 19, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. ("NRDC") sued FDA for declaratory and injunctive relief for FDA to grant NRDC's citizen petition to remove the chemical bisphenol A ("BPA") from food packaging and other products where it comes in contact with food. NRDC alleges that BPA may be found in a wide variety of the liners of metal food cans and hard plastic containers such as baby bottles.

NRDC is a nonprofit environmental and public health advocacy organization headquartered in New York, New York with more than 400,000 members. NRDC engages in research, advocacy, and litigation to improve the regulation of harmful substances in food, drugs, and consumer products.

NRDC's original citizen petition was filed in October 2008 yet remains unanswered by more than 1000 days. According to NRDC, FDA should have responded to this type of petition within 90 days and has a maximum time of 180 days to respond. NRDC asserts that FDA's failure to respond to NRDC's petition prolongs its members from unwanted exposure to BPA in food packaging. FDA's failure to respond to the petition, moreover, has denied NRDC from seeking judicial review, if necessary, NRDC further alleges.

According to NRDC, BPA was developed in the 1930s as a synthetic estrogen for pharmaceutical use. Later, manufacturers developed ways to use BPA to produce polymers for plastic containers and resins for coating metal containers and the lids of glass jars and bottles, NRDC's complaint explains. Between 1961 and 1964, FDA approved BPA as a food additive through the use of packaging results in BPA becoming a component of food. Since then, BPA has become a high production chemical used in over six billion pounds globally and two billion pounds in the United States each year.

NRDC's complaint further explains that BPA leaches from its packaging into food when exposed to heat or acidic conditions and with use over time. BPA has been detected in liquid infant formulas, canned foods, and canned beverages. In many instances, NRDC states, BPA content in packaging is not indicated.

NRDC believes that BPA interferes with thyroid hormones and possible harmful effects on the brain, nervous, and reproductive systems. NRDC also said that a "significant amount of peer-reviewed, independent studies" have been linked BPA exposure with breast cancer, prostate cancer, and early puberty. Some of the other harmful effects linked with BPA include male reproductive effects such as decreased sperm count and testicular problems.

NRDC's current action follows a similar action brought in D.C. Court, which resulted in a July 21 decision by a The three-judge U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia panel ruled unanimously on jurisdictional grounds, finding that the case belongs in district (federal) court. Now that NRDC filed in federal court, we will continue to monitor how this issue is resolved.