While we have heard this over and over for the last few years, this study is significant.  The decrease in start of puberty had been primarily seen only in the United States.  As a result, for a while scientists felt that the data might not have been statistically significant.  Instead, they felt the disparity was due to different sampling and data collection techniques. But in this latest study, Europe is now seeing the decrease in age of menarche and breast development, according to the New York Times.

This has given many of the investigators reason to believe that it is environmental factors causing the early onset of puberty.  What environmental factors?  Food, air quality, and the ever discussed Bisphenol-A and other hormone disruptors.  In any case, this is a cause for concern:

The concern is that early puberty is linked with higher breast cancer risk in adulthood. Early puberty has also been linked with social problems and depression, and is associated with high-risk behaviors in adolescence such as alcohol and drug use and unprotected sex. It’s not clear whether these concerns are the result of physiological changes that influence behavior or are explained by the social pressures girls encounter when their bodies mature.

I think this is another study that shows there needs to be a shift back to a simpler way of life… clean organic food, lack of exposure to chemicals in cosmetics and other household items, and staying away from plastics and cans.

by Jennifer Jaykins

To refresh your memory…  the FDA approved BPA for use in the manufacture of plastics and to line the aluminum surface of canned products after TWO studies (that we funded by the American Chemistry Council). They decided to ignore the HUNDREDS of studies that indicated the harm BPA could cause in humans, especially children, because it acts as a hormone mimicker in our bodies, increasing cancers and other problems, such as sterility.

Bisphenol A is found in the blood of nearly every American tested, and is used to make hard, clear plastics for food containers, dental sealants and the sealants that line food and beverage cans.

You may be doing everything possible to prevent ingestion of BPA, in your own home.  But, please do not assume you are not getting exposed.  You have no idea how restaurants, and the like, are getting their ingredients for recipes, and they may not have the option of NOT buying a huge can of tomatoes, for example, from their vendor.

The bottom line, BPA is bad for you.  That is why an international consortium of scientists has gone on record to reject the FDA’s approval of the chemical, per the Milwaukee Sentinal Journal.

According to the report, and this is very important that you read this:

Speakers at the conference included Rochelle Tyl, the author of the two studies that are being used as the FDA’s benchmarks. Both of Tyl’s studies were paid for by the American Chemistry Council, a trade association for BPA makers.

According to scientists at the meeting, Tyl conceded that there were errors and inconsistencies in the 2008 report that the FDA used as the foundation for its findings.

and then there is this:

Tyl told the Journal Sentinel in an e-mail that her studies do not claim that BPA is safe. Her studies were not designed to cover all aspects of the chemical’s effects. They simply show no effects to the reproductive system of rats and mice that were exposed to the chemical at low doses, she said.

Despite all of this… the FDA is still, currently, holding strong.  

I could go on about the political tie to food safety, big agri-business and government entities.  I think what is important to remember is that the production on BPA results in a $6 billion profit for the chemical companies, much of that they turn around and give to your politicians to ensure election.  Those politicians want to come back next year, and the year after, so they allow those companies to win over you the consumer.

The best, and only thing, you can do is make sure you know what you are putting into you and your family’s bodies.  All studies indicate that this stuff is bad, bad, bad.  Please stop the genocide we are conducting on our children.

Critical Windows of Development was created by Theo Colburn, who is most often credited with the discovery of hormone mimicking chemicals, stating that she created the site as a way to “give scientists, policymakers, journalists and others immediate access to the information in a user-friendly, visually interesting way.”

When a Critical Windows user chooses a chemical, red lines appear on a timeline, displaying the areas of development where effects have been found in laboratory animals exposed to low doses. Clicking on a triangle retrieves a summary of each study, which then leads to direct access to the published article in a scientific journal.

The site shows how normal development should occur versus results obtained in lab results of development in the presence of these various chemicals, like BPA and phthalates.  It does focus on human gestation and compares to results found in mice gestation.

The site has links to where you can get the latest news, how you can contact the EPA and other agencies to ask for change, and all the definitions of the chemicals and the products they can be found in.  This is seriously the most comprehensive site for anyone concerned about the health of their babies and the impact from environmental factors. 

To read more about how to interpret results, please go to Environmental Health News.

Researchers from the Univeristy of Rochester in NY have found that Bisphenol-A lingers in the body longer than first expected.  The significance of which is that the longer the chemical is in the body, the more likely it is to cause harm, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

Most often BPA is transferred to the body through plastic products like water bottles, baby bottles, re-usable food storage containers, and the like.  This study found that the transfer can also occur through plastic water pipes, like those that might be found in your home, and dust off of carbonless paper, for example a receipt.

The American Chemistry Council still maintains that BPA is safe.  There has been a lot of debate in the various studies of the safety of Bisphenol-A.  Arguments for safety is that the studies that had the largest sample population, therefore the study deemed statistically significant, has shown the chemical to be safe.  However, these studies were done by the chemical companies making the product, which is a $6 billion per year chemical.  Many of the independent studies, performed by chemical researchers throughout the world, have shown time after time that BPA results in cancers, genital deformities, sterility, brain disorders, and the list goes on.

This latest data indicates that either people are being constantly bombarded with exposure to BPA, from non-food sources, or they are storing the chemical in their fat cells and are unable to effectively rid them from their bodies.  Either way, if you believe the data that this chemical is dangerous, this does not bode well for the future health of the human population.

Waste and pollution watchdog, EcoWaste Coalition, called on the Bureau of Customs to prevent entry of banned toys to the United States that could result in illegal dumping in this country, according to Business Mirror Online.

On February 10th a long awaited ban will be placed in children’s toys under the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act.  As a result, many fear that millions of non-compliant toys will be dumped illegally unless some preventative measures are taken.

The new definitions of unsafe toys include new levels on lead an phthalates.  Lead will now be restricted to 600ppm. Lead, a heavy metal, is known to be a neurotoxin that can cause damage to the central nervous system, particularly in children.  A new level of no more than 0.1% of three types of phthalates will also go into effect.  Phthalates are hormone mimickers and are used in the synthesis of plastics.  The new law also requires third party mandatory testing.

Aside the fact that many toys currently in the country will be dumped, there is also the fear that toys that do not meet the requirements will be brought in illegally through a black market trade and parents will be unaware of what they are purchasing.  EcoWaste is calling on all regulatory agencies to create policy that will prevent this from happening.

For more information on phthalates and other chemicals that effect children’s health, you may find more in the Golden Spiral section: HERE

The article is long, about eight pages, so as always below are some excerpts.  But in all seriousness, this is an amazing write-up.  Please give David Case (the author) the visibility it deserves.  

Along side a wonderful history lesson, there is also some interesting information about the “independent research” performed by the chemical companies.  Including the hiring of Sciences, an independent lab, that has, in the past, done some deceitful things to help out other harmful industries, like tobacco.  It should be noted that Sciences was started by a woman that also helped start the EPA.

-How could our nation’s health watchdogs reach such divergent conclusions? Are we being unnecessarily scared by the NTP? Or could the FDA be sugarcoating things? What exactly is going on?  We went on a journey to find out. What we learned was shocking. To some degree, the BPA controversy is a story about a scientific dispute. But even more, it’s about a battle to protect a multibillion-dollar market from regulation. In the United States, industrial chemicals are presumed safe until proven otherwise. As a result, the vast majority of the 80,000 chemicals registered to be used in products have never undergone a government safety review. Companies are left largely to police themselves.

-Of the more than 100 independently funded experiments on BPA, about 90% have found evidence of adverse health effects at levels similar to human exposure. On the other hand, every single industry-funded study ever conducted — 14 in all — has found no such effects .  It is the industry-funded studies that have held sway among regulators. This is thanks largely to a small group of “product defense” consultants — also funded by the chemical industry — who have worked to sow doubt about negative effects of BPA by using a playbook that borrows from the wars over tobacco, asbestos, and other public-health controversies.

-But Fast Company has learned that Sciences’ conflicts of interest went even deeper. The firm had passed its verdict on BPA, under oath, even before it began the government review. In 2003, Sciences provided expert testimony for the defense in a lawsuit over BPA. On an archived page of the firm’s Web site, the company bragged that, for a private client, it had acted as an expert witness “challenging the validity” of the science on BPA’s health risks. “The case was decided in favor of the defendants,” the site said. (Anderson, who sold Sciences for $5.1 million in 2001 and left for rival Exponent in 2006, confirmed by email that the testimony happened but declined to provide details. Herman Gibb, who took over as president of Sciences, says the staff working on the CERHR contract was not aware of the testimony.)

The NIH terminated the Sciences contract in April 2007, and the firm is now down to four employees. The Environmental Working Group has since reported that Sciences had client relationships with the makers of nearly every chemical it reviewed under the CERHR contract.

** photos by Nigel Cox, taken from Fast Company article

This is expected to create a new scientific domain called epigenetics.  The field is based on the idea that environmental factors can get the genes to turn on and off.  The significance is that the subsequent alterations of genes could lead to various diseases, such as cancer, as well as become an inherited trait.

In the multi-phase study the mothers’ “blood, hair, breast milk and urine samples will be tested for a host of chemicals, from such heavy metals as lead, cadmium and mercury, to bisphenol-A, fire retardants and certain pesticides. The women will also be questioned about their lifestyles, diet and occupations.”

One focus of the study will be on phthalates.  Much research has been released lately indicating the this chemical, like BPA, is the cause of many problems seen in infants.  

Many mothers are being encouraged to volunteer so that more data can be gathered to effectively evaluate environmental factors in child development and disease.

An article in The Missourian highlights specifics about Bisphenol-A that are very valuable to the American consumer.  It bears repeating that Bisphenol-A is a chemical used in the synthesis of hard plastic products, as well as, the liner of canned goods and soda.

Bisphenol-A, referred to as BPA, is an estrogen like compound.  Due to its chemical nature, it acts like a hormone mimicker, affecting the body in ways such as high level of cancers and sterility.  What was not known, at least to this publication, is its effects in causing obesity, heart disease and diabetes.

Frederick vom Saal, from Missouri University, has been studying BPA since 1995 and may be the leading researcher on the topic.  The research indicates that we ingest a lot of BPA due to its leaching from the container.  So, the old adage of “you are what you eat” is obsolete and is replaced with “you are what you eat our of.”

Some facts about the affect of BPA:

 - 93 percent of the people tested for BPA exposure had various levels of the chemical in their urine. Those with the highest levels were children.

 - The National Toxicology Program under the National Institutes of Health also concluded that BPA posed some danger. In its September report, it cited “some concern for effects on the brain, behavior and prostate gland in fetuses, infants and children at current human exposures to Bisphenol-A.”

Well, we seem to not be the only ones. A group of scientists at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration sent a letter to President-elect Barack Obama’s transition team pleading with him to restructure the agency, saying managers have ordered, intimidated and coerced scientists to manipulate data in violation of the law, according to the Wall Street Journal.

Indicating that the organization is “fundamentally broken”, the scientists main concern centered around the review process for medical devices. The critics contend that it has been “corrupted and distorted by current FDA managers, thereby placing the American people at risk.”

The group also says that they have taken their concerns to the head of the FDA, Andrew von Eschenbach, as well as the Commissioner in Charge of Accountability and Integrity, Bill McConagha. The response has been less than positive as either nothing has been done or the problematic managers have been rewarded and promoted.

Much of this will have to be addressed to Tom Daschle, who is Obama’s appointment for the Department of Health and Human Services. It will be his responsibility to investigate the charges and make changes, appropriately.

We have reported in the past about the FDA’s failings with the approval of Bisphenol-A. The chemical was approved after only two multi-phase studies, which would be considered unacceptable, normally. There is even evidence that the chemical manufacturers, such as Dow, was allowed to write the safety and efficacy reports.

Since the approval, repeated studies have shown this to be a much more dangerous chemical than expected. Doing most of its harm because it acts as a hormone mimicker it seen as the cause of cancers, sterility and genital deformities. The chemical is used as a synthesizing agent during the process of plastics and other metals (such as soda cans). And, unfortunately, is found at high levels in products targeted towards children (bottles, toys, and drinks) making exposure to the the toxin abnormally high.

It will be very interesting to see how the Obama Administration follows up with FDA and the changes implemented.

Found mostly in children’s toys, phthalates is a colorless, oily chemical used in thousands of products to impart flexibility and durability. Due to leaching, children come in contact with the chemical with hand-to-mouth contact or by chewing on the toy. Most scientists believe, from verifiable data, that phthalates are hormone altering chemicals, that affect the reproductive systems of developing children. There is a greater impact on young boys where genital deformities and sterility are increasing problems.

With the ban in place, consumers can feel more confident that the products their children are exposed to are safe. The ban also applies to online retailers that sell to California consumers.

Specifically, the law bans the use of six types of phthalates found in some children’s toys containing plastic and in “child-care articles” intended “to facilitate sleep, relaxation, or the feeding of children, or to help children with sucking or teething.”

The law also requires that phthalate substitutes be less toxic. The San Francisco Department of the Environment throughout 2008 tested toys made with polyvinyl chloride — which often contains high phthalate levels — bought in city stores.

California is the first state to implement such a ban and it came after a long and arduous fight from chemical and plastic manufacturers. Many states are expected to not place similar bans due to the cost of battling these companies in court and in the law books.

However, this may be one case in which the science will create a natural progression of elimination of this product. You can go HERE for more information.