Posted on 04/08/2010 6:19:48 AM PDT by fight_truth_decay
Researchers investigating the use of phenols, phthalates and phytoestrogens, used in packaging as well as perfumes, lotions and shampoos, has found evidence they can cause harm by interfering with the body's hormones.
A study of the effects of the three compounds on 1,151 pre-pubescent girls in the US found they caused a variety of problems in puberty.
Dr Mary Wolff, an oncologist at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, said: "Research has shown that early pubertal development in girls can have adverse social and medical effects, including cancer and diabetes later in life.
"Our research shows a connection between chemicals that girls are exposed to on a daily basis and either delayed or early development. While more research is needed, these data are an important first step in continuing to evaluate the impact of these common environmental agents in putting girls at risk."
The chemicals increase durability in nail polishes and add fragrance to perfumes, lotions, and shampoos. Some are also used to increase the flexibility of plastics such as PVC, and as coatings on medications and nutritional supplements.
Phthalates are banned in cosmetics in Europe but are allowed in the United States.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
There is no question that phthalates are endocrine disruptors.
The is no question that they are ubiquitous in the products we use and so people are being exposed to estrogen-like chemicals that they didn't used to be exposed to.
There is no question that hormonal compounds can have effects at extremely low concentrations.
A person is not a whack job if they point out that maybe this combination of factors could be a serious problem and it is certainly worth investigating.
These estrogens reach our water treatment plants and end up back in our tap water.
I have heard that although there are water treatment plants that feed directly back into the tap water system, this is not yet common.
Great, chemicals are sexualizing our girls at earlier and earlier ages—while feminizing the boys. Talk about frustration!
I have no idea what you're talking about. Do you? Is this your admission that you have nothing to refute what I've said?
Honestly, there is a real problem with our food supply
You just can't identify what that problem is or back it up with sound scientific evidence.
when the people involved in the production and distribution of our food dont know any better than to taint it with additives
Yet the people who produce the food and distribute it feed it to their families. They must be real evil SOB's. Have you ever even bothered to study the ingredients you rail against or do you simply believe everything you read on the internet?
that everyone with more than a single-digit IQ know is just plain wrong.
I don't understand why you have a much higher IQ but still can't explain to us why these things are "just plain wrong."
OTOH, myself, and many others like me, spend years in a classroom studying chemistry, biology, nutrition and physiology, and then work for decades in the industry further developing our knowledge, only to have someone who's never bothered to learn jack squat about the subject tell us we have single digit IQ's. Do you see the problem here?
Here are the facts....The FDA has studied the amount of hormones in milk treated with bST and milk from cows that were not given any growth hormones. They found the level of hormones in both test batches to be identical. There have been thousands of studies measuring hormone levels in milk from cows given synthetic hormone injections vs. those that have not. Supplemental administration of bST does not affect the quantity of bST found in milk or the milk's composition. In fact, 90% or so of the hormones in milk are destroyed during the pasteurization process. Those are the facts and they are supported by thousands of studies undertaken by academia, government and industry.
Beef cattle are also given growth hormones. I suppose you think that causes "real problems" too. As an example, a recent study found that 3 oz. of beef from an untreated animal contains approximately 1.3 nanograms of estrogen, while the same amount of meat from a treated animal would contain about 1.9 nanograms (one nanogram is one one-billionth of a gram). Does this sound dangerous to you? If so, then, like I suggested before, you shouldn't be commenting on the subject. As a comparison, a woman (not pregnant) produces approximately 500,0000 nanograms of estrogen per day.
It's clear you fear things you have no understanding of. The issue with young girls reaching puberty early is probably caused by greater body weight and fat in young girls today than in the past. It is also a fact that young girls today drink less milk than their mothers did. It's pretty hard to pinpoint a cause when can't find a correlation. But you keep trying.
You wasted a lot of words, just to get back to the point that you don’t know any better than to inject cattle with artificial hormones, and feed them beef. Regurgitating words from the glossary of your fourth grade science book doesn’t make you look intelligent. It doesn’t conceal a lack of common sense.
Further study may be warranted but the fear is not.
Water is all around us too. That doesn’t make it smart to do stupid things with it.
I know, I know. Science was hard for you, so you chose to memorize the glossary in the hope that somebody would believe you understood what the words mean. Didn’t work out too well, did it?
I remember a study a few years ago that condemned the high levels of estrogen (from soy?) in “negro” hair-care products; supposedly daily use produced pubescent hair growth even in toddlers. I’m not saying it’s true, just that I’ve heard it before.
Cattle are not fed beef. Their high protein portions come from corn and corn by-products such as dry distiller’s corn.
Dairy cows, when producing milk, take in about fifty lbs of corn (sileage) a day in addition to the grass that they eat.
You’ve wasted valuable time pretending to know things you have no understanding of. Your elementary use of some memorized phrases can’t cover up the fact that you don’t understand what you’re talking about. Making it sound complicated to no one but yourself, can’t cover up the fact that you don’t understand a very simple truth.
Am I the only here who’s heard of mad cow disease?
It isn't all that complicated, so go ahead, show us what you know. Either put up or STFU. Are you someone who understand the issue or are you just another fool with a keyboard?
Holy cow! Did you say fifty pound of corn per day? Please tell me you didn’t say that. That’s about twice their entire dietary intake of dry food.
“Am I the only here whos heard of mad cow disease?”
No you’re not. But some of us have been in agriculture and know that the beef protein supplements were banned many years ago. Which is why we haven’t had any mad cow disease.
Or not much anyway.
They may be used in other countries but I doubt it.
Do you have a question? If it relates to the ongoing conversation, I haven’t changed my mind. Was my explanation too complicated for you to understand?
That's it exactly.
Seesh, even FreeRepublic has a bunch of anti-food nuts.
I realize it hasn’t been used here recently.
We have a whole generation of people who never learned what real food was.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.