Food Can Chemicals 'Could Be Linked to Early Puberty in Girls'

Telegraph.co.uk ^ | 8:30AM BST 07 Apr 2010 | Alastair Jamieson

[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.

More

[HereInTheHeartland]

“Mr. President, I’m not saying we wouldn’t get our hair mussed. But I do say no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops. Uh, depending on the breaks”

[Til I am the last man standing]

A good article. Thank you for the share. It places focus on several areas that are more realistic then minuscule amounts of so called “estrogen disrupters”.

[philetus]

I only needed to read the first sentence.

[philetus]

It’s the Milk

http://www.health101.org/art_Milk_and_Girls.htm

[wideminded]

There is also no question that our biologically generated estrone, estrial, estradial, and it metabolites have varying degrees of “strength”, if I may use that term. The same is true of phthalates and phytoestrogens such as soy. Neither of the latter substances come close to having the same kind of kind of effects on the human body as the former.

I did some research on the internet today about the relative effects of estrogens, phytoestrogens, and xenoestogens like BPA. It has been shown that BPA can affect some cells in part-per-trillion (picomolar) concentrations. This paper looked at the effects on cells of low concentrations of various estrogen-like substances. As shown in the following graphs from this study, at nanomolar concentrations, BPA can even have a stronger effect than estradiol:

When someone attempts to use such words as “estrogen-like compounds”, “estrogen disruptors” and the phrase “There is no question that hormonal compounds can have effects at extremely low concentrations” alarm bells go off in my head. It tells me that they have no clue as to what they are talking about. It also tells me that they have an agenda which has no basis in scientific fact

This article describes the science and history behind this new work.

[Til I am the last man standing]

I appreciate your follow up, but this means nothing. You have a scientist who had a theory in the 80’s and came to believe that it was true. She has spent 30 years trying to develop the technology to prove her theory. She still hasn’t. She has found that these chemicals can increase calcium activity intracellular via a voltage gated calcium channel. This is turn stimulates prolactin activity. This is not the only response the cell has to estrogen. It is does not take into account the numerous messanger systems that exist in the cell that can be stimulated by estrogen. It doesn’t take into account the very thing she had trouble with in the beginning, and that is the effects of XEs on the nuclear membrane. She cannot, by the very of the nature of her experiments, even square her theory with how the body handles the detoxification of endogenous and xeno estrogens. Detoxification of estrogen by the liver requires pretty decent nutrition. The removal of conjugated estrogens thru the feces requires a pretty good functioning colon. Without these there can be a problem.

She said herself “We looked at these data and said these things are just as potent as physiological estrogens like estradiol if you look at these mechanisms,”....looking at a single mechanism, or pathway that proves her point when there are a multitude of unanswered questons. She is a typical scientist in the Rachel Carson mode....reach a conclusion first and prove it second.

[Til I am the last man standing]

If it was the milk (or the water for that matter) then all girls would be maturing earlier, not just some. The Japanese study cited in your article did not take into account the other changes in the westernized Japanese diet which can have a detrimental effect (increased use of refined flours and sugars are the biggest example).

[wideminded]

You have a scientist who had a theory in the 80’s and came to believe that it was true. She has spent 30 years trying to develop the technology to prove her theory. She still hasn’t.

There is nothing wrong with a scientist having a hypothesis and proving it correct in a repeatable experiment.

Her group did in fact find a mechanism that showed how cells can be affected by extremely small concentrations of xenoestrogens and did in fact put together the technology to measure this. Science is like a wall built up from many facts and she has certainly managed to put some bricks in the wall.