> Modern Chemistry: Guilty until proven innocent
> Jacob Schor, ND, FABNO
> May 7, 2010
>>>> I’ve been thinking about chemistry all week. Well not exactly about chemistry but our attitude to chemicals and their potential to aid or harm us. Perhaps I’m being optimistic and seeing the glass, or beaker half full, but it seems that there has been a slight shift in public opinion of late.
>> Modern chemistry is a marvelous thing and our understanding of intricate chemical reactions on a molecular level, even on an atomic level, never ceases to fascinate me. Growing up in the last century, how could one not be enamored with what chemists could do and make? Sure, certain chemicals proved to have unwanted consequences; just last night my daughter was asking what the book Silent Spring was about. Apparently it was a multiple-choice question on her American History Exam yesterday. Yet, by and large, we gave chemicals a free pass. Harmless until proven toxic has been the attitude both on part of the public and more importantly on the part of regulators.
>> Obviously there have been obstinate curmudgeons who have thought otherwise over the years and their numbers have grown increasingly influential, but mostly in the marketplace. Think of the effort it too to locate organic produce two decades ago. Possessing a fervent desire to step away from dangerous or just unproven safe chemicals has become acceptable behavior. At least this has become acceptable for individuals to do. It has not become government regulatory policy. In fact it would seem that if anything over the last decades regulatory control has become more lax.
>> In conversation a few months ago, a long time employee of the Environmental Protection Agency admitted to me that the last President to make significant strides in improving environmental quality was Richard Nixon. Since then it’s been downhill. >> Several recent things bring up these ruminations. Nicolas Kristof had an interesting op-ed piece in the May 6, 2010 issue of the New York Times.
>>
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/06/opinion/06kristof.html?pagewanted=print > [This piece is so interesting that I couldn’t resist and have pasted the full text of Kristof’s article is at the end of this newsletter]
>> In it he describes the President’s Cancer Report that was published last Thursday. What’s striking about the report is that for once a government panel appears to be saying the right things. The information hasn’t been diluted down by industry lobbyists. Industry money in this case has not bought the right to censor information that negatively impacts their ‘right’ to make a profit.
>> Though the panel is supposed to consist of three scientists who report directly to the President, it turns out that there are only two committee members currently; one seat is empty. The two acting members who wrote this report, LaSalle Leffall Jr., an oncologist and professor at Howard University, and Margaret Kripke, an immunologist at M.D. Anderson were appointed by former President George W. Bush. One might hop that the information contained will not be ignored by those who would wish to make this a partisan issue. Cancer deaths do seem to be bipartisan.
>>> To quote Mr. Kristof’s article:
>> [The report] “calls on America to rethink the way we confront cancer, including much more rigorous regulation of chemicals.
>> Traditionally, we reduce cancer risks through regular doctor visits, self-examinations and screenings such as mammograms. The President’s Cancer Panel suggests other eye-opening steps as well, such as giving preference to organic food, checking radon levels in the home and microwaving food in glass containers rather than plastic.
>> In particular, the report warns about exposures to chemicals during pregnancy, when risk of damage seems to be greatest. Noting that 300 contaminants have been detected in umbilical cord blood of newborn babies, the study warns that: “to a disturbing extent, babies are born ‘pre-polluted.’ ”
>> The full text of the report can be read at:
>>
http://deainfo.nci.nih.gov/advisory/pcp/pcp08-09rpt/PCP_Report_08-09_508.pdf >>> Mention of this needed focus on chemical exposure during pregnancy reminds me of the data on the potential health risks caused by Bisphenol-A (BPA) and the seeming never ending uphill battle research scientists have had making their concerns heard by regulatory agencies. We have written about BPA in the past. I won’t belabor the details this fine morning; I’ve promised to turn a winter’s collection of compost into the garden, yet there is one relatively new study that requires mention.>> Earlier this spring, Randall Goldblum, of the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston, reported that fetal exposure to BPA was not only probably a trigger to developing asthma later but was probably a stronger trigger than post utero, that means after being born, exposure. Up to this point there has been emphasis on avoiding BPA containing baby bottles in order to reduce infant exposure but this study suggests that it may be even more important, for women of child bearing ages and especially pregnant women to avoid BPA exposure.
>> This wasn’t a human study, purposefully giving BPA to humans is no longer ethical so the experiment was done on mice. Pregnant mice were given water drugged with BPA (from 0 to 10 mcg/ml). The scientists attempted to trigger asthma in the baby mice born of these BPA mothers through a commonly used method, having them inhale ovalbumin shortly after birth. Ovalbumin is just a fancy name for egg white powder. The baby mice whose moms had drank the high dose BPA laced water, all developed measurable and significant measurements of allergic sensitivity.
>>>> The responses were far more striking in the mice born of BPA fed moms than mice of moms who didn’t receive the BPA, but who were nursed by moms drinking BPA water. Their response was only half of those exposed in-utero.
>> BPA levels in the baby mice was far higher than in their mothers. Levels in moms were about 2ng/ml while in their babies, levels ranged from 10-20 ng/ml. Young mice don’t make the enzymes needed to metabolize these toxins.>> Currently the FDA makes and equal fuss about avoiding BPA while pregnant or nursing. It may be that a far greater fuss should be made about avoiding BPA while pregnant.>> It is admirable that we assume innocence until proven guilty in a court of law. When it comes to the chemicals that we add into our bodies and our environment, we should take an opposite stance, toxic until proven harmless.
>> Over the last five years we’ve sent out several articles about BPA that are still worth reading:
>> Bisphenols and diabetes: genetic disinformation Dec 2005>
http://denvernaturopathic.com/news/informing.html >> Bisphenol A: the experts disagree Jan 2008:
http://denvernaturopathic.com/news/bisphenolA2.html >>>>> References:
> Mice Prone to Asthma After Fetal BPA Exposure
> By John Gever, Senior Editor, MedPage Today
> Published: March 02, 2010
>> Nakajima Y, et al "Dose response of maternal exposure to bisphenol A (BPA) on the development of experimental asthma in mouse pups" J Allergy Clin Immunol 2010; 125: AB127.
>>> May 6, 2010
> Op-Ed Columnist
> New Alarm Bells About Chemicals and Cancer
> By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
>> The President’s Cancer Panel is the Mount Everest of the medical mainstream, so it is astonishing to learn that it is poised to join ranks with the organic food movement and declare: chemicals threaten our bodies.
>> The cancer panel is releasing a landmark 200-page report on Thursday, warning that our lackadaisical approach to regulation may have far-reaching consequences for our health.
>> I’ve read an advance copy of the report, and it’s an extraordinary document. It calls on America to rethink the way we confront cancer, including much more rigorous regulation of chemicals.
>> Traditionally, we reduce cancer risks through regular doctor visits, self-examinations and screenings such as mammograms. The President’s Cancer Panel suggests other eye-opening steps as well, such as giving preference to organic food, checking radon levels in the home and microwaving food in glass containers rather than plastic.
>> In particular, the report warns about exposures to chemicals during pregnancy, when risk of damage seems to be greatest. Noting that 300 contaminants have been detected in umbilical cord blood of newborn babies, the study warns that: “to a disturbing extent, babies are born ‘pre-polluted.’ ”
>> It’s striking that this report emerges not from the fringe but from the mission control of mainstream scientific and medical thinking, the President’s Cancer Panel. Established in 1971, this is a group of three distinguished experts who review America’s cancer program and report directly to the president.
>> One of the seats is now vacant, but the panel members who joined in this report are Dr. LaSalle Leffall Jr., an oncologist and professor of surgery at Howard University, and Dr. Margaret Kripke, an immunologist at the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. Both were originally appointed to the panel by former President George W. Bush.
>> “We wanted to let people know that we’re concerned, and that they should be concerned,” Professor Leffall told me.
>> The report blames weak laws, lax enforcement and fragmented authority, as well as the existing regulatory presumption that chemicals are safe unless strong evidence emerges to the contrary.
>> “Only a few hundred of the more than 80,000 chemicals in use in the United States have been tested for safety,” the report says. It adds: “Many known or suspected carcinogens are completely unregulated.”
>> Industry may howl. The food industry has already been fighting legislation in the Senate backed by Dianne Feinstein of California that would ban bisphenol-A, commonly found in plastics and better known as BPA, from food and beverage containers.
>> Studies of BPA have raised alarm bells for decades, and the evidence is still complex and open to debate. That’s life: In the real world, regulatory decisions usually must be made with ambiguous and conflicting data. The panel’s point is that we should be prudent in such situations, rather than recklessly approving chemicals of uncertain effect.
>> The President’s Cancer Panel report will give a boost to Senator Feinstein’s efforts. It may also help the prospects of the Safe Chemicals Act, backed by Senator Frank Lautenberg and several colleagues, to improve the safety of chemicals on the market.
>> Some 41 percent of Americans will be diagnosed with cancer at some point in their lives, and they include Democrats and Republicans alike. Protecting ourselves and our children from toxins should be an effort that both parties can get behind — if enough members of Congress are willing to put the public interest ahead of corporate interests.
>> One reason for concern is that some cancers are becoming more common, particularly in children. We don’t know why that is, but the proliferation of chemicals in water, foods, air and household products is widely suspected as a factor. I’m hoping the President’s Cancer Panel report will shine a stronger spotlight on environmental causes of health problems — not only cancer, but perhaps also diabetes, obesity and autism.
>> This is not to say that chemicals are evil, and in many cases the evidence against a particular substance is balanced by other studies that are exonerating. To help people manage the uncertainty prudently, the report has a section of recommendations for individuals:
>> ¶Particularly when pregnant and when children are small, choose foods, toys and garden products with fewer endocrine disruptors or other toxins. (Information about products is at
www.cosmeticsdatabase.com or
www.healthystuff.org.)
>> ¶For those whose jobs may expose them to chemicals, remove shoes when entering the house and wash work clothes separately from the rest of the laundry.
>> ¶Filter drinking water.
>> ¶Store water in glass or stainless steel containers, or in plastics that don’t contain BPA or phthalates (chemicals used to soften plastics). Microwave food in ceramic or glass containers.
>> ¶Give preference to food grown without pesticides, chemical fertilizers and growth hormones. Avoid meats that are cooked well-done.
>> ¶Check radon levels in your home. Radon is a natural source of radiation linked to cancer.
>>> ................................................................
>>> We hope you find the information in these newsletters useful, informative and hopefully entertaining. If you want your name removed simply leave a message at the office (303-337-4884) or go to the website: denvernaturopathic.com and unsubscribe, or reply with the message "REMOVE" in the subject line. If on the other hand you want to be added to the mailing list follow the prior instructions but subscribe. > We are posting most of these newsletters in our 'NEWS' section of the website. The website versions contain more complete references and often abstracts of the references quoted and links to the full text of many of the journal articles mentioned. You don't have to be a patient to sign up and we encourage you to get your friends on our mailing list so you don't have to keep forwarding the newsletters that you find interesting.
This is just one more amazing essay from a colleague.
Posted via email from GF Doctor-a slightly biased view of gluten free life.
