Consumer Alert: BPA-Free Goods Still Contain Toxic Bisphenol

Breaking research indicates that manufacturers throughout the world who were using the toxic hormone-disrupting chemical bisphenol A (BPA), may have simply switched to an equally toxic analogue in the same bisphenol chemical class known as bisphenol S (BPS), to evade regulatory oversight and trick consumers with their misleading “BPA-FREE!” labels….

If you are already sensitive to the highly concerning issue of toxic chemicals in everyday consumer products, you’ve probably noticed these “BPA-Free” labels popping up everywhere.  Bisphenol A (BPA), of course, is a chemical capable of disrupting our hormones, and is especially problematic in pregnancy, infancy and childhood — times of greatest susceptibility to the adverse effects of environmental exposures.

Now that consumers are refusing to buy BPA-containing containers, manufacturers have had no choice but to oblige with seemingly bisphenol-free alternatives. Ironically, BPA is used to make Sippy Cups (and polycarbonate) shatterproof, and therefore “safer.” But, instead of manufacturers actually removing the danger in BPA-free labeled products, many are capitalizing on this marketing opportunity by removing only the perception of danger, opting to substitute BPA for equally toxic members of the bisphenol chemical class.

An Alphabetic Soup of Toxic Bisphenols In Consumer Goods

While BPA has received the most negative attention, often being labeled as “bisphenol” for short, the bisphenols are such a broad chemical class that they are identified pseudo-alphabetically, spanning letters A-Z:

1. Bisphenol A


2. Bisphenol AB


3. Bisphenol AF


4. Bisphenol B


5. Bisphenol BP


6. Bisphenol C


7. Bisphenol E


8. Bisphenol F


9. Bisphenol G


10. Bisphenol M


11. Bisphenol S


12. Bisphenol P


13. Bisphenol PH


14. Bisphenol TMC


15. Bisphenol Z

Bisphenol A has become the primary focus of consumer advocates for several reasons:

1) It is the most extensively research bisphenol, with at least 40 potential adverse health effects identified in the biomedical literature thus far.

2) Canada became the first country to officially declare BPA a “toxic substance” in September 2010[1]

3) It has the highest production volume and use in consumer goods, with 2.2 million tons consumed globally in 2009.

Primary routes of exposure include:

1. Plastics


2. PVC water lines


3. Canned Goods


4. Thermal Receipt Paper


5. All World Paper Currency


6. Dental Sealants

Despite industry spokespersons and industry-funded scientists claiming BPA does not possess estrogenic properties of any biological significance, it was first acknowledged and used as an artificial estrogen in the early 1930’s, where it was used both to fatten poultry and cattle, as well as a form of estrogen replacement therapy in women in the mid-1930’s.[2]  Only later, in the 1940’s, did Bayer and General Electric use BPA to harden polycarbonate plastics and make epoxy resin, the latter of which is still used to line nearly the entire world’s supply of food and beverage containers.  Only Japanese industries, which responded to consumer concern about the toxic effects of BPA between 1998-2003, voluntarily reduced BPA in favor of safer alternatives.

In the United States and abroad, in response to growing consumer concern over the safety of BPA, manufacturers have been rapidly substituting Bisphenol S (and possibly other bisphenol analogues) in its place.

How do we know this? After all, manufacturers are not required to list bisphenols explicitly on the labels of the consumer products within which they are used. Two new studies reveal that Bisphenol S (BPS) has become as dominant as BPA in manufacturing paper products we come into contact daily, as well as in terms of measurable human exposure….

New Research Proves Bisphenol A Is Secretly Being Replaced By Bisphenol S

First, a study published last week in the journal Environmental Science & Technology found BPS in thermal paper from stores in the US, Japan, South Korea and Vietnam, at concentrations similar to earlier reports of BPA. Concentrations were found as high as 22 mg per gram of paper — two orders of magnitude higher concentrations than are considered biologically significant. BPS was also found in 87 percent of the paper currency assayed from 21 countries, indicating it is being utilized on a  truly global scale.

The same week the same journal published another study titled, “Bisphenol S in Urine from the United States and Seven Asian Countries: Occurrence and Human Exposures,”[3] revealing for the first time that Bisphenol S concentrations in urine from the citizens of 8 countries were within the same concentration ranges as Bisphenol A levels reported by the same research group in the year before.[4]

Is Bisphenol S Safer Because We Know Less About It?

Despite the industry-wide move away from BPA towards BPS, they both exhibit similar estrogen-like properties.  A 2005 study performed by a Japanese research group found that BPS was only a slightly weaker estrogen than BPA.  But, as the Environmental Health News reported in 2010:

They [Japanese researchers] tested the effects on human cells and found that bisphenol S was slightly less potent than BPA, but not by much: bisphenol S was active at 1.1 micromolar concentration, BPA at 0.63 micromolar. One micromolar is roughly equivalent to a packet of sugar in 3,000 gallons of water.[5]

A growing body of additional research now indicates that Bisphenol S is both estrogenic and uterotrophic (increasing the weight of the uterus), with clearly carcinogenic potential.[6] [7] [8] [9] [10]

A 2012 study published in the journal Toxicology In Vitro discussed the industry-wide shift from using BPA in plastic baby bottles to BPS after the European Commission imposed a restriction on BPA use in 2011, as a  direct result of scientific concerns over its estrogenic properties. The researchers found that “By using two highly standardised transactivation assays, we could demonstrate that the estrogenic activity of Bisphenol A and Bisphenol S is of a comparable potency.”

The problem is that BPS is less well-known and researched than BPA for its potential adverse effects, and while regulators wait for manufacturers who promote their products with “BPA-Free!” stickers at the same moment that they infuse them with BPS to voluntarily reformulate, there is evidence now that BPS may actually have worse effects to environmental and human health, alike..

One of the main concerns is that BPS is significantly less biodegradable than BPA. According to a study published in the International Journal of Environmental Research & Public Health in 2009, BPS “… is not amenable to biodegradation and might be persistent and become an ecological burden.”[11]  Another study published in the journal Environmental Toxicology & Pharmacology in 2005 found that BPS is “…more heat-stable and photo-resistant than bisphenol A.”[12]

BPS’ relative inability to biodegrade indicates: 1) once it is absorbed into the human body, it may accumulate there for longer periods of time. 2) it is more likely to persist in the environment, making external exposures to it, and its many metabolites, much more likely than the faster degrading BPA. In other words, its potential to do harm will worsen along the axis of time, not lessen, which is a common argument made for the purported “safety” of BPA.

Are We A Population of Guinea Pigs Without The Precautionary Principle?

Recently, it was discovered that synthetic estrogens are leaching into our bodies from consumer products (e.g. parabens) and are now eclipsing natural human estrogens.  A paraben ester was found at 1 million times higher concentrations than natural estrogen levels in the breast tissue of mastectomy patients. After several generations of “better living through chemistry,” we are discovering that we have poisoned ourselves and our environment (can we really separate them any longer?) into profound and possibly irrevocable disfigurement.  What is needed now more than ever is a paradigm shift in how we regulate our exposure to chemicals, and the industries that produce them virtually unrestricted.

Perhaps we must begin asking ourselves: What would the chemical and drug industries do without the twin disciplines of toxicology and pharmacology? The former provides ample justification for continually exposing us to “an acceptable level of harm” from the chemicals it secretes, and the latter convinces us just how we can’t live without “therapeutic” chemicals, e.g. pharmaceuticals.

Until we demand the implementation of the precautionary principle in this country, and abroad, nothing will change … other than, increasingly, our very biological and genetic integrity, for the worse.

---

[1] Canada Gazette Part II. 13 October 2010;144(21):1806–18.

[2] Erler, C. & Novak, J. Bisphenol A Exposure: Human Risk and Health Policy. Journal of Pediatric Nursing. 2010. Volume 25:400-407. Accessed online March 1, 2012.

[3] Bisphenol S in Urine from the United States and Seven Asian Countries: Occurrence and Human Exposures. Environ Sci Technol. 2012 May 23. Epub 2012 May 23. PMID: 22620267

[4] Bisphenol S in Urine from the United States and Seven Asian Countries: Occurrence and Human Exposures. Environ Sci Technol. 2012 May 23. Epub 2012 May 23. PMID: 22620267

[5] Environmental Health News, Nov. 12, 2010 BPA: What’s the alternative?

[6] Weak estrogenic transcriptional activities of Bisphenol A and Bisphenol S. Toxicol In Vitro. 2012 Aug ;26(5):727-31. Epub 2012 Apr 5. PMID: 22507746

[7] Comparative study of the uterotrophic potency of 14 chemicals in a uterotrophic assay and their receptor-binding affinity. Toxicol Lett. 2004 Jan 15 ;146(2):111-20. PMID: 14643963

[8] Acute toxicity, mutagenicity, and estrogenicity of bisphenol-A and other bisphenols. Environ Toxicol. 2002 Feb ;17(1):80-6. PMID: 11847978

[9] Estrogenic activity of dental materials and bisphenol-A related chemicals in vitro. Dent Mater J. 2000 Sep ;19(3):245-62. PMID: 11218845

[10] Measurement of estrogenic activity of chemicals for the development of new dental polymers. Toxicol In Vitro. 2001 Aug-Oct;15(4-5):421-5. PMID: 11566573

[11] Biodegradation of bisphenol A, bisphenol F and bisphenol S in seawater. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2009 Apr ;6(4):1472-84. Epub 2009 Apr 17. PMID: 19440529

[12] Estrogenic activity of alkylphenols, bisphenol S, and their chlorinated derivatives using a GFP expression system. Environ Toxicol Pharmacol. 2005 Jan ;19(1):121-30. PMID: 21783468

© April 13, 2018 GreenMedInfo LLC. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of GreenMedInfo LLC. Want to learn more from GreenMedInfo? Sign up for the newsletter here http://www.greenmedinfo.com/greenmed/newsletter.

The post Consumer Alert: BPA-Free Goods Still Contain Toxic Bisphenol appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.

Why Touching Receipts Can Harm Your Health

Keeping your receipts may make good financial sense, but it can seriously harm your health. 

If you are like me, you hesitate at the checkout counter whenever the cashier asks you “would you like your receipt”? If your inner accountant is alive and well, you will find yourself wanting to keep it, which means touch it. But on the other hand, if you are already aware of the information in this article, the idea of handling a bisphenol A saturated thermal printer receipt without gloves makes as much sense as handling gasoline or paint thinner without protection.

And if you are really “neurotic” like me, you may find yourself thinking about the health of the cashier, who undoubtedly has been handling receipts all shift long, and will continue to be exposed — often unwittingly — to a significant dose of bisphenol A throughout the course of their employment. This is why I cringe doubly when I refuse a receipt, because I realize that the cashier has no idea why I would do so, nor that they have suffered a harmful chemical exposure in the very act of offering the receipt to me.

All this might sound overly cautious if it had not already been proven that exposure to  is one of the primary routes through which our bodies become contaminated with the toxic synthetic chemical known as bisphenol A (BPA), a potent endocrine disruptor, carcinogen, and neurotoxic and cardiotoxic chemical, linked to over 50 adverse health effects. BPA is also found in airline tickets, gas and ATM receipts, and paper currency absorbs the BPA contained within these receipts, making daily exposure even more likely.

There are other important variables that play into how much of this chemical we absorb. For instance, bisphenol absorption is exponentially enhanced with the use of mass market skin care products, which are themselves mainly comprised of petrochemically-derived ingredients whose toxicities are also a major concern. For instance, back in 2014, a highly concerning study published in PLoS titled, “Holding thermal receipt paper and eating food after using hand sanitizer results in high serum bioactive and urine total levels of bisphenol A (BPA),” found that hand sanitizers, as well as other skin care products, contain mixtures of chemicals that can increase the absorption of fat-soluble compounds such as BPA by as much as 100 fold.

There is also the disturbing fact that 93% of healthy infants aged 3-15 months were found to be contaminated with BPA without any known cause of environmental exposure, revealing how truly widespread contamination is, regardless of direct exposure to thermal printer receipts.¹

Now a new study published in Environmental Health Perspectives titled, “Bisphenol A, Bisphenol S, and 4-Hydroxyphenyl 4-Isoprooxyphenylsulfone (BPSIP) in Urine and Blood of Cashiers“, reveals that the problem of chemical exposure through paper receipts is not simply associated with bisphenol A exposure, but with other bisphenol analogs as well. As we have seen with the recent increase in products explicitly labeled as “bisphenol A free“, the industries that have become reliant on the chemical are now substituting bisphenol S (and perhaps other bisphenols) in these products, despite the fact that it possesses similar toxicity.  This is all the more disturbing considering recent research revealing that bisphenol S may be 100x more potent an endocrine disruptor than bisphenol A.

The chemical class known as bisphenols actually includes over a dozen different forms, including bisphenols A, B, C, F, P. The new study found that the printer receipts contained between 1-2% BPA, BPS, or BPSIP (a bisphenol S variation), by weight. The blood and urine samples of cashiers were evaluated for bisphenol levels in post-shift samples compared with pre-shift samples, finding that the receipts contained between 1-2% BPA, PBS, or BPSIP, by weight, and that their levels of BPS were significantly higher than non-cashiers. Based on the cashier’s toxicological profile, the study concluded, “Thermal receipt paper is a potential source of occupational exposure to BPA, BPS, and BPSIP.”

So, what do you do if you shouldn’t touch or keep your receipts?

One easy ‘no touch’ way to track receipts is to take a photo of it and email it to yourself or a special email account you create to account for them. You could also use one of many phone apps that help you photo and track your receipts. Here is an article on IGeeksBlog.com on the “Best iPhone Receipt Tracking Apps: Never Miss An Expense Again.”

Also, consider that there is research on natural ways to mitigate bisphenol toxicity. We have a list of 13 natural substances, including kimchi, royal jelly, genistein and black tea, that have been shown to protect against this ubiquitous toxicant.

References

¹ K Mendonca, R Hauser, A M Calafat, T E Arbuckle, S M Duty. Bisphenol A concentrations in maternal breast milk and infant urine. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2012 Dec 5. Epub 2012 Dec 5. PMID: 23212895

The post Why Touching Receipts Can Harm Your Health appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.

Study: BPA Disrupts Prostate Health

Bisphenol-A has seen its share of media attention, and none of it has been very positive. It’s a known endocrine disruptor still being used as a softening agent in plastics. You’re probably already aware that BPA disrupts reproductive health, which is contributing to hormonal imbalance in both women and men. BPA lines many aluminum cans and water bottles, and it has the tendency to leach into the contents of the container. A new study has exposed another startling health effect of BPA consumption–prostate cancer.

Why Men (and Everyone Else) Should Avoid BPA

According to a professor from the University of Illinois in Chicago, when scientists exposed an organoid similar to the prostate gland to very low doses of BPA, the organoid grew an overabundance of prostate stem cells. ^[1] While stem cells are present in the prostate gland, too many can raise the risk for prostate cancer. According to many theories, the more stem cells an organ has, the more likely a mutation can occur. Could BPA be one of the leading contributors to today’s cases?

BPA mimics female hormones, particularly estrogen, which means it poses a threat to men and women. Not only could it be a hidden contributing factor to prostate cancer, but research shows it may also be contributing to all forms of cancer. ^[2] Even avoiding BPA-free plastics is probably not the answer, because the alternatives to BPA appear to hold the same health risks. Bisphenol-S, for instance, is sometimes used in BPA-free plastics and BPA-free tin cans, but it isn’t the most reliable from a health standpoint. ^[3]

Ways to Avoid BPA

One of the best ways to avoid BPA is to stop using plastic containers and, instead, switch to glass or ceramic. Avoid drinking from plastic water bottles, reusable or not, and do not drink from plastic water bottles that have been sitting out in the hot sun. Heat speeds up the rate at which BPA is leached into the water. ^[4] Also, consider performing a cleanse periodically to support your overall health. Just making a simple switch for your health can go a long way, so consider using these tips the next time you are storing leftovers or beverages.

Are there any tips for avoiding BPA that we’ve missed? Please let us know in the comments!

References:

1. Esther L. Calderon-Gierszal, Gail S. Prins. Directed Differentiation of Human Embryonic Stem Cells into Prostate Organoids In Vitro and its Pertubation by Low-Dose Bisphenol A Exposure. PLoS One. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0133238.


2. Ana M. Soto & Carlos Sonnenschein. Environmental causes of cancer: endocrine disruptors as carcinogens. Nature Reviews Endocrinology 6, 363-370 (July 2010). doi: 10.1038/nrendo.2010.87.


3. Manjumol Mathew, S. Sreedhanya, P. Manoj, C. T. Aravindakumar, and Usha K. Aravind. Exploring the Interaction of Bisphenol-S with Serum Albumins: A Better or Worse Alternative for Bisphenol A. J. Phys. Chem. B, 2014, 118 (14), pp 3832-3843. DOI: 10.1021/jp500404u.


4. Chun Z. Yang, Stuart I. Yaniger, V. Craig Jordan, Daniel J. Klein, and George D. Bittner. Most Plastic Products Release Estrogenic Chemicals: A Potential Health Problem That Can Be Solved. Environ Health Perspect. 2011 Jul 1; 119(7): 989-996. doi: 10.1289/ehp.1003220.

The post Study: BPA Disrupts Prostate Health appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.

What Are Obesogens?

Obesogens is an umbrella term given to the dozens of endocrine disruptors that play a role in obesity. Chemicals from plastics, like BPA, are known obesogens, and these chemicals pollute our waterways and pervade our homes. The effects of obesogens have been studied intensely over the past few years and the research shows that they have a hand in uncontrolled weight gain.

Obesogens: A Worldwide Issue

A closer look at amphibians and the endocrine disrupting chemicals in their environment is showing how obesogens translate to human health, particularly when it relates to metabolic disorder. ^[1] Since many chemicals from pollution and man-made items end up in the water supply, it isn’t surprising to see drastic changes in fish and other aquatic mammals. These life forms receive abundant doses of PCBs, PBDEs, and other chemicals, much more so than we receive, but it does lead us to some insight into their effects. Some obesogens not only contribute to altered lipid metabolism in ocean dwellers, but it has also shown gender-bending qualities among fish. ^[2]

The Health Effects of Obesogens

Research is showing that obesogenic effects can be transferred from mother to child, revealing why some people may be born with metabolic problems from the start. Findings like this display the importance of avoiding chemicals during pregnancy. ^[3] The plastics industry is a heavy user of obesogenic chemicals, many of which are used in furniture, food storage, and building materials. ^[4] While completely eliminating chemical exposure is difficult, incorporating detoxification strategies can be helpful.

How to Combat Obesogens

Fortunately, obesogens may not be permanent in their effects. Avoidance of chemicals as much as possible, eating an organic diet, and drinking pure, filtered water goes a long way. Definitely avoid all plastics, including those that use BPA or BPS. Performing a regular cleansing protocol may also be helpful for relieving the toxic burden that ineluctably accumulates over time. Taking a high-quality probiotic could also strengthen defenses against invasive endocrine disruptors.

References:

1. Lindsey Konkel. A Closer Look at Obesogens: Lipid Homeostasis Disruption in Daphnia. Environ Health Perspect; DOI:10.1289/ehp.123-A219.


2. Catherine A. Harris, Patrick B. Hamilton, Tamsin J. Runnalls, et al. The Consequences of Feminization in Breeding Groups of WIld Fish. Environ Health Perspect. 2011 Mar; 119(3): 306-311.


3. Endocrine Society. Exposure to endocrine disruptors during pregnancy affects the brain two generations later, rat study shows. ScienceDaily. 5 March 2015.


4. Wendee Holtcamp. Obesogens: An Environmental Link to Obesity. Environ Health Perspect. 2012 Feb; 120(2): a62-a68. doi: 10.1289/ehp.120-a62.

The post What Are Obesogens? appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.

Study: Nearly 40% of Canned Goods Still Contain Gender-Bending BPA Chemical

Bisphenol A, or BPA, is an endocrine disrupting chemical that is ubiquitous within our society. It was removed from baby bottles, sippy cups, and most cans of baby formula a number of years ago. But a recent study found that a lot of food packaging still contains the gender-bending substance.

Recently, the Center for Environmental Health tested more than 250 cans purchased at supermarkets and dollar stores for BPA in California, Idaho, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Virginia. Most of the cans were purchased at Kroger, Albertsons/Safeway, Dollar Tree and 99 Cents Only.

Nearly 40% of the containers were found to contain the chemical. And while that’s less than 2 years ago, when it was 67%, it’s not exactly a small amount. [1]

The study found that 36% of Albertson’s, and 33% of Kroger’s “private label” food cans tested positive for BPA.

Charles Margulis of the Center for Environmental Health said:

“It’s still much too high. We need to get it down to zero.” [2]

BPA is used in the lining of cans, and some research indicates that low levels of it can seep into food.

According to the FDA, the current levels of BPA in food are safe. However, California recently added the substance to its Proposition 65 list as a chemical known to cause reproductive toxicity.

Margulis said:

“BPA is known to cause birth defects, and it’s also linked to breast cancer, obesity, and many other serious health problems.”

Those facing the greatest health risks from BPA exposure may be low-income citizens who often rely on canned foods. The study revealed that more than half of the cans purchased at 99 Cents Only contained BPA. Past studies show that low-come communities have higher levels of BPA in their bodies than the rest of the population. [1]

Margulis commented:

“In many areas, dollar stores are the only places can go for fruits and vegetables.” [2]

Read: Are You Living in a Food Desert?

His advice is simple: buy fresh organic produce whenever possible.

BPA Facts

Source: Chemical & Engineering News

BPA is a synthetic hormone which mimics the female hormone estrogen, earning the chemical its reputation as a “gender-bender.” It has been associated with infertility, breast and reproductive system changes, and early puberty. [3]

Aside from hormonal and reproductive problems, BPA may also cause obesity, diabetes, behavioral changes in children, and resistance to chemotherapy treatments.

How to Reduce BPA Exposure

It’s virtually impossible to completely avoid BPA, but there are things you can do to reduce your family’s exposure:

• Purchase baby formula in plastic, glass, or other non-metal containers. Choose powdered formula whenever possible, since the packaging contains less BPA, and the powder is diluted with fresh water. If you must buy your baby liquid formula, look for brands sold in plastic or glass containers, or one’s that explicitly say “BPA Free.”

• Look for canned food labeled BPA-free, or buy food packed in glass jars or waxed cardboard cartons.

• Repurpose old baby bottles, cups, dishes, and food containers marked with the letters “PC,” for polycarbonate, or recycling label #7. Not all #7 polycarbonates contain BPA, but some of them do.

• Never microwave food in plastic containers.

As much as 40% of store receipts may be coated in BPA as well, according to the Environmental Working Group. The chemical can rub off on hands or food items, and may be absorbed through the skin.

Source: Forbes

You can also limit your exposure to BPA through store receipts:

• Say no to paper receipts when possible.


• Keep receipts in an envelope.


• Never give a child a receipt to hold or play with.


• Wash your hands before preparing and eating food after handling a receipt.


• Don’t recycle receipts and other thermal paper. BPA residues contaminate recycled paper.

Sources:

[1] Center for Environmental Health

[2] CBS News

[3] Environmental Working Group

Chemical & Engineering News

Forbes

---

---

About Mike Barrett:
	Mike is the co-founder, editor, and researcher behind Natural Society. Studying the work of top natural health activists, and writing special reports for top 10 alternative health websites, Mike has written hundreds of articles and pages on how to obtain optimum wellness through natural health.

BPA Continues To Pervade Food Supply

BPA, or bisphenol-A, is an endocrine disruptor you’ve likely heard about a few times on this blog. It’s been shown to mimic hormones in the body–namely estrogen–and contribute to hormone imbalance. According to a new survey of over 250 brands of canned food, nearly 50% of respondents reported using BPA in their products. ^[1] Around 109 of those surveyed did not respond, so the percentage of those who use the chemical compound may be even higher.

The Troubling Facts about BPA

Because of its numerous uses in products like food packaging, dental sealants, and even paper receipts, BPA is ubiquitous in the environment. Virtually everyone on the planet has trace amounts of BPA in their body at any given time. Research into BPA has found that the chemical compound has links to cardiovascular disease, cancer, and even obesity. ^[2] Could BPA, along with diet and other factors, be a contributor to these disease epidemics?

Food manufacturers are not required to disclose that they use BPA in the lining of their canned foods, so it can be challenging at times to discern between brands that do contain the compound versus those that don’t. Generally, BPA-free labels will give it away, but be aware that the substitutes used to replace BPA may be just as bad. BPS, or bisphenol-S, is a common replacement that has been shown to promote similar health effects.

What Can I Do?

In order to reduce your BPA and BPS consumption, the best thing would be to eat more whole foods and become less reliant on processed or packaged foods. Make your meals from recipes that only use fresh, whole, living foods, and ditch foods that come in boxes, cans, and jars. If you are going to use a processed food that has the BPA-free label, contact the company to make sure they’re using safer substitutes for BPA. Also, a 9-step body cleanse may be helpful for reducing toxic compounds like BPA.

Were you aware of BPA and its pervasiveness in our world? What do you do to avoid it? Let us hear your thoughts in the comments below!

References:

1. Brian Bienkowski. Survey of canned-good brands finds hormone-mimicking compound still widely used. Environmental Health News.


2. Vom Saal FS, Nagel SC, Coe BL, Angle BM, Taylor JA. The estrogenic endocrine disrupting chemical bisphenol A (BPA) and obesity. Mol Cell Endocrinol. 2012 May 6;354(1-2):74-84. doi: 10.1016/j.mce.2012.01.001.

Chemical Bioaccumulation Responsible for Immunotoxicity

Science is great when scientists use it to manufacture products that make our lives easier. But science can sometimes be the worst culprit when it is misused to hide the dangers that some chemicals pose to human health.

In the first article of this series, I demonstrated how easily chemicals get into the food supply and how every time humans, animals and the environment are exposed to them, disease is not only created but also continually fed.

In the second part of the Chemical Reality series I exposed what is perhaps the most dangerous chemical commonly found in products manufactured by the food industry.

Bisphenol A along with other synthetic chemicals are intentionally put in industrialized products by an industry that seems to be worried only about supplying a food market without taking into consideration that the chemicals used in the production of those industrialized products are destroying the environment and consequently our health.

One of those chemicals that circulate in our food supply are Dioxins, which is the second chemical in our list of the most dangerous ingredients. Dioxins are multi-tasker chemicals produced from the burning of chlorine and bromine. Just as BPA does, Dioxins disrupt the delicate hormonal balance in male and female organisms.

Even while exposed to very low levels of dioxins, this chemical endangers the life of an unborn children, damage sperm quality and count, and the bodies of pregnant mothers.

Research has found that dioxins bio-accumulate in organisms including humans, plants and animals, building up to levels that turn it into a dangerous carcinogen. Dioxins are powerful enough to disrupt the immune and reproductive systems.

As in the case of BPA, Dioxins act by interacting with a specific intracellular protein, which in turn causes disruptions on other regulatory proteins in organisms.

The aryl hydrocarbon (AH) receptor, the one that is most likely affected by dioxin toxicity, is involved in the expression of many genes.

Since many industrial by-products are identified as dioxins, it is not known which of those chemical compounds causes the most harm to organisms exposed to them, but it is abundantly clear that they are responsible for immunotoxicity endocrine effects, tumor promotion and toxic responses.

The damage caused on humans

Two of the main negative effects that dioxins have on humans are reproductive and developmental problems. Additionally, dioxins are also responsible for damage to the immune system, hormonal disruption and cancer.

While in unborn children heavy exposure to dioxins can be deadly, in adults the most common consequences are liver damage, alterations in heme metabolism, disruptions in serum lipid levels, thyroid functions, diabetes and immunological effects.

Perhaps the most studied effect of dioxins in the human body is their ability to cause cancer. Even the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has labeled dioxins as “likely human carcinogens”.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer classified dioxins as carcinogens type 1 because of their ability to accelerate formation of tumors and affect the mechanisms for inhibiting tumor growth.

It is important to highlight that in most of the Western world, both bromine and chlorine, whose industrialization process releases dioxins into the environment, are contained in bottled water which people purchase in supermarkets.

Some of the most powerful chemical companies such as Dow Chemical are heavily involved in the processing of chlorine.

This chemical is mainly used to manufacture plastics, chemical solvents, pesticides and other products that are also used in a number of industrial processes as well as in the production of supposed food items.

Because dioxins are a by-product released from the processing of other chemicals, it is easily found in plants and animals on which humans rely heavily for their nutrition.

That is why most of human exposure to dioxins comes from the intake of animals products like meat and dairy as well as fish, fruit and vegetables.

Even though some governments managed to decrease emissions of dioxins, bio-accumulation of this toxic chemical compound is likely to increase in humans between 20 and 60 years of age.

Among some of the most dangerous examples of dioxins are PCBs and PCDD/F-compounds, which spread around the environment during waste incineration, leakage during transportation, air circulation and of course soils that are contaminated with dioxins such as landfills, which in turn contaminate underground natural water depositories. Despite significant advances in dioxin sequestration, this chemical is still bio-accumulating in the environment and in our bodies.

Neither humans nor animals, not even microbes are able to get rid of dioxins in their organisms fast enough. In fact, dioxins are one of the most persistent toxic compounds in the environment.

As if its persistence and capacity to bio-accumulate were not bad enough, dioxins also possess the capacity to bio-magnify their effects. In other words, the concentration of dioxins can exceed its background persistence in humans, animals and the environment.

The capacity shown by dioxins to be persistent, to bio-accumulate and to bio-magnify its effects affects the whole food chain, from microbes to plankton that are later used as food by insects, animals as well as other flora and fauna that eventually becomes food.

Every time dioxins reach another level of the food chain their toxicity is multiplied, a fact that makes humans the most endangered receptor of dioxins because humans are at the top of the food chain.

A recent study performed by Professor Niels Skakkebaek, of Copenhagen University Hospital in Denmark, proves that endocrine disruptors such as dioxins have an even more dangerous effect on human health than first thought.

“For the first time, we have shown a direct link between exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals from industrial products and adverse effects on human sperm function,” says Skakkebaek.

The study also found that the accumulation of several kinds of endocrine disruptors cause what is called a “cocktail effect”, that is, the damage caused by unwanted chemicals in our bodies are exponentially higher than when they act alone.

This Danish study also determined that the concentration levels needed for chemicals to negatively impact sperm health and hormonal balance, for example, are very low, similar to the amounts found within the human body.

As per Professor Skakkebaek’s study, most of the chemicals that threaten human health are ingested or acquired through the use of everyday products such as soap, toothpaste, plastic containers and toys.

“In my opinion, our findings are clearly of concern as some endocrine-disrupting chemicals are possibly more dangerous than previously thought. However, it remains to be seen from forthcoming clinical studies whether our findings may explain reduced couple fertility which is very common in modern societies,”

Professor Skakkebaek told The Independent. According to him, at least one in three substances deemed as “non-toxic” actually have the power to greatly affect the potency of sperm cells, which could explain the high levels of infertility in humans.

According to the Centre of Advanced European Studies and Research in Bonn, Germany, some 30 of every 100 chemicals used in household products, which are considered safe, directly disrupt the “catsper” protein, that is the substance responsible for managing sperm motility, agility and ability to fertilize the female egg.

“In human body fluids, one does not find one of a few particular chemicals, but rather complex chemical cocktails with many different endocrine-disrupting chemicals at very low concentrations. We tried to mimic this situation in our experiments,” said Dr. Timo Strünker.

With some much evidence showing that dioxins are indeed a threat to human fertility and even fully grown human beings, there is not doubt that the best thing to do is avoid products that contain dioxins.

In fact, it is best to avoid processed, industrialized products completely. Because dioxins and other toxic chemicals are in plastic, cans and other types of wrappings that are used by the so-called food industry, the best way to eliminate exposure to dioxins is avoiding the consumption of all processed foods. Unfortunately, most people do exactly the opposite.

Having plenty of evidence about the dangers posed by chemicals in the food doesn’t seem to be enough for most people to stop eating out of cans, drinking from bottles or feeding themselves with heavily processed fast-food.

In fact, it seems like eating oneself to death is fashionable. For those who are into health rather than into fashion, here is a simple reason why it is necessary to eliminate processed foods once and for all: Processed foods are an illusion.

The use of words such as “healthy” on a can or a bottle as well as other like low fat, no carbohydrates, fortified, contains omega-3s, etc are all lies, because none of those ingredients, assuming they are actually present in the processed foods, are naturally obtained and added.

Take for example milk with added vitamin D. Most, if not all vitamin D added to milk is created by extracting materials from sheep’s wool. I am sure this fact comes as a shock to many.

In our next part of the series Chemical Reality I will continue shrinking the list of things that humans should ingest in order to remain healthy, with a very alarming trend towards the fact that there is very little in our diet that we should be eating and drinking.

Humans are Being Exposed to More Chemicals than First Thought

In the first part of this series, I spoke about the two main definitions of food that most people use to guide their eating habits. I also began laying down the ground for a detailed description of pesky ingredients that are present in our ‘food’ even though they are not supposed to be there.

As explained in the first article, food is understood either as “something that nourishes, sustains, or supplies“ the body with the nutrients it needs to remain healthy or sometimes simply as “material consisting essentially of protein, carbohydrate, and fat used in the body of an organism to sustain growth, repair, and vital processes and to furnish energy.”

The first, not the second, should be the definition we all use to guide our eating habits. Why? Because food materials may not be the right sources of nutrients that our body needs to be well nourished.

Remember, not all protein, cabs and fats are created equal. I pose the idea that nature and only nature has the ability to create food that has the proper protein, carbohydrates, fats and other ingredients to nourish, sustain and supply our body and that nothing made in a laboratory to be packaged as food can substitute nature’s wisdom.

It is extremely important to know and identify the ingredients that are present in the food products that we have been led to believe can be called food.

This task is not easy, since most of the ingredients in food products are not naturally occurring. But it is necessary to go the extra mile to learn how and why the food we eat impacts our health and how it can help us or stop us from living and enjoying a healthy life.

Although the number of chemicals used in food products is immense, there are some that are more commonly used and that consequently pose a greater threat to our health. So let’s now concentrate on the list of the most common chemicals that get into the products we usually pass as food.

The name of the first chemical that you want to avoid in your food supply is Bisphenol A, otherwise known as BPA. This ingredient is a carbon-based synthetic chemical compound used to make consumer goods, such water bottles, sports equipment, CDs, DVDs, resins, line water pipes, food and beverage cans, thermal paper for credit card receipts and many other products.

As mentioned in the first article, BPA along with other chemicals, cause endocrine disruptions. That means they are substances with the capacity to interfere with the body’s endocrine system.

The endocrine system is the one in charge of regulating the internal secretion and management of hormones such as estrogen.

Endocrine disruptors produce adverse developmental, reproductive, neurological, and immune effects in both humans and wildlife.

In humans, endocrine disruptors such as BPA act as mimics of naturally occurring hormones and as a consequence they negatively affect important processes such as cellular metabolism, reproduction, sexual development, sugar and mineral homeostasis, heart rate, and digestion.

Human exposure to BPA occurs through direct contact and with our hands as well as amounts that are shed from products people use to store food.

The main problem with BPA is that it has “hormone-like properties”, in other words, it can pass into our bodies as an estrogen mimic.

According to Dr. Lori Cooper, BPA is considered as a “foreign estrogen” and as such, it may disrupt “reproductive organ function, bone health, protein synthesis, cholesterol metabolism, mental health, sexual desire and many other systems”.

The metabolites, or “break down” products of BPA may potentially be stronger xenoestrogens than BPA itself. BPA binds to various cells like an activator switch and triggers many of the same chemical changes as natural estrogen in the body.

While it was initially thought that BPA acted only through cellular proteins called estrogen receptors (which act as signaling switches on cells), we have also learned that BPA can exert its estrogenic effects through other receptors as well.

A US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) study found that BPA may be a hazards to fetuses, infants, and young children. BPA is known for disrupting thyroid function, increase cancer risk, promote abnormal cell growth, abnormal prostate growth and that it negatively affects the reproductive systems well as sexual behaviour.

While government and industry studies say that low amounts of BPA are harmless to humans, studies such as that of INSERM (Institut national de la santé et de la recherche médicale) show that even weak exposure to BPA “are sufficient to produce a negative reaction on the human testicle.”

But the damages caused by BPA do not end there. This chemical compound is also a concern for its connection to Asthma and heart problems. A 2010 study by a Columbia University research team found that early childhood exposure to BPA may trigger asthma attacks, an outcome that scientists have replicated in laboratory tests.

“We saw increased risk of asthma at fairly routine, low doses of BPA,” said Dr. Kathleen Donohue, from Columbia University. “They measured BPA at different ages, measured asthma and wheeze at multiple points, and still found consistent associations,” she added.

Despite these findings, researchers say more studies are needed to find a 100% conclusive link between BPA and asthma.

When it comes to heart problems, BPA is also a serious concern. The chemical is linked to heart arrhythmias and reproductive problems in females. According to a report on ScienceNews, BPA’s negative effects have been known since at least 1938.

Back then, researchers found that BPA could trigger biological changes normally adhered to estrogen. One of BPA’s main effects on humans, it seems, is that it reprograms fertility genes.

“When it comes to the female heart, premenopausal adult exposures may also wreak havoc … there are unique sensitivities to arrhythmias during pregnancy,” says PhD Professor, Scott Belcher, of the University of Cincinnati.

The debate on the effects that BPA has in humans and animals comes down to the levels of exposure both externally and internally.

While government and industry studies suggest that low amounts cannot negatively impact people’s health, more recent studies say otherwise. But another caveat on this debate, is whether the measurements made by governments and studies conducted by the food industry are actually measuring BPA correctly or whether exposure to BPA is as small as some studies suggest.

A new study led by Frederick vom Saal of the University of Missouri-Columbia has raised an issue that neither governments nor companies that use BPA in their food products want to hear:

Humans are being exposed to more BPA than first thought and even low levels can cause harm. Even at small levels of exposure, Vom Saal’s observations determine that BPA appears to be harmful.

A 2010 U.S. EPA study reported that more than one million pounds of BPA are released into the environment annually in the United States alone. Diverse studies have found that BPA “affects growth, reproduction, and development in aquatic organisms”.

So the damage caused by BPA is not limited to humans. Freshwater fish are some of the most sensitive species.

“Evidence of endocrine-related effects in fish, aquatic invertebrates, amphibians, and reptiles has been reported at environmentally relevant exposure levels lower than those required for acute toxicity,” says a study by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

“There is a widespread variation in reported values for endocrine-related effects, but many fall in the range of 1?g/L to 1 mg/L. That is 1 microgram per liter to 1 milligram per liter of BPA exposure.

Even the slightest suggestion that low level exposure to BPA is in any way a threat to humans and the environment should prompt people, industry and government to stand clear of any use of BPA and similar compounds.

Until further testing conclusively determines what so many alternative studies have shown — that Bisphenol A is a threat to human health and that it is one of the many chemicals we should avoid — or that most studies are wrong and we have nothing to worry about, BPA should be banned from all food products as a preventive measure.

In our third part in the series of Chemical Reality articles I will continue showing what science is telling us about the ingredients used by the food industry in food products and how they affect our well-being by biologically accumulating in our bodies through continuous ingestion and / or exposure to them.

For more information on Bisphenol A and other endocrine disruptors, please read through the following literature:

Bisphenol A (BPA) Information for Parents

Bisphenol A (BPA): Expanding Research to Impact Human Health

BPA Exposure Traced to Abnormal Heart Rhythms

Bisphenol A linked to lower thyroid hormone levels in newborn boys

Consuming Canned Soup Linked to Higher BPA Levels