Chemicals are in contact with most of our foods. Our air and water contain pollutants. Chemicals and pollutants can make us sick. In America when we get sick we find ourselves in deep debt. However, all that debt is owed to for-profit medical care.
It's perfect! Our government allows corporations to poison/pollute, we get sick, and the health industry profits. 17% of GNP! Only in America. Ours is a unique heritage, not a positive one.
What is the incentive, in a for-profit health care delivery system, to protect/improve our health?
The epidemics in America, diabetes, breast and prostrate cancer, obesity, and heart disease can all be linked to things like BPA, fats, sugars, and salts according to the studies cited below. It is becoming nearly impossible and/or affordable to buy foods free from toxic substances.
Why isn't there any pressure being put on the purveyors of poisons to help pay our health care costs?
What if our epidemics are not avoidable? What if we are simply victims?
There is one substance that has become nearly unavoidable. BPA, a known endocrine disrupter, sometimes called the Gender Bender.
The controversial industrial chemical known as Bisphenol A (BPA), to which most people are routinely exposed, blocks a normal process of synapse formation in the brains of monkeys, even at a dose currently labeled as “safe” by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), report Yale researchers. The study, reported online Sept. 3 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, is the first to look at the effects of BPA in primates.
http://www.dana.org/...
An important limitation of these studies, however, is that they were based on rodent animal models, which may not be representative of the effects of human BPA exposure. To address this issue, we examined the influence of continuous BPA administration, at a daily dose equal to the current U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's reference safe daily limit, on estradiol-induced spine synapse formation in the hippocampus and prefrontal cortex of a nonhuman primate model.
Our data indicate that even at this relatively low exposure level, BPA completely abolishes the synaptogenic response to estradiol. Because remodeling of spine synapses may play a critical role in cognition and mood, the ability of BPA to interfere with spine synapse formation has profound implications. This study is the first to demonstrate an adverse effect of BPA on the brain in a nonhuman primate model and further amplifies concerns about the widespread use of BPA in medical equipment, and in food preparation and storage.
http://www.pnas.org/...
BPA’s possible toxicity has led many bottle manufacturers to avoid using BPA-containing plastics, although it continues to be used in can linings and has not been officially banned.
“I usually don’t eat canned foods,” says Dr. Leranth, “but I have two grandchildren, and I’ve strictly prevented my daughter from giving them milk or baby food in plastic bottles. Usually these are heated, and that is the danger.”
http://www.dana.org/...
A study, which was conducted at the Harvard School of Public Health, found that participants who drank for a week from polycarbonate bottles had an increased level of BPA in their urine, the chemical that mimics the female hormone, oestrogen.
Previous studies have shown that high levels of BPA consumption are associated with birth defects, growth problems and an increased risk of heart disease and diabetes.
Karin B. Michels, associate professor of epidemiology at HSPH and Harvard Medical School, also the senior author of the latest study said:
We found that drinking cold liquids from polycarbonate bottles for just one week increased urinary BPA levels by more than two-thirds. If you heat those bottles, as is the case with baby bottles, we would expect the levels to be considerably higher. This would be of concern since infants may be particularly susceptible to BPA’s hormone gland-disrupting potential.
http://www.itvnews.tv/...
Given the previous animal evidence, we hypothesized that higher urinary BPA concentrations would be associated with adverse health effects, especially in the liver and in relation to insulin, type 2 diabetes, and obesity in humans...
Results:
Higher urinary BPA concentrations were associated with cardiovascular diagnoses in age-, sex-, and fully adjusted models (OR per 1-SD increase in BPA concentration, 1.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.18-1.63; P = .001 with full adjustment).
Higher BPA concentrations were also associated with diabetes (OR per 1-SD increase in BPA concentration, 1.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.21-1.60; P < .001) but not with other studied common diseases.
In addition, higher BPA concentrations were associated with clinically abnormal concentrations of the liver enzymes -glutamyltransferase (OR per 1-SD increase in BPA concentration, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.14-1.46; P < .001) and alkaline phosphatase (OR per 1-SD increase in BPA concentration, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.18-1.85; P = .002).
The study sample included 694 men and 761 women (Table 1).
Weighted but unadjusted mean urinary BPA concentrations were similar by sex,
but for some variables ranges were wider.
For example, mean BPA concentrations in participants at recommended weight (BMI 18.5-24.9) were 3.91 ng/mL (95% CI, 3.34 to 4.48), compared with 6.93 ng/mL (95% CI, 4.39 to 9.47) in those in the obese II category (BMI 35).
Conclusion Higher BPA exposure, reflected in higher urinary concentrations of BPA, may be associated with avoidable morbidity in the community-dwelling adult population.
http://jama.ama-assn.org/...
And what if BPA actually promotes diabetes?
The estrogenic effect of bisphenol A disrupts pancreatic beta-cell function in vivo and induces insulin resistance.
Alonso-Magdalena P, Morimoto S, Ripoll C, Fuentes E, Nadal A.
Instituto de Bioingeniería, Universidad Miguel Hernández de Elche, Alicante, Spain.
The function of the pancreatic beta-cell is the storage and release of insulin, the main hormone involved in blood glucose homeostasis. The results in this article show that the widespread environmental contaminant bisphenol-A (BPA) imitates 17beta-estradiol (E2) effects in vivo on blood glucose homeostasis through genomic and nongenomic pathways. The exposure of adult mice to a single low dose (10 microg/kg) of either E2 or BPA induces a rapid decrease in glycemia that correlates with a rise of plasma insulin. Longer exposures to E2 and BPA induce an increase in pancreatic beta-cell insulin content in an estrogen-receptor-dependent manner.
This effect is visible after 2 days of treatment and starting at doses as low as 10 microg/kg/day.
After 4 days of treatment with either E2 or BPA, these mice developed chronic hyperinsulinemia, and their glucose and insulin tolerance tests were altered.
These experiments unveil the link between environmental estrogens and insulin resistance.
Therefore, either abnormal levels of endogenous estrogens or environmental estrogen exposure enhances the risk of developing type 2 diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and dyslipidemia.
Today, not unlike the scientists that supported the tobacco industry, there are many "credible" sources that will fight vehemently against any association of BPA with health concerns. At the bottom of the page, and thanks to the Journal-Sentinal is a chart showing the relationships of the "experts" and their relationships to industry and government agencies.
Working in concert, again not unlike the tobacco industry, BPA is still allowed to line our canned foods, be used in dentistry, and be used in water and even baby bottles. Industry has succeeded in protecting its marketplace to date.
As a chronic idealist, I cannot understand how any fellow human, in light of the mounting scientific data that BPA ingestion can be linked with poor health, would risk the health of the world's population just to protect a lucrative market. It is beyond my comprehension, quite frankly.
How can any thinking person, let alone scientists, defend the use of an estrogen altering substance to permeate our food and drink sources, even the cans that hold baby formula.
I find this experiment reprehensible. Particularly because the estrogenic activity for BPA was clearly known by science since the 1930.
BPA IS A GENDER BENDER CHEMICAL!
Science has known about the oestrogenic (estrogen) agents of BPA since 1933:
Estrogenic activity for bisphenol A (BPA) was subsequently demonstrated by [Dodds and Lawson, Synthetic, oestrogenic agents without the phenanthrene nucleus, Nature 137, (1936)] using the same ovariectomised rat protocol, and this activity has been confirmed and supplemented by positive uterotrophic effects for BPA in the same bioassays
.
These results show that BPA when given during the neonatal period caused changes in female reproductive organs
In addition to these abnormalities, unusual body weight gains, persistent vaginal cornification, and lack of CL were observed in females treated neonatally with 4 mg BPA
.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/...
The findings haven't changed since; however, we are to believe that exposing infants, both prenatal by the mother ingesting BPA, and post-birth via baby bottles won't have any deleterious affect on the developing child whose endocrine system is being disrupted.
And a further stretch, that life long exposure is harmless.
These results indicate the ability of estrogenic chemicals to change the reproductive neural circuits during puberty in male and female rats
Neurotoxicology and Teratology, Volume 29, Issue 1, January-February 2007, Pages 108-115
When it comes to the political side of the Bisphenol A (BPA) story, we owe a real debt to Meg Kissinger and Susanne Rust of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. They have followed the money (FDA Chair Studying BPA Took $5 Million Donation From BPA Supporter or FDA Chair's Donor was Michigan's "First Polluter") or and the political processes ( How Science Works at the FDA) and have been justly awarded prizes for their coverage.
Now they are covering the industry pushback, the "highly calibrated campaign by plastics makers to fight federal regulation of BPA, downplay its risks and discredit anyone who characterizes the chemical as a health threat."
FDA Chair Studying BPA Took $5 Million Donation From BPA Supporter
http://www.treehugger.com/...
The diseases we call epidemic today might be caused by daily doses of BPA.
This is very possible, based on the research cited here.
If BPA has contributed to our health epidemic, do those who manufacture with and who fight for it's continued use have any responsibility for these epidemics?
The fact that this question is even raised, in my opinion, is the case to discontinue the use of BPA in any products that have contact with food and/or drinks.
Stop lining canned foods with BPA.
Stop lining drink cans with BPA.
Stop allowing BPA to be used in any toys.
Stop using BPA in baby bottles.
Stop using BPA to line the cans of baby formulas.
Warn women to limit or even avoid eating or drinking canned foods and drinks from containers lined with BPA.
Poisons = Poor Health = Health Care Profits
For the scientist types, here are some thorough charts re: BPA
http://www.ewg.org/...
Even Huffington Post is publishing denials from industrial insiders:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
Apparently, even science is not being played in a partisanship manner:
http://www.treehugger.com/...
So, who do you believe? Personally, I would rather err on the side of not ingesting BPA. This brings me to the topic of tomorrows diary. What is the safest source of drinking water (now polluted with estrogens, btw)? Is there an anecdote?
And why was another patent issued in 2002 for lining canned foods with BPA?
http://www.patentstorm.us/...