January 2006 Archives

People have many reasons for drinking bottled water, some are aesthetic - it's a trendy habit; and some are health based - they don't like the taste of tap water or they're squeamish about the number of chemicals in the water. Fluoride has long been added to drinking water to prevent tooth decay, especially in children. However, there are a fair number of opponents to the practice who claim that fluoride is a public health hazard, a toxin, and responsible for many health problems perhaps even bone cancer in youth.

Now several some people and apparently some dentists are claiming that the reason that there has been a rise in cavities in young children these days is because they are drinking bottled water, not tap water. They suggest adding fluoride to bottled water to give it the protective effect of tap water. Some, but not all the news "reports" are from industry trade groups.

But what about sugar? "Per capita consumption of sugars rose a whopping 28 percent in just 15 years, to 53 teaspoons a day by 1997." Sugar consumption has skyrocketed amoung children and contributes significantly to dental caries as well as diabetes. The Wisconsin Dental Association (WDA) is clear that when teenage boys drink an average of 3 sodas a day and teenage girls drink an average of 2 sodas per day, soda is the root of tooth decay:

"Alarmingly, one 12-ounce can of regular soda contains approximately 40 grams of sugar or the equivalent of 10 teaspoons. Drinking sodas at that rate and constantly bathing teeth in the sugary liquid can cause very rapid deterioration of tooth structure in a very short amount of time"; says one report, and kids with "'previously very healthy mouths'" come in and "'it looks like a bomb went off'"...

However the media seems to disassociate the two trends. Even the American Dental Association seems to make two recommendations: Here, the ADA suggests adding fluoride to water, and here the ADA suggests that consuming sugary drinks constantly -- even for babies -- promotes dental caries.

An independent panel is advising the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) used in Teflon© is a "likely human carcinogen".

The word "likely" was chosen by the panel instead of the word "suggested". The EPA had proposed "suggested human carcinogen", a milder version, based their opinion that the results of studies showing that rats subjected to high doses of PFOA develop liver tumors only "suggested" a risk to humans. This isn't the only toxicity study, there is a long history of studies buoying these health findings.

According to the Environmental Protection Group (EWG) the panel suggested two primary goals for the FDA:

• "Consider immune and nervous system effects on animals in its study of possible human health risks."
• "Use a more health-protective and scientifically valid approach to studying human health risks from the chemical."

Perhaps coincidentally, or not, Dupont recently announced in a press release that they were agreeing to voluntary reductions of PFOA in consumer products and industrial emissions. Some argue that there are loopholes in these preemtive moves.

-----------------------------

Acronym Required previously wrote about Teflon in "Slick Company Stands behind Teflon©" and "Dupont, the Teflon© company".

The New York Times recounts muzzling by the Bush administration and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) of scientists who attempt to publicize unfavorable climate information. Dr. James Hansen reportedly had his communications with the public and press stifled when he elucidated the realities of global warming and urged the public to call for the reduction of carbon fuels that contribute to the phenomena.

Some of Dr. Hansen's talks are available for download at Columbia University. Despite the pressure, Dr. Hansen still managed miscellaneous speaking and writing engagements such as: "Is There Still Time to Avoid 'Dangerous Anthropogenic Interference' With Global Climate? A Tribute to Charles David Keeling".

Dr.Keeling studied carbon dioxide contributions to global warming before he passed away last year. He had done ground-breaking atmospheric research and monitoring of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels since 1958. The Keeling Curve" shows progressively higher levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide that correlate to human activity. It is this activity, especially the burning of fossil fuels, that contributes to the greenhouse effect and global warming that we have only just begun to experience. Keeling recieved the 2001 National Medal of Science from President George W. Bush for lifetime science research achievement.

In his tribute to Dr. Keeling, Dr. Hansen outlines research on global warming and polar melting as well as the predictable impacts on ecosystems. He stresses that agressive action must be taken now in order to marginally reduce emissions and stabilize the climate. The Bush administration's stance on emissions is to depend on voluntary reductions and not impose any solution that would 'harm' the economy. This position is widely criticized by politicians and scientists who span the political spectrum, including these six EPA chiefs. On its face, Dr. Hansen's most 'radical' observation is rather ordinary:

"There is little merit in casting blame for inaction, unless it helps point toward a solution. It seems to me that special interests have been a roadblock wielding undue influence over policymakers. The special interests seek to maintain short-term profits with little regard to either the long-term impact on the planet that will be inherited by our children and grandchildren or the long-term economic well-being of our country.

The public, if well-informed, has the ability to override the influence of special interests, and the public has shown that they feel a stewardship toward the Earth and all of its inhabitants¹. Scientists can play a useful role in they help communicate the climate change story to the public in a credible understandable fashion."

If this is "inflamatory", then from a democratic perspective, the Bush administration seems pathologically sensitive to mundane observation. Some other day we might frame this as good news, but not today. Hansen also relayed to the New York Times that an interview with PBS was denied, that he was threatened and advised that 'his supervisors would stand in for him in media interviews'. Dr. Hansen's experience is not unique, the Times reports, media contacts with many scientists are now chaperoned.

Dean Acosta, deputy assistant administrator for public affairs at NASA does not see this as censorship. He said to the New York Times with all the glibness we've been conditioned to expect:

"'We promote openess and we speak with the facts'".

He added:

'The restrictions on Dr. Hansen applied to all [NASA] personel'... 'policy statements should be left to policy makers and appointed spokesman'.

The article is the sort of "he said", "she said" type of expository that leaves the reader somewhat challenged to sort out precisely what's going on. However, moving into the sixth year of this administration, the montage is familiar but nevertheless perennially foreign and alarming.

The idea that scientists should stay out of politics is not foreign, many who claim to be reasonable folks argue similiarly. They assert (when being forthright), that scientists don't know enough about ethics, history or politics to be involved with public policy. It's bunk, but when it crops up it signals the inevitable subversion of science to an agenda that necessitates such a distorted caricature. In the portrayal scientists are better left in their labs waiting for the signal to do another experiment. They're cloistered away where according to the portrayal, they scribble their inscrutable formulas on blackboards while wearing formless white coats, their thick, thick glasses sliding heavily down their noses, with their pocket protectors, their old shoes and painsakeningly circumspect explanations for absolutely everything.

Scientists are not, nor ever have been automatons - though the caricature is periodically revived for convenience. When scientists are removed from policy decision-making, caricaturized as unfit for the public, geeky or one-off, when their ideas are labeled politically disruptive, it has historically signalled a governments' wanton distortion of reality for their own agenda. The public should first demand that the scientists be heard, not subsumed by a committee that first toes a political agenda that doesn't serve their interests.

Is what we are currently seeing "the politicization of science"? I argue that it's not. The "politicization of science" is euphemistic label for a political movement that is perhaps alien to those in the U.S. We are more familiar with notions of free speech and first amendment rights. It's sinister view perhaps, but the scientists and intelligentsia are routinely banished from participating in the political process. They're often the first to go, sometimes it has been a temporary political fix, other times it has been a more permanent or lethal muffling. There was "bourgeois biology" in Russia, psychology in China, doctors in Cambodia...

This is not the politicization of science because science is naturally and unavoidably political. In the U.S., science is arguably more independent of government then some countries, but it is still highly political. Grants historically come from the government. Grants are competitive and the stringent approval process is purportedly based on science but inculcated and ruled by politics. Achieving the vaulted position that is needed by scientists before they even vie for grants necessitates years of clambering over other scientists. By the time one reaches the prestigious post of Assistant Scientist, the average researcher has run around so many circles and jumped through so many flaming political hoops that even a well-trained circus animal would have vertiginously expired.

Science and politics have always been entwined. Politicians have historically coauthored science progress. This is not a bad thing. The reason that the U.S. has been successful in science is because politicians have enabled the infrastructure that supports science. We need them, the world needs science. Moreover, the world needs citizens, politicians and scientists who are part of the political and processes, who truly understand scientific processes. Process is not always facile but we can't afford for it not to be forward thinking.

Was Dr. Hansen making "policy statements" or was he commenting about his observations of politics, as we do, as is any citizens right? The challenge to the public servants is if they're denied their role as servant to the "public" and told instead to serve some ideology. This subverts any professional, but especially scientists. What we are seeing now is a new type of government. New for us perhaps, but not new to world history. We need to recognize it as such.

--------------

¹ We don't necessarily agree that "the public, if well-informed, has the ability to override the influence of special interests." Why? One reason -- the interests of "the public" are not aligned that's why we have a representative government.

Zoologists published research this week describing the smallest vertebrate, which is a new genus of minature fish found in a peat bog in Indonesia. The fish, Paedocypris progenetic, is one of two new species of the new genus described by the scientists in the article. One female of the species measured one millimeter smaller then the next smallest vertebrate (at 7.9 millimeters). The fish are transparent (like the zebrafish embryos, or glassfish), live in peat bogs that have a pH of 3.0 (very acidic), and have unique fins ("bizarre grasping fins"). The smallest fish has been found (again) by scientists who said they first discovered the fish in 1996. Zoologists at the the Raffles Museum of Biodiversity Research in Singapore worked with Indonesian scientists, and also collaborated with scientists at the the Natural History Museum and the Max Planck Institute.

Evolutionary minaturization is especially common in fishes and generally includes a more simpfied nervous system, skeletal system and body features. The species characterized in this study are unusual in several ways. In particular they have more complex pelvic girdle and indications of unique reproductive features. The fish are in the carp family (Cyprinidae), and of the ray-finned fish order (Cypriniformes). Transparent fish evade predators because they don't cast shadows or reflect light, especially if they stay still. These species of fish don't swim very much.

The peat bogs used to be considered too acidic to support life but scientists have found that - to the contrary - there is a wide variety of fauna in peat bogs, including many species of minature fishes. Unfortunately these peat bogs are dwindling ecosystems due to development and recent forest fires. The authors note:

"Many of the peat swamps we surveyed throughout Southeast Asia no longer exist and their fauna is eradicated. Populations of all the highly endemic and stenotopic miniature fishes of peat swamps have decreased or collapsed or are extirpated."

The peat bog that these minature fish were found in was on Sumatra. Acronym Required previously wrote about a small hominin, Homo florensis, that once inhabited the island of Flores in Indonesia.

One way scientists look for potential therapeutic drugs is to isolate microbial strains from soils, plants, barks, marine plants and other environmental sources. Researchers isolate bacteria from the mediums then grow the individual strains in special media, ferment then extract the chemicals from the bacteria and test them for biochemical activity. Assays developed for this purpose detect whether the strain produces compounds that could be useful for drug development. Many antibiotics have been developed from screening bacteria and fungi this way and actinomycetes in particular have proven fruitful for drug development. Dozens of different antibiotics, have been developed from actinomycetes especially Streptomyces.

Now scientists at McMaster Universtiy in Ontario have turned these screening experiments around to ask: How many bacterial strains isolated from soil that look like actinomycetes show antibiotic resistance? Many, they found in a study published in Science last week. The scientists isolated 480 morphologically unique spore-forming bacteria, primarily Streptomyces, and tested them for antibiotic resistance against 21 natural and synthetic antibiotics. Every strain was resistant to seven or eight antibiotics - even the newest drugs - and two strains were resistant to 15 types of antibiotics. They found about 200 different antibiotic resistant profiles.

In some ways this is not surprising. Bacteria adapt to prodigiously unfavorable environments and over millions of years have devised a myriad of mechanisms to perfect this adaptation. They disable antibiotics with enzymes, block them from entering their outer membranes, pump them out via efflux mechanisms in their membranes, change the structure of potentially lethal drugs, and muddle the antibiotic target via point mutations. Bacteria like some gram-positive Clostridium and Bacillus species resort to their endospore form in order to survive boiling, complete dessication, high pressure, radiation, acceleration, acidity, and other harsh, abhorrent and seemingly unsurvivable conditions. Gram-negative bacteria often acquire resistance through plasmids that carry antibiotic genes and can be transferred within and across species, as well as perhaps swapped with other plasmids hosted in other bacteria. Actinomycetes are gram-positive, do not form endospores and seem to acquire antibiotic resistance via genomic adaptation, but that hardly limits their antibiotic resistance options.

In the 1970's, scientists did previous work in this area achieved similar results -- if for different ends. Researchers suspected that increased use of antibiotics for disease and agriculture might alter the environment. P Van Dijck and H van de Voorde, for example, tested 29 strains from multiple species across various concentrations of 21 antimicrobial compounds and found that only a small subset of bacteria were sensitive to antibiotics, whereas most showed resistance. Their conclusion? "Spilled antimicrobial agents have little chance of causing an alteration in the microbial ecology. (Applied Environmental Microbiology; March, 1976). While they correctly surmised that microbes had adapted a tremendous capacity to survive, they predicted incorrectly that further antibiotic use would not increase the resistance of populations.

In 1978 researchers tested sludge samples from the notoriously polluted New York Bight. The bacteria populations in the sewage and effluent contaminated water were far more resistant to mercury and certain antibiotics like ampicillin than the control microbial populations.

Bacteria have the advantage of millions of years, so humans have yet to discover many adaptations that bacteria are capable of. We often only notice what scrappy adaptors bacteria are with the demise of something we value, a recreational lake or when they compromise our health. Since only a small percentage of bacteria are pathogenic or wind-up crossing our paths in man-altered ecosystems our knowledge will expand.

All in all, it seems intuitive that soil bacteria which thrive in the company of organisms from which we produce most of our antibiotics, are would be resistant to many antibiotics. The Science authors show the scope of antibiotic resistance in this species and demonstrate the amount of work involved with acquiring this type of information. They confirm that antibiotic resistance mechanisms in natural environments are the same as in clinics. They don't speculate about the overall rate of resistance and interactions between species. Their study suggests that researchers should look more to organisms in the environment for predictions about how antibiotic resistance will evolve in medical settings.

We gain appreciation for natural antibiotic resistance, and can speculate that natural products screening and antibiotic synthesis will yield antibiotics of only limited therapeutic longevity. At the same time, the protection our antibiotics have offered to us so far remains impressive. The Sisyphean challenge of antibiotic resistance is ominous. But while antibiotic resistance may not bode well for humans who spend time in hospitals, the bacteria will continue to thrive on Earth. Despite widespread fretting about the dire straits of the 'planet's' ecosystem, we can be assured that some life will continue to thrive in whatever conditions we leave the planet.

--------------------------

Update: A reader points out that a short overview of this study was aired on NPR. Gerry Wright, the chair of the Department of Biochemistry (and other positions) at McMaster University talked about the study for 7 minutes and 4 seconds on NPR January 20th. Wright says that the study might be useful for scientists developing drugs who could screen new candidates against potential soil resistance. Although this is interesting, some of the drugs trounced by the resistant microbes of the study have actually been highly effective in clinics despite the existence of microbes that resist them. What if they had decided not to develop them based on their suspected susceptibility to resistance?

Update: 11/07 California recently passed a bill on phthalates, sponsored by Fiona Ma. Acronym Required has written a update on San Francisco's efforts to pass a phthalates bill called "Phthalates and Bisphenol A: Media and Politics"

Assembly Bill 319 Dies in Appropriations

The California Assembly Bill 319, sponsored by Wilma Chan, D-Oakland, would have banned some products intended for children under 3 years old that contained bisphenol A and some phthalates; di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP), dibutyl (DBP), and butylbenzyl (BBP). The bill was defeated yesterday by the appropriations committee. The bill addressed the use of the environmental endocrine disrupters bisphenol A and phthalates in products for young children: "toys, pacifiers, baby bottles and teethers".

AB 319 sought to limit some transitional phthalates that have been shown to be especially deleterious to normal development, especially sexual development. The chemicals are used primarily to make brittle plastic softer, pliable, and more suitable for uses like toys and medical equipment. The fact that these chemicals cause developmental changes is proven by research, including some done by ExonMobil Biomedical and the American Chemical Council's (ACC) studies for the EPA, although much of the industry sponsored research counters alarming academic findings or supports the idea that BPA in low doses is insignificant to humans.

Bisphenol A is used in a wide variety of products. In 2003 about 6.3 billion pounds of bisphenol A was incorporated into products like tooth sealants, water bottles, glasses and plastic liners for cans.

It is now widely recognized that BPA can leach out of plastic during normal use and cause physiological changes. The most compelling evidence against bisphenol A shows deleterious estrogenic affects in the offspring of pregnant mice, for instance enlarged prostates, genital deformities and disrupted puberty. In addition, there are increased cancer rates in certain organs and cell lines, pancreatic changes that promote insulin resistance, pubescent mammary gland developmental changes, and altered to thyroid regulation.

A serendipitous finding in 2003 showed that bisphenol A can disrupt meiosis. Researchers at Case Western Reserve University were studying meiosis in mice that were housed in polycarbonate cages. The cages had mistakenly been cleaned with a highly alkaline detergent by some wayward lab denizen whereupon the polycarbonate cages began to melt. The scientists then observed that the chromosomes in 40% of the eggs were abnormal, a defect rate far and above the usual 2%. Because of this observation, the scientists designed experiments and found that the relatively unstable chemical bisphenol A was leaching out of the melted plastic and disrupting meiosis. Other scientists observed similar results in experiments when labware containing certain phenols was introduced.

The Campaign

Acronym Required wrote an article on bisphenol A last year called "Plastic Bottles- Protecting Your Baby, by the ACC." The article provides some background information on low level endocrine disruptors and on the advertising approaches of the chemical industry to counter health safety concerns about their products. For instance on www.babybottle.org, the American Chemistry Council [10/31/07 this site is now run by the Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association], has a section called "Ask The Doctor", in which they pose questions and answers that parents might have about plastic baby bottles that contain bisphenol A:

"you may hear stories that glass bottles get too hot or plastic bottles leak dangerous amounts of harmful chemicals into the formula. Rest assured, there are no facts to support these claims."

This fictional answer to a hypothetical question by the hypothetical doctor seeks to quash research results coming from labs around the world showing detrimental effects from bisphenol A. [Update: October 31, 2007): The site http://www.babybottle.org, which used to be sponsored by the The American Chemical Council, as described below, is now sponsored by the Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association, a collection of manufactures who lobby extensively along the same lines as the ACC. The site is no longer "garish pink and blue", as I wrote a couple of years ago, it's light green, pink and blue. In lieu of "Ask the Pediatrician", they have "Ask the Expert", and give the name and photo of an Ob/Gyn (not a pediatrician -- but still, she's taken the Hippocratic Oath, can understand science, but lobbies on behalf of manufacturers of plastic products, given 150 studies about the dangers of bisphenol A? Would you trust this person?]. She does not warn that your baby may "drop or throw" a glass bottle and endanger itself. Instead she says that "as a mother...[she] believe[s] mothers have more important things to worry about." She posts the same message (parents have other things to worry about) on numerous blogs. So from JPMA, the same message --buy plastic, it's safe, and the same affiliates; bisphenol and phthalate manufacturers, the American Chemical Association, stats.org-- with a more subtle, tasteful packaging]

A research group at the University of Missouri group has done a lot of the work with bisphenol A (BPA), and provides a list of 153 studies done with low-dose BPA. Of the 153 low dose studies, 128 studies funded by government showed effects of bisphenol A and 11 did not. The chemical corporations also funded studies. 12 of their studies did not show any effect, 0 did. The author provides additional reasons why some of these studies may have shown no result.

We are familiar with this framework of engagement around health and science issues; create controversy about scientific research and hope that in the fray, your customers just shake their heads confusedly and continue their familiar buying habits, lulled by the sounds of soothing advertising. This controversy has the familiar tone of asbestos, tobacco, flame retardants and fossil fuel products, it also has some interesting unique features.

Of course one expects no less then ferocious opposition from and industry confronted with public health concerns about its products. We expect the industries (chemical and plastic in this case) to do their own research that proves the safety of their products and at the same time vehemently discount studies that happen to show detrimental effects of their chemicals. The chemical and plastics industries do not disappoint, especially when it comes to BPA.

An editorial in the San Francisco Chronicle authored by Lorenz Rhomberg, a former professor who is now a consultant to the American Plastics Council, gives us the opportunity to illustrate the point. The author blazes away at proposed bill AB 319 and the science behind it with a fusillade of adjectives and adverbs:

The bill is "bad public policy", that "triggers needless fear in parents...", "crusad[es] against the illusion of harm", "preys upon parents' legitimate concern[s]", and "raises needless fears". "In truth", he says, the bill "might harm health".

Industries tout the safety of their products and sometimes contort the evidence to suggest that if consumers don't use their products they're being irresponsible. On the other side of the bay, in response to an article in the Oakland Tribune about the AB 319, Steven Hentges, the Director of the Polycarbonate Business Unit of the American Plastics Council wrote in a letter to the editor:

"Instead of improving the health of children in California, AB 319 could eliminate many products that protect children's health now, including devices such as incubators, dialysis machines and blood oxygenators - as well as food from cans lined with a BPA-based resin to prevent contamination."

The American Plastics Council mounts an energetic and no holds barred deluge against the toxicity research. Rhomberg writes in the San Francisco Chronicle that the grounds for the bill are based on:

"a scientifically unorthodox hypothesis", an "unproven speculation", that "lack[s] scientific rigor" and "ignores sound science and years of research-based evidence". He reduces the science behind the bill to "insubstantial claims" and "unproven hypotheses".

In Oakland, the shouting points echo from the Oakland Tribune letter, in which Hentges states:

"AB 319..is based on insubstantial claims and unproven hypotheses that lack scientific rigor...on unproven and unsupported speculation built on fear not facts."

If it so happens that there are studies that show effects, which there are, Rhomberg dismisses them in his SF Chronicle letter as:

"studies of limited or no relevance", that have "weak and inconsistent evidence"; or that merely "purport" to show negative effects. The legislature, he says, has "no science based reason to consider AB 319."

He adds:

"government and scientific bodies worldwide have conducted comprehensive examinations of the evidence and nowhere -- not in Europe, Asia or the United States -- have products made from bisphenol-A been banned or restricted."

It's enough that it's not relevant, but the author also fails to mention that phthalates (including the 3 chemicals targeted by the bill) are "banned or restricted by the European Union and at least 14 other nations" for childrens' products. Also several toy manufacturers voluntarily don't use phthalates -- since they are replaceable.

Hormone Disruption at Low Doses

The author of the San Francisco Chronicle editorial devotes so much space to his sputtering dismissals that the reader is left only to wonder what the "unorthodox hypothesis" is since he does not tell us. The theory he dismisses without identifying is based on a large collection of research that shows that certain chemicals, especially hormone effectors and estrogen mimicking compounds, effect physiology and development.

It's important to note that Rhomberg does not argue that phthalates and bisphenol-A are safe. While the Plastics and Chemical organizations push their products, they are not arguing that they are safe either. Rather they contend that the levels that are currently condoned by regulatory agencies are AS safe as people hope they are.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has toxicity research data from studies conducted in the early 1980's. The bisphenol-A experiments test a dose as low as 50mg/kg/day, as sketched out here on the EPA site. They determined a "lowest observable adverse affects level" (LOEAL), that in the case of bisphenol A happens to be the lowest dose they tested. They adjusted for an "uncertainty factor" of 1000 in a seemingly random way:

"The UF of 1000 includes 10 for uncertainty in the extrapolation of dose levels for animals to humans, 10 for uncertainty in the threshold for sensitive humans, and 10 for uncertainty in the effects of duration on toxicity when extrapolating for subchronic to chronic exposure".

In this way the "safe" dose was determined to be 50ug/kg/day. Researchers have since shown that at this dose there can be toxic affects. Low-dose chemicals became a concern in the mid- 1980's when scientists started noticing abnormalities in wildlife native to the Great Lakes region that corresponded with an increased volume of industrial pollutants. As research accumulated scientists observed that certain chemicals, especially phthalates, and estrogen mimicking chemicals acted potently as hormones and caused developmental aberrations at very small doses. As far back is 2000 Science journal reported that the NIEHS's National Toxicology Program had confirmed the low dose affects of bisphenol A based on their survey of 37 papers (October 2000 Vol. 290. no. 5492, pp. 695 - 697). At the time that panel was unclear as to the affects on human health. Then as of now, the concern about the low dose hormone disruptors is that regulatory agencies mandate a reference level for bisphenol A and other chemicals that is not actually safe. Now though, as the plastics and chemistry industries continue devoting money and energy to dissuading us from looking at the research, more and more research shows negative health affects.

Low Dose Research Bodes Ill for Plastics?

The comments of plastics lobbyists ring false in the face of research. As well, since there are alternatives to bisphenol A (BPA) and phthalates that manufacturers can use to make plastic. So their reasoning that chemical and toy companies use that state economics would be harmed -- compared to the deleterious health effects on children, is unconvincing.

The chemical di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP) is used to soften plastic and make polyvinyl chloride (PVC) used for medical devices, toys, plumbing and other products. In 2002 the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released a warning about the phthalate DEHP in PVC. DEHP can leach into the solutions and while adults are not immune from the hormone disruption of phthalates, children and babies, like neonates in intensive care, are especially susceptible. Nevertheless, at a hearing last year about AB 319, one toxicologist for the American Toy Industry asserted:

"phthalates used in children's products are safe. It's not the kind of thing that should be legislated..." The real hazard, he continued; "is children putting toy parts in their mouths, falling down stairs or getting poisoned under the kitchen sink."

However there are DEHP alternatives. For PVC medical products, for instance Sustainable Hospitals and No Harm list medical products that are DEHP free. Similarly plastic toys and teethers are available that don't have phthalates.

But industries would rather argue senselessly, than change their manufacturing to spare babies of the effects of toxins. If the chemical companies would us alternative sources, this Toy industry toxicologist would be off the hook. He would be freed from the job of plying compelling testimony to captive legislators and writers on deadline. He could cease the hogwash about why we should let our children teeth on plastic toys containing phthalates -- because otherwise they will just as easily crawl under the kitchen sink and gulp down furniture polish.

Why are they making such a fuss over AB 319? If there are health issues as problematic as babies with structural abnormalities or increased cancer risk, why wouldn't a manufacturers switch out the suspected chemicals? Some companies go so far as to label products "phthalate free" that actually contain phthalates. Why?

One issue may be that if this bill had passed, it would put the science behind it more squarely in the public arena by acknowledging that the results low-dose toxins are a legitimate public policy concern. Since the bisphenol A data calls into question methodology data for determining safe levels of many chemicals, and especially those that are hormone effectors, questions may arise about many more chemicals that are currently thrown into our bodies and environment by the grace of outdated toxicity data.

What The American Plastics Council's Studies Show About Plastics

Rhomberg hones in on studies that show that bisphenol A is safe. He notes that "...an independent panel of scientific experts organized by the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis..." As it turns out he's an author of that study, which was funded (PDF) by the American Plastics Council.

That study reviewed the results of 19 studies published as of April 2002. The authors summarized their results in "Weight of The Evidence Evaluation of Low-Dose Reproductive and Developmental Effects of Bisphenol A". The study is quite selective since at that time there were closer to 40 studies showing effects from low dose bisphenol-A (F.S. vom Saall and C. Hughes: "An Extensive New Literature Concerning Low-Dose Effects of Bisphenol A Shows the Need for a New Risk Assessment"; Environmental Health Perspectives, Aug. 2005).

Their conclusions are largely based on the consistency of the data across studies. Many of the studies were done in mice or rats; the typical lab animal. But the HCRA study downplayed these studies because the species was not "closer to humans". They also downplayed results based on "what is known about the underlying biological basis for a toxic response in test animals and the biology of humans.". For instance they discounted ideas that it might not only act via the estrogen receptor, an idea that is now confirmed. In the end "...the panel found that there is no consistent affirmative evidence of low-dose BPA effects for any endpoint."

Obviously it's suspect that the long delayed study only surveyed a handful of available papers and parsed the studies to discount any positive result. Three of the original authors quit the group and the 4th left and wrote a review article arguing the findings of the group based on 115 studies. The results were initially more controversial then they are now. However now, as nine years ago, its still difficult for the casual observer to discern which results are real.

Teaching the Controversy

The controversy initially fell into two camps. Those who observed low-dose toxicity, especially the group at the University of Missouri who published the first low-dose bisphenol A study, and industry studies. Industry studies were published that panned the low-dose research. The low-dose research panned the industry research. The controversy quickly became esoteric and revolved around disputed methodologies for weighing fetal mice prostates, choices of animal strain used for research, type of feed and the phytoestrogen content of that feed, statistical analysis of the data, and positive controls.

For instance the National Toxicity Center criticized industry sponsored studies that used diethylstilbestrol DES as a positive control. In one study the positive control failed to show an estrogenic affect in the mice along with the BPA samples, but the authors still used the results to discount a previous study that showed an effect for BPA. Taking this result into account, future industry studies simply used no positive control -- which is not an science acceptable methodology.

This controversy is kept alive even as more data comes to light. A study published in November of 2005 by Proctor and Gamble does a statistical analysis of the first study published in 1997 and two opposing studies. But now there are literally thousands of studies that study bisphenol A and over one hundred dealing with low-dose exposures. The American Plastics Council seeks to convince us that all this research is faulty. Rhomberg calls the bill "unnecessary", "unsupportable" and "counterproductive". Hopefully, as more people become aware of the research, they'll recognize the false assurances for what they are.

The website of the University of Missouri authors' book summarizes the industry's arguments against the bisphenol A research here, with a table that compares the "industry statement" to the "scientific reality". Even with a nod to legitimate discrepancies, they have a point.

The dead bill was supported by organizations like the Sierra Club of California, Breast Cancer Fund, Clean Water Action, and California Safe Schools. It was opposed by organizations like Big Time Toys, California Grocers Association, Legoland California, Cap Candy and Funrise Toys. The legislator who wrote the bill expects that the issue will re-emerge.

-------New January 26th:

A reader says that there is a growing concern about bisphenol A in Israel. We found this news: On January 22nd the Health Ministry warned parents to throw away baby bottles that were over a year old or scratched, and to throw away plastic teething rings that were worn. According to the article the move was based on growing research about bisphenol A including a study from Japan showing that heating baby bottles releases BPA into formula.

Diabetes is an international concern but the U.S. is leading the way in number of cases and attention to the problem. The CDC estimates that almost 21 million Americans are diabetic. Increasingly the diagnosis is Type II diabetes that has more behavioral causes, as opposed to Type I diabetes, in which patients have more of a genetic predisposition to the disease. In addition, many more people have high blood sugar that is a precursor to diabetes. Doctors and the public are alarmed it seems.

The New York Times has a recent series on the subject, and two of these articles are listed in the 5 "most e-mailed" articles in the past 24 hours. First there is "Bad Blood: Diabetes and Its Awful Toll Quietly Emerge as a Crisis". Next, "Bad Blood: Living at an Epicenter of Diabetes, Defiance and Despair." The alliterative and gravely titled articles describe the ravages of a disease that is widely considered an epidemic in public health circles. The usual suspects are to blame for the "crisis", such as fast food, aversion to exercise, poverty, television and calorie rich eating.

However perhaps despair's not your cup of tea so early in the year. In that case you can gobble up 2 of the 5 "most e-mailed articles" of the past 7 days : "Recipe: Crusty Macaroni and Cheese" or "The Winter Cook: Macaroni and Lots of Cheese". These are also part of a series, that includes "Recipe: Creamy Macaroni and Cheese". A few weeks ago the paper also featured "Mac and Cheese That Thinks Outside the Box". That piece described macaroni and cheese, "sold frozen in generous 9-by-13-inch pans...[a] single pan is $65 including shipping". This is evidently for those who are not on a budget, but who still eshew vegetables in favor of carbs and fat in a plain, leaden and lumpy extravaganza. 'Live richly', as they say.

In "...Macaroni and Lots of Cheese", we learn the recipe's secret in the final line; "[t]he moral of the story: [w]hen in doubt, add more cheese". Perfect. More cheese means less carbs, proportionally speaking that is. That must make the dish a candidate for some Atkins-derivative diet. Or is that too much of a stretch? From the e-mail statistics, readers evidently like to be alarmed, but at the same time don't deign from lapping up the "comfort food". Rest assured that in the diabetes stories the word "moral" was nowhere to be found.

It's not all futile of course, this leads naturally to the next series, probably something like: "Cardiovascular Disease Silently, Stealthily Stalks".