I Wish I Were Far From the Madding Crowd

March 21, 2010

Sound advice to companies on endocrine disruptors

Found a post on endocrine disruptors that advises companies on steps they should be taking to deal with endocrine disruptors now.  You’re probably thinking what I thought when I first saw the post, “Yeah, right.”

I was pleasantly surprised.  It’s heartening to see an investment manager taking an enlightened  position like this.

The Chemicals That Should Be on Your Radar … but Probably Aren’t

By Richard Liroff – Published February 25, 2010
[This post is a follow up to Liroff’s earlier article “What Does the FDA’s BPA Decision Mean for Companies?” on GreenBiz.com.]

Liroff notes:

As a class, [endocrine disruptors (EDs)] can have profound and unparalleled impacts on families, communities and businesses because of their possible links to learning disabilities, selected cancers, reproductive disorders, diabetes and other health disorders.

Systematically identifying EDs, substituting safer substances and product designs, and reducing exposures promise sizeable payoffs from reduced health care burdens and enhanced employee productivity. Such actions help align consumer-facing companies in particular with consumers’ concerns about involuntary exposures to toxic chemicals in daily living.

Liroff lists several recent developments in public awareness regarding endocrine disruptors, describes what endocrine disruptors are and how they can affect health, and offers the following advice to chemical companies regarding endocrine disruptors:

1. Get educated.

He provides links to European, U.S. EPA, and NIEHS endocrine disruption websites as well as the The Endocrine Disruption Exchange (TEDX) list of resources.  (A very nice list!)

2. Make sure corporate science staff stay current.

Why the Adage ‘the Dose Makes the Poison’ Can Be Toxic to Corporate Chemicals Policy

Heed the advice of NIEHS’s Dr. Linda Birnbaum: “[T]he timing, as well as the dose, makes the poison.” The American Chemical Society, in a newly published statement on endocrine disruptors, echoes this view: “A large and growing body of environmental health literature shows that endocrine disrupting substances … do not fit the central tenet of regulatory toxicology, namely, that the ‘dose makes the poison.'”

3. Know the chemicals in your products and supply chain.

4. Take action. Join the leading edge companies who are actively screening their chemical inventories for endocrine disruptors and are taking steps to lower toxicity via safer chemical substitutes or designs….

[A] proactive approach of analysis and substitution, and responding to early warning signals, is more likely to buttress consumer confidence in your brand than defensive posturing that reflexively asserts “more research is needed” or “no cause-effect relationships have been shown.”

Richard A. Liroff, Ph.D., is founder and director of the Investor Environmental Health Network (IEHN). IEHN is a collaboration of investment managers that advocates for safer corporate chemicals policies to grow long-term shareholder value and reduce financial and reputational risks to companies. The business case for corporate safer chemicals policies, a list of shareholder resolutions on safer chemicals policies, and a roster of participants can be found on the IEHN website, www.iehn.org. Disclosure: Liroff serves as Vice-Chair of the Board of Directors of The Endocrine Disruption Exchange and served on the priority-setting work group of EPA’s Endocrine Disruption Screening and Testing Advisory Committee.

U.S. Task Force on Childhood Obesity looking for ideas

We’ll see whether this has any impact, given some of the recent discoveries about the role of fructose in the obesity epidemic.

Task Force asks public for ideas on how to solve the obesity challenge (March 17, 2010, press release)

Federal Register request for input, March 16, 2010:

[Text version] [PDF version]

On Feb. 9, 2010, President Obama created the first-ever federal task force to enhance coordination between private sector companies, not-for-profits, agencies within the government and other organizations to address the problem of childhood obesity. The Presidential Memo that established the Task Force directed senior officials from executive agencies and the White House to develop a comprehensive interagency action plan that details a coordinated strategy, identifies key benchmarks and goals, describes research gaps and needs, and assists in the development of legislative, budgetary, and policy proposals that can improve the health and well-being of children, their families, and communities.

Now, Dr. Robert Lustig spoke about the basic problem with FDA and USDA on this issue in a lecture (see “The toxic effects of … sugar“).  He said that the biggest problem is not lack of exercise, but ingesting too much fructose.  (If lack of exercise is the reason, explain why there’s an epidemic of obese six-month-olds.)

Lustig says that the studies linking fat consumption and heart disease did not control for sugar consumption.  He pointed out that in Western societies high-fat diets are high-sugar diets.   And he said that FDA won’t regulate fructose because it’s not an acute toxin, but a chronic toxin leading to metabolic syndrome (plus, the FDA considers it “natural”—which Dr. Lustig notes is true only on the technicality that HFCS is made from a natural product—HFCS is highly processed and refined).  And the USDA, which controls the food pyramid, won’t touch high fructose corn syrup because it’s made from corn.  (See also “Junk food turns rats into addicts. Bacon, cheesecake, Ho Hos alter brain’s pleasures centers.”)

The Federal Register notice points people to First Lady Michelle Obama’s “Let’s Move” initiative – http://www.letsmove.gov/.  I certainly support this, but I think they need to go further and start looking at the connection between fructose and obesity.  The site has links to all sorts of useful information, including a link to the Food Environment Atlas from USDA which shows consumption of various foods around the U.S., as well as maps showing diabetes and obesity rates (under “Health”).

While there’s no acknowledgement that the type of sugar we’re consuming has an effect, I did notice that there are signs that someone in the government is paying attention.  Water is recommended as the main drink.  Fruit juices are discouraged, as are “added sugars.”  But they don’t appear to have made the leap yet to the connection between fructose and the metabolic syndrome, which appears to be even more important than the number of calories consumed or burned.

Related posts:

Update on fructose – Dr. Lustig on Nightline” and “Fructose overdose

See also:

Laura Sanders.  “Junk food turns rats into addicts. Bacon, cheesecake, Ho Hos alter brain’s pleasures centers.” Science News.  November 21, 2009.

Paul Johnson and Paul Kenny. “Society of Neuroscience Program.”  ‘Neuroscience 2009′ Conference. October 17-21, 2009.  Chicago.

March 1, 2010

Chemicals and cancer

Used Tag surfer for the first time tonight (click on your Dashboard button and select “Tag Surfer”) and came across the following:

8 Things We Could Do About Cancer (but probably won’t)

In that post, Geoffrey Meadows identifies the eight things as we could do something about as tobacco, radon, food and food packaging, safe homes, OSHA, protecting science and our regulatory agencies, public information, and prevention and the precautionary approach.  (More on this in a future post.)

While I agree with most of Meadows’ items, I should point out that a new study published online Feb. 8 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, indicates that “thirdhand tobacco smoke” can generate carcinogens by the  reaction of ambient nitrous oxide with residual nicotine left on surfaces.  Similarly, a paper published in the American Academy of Pediatrics’ journal Pediatrics cites numerous references indicating not only that the home is the source of significant tobacco smoke exposure, but that tobacco toxins can be deposited on surfaces and in loose household dust and can off-gas into the air (see References 1 and 4-7 in the bibliography).

Interestingly, one of the sources Meadows cites is Doubt Is Their Product: How Industry’s Assault on Science Threatens Your Health, by David Michaels. — Oxford: Oxford University Press, c2008.

Case, in “The Real Story on BPA” (Fast Company, Feb. 2009) notes that chemical manufacturers have adopted similar tactics to those of tobacco companies.  (Interestingly, the FDA has recently since reversed its position on BPA.  See “Recent news” below.)

Michaels, in fact, is interviewed by Case in “Manufacturing Doubt in Product Defense,” a sidebar to the article.  There Michaels describes how “product-defense firms” operate.

Case notes that the evidence is clearly leaning towards bisphenol A having adverse effects on people.

Of the more than 100 independently funded experiments on BPA, about 90% have found evidence of adverse health effects at levels similar to human exposure.

Includes links to other sidebars to the article: How to Pass the BPA Test and Infographic: The BPA in You.

Recent news on BPA

FDA shifts stance on BPA, announces “some concern” about children’s health (Environmental Health News, Jan. 15, 2010)

U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Bisphenol A (BPA): Update on Bisphenol A (BPA) for Use in Food: January 2010.  (Full update)

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.  Bisphenol A (BPA) Information for Parents.

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.