Skipping BPA which is problematic
but enjoys a serious lobby for both sides, the unrecognized problem is that a
range of artificial and natural chemical substances do modify the genes. This effect survives the removal of the
agency.
Worse, the effect can also be passed
on as inheritance.
For that reason the acceptance protocol
of any chemical regime into the human biome needs a major overhaul. Toxicity is the least of it and has been a
manageable risk anyway.
It would not be too surprising
that this effect underlies the natural advent of allergic reactions.
The good news, if we want to call
it that, is that effects are generally subtle and have to be coaxed out. Thus errors are likely to be often benign
rather that crippling. Perhaps we will
have a rerun of the radiation issue in which low level exposure triggers a
powerful corrective response that actually lowers risk factors.
In the meantime do make sure you
representative of the people understands all this.
Keeping it in the family: BPA’s effects might last in our bodies for
generations
By Tom Laskawy
Back in May, I
pointed to a study on a farm chemical that was found to cause physiological
and behavioral changes in rats. Worryingly, the effects persisted for generations after
a single exposure (it was the first time this phenomenon was extensively
documented in an industrial chemical). In an email at the time, one of the
study authors said, “Many other environmental compounds promote these types of
phenomena … Future science and policy needs to consider such phenomena and
mechanisms.”
It looks like he was right. Now, another study has found evidence of
multi-generational effects of exposure — in this case, to that ubiquitous
endocrine disruptor you love to hate: bisphenol A (BPA). The research appears in the
peer-reviewed journal Endocrinology and was conducted by a team
of scientists from the University
of Virginia
There are several interesting (and ominous) aspects of this new
research that should give us all pause. The first is that researchers looked
specifically at genetic effects. The previous study I cited examined behavioral
and physiological effects alone. And yes, the scientists found evidence of genetic
alterations from BPA exposure. But the truly significant aspect of the
study comes from the fact that the researchers replicated in mice the
low-level, chronic exposure that humans experience in their day-to-day lives.
It was this level of exposure that caused the genetic and behavioral changes
they saw.
Try not to get scared. I dare you.
Of course, we’re well past the days of waiting for a “smoking
gun” on BPA. The federal agencies in charge of chemical safety, the EPA and
the FDA, have repeatedly set the scientific bar very very high when evaluating
the need for a BPA ban. New York Times columnist Nick Kristof (who
dug up the new BPA
study [PDF] in his
latest column) blames the chemical industry, or as his title expresses it,
“Big Chem, Big Harm?”
And yes, a good part of the problem with chemical safety is due to the
industry’s influence over and successful lobbying of the agencies which
regulate it. But much of the EPA’s and FDA’s toothlessness has been literally written
into law. In a small morsel of good news, Kristof notes in his column that the
Senate committee in charge of chemical regulation for the first time passed The Safe Chemicals Act (aka
the Kids-safe
Chemicals Act). Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) has been trying for years to
move this bill that would update decades-old law and change the way the
government regulates chemicals.
Among its many changes, the bill shifts the burden of proof from the
government to the companies wishing to commercialize a chemical. Even more
importantly, it would force a company to prove a chemical’s safety, rather
than its potential for harm. It would in essence enshrine the concept of
the precautionary
principle into American law. It’s already a part of European Union law
that a chemical can be regulated or banned when “scientific evidence is
insufficient, inconclusive, or uncertain,” i.e. when it has not been proven
safe. And that’s why the phrase “chemical X (already banned in Europe )” is such a familiar refrain in articles about
toxic chemicals.
It’s a change in regulatory approach that we desperately need. The
evidence mounts every day that our collective health depends on it. And yet,
even in the unlikely event that the full Senate passes the bill, the House
would need to act on it. And given that the GOP-led chamber is prone to pass
bills to stop
the EPA from doing things it’s not actually doing, I don’t think anyone
should hold their breath for House passage.
That said, the blame is not entirely on the Republicans. The time to
have passed legislation like this was during 2009-2011, when the Democrats
enjoyed filibuster-proof majorities in Congress. If it wasn’t on the agenda
then, it’s hard to imagine that it would become so even in the unlikely chance
the Democrats both retake the House and hold on to the Senate.
For now, we have to hope that the independent research continues — and
that the scary results it generates make it to the public. It certainly appears
that the deeper independent researchers dig, the more damaging the results they
find. Indeed, a
new study that found dangerous levels of the toxic plastic component
phthalates — linked to birth defects, early puberty, infertility, asthma, ADHD,
obesity, and diabetes — in 75 percent of children’s school supplies was what it
took to get Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), one of the members of the Senate
leadership, to back Lautenberg’s bill (hey, maybe it does have a chance!).
Kristof points out that the National Institutes of Health is
prioritizing research into transgenerational effects of industrial chemicals,
which is very promising. But if climate change has proved anything, it’s that
even when reality is staring them in the face, politicians can remain
stuck in denial.
Good thing it’s just our genes and our children’s genes on the line.
EDITOR’S NOTE: The headline on this article has been edited to
clarify that BPA itself does not “last in our bodies” but its effects (according
to the study Tom Laskawy writes about) do.
No comments:
Post a Comment