Yet Another Study Raises Concerns for BPA

Just this past week a study was published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives raising new concerns (and supporting past concerns) about the negative effects of BPA on human health.

One of the major research findings was that humans are exposed to higher levels of BPA than previously predicted.

In an effort to protect our health, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency determines reference doses for chemicals. A reference dose is the maximum daily exposure level, which is expected to not cause any significant risk for human health.

For BPA, the EPA determined a reference dose of 50 µg/kg/day. However, the study published by Taylor et al demonstrated that in order to achieve the levels of biologically active BPA that have been detected in human serum, the rhesus monkeys had to be given a dose that was 8 times the EPAs reference dose.

The results bolster scientists’ concerns that we truly do not know all of the sources of BPA exposure. Aside from plastic bottles and canned goods, there are new routes of exposure that continue to be identified such as thermal (carbonless) receipts.

The study also directly compared BPA studies using mice and rhesus monkeys, and demonstrated that, in fact, rodent studies are a valid model for human effects. To date, the biggest argument used to discredit the massive amount of data showing BPA can have negative effects on human health, had been that rodents were not a good model.

With all this new evidence, I wonder how long until a real regulation gets put into place to protect consumer health. I’m also excited to see what the counter argument will be. Stay tuned!

[Image credit: brian.gratwicke]

Congress Introduces Legislation to Protect Public Health

Recent events, such as the BP oil spill, highlight the danger posed by regulatory agencies that aren’t properly doing their jobs of, well, regulating. The BP oil spill happens to be one highly visible and very dramatic example, in which we learned too late that MMS was actually allowing companies to drill without proper permits and overruling findings of staff scientists.

However, oil is not the only industry escaping proper regulation. Surprisingly, the cosmetics that women use are not being regulated at all by the U.S. government. The FDA spells it out clearly on their website, that the responsibility of ensuring the safety of ingredients actually falls on the cosmetic industry:

Femonomics reads the internet: early puberty, racist tea party, whoopi, and an app that lightens your skin

People used to think just Americans were hitting puberty early, due to unhealthy lifestyles, but a new Danish study shows the age of puberty dropping among Danish boys.  A large part of this may be due to better nutrition, but it also may be caused by exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals or other environmental factors.  What do you think--does this trend concern you?  Or is it simply a marker of better health in the developed world?  Importantly, how do we get people to separate in their minds the age of puberty and the age of maturity?  (The linked article worries this will increase sex abuse--but only if people viewed 15 year-olds, who would have mostly gone through puberty, as sexually mature before the change!)

The NAACP issued a mild statement asking the Tea Party to repudiate racists in their ranks.  The Tea Party spokesperson, Mark Williams, responded on CNN by saying the Tea Party is ground up, has no set ideology, and isn't racist.  He then went on to pen a shockingly racist blog post (full text below jump) that contained these words:

We Colored People have taken a vote and decided that we don't cotton to that whole emancipation thing. Freedom means having to work for real, think for ourselves, and take consequences along with the rewards. That is just far too much to ask of us Colored People and we demand that it stop!
...And the ridiculous idea of "reduce[ing] the size and intrusiveness of government." What kind of massa would ever not want to control my life? As Coloreds we must have somebody care for us otherwise we would be on our own, have to think for ourselves and make decisions!
The racist tea parties also demand that the government "stop the out of control spending." Again, they directly target Colored People. That means we Colored People would have to compete for jobs like everybody else and that is just not right.

The end result, thankfully, was the Tea Party doing exactly what the NAACP resolution requested, by kicking out Williams and repudiating his racist statements.  Seriously, all you have to do is come out with a statement that your group stands for equality and you won't tolerate racism from people under the Tea Party banner, and then follow through on that commitment.  It's not so hard to be not racist, unless you're worried about alienating racists.  Oh, and Joe Biden and Sarah Palin, I hope this provides sufficient proof to you that some people in the Tea Party are in fact racist.

Jezebel has a list of 15 questionable things Whoopi Goldberg has defended.  Between coining the word "rape-rape" and sticking up for Mel Gibson (she says his anti-Semitism was because of drinking, and in her experience he's not racist), I'd say it's time for Whoopi to hang up the towel on opinonating a bit.  Renee Martin has more here and here.

Omigod, Vaseline has a new facebook app that lightens users' skin, to advertise their skin lightening products in India.  "Shadeism" is a huge problem in India and throughout the world, and many people experience permanent skin damage from using lightening creams.  I understand that there is market demand for this, but I can't help feeling like the companies that sell these products are evil.  I don't really know what to do about it, though.  Where will the pressure come from to eliminate shadeism, and the dangerous products it creates a market for? (hat tip Katey-kat)

NPR has a big spread on summer books.  (Hat tip Fug Girls.) What are you reading?  What's on your list?  I'm tackling the Stieg Larsson trilogy next.

Safe and Fun Summer Sun

This past Monday, June 21st, was the summer solstice, which marked the start of summer and is the day each year that has the longest period of daylight. And with the warmer weather and longer days of summer, many of us spend much more time in the sun.

Different cultures and periods in history have had different opinions of tanned skin. But today in the U.S., the majority of people find a suntan to be attractive. But what does tanning actually doing to our skin? We have all learned that a suntan is our body’s attempt to protect the skin from the sun’s harmful UV radiation. But the key message is that we tan in response to damage, and a tan is just a signal that damage has occurred. Excess exposure to harmful UV lights will age our skin and put us at risk for developing cancer. Yet despite our understanding the risks, we still go in search of the perfect summer tan.

Skin cancer is on the rise, and melanoma has become the most common form of cancer among Americans age 25-29. But it is highly a preventable form of cancer. A major reason the rates are on the rise is the increased popularity of indoor tanning beds. Research has finally confirmed suspicions that indoor tanning increases the risk of developing skin cancer. In fact, indoor tanning almost doubles the risk of melanoma, with risk being directly related to the number of hours spent tanning.

But what about those of us who try to buy products to protect our skin from the harmful UV rays?

Reflections on Sanjay Gupta’s Toxic America

Image credit: A6U571N

Toxic America.

We use a number of products every day from cleaning supplies to cosmetics. But how often do you think about the effect these chemicals could be having on your health?

We expect that the government regulates consumer products and exposures to ensure safety, but Dr. Sanjay Gupta’s two-night special Toxic America pushes us to question these assumptions. (If you missed it... You can watch replays this week or on CNN.com)

Seriously, BP, what the #@!$?

This piece over at the Daily Kos is a must read (laced with profanity, most of it warranted). Apparently there's something called "booming" that's used to stop oil from reaching the shoreline after a spill.  Basically, it's a big plastic barrier (a floaty thing on top with a skirt that goes down into the water) that you string along the ocean a short distance from the shore.  Importantly, it's non-absorptive, it only acts as a barrier.  So, for booming to work, you have to funnel the oil into containment devices and empty them every day.  To funnel the oil toward the containment devices, you have to string the boom in a zig-zag pattern.  Here is an image from a profanity-free version of Booming101 explaining the concept.  I highly recommend you go to the Daily Kos article and get the original profanity-full version.

So that's how booming works.  BUT, all the media knows is that a big bright orange or yellow line of stuff is supposed to stop the oil.  So, stringing a big line of highly visible boom=good, even if it accomplishes nothing.  And so, that's what BP has done.  All along the Gulf.  (These images via the Daily Kos piece.)

Because it doesn't work, and they're not properly anchoring it, here's what's become of their booms:

Yup, that's oil washed ashore, along with the boom that was supposed to stop it.  See any catch basins?  Neither do I.

What's the problem with facebook?

Facebook now has over 400 million users world-wide.  And they are ruthlessly leveraging that popularity to turn pageviews into profit.  Meanwhile, it has become a de riguer communication device--so widely used, you're a no one if you're not on it ("You're not on facebook?!" has become the new "You don't have a cellphone?!").  With this increased popularity, and expanding scope of use, a worrying trend has emerged: facebooks users continuing to share private details, as facebook's creator and business managers gradually take away the privacy protections that once kept that information limited to your closest (400 or so) friends.

We've long been aware of facebook overshares via lamebook, but a new website, openbook, makes clear just how vulnerable your information is, by allowing you to search facebook statuses for questionable phrases like "cheated on test" and "I hate my boss."  You may have noticed the way facebook is trying to take your privacy control away from you when it required you to "connect" with your work info and interests in order to keep them listed on your profile.  "Connections," unlike the information listed in your extended profile, are public information.

You can see graphically just how much facebook has eroded your privacy over the years through this neat-o blooming flower of overexposure.  Some have had enough, and there's a growing wave of discontent, with many users deleting their profiles, or threatening to.  Internet entrepreneur Jason Calacanis is on a mission against facebook, after deciding in late 2009 that the company wasn't trustworthy due to its new privacy defaults.  But he's far from the only one.  Gizmodo has offered up ten reasons why you should quit facebook, including its leaders' demonstrated questionable ethics and "war on privacy," but also arguing that even if facebook wanted to protect your privacy, recent technical gaffes show they just aren't competent enough to.

Femonomics reads the internet: Environmental Health and New Lows for Victimization of Victims

I've been pretty impressed with a series of articles being published by TIME. One issue I have consistently written about (i.e. here and here and here), are chemicals in plastics and our health. Early April, Bryan Walsh published a solid article called the Perils of Plastic, which hit all of the key points. Just this Thursday, Tiffany O'Callaghan recapped a report from the President's Cancer Panel determining that environmental chemicals are a larger factor in the rising burden of cancer than they previously thought.

In Australia, the successful use of the 'Skinny Jeans Defense' in a rape case has terrifying implications. Recap: A man (Nicholas Gonzales) was acquitted of rape in Australia using the argument that the tight fit of the jeans would make them "difficult... to be taken off by someone else unless the wearer's assisting, collaborating, consenting." But believe it or not, this is not a new defense. In 1992, the same argument was used successfully to overturn a guilty verdict in an Italian rape case. That case served as an inspiration for an annual event called Denim Day that is held in April every year and asks people to "wear jeans as a visible means of protest against misconceptions that surround sexual assault." I'm going to stop there before I start to rant and rave and redirect you to a round-up of posts and articles by Alex Eichler at the AtlanticWire on just how wrong this defense is.

BPA Update: EPA to Investigate Environmental Impact of BPA

Image credit: ToastyKen

In January, I wrote about the FDA’s reversal on their safety ruling for bisphenol A (BPA) which is used in the production of plastic water bottles and the lining of aluminum cans.

Late March, the EPA announced it will be beginning an investigation to determine if BPA should be added to the list of chemicals of concern.

Why Is the EPA Investigating?

Questioning the power of the pill: Do we need more innovation in birth control?

Feministe has an interesting piece about an interview Laura Eldridge gave about her new book on birth control.  Eldridge is a critic of hormonal birth control, and argues that its side-effects have been downplayed and women led to believe they only have one reliable choice for family planning.  While I certainly agree that the pill may not work for everyone (and as someone who is generally suspicious of pharmaceuticals, taking such a powerful medication for so long makes me nervous), I also agree with Feministe that for many women, it's hard to overstate the immense power of the pill.  Birth control access, more than anything else, really changed the way we as women were able to live our lives, so I will go to the mat defending it, even if I acknowledge we need to have an open conversation about the pros and cons of different methods.

Healthcare: a skeptic's guide

Since Sunday night's healthcare vote, we've put up two pro-healthcare reform pieces on this site (by Mad Dr and Pearls N the Hood).  This isn't because our site has any specific stance, it's because we have two writers who happen to feel passionately on the subject, and happen to be pro-reform.  But if you look around the feminist blogosphere, most feminist bloggers and tweeters seem to be taking a "pro" stand (with the exception of arguing reproductive rights shouldn't have been thrown under the bus for us to get there).  On twitter Sunday night into Monday, there was tons of breath-holding (as the final votes were counted) and cheering (once the bill tipped over the threshold) going on among the feminist groups we follow.  Reading all this, you might start to feel that feminism comes as a package deal, complete with liberal political beliefs.  I'm writing this because I don't believe that to be the case, and I don't want our readers who don't share this "belief package" to feel alienated if they don't, either.

There are many reasons one might feel skeptical, or at least less-than euphoric, about the recent healthcare legislation, and none of them make you any less of a feminist.  Let me lay out the spectrum of healthcare skepticism, both for us skeptics and for those who don't get where we're coming from.  You might be skeptical of the healthcare legislation because:

Jaime Oliver's Food Revolution is inspiring and maddening all at once

Jaime Oliver took on the British school food system, and won. He managed to get British schools serving healthier, fresher meals country-wide, and I'm sure the health of school children in the UK is better for it. However, it's telling that all of Oliver's efforts were scrupulously documented for hit TV series. On one hand, Oliver is the ultimate modern idealist: a David of nutrition against the Goliath agro-industrial food industry. On the other, he's the ultimate modern cynic: a natural performer who wants to create big social change, as long as the camera gets all of his best angles (in a scene at the end of yesterday's show, Oliver cries crocodile tears over the people of Huntington not understanding how much he cares. This Washington Post article sums it up: "[Oliver is] afflicted with the kind of warm-hearted caring that requires the constant presence of a TV crew."). If Oliver's new effort to put healthier food in US schools is successful, the latter won't seem so important. But if all that Oliver gets out of this is a season of good TV, I'll wonder whether there wasn't a better way to create change.

A Different Kind of Safe Sex

Valentine’s Day is approaching, so I thought I’d take the time to provide some serious information of ways you can practice safe sex both with the one you love or flying solo.

Click through for information on safe choices in sex toys.

More Toyota bad news: Prius isn't working either, and federal regulators have known about the monster pedals since 2007!!

I'm sorry guys, I can't stop posting about this--It's so insane.

New reports this morning that Prius owners are reporting problems with their brakes.  So Toyota can't make brakes or accelerator pedals?  That's bad.  The problem appears to be electrical.  It's another blow to Toyota, who had the blockbuster hybrid as one of their few remaining untarnished products.

In other news, the Washington Post is reporting that federal regulators have known since 2007 that some Toyotas could accelerate suddenly.  From the WaPo:

During a little-noticed 2007 inquiry, investigators found that at least three of every 100 Lexus ES 350 owners in Ohio reported experiencing unintended acceleration, an unacceptably high percentage given the potentially fatal consequences, industry experts said.

"Anything over 1 percent would raise a red flag, particularly for the manufacturer," said James C. Fell, who worked at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for 30 years, and was chief of research for traffic safety programs.

Okay, forget that I would be in favor of raising a red flag at anything over 0%, but three out of every 100?  That's crazy.  Apparently the investigators concluded it only affected a small number of cars, and couldn't figure out how to fix it, so decided to let it ride (so to speak).  Listen, I understand we can't do a recall for every minor safety issue, but could there at least be some kind of federal website that lists these reports so that car buyers can be informed?  I thought about buying a Toyota a few years back, and to me, three out of every 100 is a big enough deal that I would have been looking elsewhere.

Update: Transportation Secretary says you should stop driving recalled Toyotas. Would be nice if Toyota agreed

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said today that he thinks people should stop driving recalled Toyota vehicles, and take them to a dealership to be fixed.  From the NYTimes:

Mr. LaHood said his advice to owners of recalled Toyotas was to “stop driving it, take it to a Toyota dealer because they believe they have a fix for it.”

“We need to fix the problem so people don’t have to worry about disengaging the engine or slamming the brakes on or put it in neutral," Mr. LaHood said in response to questions.

While I'm glad LaHood realizes that Toyota's proposed solution is ludicrous, his urging is pretty useless if Toyota doesn't put in place mechanisms so that consumers can follow this advice.  Most consumers can't just stop driving their cars until Toyota is ready to fix them, and Toyota has specifically said consumers need to wait until their dealership is ready to fix their car, which given the volume could take quite a while.  Toyota needs to be offering rental cars of a different make to every consumer driving a recalled vehicle until their dealerships are able to fix them.  And to expedite that process, they need to be hiring additional staff and adding resources immediately.  All of this will cost an arm and a leg, but in the long term, a lot less than another accident happening after the recall was supposedly put in place.  Let's hope Toyota's message to consumers catches up with LaHood's.

Toyota car safety issues are scary. Toyota's response is scarier still.

This Toyota thing is getting bad.  Not only has Toyota halted production and recalled over 9 million vehicles, but they still have no good answer for the millions of consumers at risk from their runaway cars.  Consumers have to keep driving, and wait until Toyota contacts them to get their accelerator pedal fixed!  This from the company that for months blamed the runaway car problem on improperly installed floormats, even though multiple drivers reporting issues had no floormats on the driver side.  Finally, they've admitted the problem may be with the design of the accelerator pedal itself (this man thinks it may be an electrical problem, in which case Toyota's pain is just beginning), but only after months of downplaying the issue.  That's right, Toyotas are speeding out of control and killing their drivers due to faulty accelerator pedals. 

Decoding food labels: CSPI says don’t believe the hype

Tired of being lied to by food producers’ creative marketing practices? Grocery shopping can be a little overwhelming. There are so many options and new health food brands are constantly emerging and declaring themselves “healthy”, “immunity boosting”, “all natural”, and as having “0 g trans fat” (as if I wasn’t going to check the saturated fat to find that, shocker, ice cream isn’t really good for me after all). Don’t fall for the traps. The Center for Science in the Public Interest is on a mission to get the FDA to crackdown on false and misleading information presented on real food and what I like to call “food-like substances” or junk food labels. The report, released in December, calls for the FDA to completely reform nutrition labeling practices and calls out some of our favorite food manufacturers for luring us to certain products by claiming that they are “lightly sweetened”, like breakfast cereals for kids, when there is no FDA criteria for “lightly sweetened” products . “All natural” is another common misnomer. If an ingredient was added that did not occur naturally in production, then it is no longer “all natural.” The FDA took on General Mills last year to get them to stop exaggerating the powers of Cheerios, but those commercials with the kids who are so concerned with mom and dad’s health and well-being that they want to feed them Cheerios for breakfast, lunch, and dinner are so cute. Check out the report, even Kashi and Glaceau have been called out. With record rates of overweight, obesity, and type 2 diabetes in the US, the bottom line, according to CSPI senior staff attorney, Ringel Heller, is "companies should market their foods without resorting to the deceit and dishonesty that's so common today. And, if they don't, the FDA should make them.”

Related

NYT: Six Meaningless Claims on Food Labels

FDA Reversal on BPA Safety Ruling

This past Friday, the FDA announced a recent study had raised “some concern” about the safety of Bisphenol A and its impact on the health and development of our children. This finding was in direct opposition to their position in 2008 that the chemical was safe.

As introduced by Coca Colo, I am a scientist. But even with a PhD in chemistry, I find it is difficult to navigate the latest health and safety warnings and keep on top of which foods and consumer products I should or should not be using.

Recently, I have been following debate over the safety of Bisphenol A (BPA). I am constantly surprised that people have missed this news story—even a chemist I used to work with was not familiar with it. BPA is a chemical that used in the production of plastics. As I mentioned, the FDA has now expressed concern about BPA, but others have been worried much earlier. Let me give you a brief history.