Latest news with #endocrineDisruptors
CNN
7 days ago
- Health
- CNN
Eco-friendly menstrual products test high in toxic chemicals, study finds
Extremely high levels of toxic chemicals called PFAS (perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances) have been found in a small sampling of reusable menstrual pads and panties, according to a new study. 'Whether we wear feminine hygiene products or not, we will all be exposed,' said senior study author Graham Peaslee, a professor of physics, chemistry and biochemistry at the University of Notre Dame in Indiana. 'Everything in the US ultimately goes into landfills, and with time these forever chemicals leach into our drinking water, our irrigation water and our food supply,' Peaslee said. Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances are called 'forever' chemicals because they fail to break down fully in the environment. Known endocrine disruptors, various types of PFAS have been linked to serious health problems such as cancer, obesity, high cholesterol, decreased fertility, low birth weight, accelerated puberty and hormone disruption, according to the EPA. The highest levels of contamination came from a type of 'neutral' PFAS that scientists know exist but have just recently been able to measure and more thoroughly test for harm, the study found. 'We typically measure a type of PFAS called ionic, which has a charge, and we can measure those down to parts per trillion which is a low exposure level,' Peaslee said. (An ionic charge is the positive or negative charge of an ion, an atom that has gained or lost electrons.) Newer technology is now allowing scientists to measure neutral PFAS — which have no charge. Some of the neutral versions are thought to be linked to the same health harms as the ionic versions, said Kathrin Schilling, an assistant professor of environmental science at Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York City. She was not involved in the study. 'That's important because neutral PFAS tend to fly under the radar but can be more easily absorbed through the skin, or even mucous membranes like those in the vagina because they can more easily move through fatty tissues,' said Schilling via email. The new testing found an alarming amount of these neutral PFAS in some reusable period products, according to the study. 'When we measured the neutral PFAS there were much higher concentrations — not parts per trillion, not even parts per billion, but levels at parts per million — that's very, very high,' Peaslee said. What does that mean for the people using these products? 'The truth is, we still do not fully understand how they behave in the body or what long-term exposure might mean,' Schilling said. 'Neutral PFAS are not well studied, and there are no clear regulations for them yet.' The study, published Tuesday in the journal Environmental Science and Technology Letters, analyzed 43 period underwear, eight reusable pads, four menstrual cups, three reusable incontinence underwear and one reusable incontinence pad — a total of 59 products. A separate part of the study also looked at tampons. 'We didn't provide manufacturer names in our study However, the majority were US manufacturers,' Peaslee said. 'We also looked at a few from South America, a couple from Australia and a couple from Europe. While the number of samples is small, we believe it was a representative snapshot.' In addition to measuring neutral and ionic PFAS, the study examined whether PFAS was found at low enough levels to indicate it was inadvertently added due to contamination during the manufacturing process. Researchers also searched for higher levels of PFAS that would indicate the chemicals were likely added on purpose. 'What's shocking is that we found 33% of period underwear and 25% of reusable pads had intentional PFAS use — meaning the chemicals had been put there, likely to keep the products from leaking,' Peaslee said. Many reusable materials were sourced from third-party suppliers in other countries, who may not be as aware of the dangers of PFAS as domestic manufacturers, he said. 'It did seem to be random — sometimes they put PFAS in the inside layer of material, sometimes on the outside, sometimes between the layers, all of which suggests they have no idea what they're doing,' Peaslee added. 'There's no labeling, so consumers have no clue because there's no way they can tell.' There were some encouraging findings, said lead author Alyssa Wicks, who conducted the research while a graduate student at Notre Dame. 'Only a subset of the products had high levels of PFAS present, which means that PFAS must not be essential in the manufacture of reusable feminine hygiene products,' said Wicks, now a postdoctoral assistant in the Nicholas School of the Environment at Duke University in Durham, North Carolia. 'Manufacturers should be able to make these textile products without chemicals of concern in them,' Wicks said in a statement. A growing number of teens and adults are looking for more eco-friendly choices at a time when scientists still know very little about how much PFAS and other chemicals are actually absorbed via vaginal tissue over time,' Schilling said. 'That is a huge gap in our understanding, especially given how many people rely on these products monthly for years,' she said. 'While these findings might seem niche at first glance, they point to a broader need for research, regulation, and transparency around the materials used in all menstrual products.'
Medscape
03-07-2025
- Health
- Medscape
Why Farmers Aren't to Blame for Pesticide Risks
A recent webinar hosted by the Scientific Society of General Medicine (SSMG) tackled some urgent questions: What exactly are pesticides? How are people exposed to them and who is at the greatest risk? What does current science tell us about their toxicity? The event brought together leading experts to revisit foundational knowledge and present the latest research on this widespread yet often misunderstood class of chemicals. Before delving into the core issues, speakers were quick to make one crucial point, given the sensitivity of the topic: The aim was not to blame farmers. 'They are the first to be exposed to pesticides, and the suicide rate is alarmingly high. We are absolutely not placing the burden of changing agricultural practices on their shoulders,' emphasised Jessica Beurton, MD, holds a Certificate in Environmental Health and is a core member of the Environment Unit at the SSMG. Beurton then offered a brief reminder of what pesticides are: chemical products used to target and eliminate unwanted entities, such as weeds, insects, or fungi. Of the 800 pesticides used worldwide, approximately 650 are thought to function as endocrine disruptors. According to the World Health Organization, an endocrine disruptor is an exogenous substance or mixture that interferes with endocrine functions and causes adverse health effects in an otherwise healthy individual. Exposure With these elements introduced, the presentation began with questions on how people are exposed to pesticides. Ingestion is the primary route, and children are particularly vulnerable; 67% of foods consumed by children contain at least one pesticide residue compared to 37% for adults. A study conducted by French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety found that 100% of the samples from cereals, fruit juices, vegetables, meat, fish, soups, and purees intended for children contained at least one pesticide residue. The same trend applies to foods that are popular among both children and adults, such as sweet biscuits, compotes, and butter. 'Perhaps even more striking, the study revealed the presence of pesticides banned decades ago, such as dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT). This illustrates the persistence of these molecules in our environments,' emphasised Céline Bertrand, a paediatric nurse, educator, and member of the Environment Unit at the SSMG. Residential exposure is also a concern. Pesticides, including DDT, have been detected in household dust, bed linens, and bath towels. 'Only a very small portion of the pesticides used in agriculture reach their intended target. The rest is released into the environment — into soil, water, and air,' Bertrand explained. Residents living near agricultural zones face greater risks. While 80% of pesticide spray settles within the first 10 m of the ground, airborne dispersion is more unpredictable. In some cases, concentrations peak over 50 m away or even 48 hours after application of the pesticide. However, occupational exposure remains a serious issue. Among the farmers, there was a strong association with Parkinson's disease, cognitive disorders, and chronic bronchitis. 'We also need to clarify the cancer risks among farmers. A large cohort study, AGRICOH, showed higher risks for certain cancers and lower risks for others, likely linked to outdoor activity.' 'However, this cohort included farmers who used pesticides and others who did not. The data show an increased cancer risk in pesticide users.' Bertrand said. Lung cancer was the most common, followed by prostate cancer, multiple myeloma, and colon cancer. Long-term exposure can also affect DNA and hormone levels, and gene expression in pesticide users. Exposure begins as early as embryonic development. 'The first 1000 days of life — from conception — are a critical window of susceptibility to endocrine disruptors. Puberty is another key period of susceptibility,' added Beurton. The discussion then turned to the toxicity of the pesticides. While acute poisoning remains rare in the general population, chronic exposure is widespread due to contamination of the troposphere. This chronic toxicity, ranging from immunotoxicity and neurotoxicity to cancer, endocrine disruption, and embryo damage, depends on the mode of action of the active molecule and co-formulants, their persistence in the environment, and the toxicity of their breakdown products (metabolites). 'The breakdown of a pesticide produces metabolites that can be more toxic than the parent molecule and can be found in higher concentrations in the blood. This flies under the radar. In Wallonia, we only monitor about 20 pesticide metabolites, which raises questions,' Bertrand noted. Among the various toxic effects identified are those on brain development before birth. Prenatal exposure to organophosphate and pyrethroid pesticides has been linked to neurodevelopmental disorders, particularly autism spectrum disorders. 'The earlier exposure during development phase in children, the greater the impact,' Bertrand explained. Each year in Europe, exposure to these substances is estimated to result in a loss of 13 million IQ points. It has also been linked to more than 50,000 cases of intellectual disability, 300 cases of autism, and 20,000 cases of ADHD. Risk Surprisingly, some pesticides, including DDT, are obesogenic, with effects that span generations. Studies have shown that mothers exposed to DDT in the 1960s had daughters who were more likely to develop obesity, and this pattern continued into the next generation. 'This clearly illustrates the transgenerational epigenetic effects of pesticides,' Bertrand said. Pesticides also affect fertility in both men and women. For instance, eating fruits and vegetables with high pesticide residues is associated with a lower likelihood of pregnancy and childbirth after infertility treatment. Men who consume the highest levels of such produce have 49% lower sperm counts and 32% fewer normal sperm than those who consume less. 'While it is still difficult to definitively prove cause-and-effect link in environmental health, the body of evidence linking pesticide exposure to neurological and endocrine diseases, childhood cancers, and immune disorders is growing stronger day by day. This should lead us toward the precautionary and even preventative principle,' Bertrand warned. Certain chemicals classified as carcinogenic, mutagenic, or reprotoxic are still used in Belgium. Toxic Co-Formulants The webinar then focused on glyphosate, a common herbicide still surrounded by controversy, partly due to efforts to cast doubt on its risks. However, science is becoming clearer. The active ingredient of glyphosate meets 8 out of 10 criteria for being classified as an endocrine disruptor. A recent study in mice showed that glyphosate can enter the brain and remain there for months. This led to brain inflammation in both healthy mice and those with Alzheimer's disease and caused early death in the exposed animals. One study assessed glyphosate and two glyphosate-based formulations in rats using three dose levels: no observed adverse effect level, the acceptable daily intake, and an intermediate dose. In all cases, researchers observed a higher rate of both benign and malignant tumours across multiple organs compared to control animals. 'Tumours were found in the blood, skin, liver, thyroid, nervous system, ovaries, mammary glands, adrenal glands, kidneys, bladder, bones, pancreas, uterus, and spleen,' said Bertrand. In another study, liver cells were exposed to glyphosate and four different formulations. All of them showed harmful effects within 24 hours — even at doses below those typically used in agriculture. Chronic in vivo regulatory studies typically assess the glyphosate levels alone. However, experts warn that health effects appear to depend more on the overall formulation than on the glyphosate concentration itself. 'That is quite concerning,' said Bertrand. 'These co-formulants represent the hidden face of pesticides. In many cases, they increase the toxicity of the active ingredient — or are even more toxic than glyphosate itself.' Laboratory tests have detected a range of hazardous substances in pesticide formulations, including per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), titanium dioxide, heavy metals such as arsenic, lead, and nickel, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Notably, PFAS were found in insecticide products even though their presence was not disclosed on the label. 'This should prompt us to rethink how we assess pesticide toxicity and take a much closer look at co-formulants, which can be considered the tip of the iceberg,' Bertrand emphasised. Shifting the Paradigm The webinar concluded with a broader reflection of the socio-economic implications of pesticide use. Critics often argue that eliminating pesticides would threaten global food security. However, Beurton challenged this narrative. 'Pesticides were introduced after World War II when famine was a real threat. This is no longer the case. Today, we understand their health risks, and we are witnessing a serious decline in biodiversity. It is time to change our approach,' she said. Beurton highlighted emerging research and pilot projects in agroecology that promote local, organic, seasonal, and minimally processed foods. 'The majority of farmers themselves are in favour of this paradigm shift. But they do not want to move forward alone: They need support,' she added. The price of organic and local food is often criticised, but Beurton pointed out that much of the cost comes from the industrial food system itself. 'When you break it down, a large portion of the price goes to processing, imports, packaging, marketing, and supermarkets — not the producers. If you want unprocessed food, you need to get it directly from the producer,' she said. Food Equity Beurton also noted that community gardens are growing in number and help make quality food more accessible, especially for low-income families. 'Food inequality is a serious and growing issue,' she said. Finally, she addressed the concern that food production would collapse in the absence of pesticides. 'Right now, Wallonia imports 83% of the fruits and vegetables and 67% of the cereals it consumes. Therefore, we are no longer producing our own food, which is a big problem. Supporting small, local producers — even those without organic certification — can help rebuild local food systems and create meaningful social connections,' she concluded.
Washington Post
23-06-2025
- Health
- Washington Post
We asked an oncologist: Should we worry about endocrine disruptors?
If you've been on social media lately, chances are you've heard about endocrine disruptors. People say they can interfere with your hormones, leading to serious health conditions. There are over 1,000 types of these chemicals, according to some estimates, and we are exposed to them daily: They can be found everywhere from your nonstick pan and canned foods to your shampoo and hair dye. But how worried should you be about them? And are they really linked to cancer? While it's reasonable to take steps to avoid certain endocrine-disrupting chemicals — and I do — the data are limited, so I don't worry too much about them. The evidence linking endocrine-disrupting chemicals to cancer is not strong in most cases — and not remotely on par with other known risk factors, such as alcohol and smoking. The endocrine system consists of glands that secrete hormones, like estrogen, testosterone and cortisol, that then interact with targets (receptors) in the body to regulate our growth, development, reproduction, metabolism, energy balance and body weight. Chemicals that interfere with this complex communication system are called endocrine disruptors. These chemicals work in a variety of ways, including overstimulating receptors, blocking receptors so that normal hormones can't interact with them and altering hormone production or availability. Bisphenol A (BPA) is a chemical used in the production of polycarbonate plastics and epoxy resins. It belongs to the larger class of chemicals called bisphenols. The primary exposure for most people is through their diet: BPAs can leach into food or drinks from the protective, internal epoxy resin coatings of canned foods and from consumer products such as polycarbonate tableware, food storage containers and water bottles, though the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has said it could no longer be used in sippy cups and baby bottles. One study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 2008 found BPA in 93 percent of over 2,500 urine samples collected from people 6 years of age and older. And while some products claim to be 'BPA-free,' they may substitute the chemical with other, similar bisphenols. Laboratory experiments in test tubes and mice have found that BPAs may cause cancer cell growth. While one study found an association between increased blood levels of BPA and prostate cancer, it found no association with BPA levels and breast cancer. Other studies have not found a consistent link between BPAs and cancer. Despite the compelling laboratory data, there is insufficient research to definitively link BPAs with cancer in humans. That being said, I've switched to using glass containers to store food and metal or glass water bottles to minimize my potential exposure. Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are chemicals used as oil and water repellents and coatings for cookware, food packaging, carpets and textiles. They're also known as 'forever chemicals,' because once PFAS are created, they persist in the environment because they do not break down like some other chemicals. PFAS can be found in everything from some types of dental floss to certain menstrual products. They can also contaminate drinking water near facilities where they're manufactured. The data linking PFAS to specific cancers, while still not at the level of smoking or alcohol intake, is stronger than for BPAs. Higher PFAS blood levels have been associated with kidney cancer, particularly in Black populations. Higher levels were also seen in women with postmenopausal breast cancer, and in men with testicular cancer. In 2024, the Food and Drug Administration announced that companies were phasing out the use of PFAS in food packaging. And last year, the Environmental Protection Agency set limits for the amount of PFAS in drinking water. But because PFAS are so ubiquitous, they can be hard to avoid. It's a good idea for your overall health to consume fresh food that is not heavily packaged or ultraprocessed. This will reduce your PFAS exposure. Several brands of cookware are also now PFAS-free. Phthalates are chemicals used in cosmetics and personal care products that make plastics more durable. These liquids, which are colorless, odorless and oily, resist evaporation and function as solvents and stabilizers in products such as perfumes, shampoos, hair sprays, nail polishes and cleansers. The most common one in cosmetics is diethyl phthalate (DEP). Products like chemical hair straighteners and dyes, which have been associated with certain hormone-sensitive cancers, including cancers of the breast and ovaries, may contain phthalates. One study of sisters in 2020 that included more than 46,000 women found that permanent hair dye use was associated with an increased risk of breast cancer, particularly among Black women, while frequent use of straighteners was linked to a higher risk of breast and ovarian cancer. A more recent study in the same cohort found that any use of straightening products within the previous year was linked to an increased the risk of uterine cancer. Keep in mind that the overall excess cancer risk is still really low. According to the American Cancer Society, approximately one in eight women, or 13 percent, will develop breast cancer over their lifetime. Permanent dye use may increase that risk by 9 percent, from 13 percent to 14 percent. Further research is needed to determine whether phthalates are the concern in these products, or if another chemical or factor may be a culprit. In the meantime, I recommend checking to see if your beauty products such as shampoo or chemical hair products contain phthalates, or looking for phthalate-free products. Another option is to choose fragrance-free products and avoid perfumes. Endocrine-disrupting chemicals are everywhere, and we may learn more in coming years to implicate them more directly as a cancer risk factor. In the meantime, here's my advice: Focus on taking steps for reducing cancer risk that are backed by stronger evidence. Don't smoke, reduce your alcohol intake, exercise regularly and eat whole foods. Mikkael A. Sekeres, MD, MS is the chief of the division of hematology and professor of medicine at the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami. He is author of the books 'When Blood Breaks Down: Life Lessons from Leukemia' and 'Drugs and the FDA: Safety, Efficacy, and the Public's Trust.'
