ForumGarden

Have a look at the timeline on http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/oscpendo/

Congress passed the Food Quality Protection Act in 1996, requiring that "EPA initiate EDSP to screen pesticide chemicals and environmental contaminants for their potential to affect the endocrine systems of humans and wildlife."

You know what the timeline says? There's not been a single chemical screened yet in the entire ten years since Congress "took action" when the problem became so glaringly apparent that even they had to be seen to be concerned.

There's a story in today's Washington Post about it, starting "Abnormally developed fish, possessing both male and female characteristics, have been discovered in the Potomac River in the District and in tributaries across the region, federal scientists say -- raising alarms that the river is tainted by pollution that drives hormone systems haywire."

It's not a matter of spillage, this is pollution of the entire watershed surrounding Washington DC. "last fall federal and state researchers caught smallmouth bass in the Shenandoah River in Virginia and in the Monocacy River and Conococheague Creek in Maryland. All three tributaries eventually empty into the Potomac." - all three tributaries have the same problem. Spillage could only affect one of them per spill.

Ten years and not even one contaminant tested in all that time? And then the utility companies can turn round when asked by reporters and say "there was no evidence that tap water taken from the Potomac was unsafe to drink"?

Well, there wouldn't be, would there.

http://www.nrdc.org/health/effects/qendoc.asp is a background FAQ on endocrine disruptors. Take at least a glimpse at "Is there direct evidence that humans are susceptible to endocrine disruption?", "Are children at greater risk from endocrine disruptor exposure?" and "These days don't chemicals have to be safe to be allowed on the market?".

I bet Members of Congress drink bottled water.

spot wrote: http://www.nrdc.org/health/effects/qendoc.asp

is a background FAQ on endocrine disruptors.


Interesting. That organisation seems somewhat "alternative" at first sight. They

say "buy "organic" food, but advise against eating " fatty foods such as cheese

and meat whenever possible". From the website:

nrdc.org wrote: 9. What can I do to reduce my risk of exposure?

Educate yourself about endocrine disruptors, and educate your family and friends.

Buy organic food whenever possible.



Avoid using pesticides in your home or yard, or on your pet -- use baits or traps instead, keepin your home especially clean to prevent ant or roach infestations.

Find out if pesticides are used in your child's school or day care center and campaign for non-toxic alternatives.

Avoid fatty foods such as cheese and meat whenever possible.

If you eat fish from lakes, rivers, or bays, check with your state to see if they are contaminated.

Avoid heating food in plastic containers, or storing fatty foods in plastic containers or plastic wrap.

Do not give young children soft plastic teethers or toys, since these leach potential endocrine disrupting chemicals.

Support efforts to get strong government regulation of and increased research on endocrine disrupting chemicals.

Last revised 11.25.98


Not to say that I think all the above is bad, however - in fact, I try to give the

Young Master "good stuff" when he's at home.



spot wrote: I bet Members of Congress drink bottled water.


Heavens above! Something stronger, still bottled, perhaps?



I re-open this to ask whether you have heard much about the prescence of

actual hormones, as well as mimics and disruptors, in drinking water?

gay fish what next spottie.

Bill Sikes wrote: I re-open this to ask whether you have heard much about the prescence of

actual hormones, as well as mimics and disruptors, in drinking water?That was put as a question in http://ec.europa.eu/research/endocrine/ ... ter_en.pdf and a provisional analysis done up the road here at UWE in 2001 - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1495908.stm reports on that. It got publicity for unequivocally demonstrating the recycling of urine content in drinking water, which naturally hit the news headlines which vied with each other to estimate the average number of people a glass of tap water has passed through. I think they were just taking the ****.

ruula wrote: gay fish what next spottie.Guys in training bras, presumably. I'm browsing the catalogues as we speak.

Wendybird wrote: For guys or for training bras? It's the catalogue of a specialist publication, "TV Times", on sale at every magazine stand in the UK since the 1950s. We're a tolerant society.

It may not be as unusual as you think.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3882159.stm

The use of hormones to bulk out cattle has been banned in the eu for twenty years the US still use them and it is one of the bones of contention between the EU and US as is GM foods.



http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 46,00.html

Over the last two years a number of important studies have shown that the information used by regulators to assess the safety of hormone residues in food has been wildly inaccurate, he said. “It is now clear that very much smaller amounts of sex hormones in food than previously thought can cause genital abnormalities in baby boys, premature puberty in girls and increase the risk of cancers later in life.

The hormone drugs have been banned in Europe for 20 years but they are still used in Australia, New Zealand, the United States, Canada, Mexico and Chile. From this list of countries Britain imports beef from only Australia (4,700 tonnes a year), but it is believed the hormones are used illegally in other countries. The Government has not tested imports for the drugs for the past 18 months.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/a ... ge_id=1770

Link works if you cut and paste just in case it doesn't.

Once, these hormones were used on British cattle, too. But two decades ago, they were banned thoughout Europe as too hazardous. Indeed, so concerned is the European Union that it has also long prohibited imports of hormone-treated beef, to the fury of the US Government, which wants to sell it across the globe.

Ten years ago the US and Canada - after heavy lobbying by the biotech giant Monsanto and farming interest groups - asked the World Trade Organisation to declare this import ban illegal, and punish Europe for failing to lift it.

The organisation - with a long record of refusing to let environmental or safety concerns interfere with trade - duly complied, imposing fines of over $120 million a year. Commendably, the EU has preferred to go on paying this gigantic sum, rather than endanger its children's health - and with good reason.

The onset of puberty has been growing steadily earlier in American children, and breast and prostate cancer are very much higher in the United States than in Europe. No-one can prove that this comes from eating hormone-treated beef, but the EU - massively backed by public opinion - reasonably says that it does not want to take the risk.


After BSE and a couple of other health scares nobody trusts the government very much when it comes to this kind of thing. So if you see stories about US beef being boycotted in europe don't believe it is just simply anti american.

What happened to Oprah by the way did she not get sued by the cattlemen or something for saying BSE was in US cattle?

(Can't recall what happened with Oprah's case..sorry.)

Recently I read that fish in the Pacific (and, one assumes, other oceans) are FULL of vitamins and antibiotics which they've absorbed from waters containing runoffs from human toilets. Yes, folks, we pee under-utilized vitamins, etc, and put unwanted meds into our toilets and flush.

STOP DOING THAT! PLEASE!