People are very upset about this, and for good reason. Female infants in China who have been fed formula have been growing breasts.
According to the official Chinese Daily newspaper, medical tests performed on the babies found levels of estrogens circulating in their bloodstreams that are as high as those found in most adult women. These babies are between four and 15 months old. And the evidence is overwhelming that the milk formula they have been fed is responsible.
Synutra, the company that makes the baby formula consumed by these babies, says it's not their fault. They insist that "no man-made hormones or any illegal substances were added during the production of the milk powder."
Then what is the source of the hormones? A Chinese dairy association says the hormones could have entered the food chain when farmers reared the cows. "Since a regulation forbidding the use of hormones to cultivate livestock has yet to be drawn up in China," says Wang Dingmian, the former chairman of the dairy association in the southern province of Guangdo, "it would be lying to say nobody uses it." Bovine growth hormones are used in China, as they are in the U.S., to promote greater milk production.
An extraordinary number of food products sold in the U.S. today come from China. Could some of this tainted formula be making its way to the U.S.?
There is currently no way for consumers to know whether infant formula they might purchase has been made with milk products from China.
If this problem appears in the U.S., who will be held responsible? The retailers? The importers? The Chinese producers? Will anyone be called to account?
As I describe in my books The Food Revolution and Diet For a New America, and on my website, this isn't the first time something like this has happened. In the 1980s, doctors in Puerto Rico began encountering cases of precocious puberty. There were four-year-old girls with fully developed breasts. There were three-year old girls with pubic hair and vaginal bleeding. There were one-year-old girls who had not yet begun to walk but whose breasts were growing. And it wasn't just the females. Young boys were also affected. Many had to have surgery to deal with breasts that had become grossly swollen.
Writing a few years later in the Journal of the Puerto Rico Medical Association, Dr. Carmen A. Saenz explained the cause. "It was clearly observed in 97 percent of the cases that the appearance of abnormal breast tissue was...related to local whole milk in the infants."
The problem was traced, and found to stem from the misuse of hormones in dairy cows. When Dr. Saenz was asked how she could be certain the babies and children were contaminated with hormones from milk rather than from some other source, she replied simply: "When we take our young patients off... fresh milk, their symptoms usually regress."
Along with China, the U.S. is today one of the few countries in the world that still allows bovine growth hormones to be injected into dairy cows. Though banned in Canada, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and most of Europe, the use of these hormones in U.S. dairy is not only legal, it's routine in all 50 states.
The U.S. dairy industry assures us that this is not a problem. But there is a very real problem, and its name is Insulin-like Growth Factor-1 (IGF-1). Monsanto's own studies, as well as those of Eli Lilly & Co., have found a 10-fold increase in IGF-1 levels in the milk of cows who have been injected with bovine growth hormone (BGH).
Why is that a problem? A report by the European Commission's authoritative international 16-member scientific committee not only confirmed that excessive levels of IGF-1 are always found in the milk of cows injected with BGH. It also concluded that excess levels of IGF-1 pose serious risks of breast, colon and prostate cancer.
How serious is the increased risk? According to an article in the May 9, 1998 issue of the medical journal The Lancet, women with even a relatively small increase in blood levels of IGF-1 are up to seven times more likely to develop breast cancer than women with lower levels.
IGF-1 that is consumed by human beings in dairy products is rapidly absorbed into the bloodstream. It isn't destroyed by human digestion. And pasteurization is no help. In fact, the pasteurization process actually increases IGF-1 levels in milk.
What's a consumer to do?
If at all possible, breast-feed your babies, and support breast-feeding friendly workplaces and other environments. It's hard to overstate the health advantages of breast-feeding for both mother and baby. They are enormous, and particularly so today, when the possibility exists that commercially available infant formula could be contaminated with excess hormones.
If you are going to buy dairy products, try to get them from organic sources. Organic milk products by law can't be produced with bovine growth hormone (BGH). Or look for dairy products that specifically say they are produced without BGH (also called recombinant bovine somatotropin, or rBST). Starbucks only uses dairy products that have not been produced with the hormone. Ben & Jerry's ice cream likewise uses only milk and cream from dairy farms that have pledged not to use BGH.
If you're going to eat cheese, remember that American-made cheeses are likely to be contaminated with BGH and excess levels of IGF-1 unless they're organic or labeled BGH-free. Most cheeses that are imported from Europe are safe, though, since much of Europe has banned the hormone.
Have you ever wondered why dairy products made from cows injected with the hormone aren't labeled? It's because Monsanto, the original manufacturer of BGH, has aggressively and successfully lobbied state governments in the past to make sure that no legislation is passed that would require such labeling.
As if that wasn't enough, Monsanto has also insistently sought to make it illegal for dairy products that are BGH-free to say so on their labels, unless the labels also included wording exonerating BGH. How does Monsanto justify such a dangerous condition? They say that allowing retailers to tell consumers that a dairy product is BGH-free shouldn't be allowed, even if it's true, because it unfairly stigmatizes BGH.
Monsanto acts as though accurately labeling products would make them the victim of some irrational cultural bias. But the company's products are, in fact, responsible for untold damage to human health.
My compassion is not for Monsanto. My heart goes out to the babies in China and their families, to the children in Puerto Rico and their families, and to the millions of others who have been or will be adversely affected by the abuse of hormones in dairy production.
femaile infants in china developing breasts
-
ndjili
- captain of 100
- Posts: 984
femaile infants in china developing breasts
Last edited by ndjili on August 12th, 2010, 8:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Jason
- Master of Puppets
- Posts: 18296
Re: femaile infants in china developing breats
hormone laced food (milk, etc)......article in LA Times about girls in the US reaching puberty as early as age 7 that I posted in Blipits today
-
ndjili
- captain of 100
- Posts: 984
Re: femaile infants in china developing breats
Sad thing I was unable to breast feed with my first child. I made not a drop of milk and had to bottle feed. Makes me scared about it when I try to have another child.
How do people think that the hormones in our food supply is ok? Makes one wonder just what the true cause of the obesity epidemic in this country is. I would say 90% of overweight people I know eat really very healthy and smaller portions and work out, yet still struggle with their weight.
How do people think that the hormones in our food supply is ok? Makes one wonder just what the true cause of the obesity epidemic in this country is. I would say 90% of overweight people I know eat really very healthy and smaller portions and work out, yet still struggle with their weight.
- Jason
- Master of Puppets
- Posts: 18296
Re: femaile infants in china developing breats
Friend of the family (adopted grandmother) saw her doctor earlier this spring. Dr asked if she had the flu shot - she said no. He said that was ok but recommended pneumonia shot so she got it. She suffered from pneumonia for 3 months with multiple other side effects. Went back in and her cholesterol was sky high so he put her on medication for it. Long story short in less than 9 months she's put on over 50 lbs, can't hardly walk anymore due to constant pain in her legs, and looks like death warmed over. The doc was switched a couple drugs, added a couple, etc. At this rate she'll be lucky to live another year or two after 70 years of healthy and fairly trouble free living.ndjili wrote:Sad thing I was unable to breast feed with my first child. I made not a drop of milk and had to bottle feed. Makes me scared about it when I try to have another child.
How do people think that the hormones in our food supply is ok? Makes one wonder just what the true cause of the obesity epidemic in this country is. I would say 90% of overweight people I know eat really very healthy and smaller portions and work out, yet still struggle with their weight.
That's just a pharma story....
Look at what the basic high fructose corn syrup diets are doing to our lives - fatty liver, diabetes, cancer, etc etc etc
That's not even diving into fluoride, aspartame, sucralose, etc etc etc
- kathyn
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 4156
- Location: UT
-
sixgunsue
- captain of 100
- Posts: 336
Re: femaile infants in china developing breats
Soy is and ugly scam perpetrated on the world. Held up as a miracle food but it is dangerous unless in traditional fermented form as our ancestors used it. It was a cheap crop to grow that was hyped and put in EVERYTHING!
Read about soy here...
http://www.westonaprice.org/soy-alert.html
Read about soy here...
http://www.westonaprice.org/soy-alert.html
-
sixgunsue
- captain of 100
- Posts: 336
Re: femaile infants in china developing breats
Hurray for raw milk JulesGP! If you know your source it's unbeatable for nutrition!
-
Rob
- the Sunbeam
- Posts: 1242
Re: femaile infants in china developing breats
Fenugreek is a great one. Some more herbs to consider would be red raspberry leaf (suggest taking it as an infusion) and blessed thistle.JulesGP wrote:Also, try taking fenegreek and pump religiously every 3 hours around the clock until it comes in! I had to do this (I lost it completely a month after he was born), and it was a horrible ordeal, but my milk came in and I was able to nurse my baby instead of the alternatives.
You might also want to consider taking either Dr. Schulze's SuperFood or Dr. Christopher's Vitalerbs or Jurassic Green.
- mchlwise
- captain of 100
- Posts: 428
- Location: Utah
- shadow
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 10542
- Location: St. George
Re: femaile infants in china developing breats
Dr. Stockwell says a good dark German beer will usually do the trick.Rob wrote:Fenugreek is a great one. Some more herbs to consider would be red raspberry leaf (suggest taking it as an infusion) and blessed thistle.JulesGP wrote:Also, try taking fenegreek and pump religiously every 3 hours around the clock until it comes in! I had to do this (I lost it completely a month after he was born), and it was a horrible ordeal, but my milk came in and I was able to nurse my baby instead of the alternatives.
You might also want to consider taking either Dr. Schulze's SuperFood or Dr. Christopher's Vitalerbs or Jurassic Green.
- Jason
- Master of Puppets
- Posts: 18296
Re: femaile infants in china developing breats
I posted article and link on it in Blipits yesterday before seeing this thread.....but ndjili's article had more depth to it and looks like from another source.mchlwise wrote:Is there a source for the original quote?
-
buffalo_girl
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 7119
Re: femaile infants in china developing breats
I heard a very lengthy 'report' on NPR a couple of days ago about early maturation in young girls in the United States. The entire focus of this story was on research showing the connection between childhood obesity in girls and early maturation. Of course, the parents were to blame for not making their children exercise more and eat fruit & vegetables. Not much nutrient value in fruits & vegetables anymore, either; not to mention being irradiated and dusted with flouride.
This 'obesity' issue then developed into why fat people will destroy ObamaCare for everyone who is fit & healthy by 'robbing' them of their tax dollar. So...in addition to 'old people' robbing us, now we have fat people robbing us more worthy folk of our tax dollar.
No mention of TARP, DOD, CONGRESS, EXECUTIVE salaries & vacations, PUBLIC SCHOOL PROGRAMS, USDA, CORPORATE WELFARE, etc., etc..
It's fat people and old people.
Maybe all those Chinese infants were just obese?
This 'obesity' issue then developed into why fat people will destroy ObamaCare for everyone who is fit & healthy by 'robbing' them of their tax dollar. So...in addition to 'old people' robbing us, now we have fat people robbing us more worthy folk of our tax dollar.
No mention of TARP, DOD, CONGRESS, EXECUTIVE salaries & vacations, PUBLIC SCHOOL PROGRAMS, USDA, CORPORATE WELFARE, etc., etc..
It's fat people and old people.
Maybe all those Chinese infants were just obese?
-
p51-mustang
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 1634
- Location: Harrisville, Utah
-
p51-mustang
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 1634
- Location: Harrisville, Utah
Re: femaile infants in china developing breats
I have man-breats and it makes me sad. Better start with the push ups...JulesGP wrote:p51-mustang wrote:Whats a breat anyway?
LOL!
- mchlwise
- captain of 100
- Posts: 428
- Location: Utah
Re: femaile infants in china developing breats
Jason wrote:I posted article and link on it in Blipits yesterday before seeing this thread.....but ndjili's article had more depth to it and looks like from another source.mchlwise wrote:Is there a source for the original quote?
found yours. Thanks.
I'd like to pass it along, but won't without a citation.
- moonwhim
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 4251
Re: femaile infants in china developing breats
Has anyone mentioned the chemical Bisphenol-A, or BPA?
Plastic bottle chemical may be harmful
http://www.infowars.com/plastic-bottle- ... ul-agency/
Will Dunham / Reuters | April 17, 2008
WASHINGTON – A chemical in some plastic food and drink packaging including baby bottles may be tied to early puberty and prostate and breast cancer, the U.S. government said on Tuesday.
Based on draft findings by the National Toxicology Program, part of the U.S. National Institutes of Health, senior congressional Democrats asked the Food and Drug Administration to reconsider its view that the chemical bisphenol A is safe in products for use by infants and children.
The chemical, also called BPA, is used in many baby bottles and the plastic lining of cans of infant formula.
The National Toxicology Program went further than previous U.S. government statements on possible health risks from BPA.
It said: "There is some concern for neural and behavioral effects in fetuses, infants and children at current human exposures." The findings expressed concern about exposure in these populations, "based on effects in the prostate gland, mammary gland, and an earlier age for puberty in females."
Rep. John Dingell, a Michigan Democrat and chairman of the House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee, said the draft cast doubt on the FDA’s position that BPA was safe.
"I hope the FDA is willing to reconsider their position on BPA for the safety of our infants and children," he said.
The National Toxicology Program said laboratory rodents exposed to BPA levels similar to human exposures developed precancerous lesions in the prostate and mammary glands, among other things.
"The possibility that bisphenol A may impact human development cannot be dismissed. More research is needed," the agency said.
Bisphenol A is used in the production of polycarbonate plastics and epoxy resins and can be found in food and drink packaging as well as compact discs and some medical devices. Some dental sealants or composites contain it as well.
The National Toxicology Program expressed "negligible concern" that exposure of pregnant women to BPA causes fetal or neonatal death, birth defects or reduced birth weight and growth in babies. It also had "negligible concern" that exposure causes reproductive problems in adults.
Plastic bottle chemical may be harmful
http://www.infowars.com/plastic-bottle- ... ul-agency/
Will Dunham / Reuters | April 17, 2008
WASHINGTON – A chemical in some plastic food and drink packaging including baby bottles may be tied to early puberty and prostate and breast cancer, the U.S. government said on Tuesday.
Based on draft findings by the National Toxicology Program, part of the U.S. National Institutes of Health, senior congressional Democrats asked the Food and Drug Administration to reconsider its view that the chemical bisphenol A is safe in products for use by infants and children.
The chemical, also called BPA, is used in many baby bottles and the plastic lining of cans of infant formula.
The National Toxicology Program went further than previous U.S. government statements on possible health risks from BPA.
It said: "There is some concern for neural and behavioral effects in fetuses, infants and children at current human exposures." The findings expressed concern about exposure in these populations, "based on effects in the prostate gland, mammary gland, and an earlier age for puberty in females."
Rep. John Dingell, a Michigan Democrat and chairman of the House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee, said the draft cast doubt on the FDA’s position that BPA was safe.
"I hope the FDA is willing to reconsider their position on BPA for the safety of our infants and children," he said.
The National Toxicology Program said laboratory rodents exposed to BPA levels similar to human exposures developed precancerous lesions in the prostate and mammary glands, among other things.
"The possibility that bisphenol A may impact human development cannot be dismissed. More research is needed," the agency said.
Bisphenol A is used in the production of polycarbonate plastics and epoxy resins and can be found in food and drink packaging as well as compact discs and some medical devices. Some dental sealants or composites contain it as well.
The National Toxicology Program expressed "negligible concern" that exposure of pregnant women to BPA causes fetal or neonatal death, birth defects or reduced birth weight and growth in babies. It also had "negligible concern" that exposure causes reproductive problems in adults.
-
ndjili
- captain of 100
- Posts: 984
Re: femaile infants in china developing breasts
Ok my child is now 4. He has no breaSts (i fixed it geesh). He had formula. He's fine. Smart, healthy and not overweight or problemed. I'm sorry but you guys with all the take this drug and that drug and this remedy to force my body to produce breast milk is craziness for people who dont make milk. My sister did all that and I watched her spend all day with a pump attached to her breasts and only managing to get out an ounce or two. My mother was a nurse and would watch babies come in with failure to thrive and the poor mothers would be beside themselves trying everything but never able to make enough for their babies to thrive. Once they got the ok and got rid of the guilt and gave their kids a bottle, the babies would many time come back from the brink and do well. Some children would'nt get enough glucose for basic brain function and the risk of brain damage was very great. I'm totally not for making mothers, who are unable to breast feed, feel bad or guilty over this. There are good natural formulas and um sorry not giving raw milk to my baby. Also I dont trust other womens milk. I knew too many who smoked and drank and took prescriptions that breast fed I dont know how it's any different. This is an example of how monsanto is really messing with people yes, but there are decent formulas if you look and yeah walmart brand isnt one of them.
- moonwhim
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 4251
Re: femaile infants in china developing breasts
FDA Stuns Scientists, Declares Mercury in Fish to be Safe for Infants, Children, Expectant Mothers!
Mike Adams
Natural News
Thursday, Dec 18, 2008
In a truly astonishing betrayal of public safety (even for the FDA), the U.S. Food and Drug Administration today revoked its warning about mercury in fish, saying that eating mercury-contaminated fish no longer poses any health threat to children, pregnant women, nursing mothers and infants.
Last week, the FDA declared trace levels of melamine to be safe in infant formula. A few weeks earlier, it said the plastics chemical Bisphenol-A was safe for infants to drink. Now it says children can eat mercury, too. Is there any toxic substance in the food that the FDA thinks might be dangerous? (Aspartame, MSG, sodium nitrite and now mercury…)
This FDA decision on mercury in fish has alarmed EPA scientists who called it “scientifically flawed and inadequate,” reports the Washington Post. Even better, the Environmental Working Group (http://www.EWG.org) issued a letter to the EPA, saying “It’s a commentary on how low FDA has sunk as an agency. It was once a fierce protector of America’s health, and now it’s nothing more than a patsy for polluters.”
Is anyone really surprised? The FDA is a drug-pushing, people-betraying, scientifically illiterate criminal organization that, time and time again, seeks only to protect the profits of powerful corporations whose products poison the people. This statement is no longer a mere opinion. It is an observable fact based on the FDA’s own pattern of behavior and its outlandish decisions that predictably betray the American public.
The real reason this is happening
You want to know the REAL reason the FDA is easing up on its warning about mercury in fish? It’s because the agency is being relentlessly pounded over two related issues: Mercury in dental fillings and mercury preservatives in vaccines. And the FDA can’t keep up its lie about the “safety” of vaccines and mercury fillings if it has already declared mercury to be dangerous in fish, right?
To the criminal minds running the FDA, the clever solution is to revoke the warning about mercury in fish. Thus, the FDA takes the position that all mercury is safe, and suddenly they’re off the hook on mercury fillings and thimerosal in vaccines.
In other words, the FDA has just aligned itself as a defender of one of the most neurotoxic substances that’s ever been found. Only a truly corrupt regulator could even attempt to defend such a position, and only a truly insane individual could argue that mercury exposure is safe for infants, children and expectant mothers. Not coincidentally, mercury exposure causes insanity (look up the historical term “mad as a hatter”).
Given that most of the FDA decision makers probably have mercury fillings in their mouths and mercury molecules lodged in their brains from getting their vaccine shots, it’s no stretch to consider the possibility that the FDA decision have, in a very strict medical sense, lost their minds due to mercury exposure. There’s hardly any other way to explain the mad behavior of FDA officials.
I think it’s time we called for an FDA MUTINY and declared the leaders of that agency to be too incompetent to run it anymore. These people need to be relieved of command before their hazardous pronouncements lead to yet more consumers being poisoned or killed. The FDA scientists, in my opinion, should revolt (in a non-violent way, of course) against the politically-motivated decision makers spewing all this “eat more poison” advice.
Mike Adams
Natural News
Thursday, Dec 18, 2008
In a truly astonishing betrayal of public safety (even for the FDA), the U.S. Food and Drug Administration today revoked its warning about mercury in fish, saying that eating mercury-contaminated fish no longer poses any health threat to children, pregnant women, nursing mothers and infants.
Last week, the FDA declared trace levels of melamine to be safe in infant formula. A few weeks earlier, it said the plastics chemical Bisphenol-A was safe for infants to drink. Now it says children can eat mercury, too. Is there any toxic substance in the food that the FDA thinks might be dangerous? (Aspartame, MSG, sodium nitrite and now mercury…)
This FDA decision on mercury in fish has alarmed EPA scientists who called it “scientifically flawed and inadequate,” reports the Washington Post. Even better, the Environmental Working Group (http://www.EWG.org) issued a letter to the EPA, saying “It’s a commentary on how low FDA has sunk as an agency. It was once a fierce protector of America’s health, and now it’s nothing more than a patsy for polluters.”
Is anyone really surprised? The FDA is a drug-pushing, people-betraying, scientifically illiterate criminal organization that, time and time again, seeks only to protect the profits of powerful corporations whose products poison the people. This statement is no longer a mere opinion. It is an observable fact based on the FDA’s own pattern of behavior and its outlandish decisions that predictably betray the American public.
The real reason this is happening
You want to know the REAL reason the FDA is easing up on its warning about mercury in fish? It’s because the agency is being relentlessly pounded over two related issues: Mercury in dental fillings and mercury preservatives in vaccines. And the FDA can’t keep up its lie about the “safety” of vaccines and mercury fillings if it has already declared mercury to be dangerous in fish, right?
To the criminal minds running the FDA, the clever solution is to revoke the warning about mercury in fish. Thus, the FDA takes the position that all mercury is safe, and suddenly they’re off the hook on mercury fillings and thimerosal in vaccines.
In other words, the FDA has just aligned itself as a defender of one of the most neurotoxic substances that’s ever been found. Only a truly corrupt regulator could even attempt to defend such a position, and only a truly insane individual could argue that mercury exposure is safe for infants, children and expectant mothers. Not coincidentally, mercury exposure causes insanity (look up the historical term “mad as a hatter”).
Given that most of the FDA decision makers probably have mercury fillings in their mouths and mercury molecules lodged in their brains from getting their vaccine shots, it’s no stretch to consider the possibility that the FDA decision have, in a very strict medical sense, lost their minds due to mercury exposure. There’s hardly any other way to explain the mad behavior of FDA officials.
I think it’s time we called for an FDA MUTINY and declared the leaders of that agency to be too incompetent to run it anymore. These people need to be relieved of command before their hazardous pronouncements lead to yet more consumers being poisoned or killed. The FDA scientists, in my opinion, should revolt (in a non-violent way, of course) against the politically-motivated decision makers spewing all this “eat more poison” advice.
-
buffalo_girl
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 7119
Re: femaile infants in china developing breasts
Mercury is harmless? Tell that to the victims of Minamata, Japan whose diet consisted of mercury laden fish caught in their traditional fishing waters.
http://www.latente.it/tomoko-uemura-in-her-bath/
http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0007/hughes.htm
Goat's milk is probably the best milk substitute for any baby unable to dine upon his/her own mother's milk. I've saved all sorts of orphaned creatures with goat's milk. Goats are pretty easy to keep and you don't need a lot of space. Their milk will taste like what they eat, though. Keep them off Siberian elms! Alfalfa & various grasses and herbs will render a sweet rich milk.
http://www.latente.it/tomoko-uemura-in-her-bath/
http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0007/hughes.htm
Goat's milk is probably the best milk substitute for any baby unable to dine upon his/her own mother's milk. I've saved all sorts of orphaned creatures with goat's milk. Goats are pretty easy to keep and you don't need a lot of space. Their milk will taste like what they eat, though. Keep them off Siberian elms! Alfalfa & various grasses and herbs will render a sweet rich milk.
- Rose Garden
- Don't ask . . .
- Posts: 7031
- Contact:
Re: femaile infants in china developing breasts
Ohhh, tell me more! I gave my baby goat milk because every formula I tried (100's of dollars worth!) made her so sick she would stop taking even the small amount of milk I was producing. We'd like to get our own goat, but I'd really like it if I didn't have to take the milk only as super sweetened yogurt.buffalo_girl wrote:Mercury is harmless? Tell that to the victims of Minamata, Japan whose diet consisted of mercury laden fish caught in their traditional fishing waters.
http://www.latente.it/tomoko-uemura-in-her-bath/
http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0007/hughes.htm
Goat's milk is probably the best milk substitute for any baby unable to dine upon his/her own mother's milk. I've saved all sorts of orphaned creatures with goat's milk. Goats are pretty easy to keep and you don't need a lot of space. Their milk will taste like what they eat, though. Keep them off Siberian elms! Alfalfa & various grasses and herbs will render a sweet rich milk.
- moonwhim
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 4251
Re: femaile infants in china developing breasts
Canada survey finds vast majority of people loaded with BPA
by Jonathan Benson, staff writer
(NaturalNews) A recent report released by Statistics Canada, Canada's official statistical agency, has revealed that more than 90 percent of Canadians are contaminated with bisphenol-A (BPA), a toxic chemical compound used in many plastics and resins. The report is the first of its kind in Canada to verify the extent to which BPA has invaded the bodies of the population at large.
"[F]or the very first time [we] have baseline information against which we can study trends and track what is happening with respect to bisphenol A exposure," explained Tracey Bushnik from Statscan's Health Analysis Division in a Reuters article.
In 2008, Canada banned BPA from baby bottles, but the chemical is still widely used both there and around the world in can liners and other plastic materials used in various consumer products.
The report data reveals that the average concentration of BPA in Canadians is about 1.16 micrograms per liter in urine, and that teenagers generally have the highest concentrations overall. Younger children between the ages of six and eleven also generally had higher levels than adults over the age of 40.
Those seeking to ban BPA from all consumer products cite recent studies which illustrate that exposure to BPA, especially during early childhood development, can disrupt proper neural development. Other similar studies link the chemical to a host of diseases including cancer and heart disease as well.
"BPA, a chemical found in epoxy resin and polycarbonate plastics, may impair the reproductive organs and have adverse effects on tumors, breast tissue development, and prostate development by reducing sperm count," explains C.W. Randolph, M.D., in his book From Belly Fat to Belly FLAT: How Your Hormones Are Adding Inches to Your Waistline and Subtracting Years from Your Life.
Sources for this story include:
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS...
http://www.naturalpedia.com/Bisphen...
by Jonathan Benson, staff writer
(NaturalNews) A recent report released by Statistics Canada, Canada's official statistical agency, has revealed that more than 90 percent of Canadians are contaminated with bisphenol-A (BPA), a toxic chemical compound used in many plastics and resins. The report is the first of its kind in Canada to verify the extent to which BPA has invaded the bodies of the population at large.
"[F]or the very first time [we] have baseline information against which we can study trends and track what is happening with respect to bisphenol A exposure," explained Tracey Bushnik from Statscan's Health Analysis Division in a Reuters article.
In 2008, Canada banned BPA from baby bottles, but the chemical is still widely used both there and around the world in can liners and other plastic materials used in various consumer products.
The report data reveals that the average concentration of BPA in Canadians is about 1.16 micrograms per liter in urine, and that teenagers generally have the highest concentrations overall. Younger children between the ages of six and eleven also generally had higher levels than adults over the age of 40.
Those seeking to ban BPA from all consumer products cite recent studies which illustrate that exposure to BPA, especially during early childhood development, can disrupt proper neural development. Other similar studies link the chemical to a host of diseases including cancer and heart disease as well.
"BPA, a chemical found in epoxy resin and polycarbonate plastics, may impair the reproductive organs and have adverse effects on tumors, breast tissue development, and prostate development by reducing sperm count," explains C.W. Randolph, M.D., in his book From Belly Fat to Belly FLAT: How Your Hormones Are Adding Inches to Your Waistline and Subtracting Years from Your Life.
Sources for this story include:
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS...
http://www.naturalpedia.com/Bisphen...
