How plastics compound causes infertility

This has been known for a while, but no one will begin to address it on a large scale:

Israeli and American scientists have for the first time uncovered the mechanism by which the chemical compound Bisphenol A, commonly used in the plastics industry, damages human eggs and can harm female fertility.

Studies in recent years have shown a decline in human fertility in both males and females. The new research, which was carried out at Harvard University, and headed by Dr. Ronit Machtinger, a gynecologist at Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, tried to examine whether human eggs could be damaged by increased exposure to Bisphenol A. The research premise was based on information from previous research on animals that the substances harms various tissues.

Awareness has grown in recent years of the presence of Bisphenol A, especially in the baby bottle industry, in light of concerns that small concentrations of the material could affect babies’ brains and hormonal systems. In December 2010, the Health Ministry instructed hospitals to stop using baby bottles containing Bisphenol A, and in July 2012, the Federal Drug Administration banned further marketing of baby bottles containing the compound in the United States.

However, Bisphenol A is found in many other products, including food storage boxes ‏(marked with the number 7‏), preservative cans, cold drink cans, CD cases, white dental fillings, plastic eyeglass frames and receipts from cash registers. Urine tests in both the United States and Israel show the presence of the material in 90 percent of those checked; concentrations can also be found in blood, breast milk, amniotic fluid and in the fluid that surrounds the eggs in the fallopian tubes.

The present research collected 242 eggs that had been harvested from 121 women undergoing in-vitro fertilization, who had approved use of the eggs for research purposes. Two eggs from each woman were used, one of which was exposed under laboratory conditions to a maturation culture into which varying amounts of Bisphenol A were inserted. The second egg was used as a control, placed in the same culture but without the Bisphenol A. The results showed that after 30 hours of exposure to Bisphenol A, a greater number of eggs did not mature or began to degenerate. Examination of the chromosomes in the egg showed damage that made proper maturation impossible.

3 Responses to How plastics compound causes infertility

  1. Ron January 7, 2013 at 6:59 pm #

    But, but Free Enterprise, Fiscal Cliff, Debt Ceiling, my 2nd Amendment rights, OMG! teh Gays.

    Long story short: wasn’t on cable- never happened.

  2. russ January 8, 2013 at 10:40 am #

    Found an article on this subject which may be of interest. As the phrase in the article notes

    “Bisphenol A stands for ‘Beware: Plastics Attack'”

    Couple excerpts:

    “… You might be surprised to learn that “flexible packaging” — the pouches and films your food comes in — is big money, representing a $21.3 billion per year industry in the United States that is growing by 3.5 percent annually.

    And BPA is one of the biggest players in the wrapping industry.

    Last year, more than 6 billion pounds of BPA was made, representing nearly $7 billion in sales. US companies that make BPA are Bayer Material Science, Dow Chemical Company, SABIC Innovative Plastics (formerly GE Plastics), Hexion Specialty Chemicals, and Sunoco Chemicals.

    It’s no surprise that the chemical people would conspire with the food manufacturers to keep BPA facts under wraps.

    You not only ingest the contents of your food but some of the contents of the packaging as well. Unfortunately, the chemicals you ingest as a result of your food containers have never been a high priority of the FDA…”

    “…A quirk in the rules allows BPA makers to skirt federal legislation.

    BPA, which was first manufactured way back in 1891, was later developed as a plasticizer in the early 1960s. It was classified in 1963 as an indirect food additive and is listed among the 3,000 or so chemicals categorized as GRAS (“generally regarded as safe”).

    This outdated GRAS designation is what exempts BPA from scrutiny.

    According to the FDA’s regulations, a substance granted GRAS status is not subject to FDA review…”

    “…But there is no requirement that consumers are told about chemicals in the packaging itself that could be leaching into your food — even though these are essentially inadvertent food additives!

    In December of 2009, Consumer Reports reported testing 19 name brand canned foods.

    Nearly all of the tested canned foods were contaminated with BPA, including organic canned foods. BPA was even found in some cans labeled “BPA-free.”

    According to their estimates, just a couple of servings of canned food can exceed the daily safety limits for BPA exposure in children.

    Even low-level exposure to BPA can be hazardous to your health — the evidence has been accumulating for more than 10 years…”

  3. quixote January 9, 2013 at 1:47 pm #

    russ, that’s a good summary. (Is this the link?) Given all the accumulated evidence, what’s it going to take for the FDA to get on the ball? Kids born blind, or something, I guess.

Site Meter