Archive for February, 2011
Common pesticides block male hormones
I recently read this abstract in Environmental Health Perspectives Magazine (A free resource from the US National Institutes of Health). It is a summary of testing conducted at the School of Pharmacy’s Center for Toxicology under the auspices of the University of London. Naturally the information was so compelling I had to read the entire report (The study report can be read in its entirety here).
Based on their testing, many common pesticides (frequently found in food as well as milk and drinking water) will disrupt testosterone production and uptake in humans and possibly other mammals. The researchers strongly recommended that all pesticides in use today be screened to check if they block testosterone, which is critical to male (and female) reproductive health & general development.
Thirty out of 37 pesticides tested by the University of London team altered or inhibited male hormone activity, including 16 that had no previously reported hormonal effects. Most are fungicides applied to fruit and vegetable crops, including strawberries, corn, wheat, & lettuce.
Traces of pesticides and herbicides are known to remain in fruits and vegetables; these same chemicals can migrate into the ground and contaminate groundwater while also contaminating surface water. Interestingly, certain pesticides and herbicides will travel with water vapor when it evaporates, so that the contamination can travel hundreds or even thousands of miles from where it was originally applied.
“Our results indicate that systematic testing for anti-androgenic activity of currently used pesticides is urgently required,” wrote the scientists from University of London’s Centre for Toxicology, led by Professor Andreas Kortenkamp. Funded by the European Commission, the University of London scientists selected the pesticides to test by identifying those found most often in European fruits and vegetables. They are approved for use in many countries, including the United States.
The researchers noted “a clear disparity” between today’s most widely used pesticides and the current knowledge of their risks, “with the majority of the published literature focused on pesticides that are no longer registered for use in developed countries.”
Of the tested compounds, the most potent in terms of blocking androgens was the insecticide fenitrothion, an organophosphate insecticide used on orchard fruits, grains, rice, vegetables and other crops.
Others with hormonal activity include fludioxonil, fenhexamid, dimethomorph and imazalil, which are all fungicides. Fungicides (Chemical compounds or biological organisms used to kill or inhibit fungi or fungal spores. Fungicides are used both in agriculture and to fight fungal infections in animals.) are often applied close to harvest, so they are frequently found as residue in food. Fungicides “are typically applied as mixtures in order to increase effectiveness and prevent development of resistant strains and therefore, human exposure to mixtures of these in vitro anti-androgens may be considerable,” wrote Kortenkamp and the other study authors, Frances Orton, Erika Rosivatz and Martin Scholze.
To learn more about persticides, herbicides, funcicides, rodenticides, and other nasties that might be in or on your food, visit the Pesticide Action Network’s excellent resource at whatsonmyfood.org.
For six of the pesticides that showed hormonal activity for the first time, the authors said that they strongly recommend the next round of testing, using live lab animals. “Due to estimated anti-androgenic potency, current use, estimated exposure, and lack of previous data, we strongly recommend that dimethomorph, fludioxonil, fenhexamid, imazalil, ortho-phenylphenol and pirimiphos-methyl be tested for anti-androgenic effects in vivo.”
For the first four pesticides, they called it “a matter of urgency.” They are used on strawberries, lettuce, grapes and other numerous fruits and vegetables in many countries around the world.
The University of London researchers evaluated the complex biochemical interactions using in-vitro assays. In-vitro testing is a widely accepted lab technique. Scientists, however, are uncertain what actually happens in the human body at the concentrations of chemicals that people encounter in water, fruits, vegetables, eggs, meats, and milk. Fetuses and infants may be at a significantly elevated risk when exposed in the womb or through breast milk and formula. The presence of Growth Hormone and Growth Hormone Releasing Peptide in massive amounts in youngsters’ bodies can certainly compound the problem even further.
The research findings were released while the EPA continues to face strong opposition from the pesticide industry after expanding its Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program, which mandates testing of certain chemicals found in foods and water to determine if they interfere with androgens, estrogens, or thyroid hormones.
EPA announced the initial list of chemicals to be screened for their potential effects on the endocrine system on April 15, 2009 and the first test orders were issued on October 29, 2009. Testing will eventually be expanded to cover all pesticide chemicals. Now that screening is underway, EPA is reviewing test order responses and making available the status or test order responses (PDF) and/or any decisions regarding EPA testing requirements.
EPA has developed a second list of chemicals for screening and draft policies and procedures that the Agency will use to require testing of chemicals on the second list. On November 17, 2010, EPA published three related Federal Register Notices:
- November 17, 2010 – Second List of Chemicals for Tier 1 Screening. This list includes 134 chemicals and substances that have been listed as priorities within EPA’s drinking water and pesticides programs. More information about the second list of chemicals.
- November 17, 2010 – Draft Policies and Procedures for Screening Safe Drinking Water Act Chemicals. More information about the draft policies and procedures for the second list.
- November 17, 2010 – Draft Amendment to the Existing Information Collection Request (ICR). Describes the information collection activities associated with Tier 1 screening of the second list of chemicals under the EDSP and provides EPA’s estimates for the related paperwork burden and costs.
None of the 16 pesticides with the newly discovered hormonal activity are included in the EPA’s program, which means they are not currently screened and there are no immediate plans to do so.
The EPA’s program has been incredibly slow to fully implement, mostly due to a longstanding dispute over analytical testing methods and selection of compounds to be tested. Environmental groups criticize the EPA for taking so long to require manufacturers to test such a small group of compounds, and chemical industry representatives contend that the tests could cost up to one million US dollars per chemical and that the techniques have not really been fully validated for repeatability and accuracy. Chemical industry representatives also stress that positive results don’t necessarily mean that the pesticides are actually harming human reproduction or development (This reminds me of the “Big Tobacco” arguments a few years ago).
This issue is concerning to me; we are forced to balance long-term human health and genetic survival with cheap, plentiful supplies of “food”. These are difficult decisions to make, since it can mean the difference between starvation and satiety to many communities, especially in developing nations.
Some research has linked pesticide consumption to abnormally formed genitalia in baby boys, such as cryptorchidism and hypospadias, and even decreased sperm counts in men. Male fertility is reported to be declining in many countries, and testicular cancer is increasing. Some scientists have dubbed this compilation of male disorders “testicular dysgenesis syndrome”, and suggest that man-made endocrine disrupting chemical compounds play a significant and long-lasting role.
The water quality improvement industry can play a significant role in helping consumers protect themselves from immediate and future pesticide consumption by providing Point of Entry (POE) and Point of Use (POU) water treatment systems. Many proven technologies like Granular Activated Carbon absorption/adsorption, Nanofiltration, Distillation, and Reverse Osmosis (hyperfiltration) purification are able to address numerous chemical compounds that can be found in water.
Activated carbon is extremely effective at addressing pesticides, herbicides and volatile organic compounds in water, as seen below:
| VOC’s | Haloketones (HK) |
| Alachlor | 1,1-Dichloro-2-Propanone |
| Atrazine | 1,1,1-Trichloro-2-Propanone |
| Benzene | Heptachlor |
| Carbofuran | Heptachlor Epoxide |
| Carbon Tetrachloride | Hexachlorobutadiene |
| Chlorobenzene | Hexachlorocyclopentadiene |
| Chloropicrin | Lindane |
| 2,4-D | Methoxychlor |
| DBCP | Pentachlorophenol |
| o-Dichlorobenzene | Simazine |
| p-Dichlorobenzene | Styrene |
| 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane |
| 1,1-Dichloroethylene | Tetrachloroethylene |
| cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | Toluene |
| trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene | 2,4,5-TP (Silvex) |
| 1,2-Dichloropropane | Tribromoacetic Acid |
| cis-1,3-Dichloropropylene | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene |
| Dinoseb | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane |
| Endrin | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane |
| Ethylbenzene | Trichloroethylene |
| EDB | Trihalomethanes (THMs) |
| Haloacetonitriles (HAN) | Bromodichloromethane |
| Bromochloroacetonitrile | Bromoform |
| Dibromoacetonitrile | Chloroform |
| Dichloroacetonitrile | Chlorodibromomethane |
| Trichloroacetonitrile | Xylenes |
Intermountain designs and distributes a number of products that are appropriate for use as part of an overall home water quality protection program to help protect from pesticides and herbicides.
The following Intermountain products are ideally suited for this kind of application:
Simple Soft Deluxe (Smart Bottle Technology)
Home Empowered Water System (Smart Bottle Technology)
Availability of models will vary by country and local geographic area.
When considering an investment in water treatment technology, always consult with your local WQA certified water specialist or licensed plumber with appropriate specialized water quality management training.
* * *
Abstract
Background: Evidence suggests that there is widespread decline in male reproductive health and anti-androgenic pollutants may play a significant role. There is also a clear disparity between pesticide exposure and endocrine disrupting data, with the majority of the published literature focused on pesticides that are no longer registered for use in developed countries.
Objective: The aim of this study was to utilise estimated human exposure data to select pesticides to test for anti-androgenic activity, focusing on highest use pesticides.
Methods: We used European databases to select 134 candidate pesticides based on highest exposure, followed by a filtering step according to known or predicted receptor mediated anti-androgenic potency, based on a previously published quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) model. In total, 37 pesticides were tested for in vitro androgen receptor (AR) antagonism. Of these, 14 were previously reported to be AR antagonists (“active”), 4 were predicted AR antagonists using the QSAR, 6 were predicted to not be AR antagonists (“inactive”), and 13 with unknown activity, which were “out of domain” and therefore could not be classified with the QSAR (“unknown”).
Results: All 14 pesticides with previous evidence of AR antagonism were confirmed as anti-androgenic in our assay and 9 previously untested pesticides were identified as anti-androgenic (dimethomorph, fenhexamid, quinoxyfen, cyprodinil, λ-cyhalothrin, pyrimethanil, fludioxonil, azinphos-methyl, pirimiphos-methyl). In addition, 7 compounds were classified as androgenic.
Conclusions: Due to estimated anti-androgenic potency, current use, estimated exposure, and lack of previous data, we strongly recommend that dimethomorph, fludioxonil, fenhexamid, imazalil, ortho-phenylphenol and pirimiphos-methyl be tested for anti-androgenic effects in vivo. The lack of human biomonitoring data for environmentally relevant pesticides presents a barrier to current risk assessment of pesticides on humans.
Citation: Orton F, Rosivatz E, Scholze M, Kortenkamp A 2011. Widely Used Pesticides with Previously Unknown Endocrine Activity Revealed as in Vitro Anti-Androgens. Environ Health Perspect :-. doi:10.1289/ehp.1002895
Received: 25 August 2010; Accepted: 10 February 2011; Online: 10 February 2011
British study finds no eczema cure from softened water
“Ion-exchange water softeners do not improve eczema in children” was the headline that I found in my inbox last week. This certainly warranted further review, so I dutifully ready the entire study…
This study released under the Health Technology Assessment Program was very carefully performed to see if installing an ion-exchange water softener could cure eczema. Essentially seeing if there was a difference to eczema symptoms when using cream and hard water and between cream and soap water (I would have mandated no cream or other treatments and then compared the different waters).
Intuitively one should already realize that no common household appliance like a softener is a medical device. Professional water quality dealers don’t ever make health-related claims about water softeners, since they are not medical devices.
Eczema is a number of chronic inflammatory skin conditions that affect many people around the world. As many as one in nine persons will be diagnosed with eczema at some point in their life. The actual causes of eczema are not entirely understood, but it is generally agreed that it is related to an immune condition. According to the National Institute of Health, the following can make eczema worse:
- Allergies to pollen, mold, dust mites, or animals
- Colds or the flu
- Contact with rough materials
- Dry skin
- Exposure to environmental irritant
- Exposure to water
- Feeling too hot or too cold
- Fragrances or dyes added to skin lotions or soaps
- Stress
You can learn a lot about more about eczema here and here.
It is important to clarify what hard water does to people with skin problems. Hard water reacts with the lipids in soap to produce a gummy insoluble curd that sticks to everything it touches. This curd is also known as soap scum, the bane of housecleaners worldwide.
Soap scum can easily create a home for bacteria and other unwanted contaminants on every surface it touches. Since skin is one of the surfaces that soap scum can contaminate, it is easy to understand that soap scum will stick to skin and hair; choking and clogging pores and possibly even causing irritation to sensitive skin.Hard water residue can also accumulate in the fibers of clothing, making them rough and irritating.
It is logical to me that by removing soap scum from my household, it is one further irritant removed from the equation. Soft water is certainly not a cure to dandruff, eczema, skin rash or other health conditions, but it certainly is SIGNIFICANTLY BETTER than hard water.
I recommend that anyone suffering from skin ailments consult with their medical practitioner, and then remove as many irritants from their lifestyle, like hard water, and chlorine.
Here is their press release:
“Ion-exchange water softeners do not improve eczema in children. Water softeners provide no additional clinical benefit to usual care in children with eczema, so the use of ion-exchange water softeners for the treatment of moderate to severe eczema in children should not be recommended. However, it is up to each family to decide whether or not the wider benefits of installing a water softener in their home are sufficient to consider buying one. These are the findings of a study by Kim Thomas from the University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK, and colleagues and published in this week’s PLoS Medicine.
The authors conducted their randomised controlled trial among 336 children—who all lived in hard water areas in England—aged 6 months to 16 years with a diagnosis of eczema; they were randomised to receive either installation of an ion-exchange water softener plus usual eczema care, or usual eczema care alone for 12 weeks. Research nurses measured each child’s eczema severity score at baseline and at 6, 12, and 16 weeks to record changes in eczema severity. The authors also analysed any changes in eczema symptoms over the study period such as sleep loss, itchiness, and the amount of topical treatments used.
Although both treatment groups improved in disease severity during the course of the trial, there were no clinically important differences between the groups in any of the outcomes that were measured objectively (without knowledge of the treatment that the child received). However, parents in the trial did report small health benefits in some of the more subjective outcomes, such as sleep loss and itchiness, and just over 50% chose to buy the water softener at the end of the trial because of perceived improvements in the eczema and the wider benefits of water softeners.
The authors say: “The results of this study are clear, and as a result we cannot recommend the use of ion-exchange water softeners for the treatment of moderate to severe eczema in children.”
They add, “Whether or not the wider benefits of installing a water softener in the home are sufficient to justify the purchase of a softener is something for individual householders to consider on a case by-case basis.”
Funding: This trial was funded by the National Institute for Health Research, Health Technology Assessment (NIHR HTA) Programme, project number HTA 05/16/01. The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NIHR HTA Programme. A consortium of water industry representatives helped with this study: Aqua Belgica, Culligan International (UK) Ltd, Ecowater Systems Ltd, Harvey Softeners Ltd, Kennet Water Components Ltd, Kinetico UK Ltd, Monarch Water, Salt Manufacturers Association, and the Water Quality Association (USA). They provided technical advice, generic water softeners, fittings, salt, and analytical testing of the weekly water samples. This assistance was coordinated through the UK Water Treatment Association, which is an independent trade association for the industry. Funding for pilot work for this trial was provided by Kinetico UK Ltd. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing Interests: AF is Technical Director of the UK Water Treatment Association, which represents the interests of manufacturers of water treatment equipment used in private and public water supplies. The range of equipment covered includes water softeners. He is a consultant to the European Water Treatment Association with similar interests, and is International Director (unpaid) for the USA Water Quality Association.
IN YOUR COVERAGE PLEASE USE THIS URL TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO THE FREELY AVAILABLE PAPER: http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.1000395
CONTACT:
Dr Kim Thomas
University of Nottingham
Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology
King’s Meadow Campus
Nottingham, Nottinghamshire NG7 2NR
United Kingdom
01158468632
kim.thomas@nottingham.ac.uk
Or
Professor Hywel Williams
0115 8231048
hywel.williams@nottingham.ac.uk
Jim Lauria: A Valentine to Women Who Keep the Water Flowing
Jim Lauria wrote this great article for the Huffington Post…Well presented, insightful and touching.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-lauria/a-valentine-to-women-who-_b_822701.html
Jim Lauria is Vice President of Marketing & Business Development for Amiad Filtration Systems, a manufacturer of clean technology water filtration systems for agricultural, industrial, municipal and commercial applications. He holds a Bachelor of Chemical Engineering degree from Manhattan College and has over twenty years of global experience as a senior executive in the water treatment industry. He can be contacted at jim@amiadusa.com .
* * *
A Valentine to Women Who Keep the Water Flowing
As we men scramble to remember our sweethearts on this Valentine’s Day, our thoughts tend to drift toward life’s luxuries — chocolates, roses and wine. But this Valentine’s Day, I’m thinking about something much more fundamental — water. Not just the water to refresh the roses, but the water that sustains us all. Valentine’s Day seems to be a perfect time to thank women, billions of whom are committed to nourishing the world with clean, safe water.
After all, the female connection to water goes far beyond the symbolism found in literature and legend, well past the traditional symbolic links between women and the tides. In the developing countries of the world, right now, there are millions of women hauling water for their families from distant wells, rivers and lakes. According to the United Nations Population Fund, they’re walking an average of 6 km — 3.7 miles — per day to collect water. (Water weighs 8 pounds per gallon. Think about carrying a bucket of it for miles.) In conflict zones around the world, from Darfur to Latin America, they are risking their very lives as they walk those dangerous miles for water — and they’re carrying life itself back to their families.
Here in the U.S., where water is as close as the nearest tap, girls can look up to role models we can all admire — Christine Todd Whitman and Lisa Jackson, past and present administrators of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). During her tenure as head of the EPA, Whitman tightened standards for arsenic in drinking water and grappled with the Bush Administration’s efforts to sweep climate change discussions under the rug. Following Whitman’s successor, the feckless Stephen Johnson, current EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson is proving to be another woman of courage and commitment. Coming into the role with a couple of chemical engineering degrees and long experience in environmental protection at the state and federal levels certainly doesn’t hurt. Her big test will be how she handles the chromium-6 issue — wrangling the heated debate between science and hysteria surrounding the contaminant and appropriate limits in drinking water.
Speaking of the EPA, the agency is helping Girl Scouts gain insight into water issues as young women from Brownies to Seniors earn their Water Drop patch, working their way through a beautifully crafted manual on water created in partnership with the Girl Scouts of America.
Boy Scouts can earn a Soil and Water Conservation merit badge, and they tackle water-and-oil questions in merit badges for chemistry and environmental science. But if they want to dive deeper into water, they’re better off taking their swim tests — the most recent entry on BSA’s book list for soil and water conservation is a decade old.
Come on, fellas. Here in the U.S., scientific literacy — and water literacy — are growing more important every day. Perhaps our Girl Scouts (and the leaders many of those young women will become) will help us understand and manage the pressing issues surrounding our water supply by choosing to become the next generation of scientists and engineers.
Back in the developing nations, the need is more basic and more desperate. After hours of bringing water back to their homes, millions of women have to make the decision — a real-life Sophie’s Choice — between supplying their growing children or washing their babies. Slake their thirst or clean their butts? Both are vital. Our mission should be to ease their burden — to make household water more locally available, and safer, so those women can keep their families healthy.
So as we fill up vases today for bouquets of cut flowers, let’s not neglect to think about women and water… and to learn something from them about protecting the resource that sustains us all.