By Julie Gunlock
Thursday, October 20, 2016
Yesterday, the Drudge Report featured an alarming story
about endocrine-disrupting chemicals that are in nearly every product we use.
Yahoo News’ story “Massive US health tab for hormone-disrupting chemicals“ was
just the sort of article that sends people into a panic and will cause many to
toss out perfectly harmless and affordable everyday products.
In summary: a new study alleges “endocrine-disrupting
chemicals” cause ADHD, autism spectrum disorder, fertility problems, diabetes,
and obesity. Holy cow! All that and cancer, too. “So-called
endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) are found in thousands of everyday
products, ranging from plastic and metal food containers, to detergents, flame
retardants, toys and cosmetics.”
Yet if you go to the leading experts on autism, ADHD
disorders, and other neurological problems, those experts actually don’t know the cause of many of these
conditions (although most tend to think genetics plays a major role). As for
diabetes and fertility problems, there’s lots of chatter (and very bad studies)
associating these conditions with chemicals in plastics, but no actual
connections have ever been found.
People who suffer from diabetes and fertility problems
aren’t told to live in a shack in the forest, far away from modern conveniences
that might include plastics that contain chemicals. Doctors recommend a host of
other treatments and lifestyle changes, but avoiding plastics doesn’t make the
list
Likewise, the American Cancer Society lists several
factors that increase the risk of cancer: genetics, tobacco use, diet and lack
of physical activity, sun and UV exposure, radiation exposure, certain
infectious diseases, and some pollutants (like diesel exhaust, secondhand
smoke, lead, and radon). Want to know what’s amazing? Endocrine disruptors are not on the list.
I’m the Only
Doctor in the World Who Knows The Truth
Sadly, while the media tends to hype these flawed
studies, they rarely provide information on the safety record of these
chemicals. Nor do they mention that the leading international health and safety
regulatory agencies, drawing on thousands of studies, have concluded that
chemicals used in manufacturing and as food preservatives are safe.
For instance, the chemical Bisphenol-A (BPA) has been the
subject of hundreds of safety studies over decades and it has been found (over
and over again) to be safe. Those agencies include: The World Health
Organization, the Food and Drug Administration, the Environmental Protection
Agency, the European Union’s Food Safety Authority, Japan’s National Institute
of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology, Norway’s Scientific Committee for
Food Safety, France’s Food Safety Agency, Germany’s Federal Institute for Risk
Assessment, Canada’s Health Agency, Australia and New Zealand’s Joint Food
Standards Council.
Yet apparently, in opposition to all the work done by
these agencies and many independent toxicologists who have studied these
issues, “lead investigator” Dr. Leonardo Trasande knows exactly what causes all
these ailments: It’s all plastics’ fault.
Given Trasende’s supposed command of nearly every medical
field, I decided to take a closer look at him and his background. His biography
reveals a great interest in both public policy and environmental issues. He has
a master’s degree in public policy, worked in the office of Sen. Hillary
Clinton (where have I heard that name?) and has testified before the Senate’s
Environment and Public Works committee.
Wait for the
Kicker
In what’s left of Trasende’s free time, he’s also an
activist for environmental causes and is listed as an advisor to the
Environmental Working Group (EWG). Not familiar with the EWG? The EWG is a very
influential and quite radical environmental organization that makes a ton of
money scaring people with their yearly “Dirty Dozen List.”
This list tells moms that conventionally grown fruits and
vegetables sold in grocery stores (conventional simply means farmers can use
synthetic pesticides on their crops—you know, so they’ll grow) have dangerous
levels of pesticide residue on them and that, to be a good mom, they should buy
the much more expensive organic produce (organic crops are also grown with the
use of pesticides—a inconvenient fact the EWG always fails to disclose).
While promoting this list, the EWG often leaves out some
pretty important details, such as that there’s zero nutritional difference
between organic and conventionally grown food and that a child would have to
eat 1,500 servings of, say, strawberries in a single sitting to reach the safe
level of exposure of pesticide residue. That’s right: my kid could gorge
himself to the point of making himself sick on strawberries and he still
wouldn’t hit a dangerous level of exposure. Now tell me again why it’s harmful
for my child to eat three or four conventionally grown strawberries (that are
far cheaper than the organic brand)?
If Trasende is really concerned about public health, here’s
another study he might want to read:
New peer reviewed research
published in Nutrition Today shows fear-based messaging tactics used by
activist groups and some organic marketers that invoke safety concerns about
non-organic produce may be having a negative impact on consumption of fruits
and veggies among low-income consumers…
‘We were surprised to see how
informational content that named specific fruits and vegetables as having the
highest pesticide residues increased the percentage of shoppers who said they
would be unlikely to purchase any type of fruits and vegetables,’ says Britt
Burton-Freeman, associate professor of food science and nutrition at ITT’s
Center for Nutrition Research. ‘The concern is that depending on the structure
of the communication about pesticides and fruits and vegetables this could turn
people away from wanting to purchase any fresh produce.’
That’s great work, EWG: making people who live at or
under the poverty line (ya know, the folks with the highest rates of obesity) pass on healthy fruits and vegetables at
the grocery store. Well done!
Ever Heard of
‘Correlation, Not Causation’?
Trasende and his colleagues relied on computer models—a
questionable and often flawed way to do scientific studies. Trasende also likes
to draw correlations between a substance or environmental cause and a disease.
A firm rule in scientific research is that correlations, while sometimes
interesting and instructive, do not mean causation. In other words, just
because two things are related, it does not mean A caused B. To see why
correlation is not a good measure of causation, take a look at this graph.
The graph shows that as organic food consumption has gone
up, so has the rate of autism diagnosis. Wow. That must mean organic food
causes autism, right? Of course not.
Yet, clearly, Trasende and his colleagues don’t think
it’s important to inform people about the limits of his latest study. In fact,
earlier this year, Trasende found a correlation between pre-term births and air
pollution. His system is pretty simple. He looked at the number of pre-term births
in a particular area and then looked to see if that area had a higher level of
air pollution. And VOILA! A connection!
But in a well-designed scientific study, researchers
consider other factors that could cause pre-term birth—like the health of the
mother, her health during pregnancy, the mother’s economic situation, her diet,
and educational levels. Trasende doesn’t bother to consider how these factors
come into play. In fact, reporting on this study, the journal Nature said the researchers tried to control
for these factors:
The authors of the latest study
made efforts to control for socioeconomic and lifestyle factors that might skew
the results. However, some of those adjustments had limitations. Not all
centres included information about whether the mother smoked during pregnancy;
maternal education and address were used as proxy measurements to give an idea
of socioeconomic status; and the mothers’ exposure to air pollution during
pregnancy was estimated rather than measured directly.
So, basically, they made up data and succeeded in showing
a connection between pollution and bad health outcomes. This isn’t useful if
you want to know if pollution actually causes the problem, or how to prevent
such problems, but it serves its purpose if the real goal is to create
frightening headlines that make air pollution seem like a huge and very costly
problem.
Trasende repeats this pattern with his latest study on
endocrine disruption: suggesting these chemicals (and the diseases they cause)
are responsible for $340 billion in health-related costs each year. Never mind
that the study lacks actual evidence that the chemicals in question are
actually contributing to these health problems.
Trasende is an activist scientist, trotting out junk
science at rapid speed to further his political, policy, and regulatory goals.
That’s not good science. It’s a troubling trend that will create onerous,
burdensome, and wholly unnecessary regulations. Systems are in place to protect
consumers from coming into contact with harmful chemicals, and a great body of
scientific work has already been done to confirm the safety of these chemicals
in everyday products and food packaging.
The scientific community must do more to reign in
activist scientists and dubious scientific studies that create fear and alarm
where no documented danger exists.
No comments:
Post a Comment