"Some plastics are better than others and epidemiologist Shanna Swan, one of the world's foremost experts in phthalates, suggests reciting the mantra, "4, 5, 1 and 2; all the rest are bad for you."

Yea, that's real catchy, thanks Shawna.

Only PVC from China that slips past regulators contains lead, and phthalates are probably harmless, unless you eat 1 metric tonne of the material every morning for breakfast (like, say, a lab rat).

There is NO study linking phthalates to the "feminization" of baby boys. The National Toxicology Program EXPLICITLY rejected Shanna Swan's interpretation of her research.

(Shanna Swan responds:
NOT TRUE: The CERHR report discussed my study and concluded: (See pg 43)” This study is very useful for the evaluation process.”)

Recently, William Knowles, one of the 2001 Nobel recipients in chemistry denounced the attempts to ban phthalates as being driven by bad politics rather than good science. He said there was no risk.

(Shanna Swan responds:
"HAS KNOWLES EVER DONE RESEARCH ON PHTHLATES? NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE.")

Furthermore, the European Union, which has a much tougher regulatory approach to chemicals than the U.S., issued a second report last week reaffirming the safety of BPA and rejecting the scientific evidence for harm as irrelevant for humans. It's Food Safety Agency, which commissioned a risk assessment in 2006 from 21 independent scientists looked at all the recent data.

"EFSA took note of the U.S. National Toxicology Program's draft brief on BPA and of the Canadian government's recent Draft Screening Assessment on BPA, which took into account findings from the low-dose studies, notably with respect to neurodevelopmental toxicity, though both pointed out that these studies were limited in rigour, consistency and biological plausibility," the EFSA said.

Indeed, the NTP brief on BPA only said there was some concern over certain possible effects, it did not say there was serious concern. When the scientists who wrote the brief were asked whether this presented an actual risk to people, they said no.

(Julie responds: And since the rest of Butterworth's statements deal with BPA, I'll let a BPA researcher address his comments. Will post it when I get it.)

A bill pending in the California Legislature--AB 2505--would ban PVC packaging across-the-board. As with phthalates in children's toys (which was first a CA bill), where California goes, so goes the nation...

This is strictly "alternative" - definitely NOT mainstream in terms of science, the facts or even reputable journalism.

Beg pardon, but what the heck does "feminization of baby boys" mean!!!!!!!!????????????

Julie responds: They have a "shortened anogenital distance" which signifies feminization...

Here's how Wickipedia describes it....

The anogenital distance is a measure of male feminisation measuring the distance between the anus and the base of the penis. Studies show that the perineum is twice as long in males as in females. [2] Measuring the anogenital distance in neonatal humans has been suggested as a noninvasive method to predict neonatal and adult reproductive disorders.[3]

And here's some of Swan's research on it
http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2005/8100/abstract.html

Thanks, Julie. Wow. I am interested in reading Swan's research. Hmmm.... should I look for a tape measure??!! Wow.

When can gay men sue the plastics industry for feminizing us?

BPA and phthalates are just two of several hundred chemicals that exhibit EA in plastics. These chemicals having EA leach from almost all plastics sold today, including polyethylene, polypropylene, PET, etc. That is, plastics advertised as BPA-free or phthalate-free are not EA-free; almost all these plastics still leach chemicals having EA – and often have more total EA than plastics that release BPA or phthalates. Current legislation is attempting to solve this problem by removing chemicals having EA (BPA, phthalates) one at a time. This approach, for legislators or the FDA, is not an appropriate solution for consumers because thousands of chemicals used in plastics exhibit EA, not just BPA and phthalates. This approach is a marketing-driven solution, not a health-driven solution. The appropriate health-driven solution is to manufacture safer plastics that are EA-free. Some of these advanced-technology EA-free plastics are already in the marketplace. The cost of these safer EA-free plastics are just pennies more than EA-releasing plastics, when both are used to manufacture the same product in similar quantities.

Post a comment