=======================Electronic Edition========================
RACHEL’S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY #446
—June 15, 1995—
News and resources for environmental justice.
==========
Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403
Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet: erf@rachel.clark.net
==========
Back Issues | Index | Official Gopher Archive
To subscribe, send E-mail to rachel-
weekly-request@world.std.com
with the single word SUBSCRIBE in the message. It’s
free.
===Previous
Issue==========================================Next
Issue===
OUR FUTURE IN DOUBT
After 30 years of scientific detective work, a picture has
emerged strongly suggesting that American-style industrialization
is in fundamental conflict with living systems. Many common
chemicals used in bulk quantities are now known to interfere with
the reproductive systems of wildlife and humans, causing
reproductive failure, birth defects, immune system deficiencies,
and cancers. [1] About 40 widely-used chemicals (pesticides,
detergents, plasticizers and other important industrial building
blocks) have now been identified with these characteristics. [2]
However, scientists say the only way to discover all such
chemicals is to test each of the 70,000 chemicals now in
commercial use. [3] Such a broad-scale testing program would be
unprecedented and seems politically, economically, and
logistically impossible, given today’s corporate milieu and mood.
Without such a testing program, the withdrawal of these
chemicals from commercial use cannot even reach the discussion
stage. Thus the conflict between our industrial institutions and
the health of living things seems irreconcilable without a
fundamental shift in world view and in political relations.
It was 1972 when the federal National Institute of Environmental
Health Sciences (NIEHS) formally began studying chemicals that
interfere with the endocrine system of wildlife and humans. The
endocrine system is a complex set of bodily organs and tissues
whose actions are coordinated by chemical messengers called
hormones, which control sexual reproduction, growth, development
and behavior. Bears hibernate because of chemical signals from
the endocrine system, and women menstruate under control of their
endocrine systems. In the egg or the womb, males are made into
males, and females into females, by endocrine hormone signals.
In the late 1960s, scientists began reporting disruptions of the
endocrine system in birds –for example, the pesticide DDT was
causing eggshell thinning, leading to reproductive failure. [4]
The same year DDT was banned in the U.S. (1972), Dr. John A.
McLachlan began a research program at NIEHS, examining chemicals
that mimic hormones (chiefly estrogen, the main female sex
hormone). McLachlan says even he didn’t realize how many
endocrine-disrupting chemicals were “out there” until 1979, when
NIEHS sponsored the first scientific conference on the
subject. [5] Even after that conference, the general public
(including the environmental community) knew nothing of these
problems.
In 1988, two government researchers in Canada –Tom Muir and Anne
Sudar –packaged much of the available information on chemicals
and health into a concise and alarming report on the Great Lakes.
Their employer, Environment Canada –the Canadian equivalent of
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) –refused to
publish their report. [6]Subsequently, the Conservation
Foundation in Washington, D.C. –a private organization with
close ties to the U.S. government [7]–was asked to examine the
Muir/Sudar report. In 1990, the Conservation Foundation
published an expanded and toned-down version of the facts in
GREAT LAKES GREAT LEGACY?, authored by Theodora E. Colborn [8]
with an extensive bibliography of studies from the 1980s showing
endocrine damage to wildlife, and, to a much lesser extent,
humans.
In July of the following year Theo Colborn convened a conference
attended by 21 scientists at the Wingspread Center in Racine,
Wisconsin; that conference issued a consensus statement by the 21
scientists, saying, in part, “We are certain of the following: A
large number of man-made chemicals that have been released into
the environment, as well as a few natural ones, have the
potential to disrupt the endocrine system of animals, including
humans… Many wildlife populations are already affected by
these compounds. The impacts include thyroid dysfunction
[impaired or abnormal functioning] in birds and fish; decreased
fertility in birds, fish, shellfish, and mammals; decreased
hatching success in birds, fish and turtles; gross birth
deformities in birds, fish and turtles; metabolic abnormalities
[impaired or abnormal use of energy, manufacture of tissue, or
handling of resulting wastes] in birds, fish, and mammals;
behavioral abnormalities in birds; demasculinization and
feminization in male fish, birds, and mammals; defeminization and
masculinization of female fish and birds; and compromised
[impaired] immune systems in birds and mammals.” [9](See RHWN #263, #264.)
In 1992, Theo Colborn went on to summarize what is known about
endocrine-disrupting chemicals in a technical book aimed at a
scientific audience. [9] In 1993, she presented a summary in the
prestigious journal, ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSPECTIVES, the
official voice of the National Institute of Environmental Health
Sciences (NIEHS). [13] That put the issue “on the map” in the U.S.
In 1992 and 1993, researchers in Denmark, England, the U.S. and
elsewhere began connecting the dots among a wide range of studies
that had shown various kinds of damage to the reproductive
systems of men, including:
** increases in cancer of the testicles in many industrialized
countries; [10]
** increased incidence of undescended testicles (cryptorchidism)
in humans and in wildlife; [10]
** reduction in sperm count by 50% among men in many
industrialized countries; [11]
** increased incidence of hypospadias–a birth defect of the
male genitalia. [10]
Furthermore, several studies in 1993 suggested that certain
important problems of the female reproductive system –breast
cancer and endometriosis –may also be linked to
endocrine-disrupting chemicals. [12]
Endocrine-disrupting chemicals of industrial origin are now
measurable in rain water, well water, rivers, lakes, and oceans,
as well as in freshwater, oceanic and terrestrial food products.
Effects of exposure to endocrine disrupters early in life are
permanent and irreversible. Exposure of a woman at any time in
her life prior to pregnancy can affect her offspring because
these chemicals persist in the body. [13]
There seems to be no doubt that estrogen-mimicking chemicals are
damaging wildlife worldwide. In certain cases, the damage is so
severe that extinction is occurring; for example, pallid sturgeon
in the Mississippi and Missouri rivers have not reproduced for at
least 10 years; any members of the species seen today are 30 to
40 years old. For 15 years, scientists have been reporting that
the gonads of the pallid sturgeon “aren’t distinctly male or
female any more.” [14]Likewise, the Florida panther most likely
will go extinct this decade or next, victim of undescended
testicles and diminished sperm count. How different is the
prospect for humans? The handwriting on the wall couldn’t be
more plain, yet the most knowledgeable among us are largely
confined to talking to themselves.
The International Joint Commission (IJC) has outlined a
regulatory program adequate to the task before us, but President
Clinton has rejected it. [15] What is to be done? We can only
ask questions. How can we modify the framework that prevents
scientists from speaking out? How can we get private money out of
politics, so we can elect public officials who are not beholden
to corporate interests? How can we liberate the decision-makers
within corporations from today’s legal constraints, freeing them
to consider the public health consequences of their business
decisions? How can we induce the mass media –particularly those
that use the publicly-owned airwaves –to inform the public about
the nature and importance of these chemical and political
problems?
                
                
                
                
    
–Peter Montague
===============
[1] Bette Hileman, “Environmental Estrogens Linked to
Reproductive Abnormalities, Cancer,” C&EN [CHEMICAL & ENGINEERING
NEWS] January 31, 1994, pgs. 19-23; Bette Hileman, “Concerns
Broaden over Chlorine and Chlorinated Hydrocarbons,” C&EN
[CHEMICAL & ENGINEERING NEWS] April 19, 1993, pgs. 11-20; Theo
Colborn, Frederick S. vom Saal, and Ana M. Soto, “Developmental
Effects of Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals in Wildlife and
Humans,” ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSPECTIVES Vol. 101 No. 5
(October 1993), pgs. 378-384; Paul Cotton, “Environmental
Estrogenic Agents Area of Concern,” JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN
MEDICAL ASSOCIATION Vol. 271 (February 9, 1994), pgs. 414, 416.
Descriptor terms: endocrine disupters; wildlife; human health;
niehs; national institute of environmental health sciences;
reproduction; development; growth; birds; fish; estrogen; tom
muir; anne sudar; conservation foundation; world wildlife fund;
wwf; cf; william reilly; theo colborn; environment canada;
wongspread statement; shellfish; turtles; mammals; sexual
development; sexual differentiation; immune system; endocrine
system; thyroid; denmark; great britain; england; united kingdom;
testicular cancer; cryptorchidism; undescended testicles; sperm
count; hypospadias; birth defects; breast cancer; endometriosis;
pallid sturgeon; florida panther; international joint commission;
ijc; corporations; regulation; mass media;