From: Alan \"Uncle Al\" Schwartz <uncleal0@ix.netcom.com>
Newsgroups: sci.engr.chem,sci.agriculture,sci.chem
Subject: Re: Q: opinions on endocrine disruptors
Date: 4 Apr 1996 15:20:53 GMT

jljones@usgs.gov (Joseph L. Jones) wrote:

> sci.engr.chem, sci.agriculture, sci.chem
>With great interest, I have been following the recent news stories about
>the hypothesized relationship between man-made chemicals and endocrine
>disruption in fish, birds, and mammals. These stories have been reporting
>Dr. Theo Colburn's book on the subject "Our Stolen Future", which
>postulates that lower human sperm counts, and numerous examples of
>demasculinization of male birds, fish, and mammals are caused by
>man made chemicals that mimic natural hormones and disrupt the
>normal development of fetuses and young ones. Evidence supporting
>part of her conceptual model includes the developmental problems
>observed when doctors gave pregnant women a synthetic hormone
>substitute (called DES?) to delay premature birth in the 40's.
>As you can imagine, much is being made of this, and so far most
>of the reaction comes from the environmentally minded people.
>
>I would like to find some material from 'the other side'-- the
>chemical industry, for example, to help ensure I get
>a balanced view of this new and interesting question.
>I'm not very interested in opinionated or highly speculative 
>articles. I will be happy to post a summary (if I get any 
>responses.....).


Administration of DES (diethylstilbesterol) to pregnant women leads to as 
offspring feminized males, and masculinized females with an unusually 
high incidence of vaginal tissue hyperplasias in later life.  The 
cumulative dose of DES which was adminsitered/woman amounted to grams.  
The French abortion pill RU-486 (mifepristone) is similarly administered 
in cumulative gram amounts.  These are >powerful< synthetic estrogen and 
progesterone mimics, such as they are  (Note that the standard dose of 
diazepam tranquilizers, stomach histamine blockers, opiates... is of the 
order of milligrams.)

Natural estrogen mimics are abundant, especially in wheat germ and soy 
products.  I haven't heard anybody piss and moan about health nuts or 
tofu eaters having their reproductive systems realigned.  Let us all 
thank the Goddess that alligators are carnivores, and are therefore 
naturally immune to Tofu-Induced Penile Microplasia.

Almost anything aromatic, bulky, and with a little polar substitution has 
estrogenic properties.  Consider bisphenol-A, which is subject to a 
growing witch hunt because sub-microgram amounts may leach from 
polycarbonate.  Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin is a powerful estrogen mimic 
which is not metabolized and which concentrates in lipid, moving up the 
food chain.  The population of Seveso, Italy was doused in the stuff.  
Aside from terrible cases of chloracne,  All the doomsaying of 
"concerned" activists has not come about.  How inconvenient. 

We know that polychlorinated hydrocarbon insecticides hit birds and 
reptiles very hard.  It is not clear how susceptible mammals are.  Note 
that malathion is an acknowledged "powerful immune suppressor." and tons 
of the stuff are sprayed over residential neighborhoods in Southern 
California each year in stupid (political) attempts to exterminate the 
Mediterranean Fruitfly (endangered species!!!).
 
In summary:  Aside from heavily halogenated organics, the natural 
background of estrogen mimics is thousands of times in excess of anything 
man-made wandering into your body.  When somebody sounds the alarm for 
wheat germ or tofu, I'll bother myself with Lexan popcorn poppers.

(Attempts to extinguish the Net because of its "pornographic threat to 
children" have become laughingstocks.  Uncle Al predicts the next 
Official incursion will be something like Addictive Net Syndrome.  Any 
child who spends three or more hours/day on the Net needs counseling so 
he or she will go back to watching three or more hours/day of TV 
advertising and violence.  

Religious hype has been superceeded by social engineering hype.  Shit 
floats, especially if you are a vegetarian.

-- 
Alan "Uncle Al" Schwartz
UncleAl0@ix.netcom.com  ("zero" before "@")
http://www.netprophet.co.nz/uncleal/
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"  The Net!

(Uncle Al has a new URL!  Fresh outrage begins next week.)

From: Oz <Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.agriculture
Subject: Re: Pesticides and Reproduction
Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 18:13:20 +0100

In article <1996May20.153740.16901@vexcel.com>, Dean Myerson
<dean@vexcel.com> writes
>In article <$5NWTeAJ0CmxEwo0@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk 
>writes:
>>
>>Oh, silly me. Dioxins a worry because you think they may be hormone 
>>mimics. Dioxins are a worry because they are seriously poisonous. They 
>>do have effects on foetuses because of this reason (I believe they are 
>>teratogenic, too).
>
>The studies I mentioned showed that their hormone disrupting ability
>is why dioxins had this specific impact.

It's because they are very toxic. Otherwise they would have no more
effect than a good dose of estrogens, which a baby is getting from it's
pregnant mother. Duh.

>>So you are talking about a highly toxic compound that effects (amongst 
>>other things) male function. The estrogenicity of the compound (if any) 
>>is of little importance. It's like worrying about lead being poisonous 
>>as a .45 heads towards your brain.
>
>The impact demonstrated was at dose levels far below those for the kinds
>of toxicity you are mentioning.  Hormone disruption appears to be
>primarily an intergenerational affect so it can't hurt you very much
>(unless you are the second generation).  It's more like being worried
>about the lead in the bullet that just grazes you.

Interesting idea. Perhaps the knowledge is contained in the sperm.
Stupid.

>>I would worry about dioxins in my environment if they were above a 
>>significant level, but not because of any purported estrogenic effect.
>>
>I am not particularly concerned about what worries you any more since the
>facts  do not seem to be a part of that category.  I would point out that
>hormone disruption seems to be a strong factor determining what level
>is "significant" in the environment.

So you worry about eating soya, peas and beans? They have a strong
estrogenic effect. Don't even consider eating sesame oil, it's very
powerful indeed. No humous for you!

On the other hand perhaps you should look at the very much higher levels
of pulses that are consumed nowadays. The staple winter diet of
sauerkraut and cabbages has been replaced by frozen pulses, and soya
meat extenders in processed food. Here we are talking about a
significant increase in estrogen intakes. The only trouble is that these
foods are considered 'politically correct' so it's rude to criticise
them.

------------------------------- 
'Oz     "When I knew little, all was certain. The more I learnt,
        the less sure I was. Is this the uncertainty principle?"

From: aquilla@salus.med.uvm.edu (Tracy Aquilla)
Newsgroups: sci.agriculture
Subject: Re: Pesticides and Reproduction
Date: Wed, 22 May 96 19:26:02 GMT

In Article <4nt515$pia@news.uni-c.dk>, iaotb@inet.uni-c.dk (Torsten Brinch)
wrote:
>
>The Danish EPA is working to phase out the estrogen-like compounds 
>not only in pesticides but also in products like detergents, PVC,   
>printed circuit boards, food containers and packing materials. 
>Just to name those that come to my mind firstly. The list
>would be very long to be comprehensive.

A noble goal indeed. However, what does the Danish EPA intend to do about
all the naturally-occurring 'estrogen-like' compounds that exist in nature?
Considering that we consume orders of magnitude more 'estrogen-like'
compounds from natural sources, what's the point of eliminating the
relatively insignificant man-made sources? That seems like a waste to me.

>I can't see why anyone would oppose attempts to get rid of
>estrogenlike inerts in pesticide products. Certainly 
>not farmers, who are most likely to be exposed.

Perhaps because such attempts may constitute poor use of limited funds? Why
waste money eliminating a small percentage (man-made sources) of the
compounds in question when the vast majority of that to which we're exposed
comes from natural sources which can't effectively be eliminated? Some
people are so worried about the risks imposed by man-made compounds they
ignore the fact that the biggest risks come from nature and we can't do a
damn thing about them! I guess doing their 'small part' makes them feel
better, but it doesn't significantly affect the real risks we're exposed to.
Tracy

From: Oz <Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.agriculture
Subject: Re: Pesticides and Reproduction
Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 15:16:08 +0100

In article <4nv4vt$4rf@news.uni-c.dk>, Torsten Brinch <iaotb@inet.uni-
c.dk> writes
>Kirk Kerekes wrote:
>: In article <Uvx0WBA$40nxEwF9@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>,
>: Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk wrote:
>: > I assume that they will also ban washing up liquids that have some
>: > estogenicity. This is a much more likely source than half a kg of
>: > biodegradeable detergent spread over 15Ha several months before it's
>: > harvested.
>
>: Do you have any specific products in mind? I have not heard of estrogenic
>: detergents, and would like to be more informed.
>
>Oz may have comments. From me this butt-in:
>
>The Danish EPA and detergent producers have agreed to restrict the use of 
>alkylphenolethoxylates, notably nonylphenolethoxylates. 
>This type of compunds biodegrades to estrogenic alkylphenoles,
>notably nonylphenol. 

Commonly known as washing up liquid. 

>Interestingly nonylphenol (=nonoxynol) is also known as  
>a spermicide used in products for contraception.
>Give them burning hell! :-)
>
>2-300 tons alkylphenolethoxylates are  used anually in Denmark 
>as nonionic detergents. Alkylphenolethoxylates are also used  in 
>pesticide products and other technical chemical products .

I would be quite astonished if *agricultural surfactant* usage of these 
detergents has any transfer to humans except at a truly microscopic 
level many orders of magnitude below any level that might affect humans.
Firstly, as Torsten has said, they are rapidly degraded to phenols which 
rapidly and strongly bind to soil where they are degraded. The rates are 
rather low, typically 200g/Ha or about 70 parts per billion of soil
before any degradation.

Note that this is NOT true of their use as washing up liquids and 
detergents that are discharged into sewage pipes and thus into rivers, 
although some degradation will occur in sewage treatment plants. This 
sort of contamination by domestic (and industrial) pollutants is in 
practice a major player (IMHO) and flapping about agricultural usage 
deflects observers from the real causes and seriously delays any 
effective reduction in the pollution because you are not actually 
dealing with the real source of the pollution, but only a (wrongly) 
perceived one.

The classic case was atrazine in water supplies in the UK. Farmers were 
blamed and a big fuss ensued. However work eventually showed that the 
source was not agricultural but due to use on domestic gravel drives and 
on railway lines. This application on impervious surfaces provided a 
rapid and direct route to watercourses resulting in a significant amount 
of leaching directly into drains and streams.

People tend to forget that soil is an active and effective biodegrading 
medium. Basically that's been it's purpose since the dawn of time. Yeah, 
yeah, Torsten, I know it's not perfect.

------------------------------- 
'Oz     "When I knew little, all was certain. The more I learnt,
        the less sure I was. Is this the uncertainty principle?"

From: Oz <Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.agriculture
Subject: Re: Pesticides and Reproduction
Date: Fri, 31 May 1996 23:15:43 +0100

In article <aquilla.1183860088I@emba-news.emba.uvm.edu>, Tracy Aquilla
<aquilla@salus.med.uvm.edu> writes
> Some
>>>people are so worried about the risks imposed by man-made compounds they
>>>ignore the fact that the biggest risks come from nature and we can't do a
>>>damn thing about them! I guess doing their 'small part' makes them feel
>>>better, but it doesn't significantly affect the real risks we're exposed to.

Actually I think Torsten is an honorable and trustworthy person. However
I think he like to troll quite a lot. I also have come to the suspicion
that he acts as an expert witness in court cases or similar and likes to
try out his courtroom position here to see how many flaws it has. Let's
face it he would get a lot of free information and cross-examination
here if this was the case.

It is a particularly Nordic (although spreading world wide) habit to
regard man-made as 'bad' and natural as 'good'. This is supported by
carefully selecting things in 'man-made' products that are bad, and
ignoring things in natural products that are bad. One can always make a
good case in this way.

In itself I, personally, don't really give a fig if people try to delude
themselves this way until it starts to result in illogical behaviour
that means that real problems are incorrectly identified and proposed
solutions are no such thing. They become a politically acceptable non-
solution and vast resorces are wasted that should have been used to
solve real problems. Britain is spending hundreds of millions of pounds
annually to reduce nitrate levels in drinking water for no reason other
than a group in the EC decided that 50ppm was an acceptable limit based
on absolutely no evidence at all. The only epidemiological study in fact
showed that in the UK stomach cancer for people consuming water of low
nitrate levels was HIGHER than those who consumed water with nitrates
close to the limit. This money would have been vastly better used to
reduce the pollution from sewage outfalls and ensure that the sludge was
properly and safely applied to the land.

The problem with 'falling sperm counts' is entirely, so far as I can
tell, concentrated on man made xenoestrogens with rather low activity at
very low concentration whilst completely ignoring the substantial
increase in food-derived natural estrogens that has resulted from the
change in western diets in the last 30 years. In my youth, for example,
legumes were eaten for a short time when they were in season, and the
wide range of all-season brassicas and root vegetables were the staple
diet, augmented rarely by tinned produce. Nowadays frozen peas and beans
are eaten with almost every meal supplemented with soya derived meat
extenders in a great many products. For breeding livestock this diet
would be considered hazardous if a high fertility was to be required and
I would suggest that this sort of evidence should be taken rather
seriously. The British agricultural literature is full of warnings about
clovery and leguminous swards causing partial, and in some cases total,
infertility in female livestock due to the high intake of natural
estrogens makeing oestrous cycles cease altogether. Alfalfa and sainfoin
being suggested because of it's lower estrogenicity (tannins?). I
shudder to think of the effect this would have on male animals.

So if anyone is *serious* about wanting to find the cause of reduced
sperm counts they had better look at this with a study. Work on soya
baby milk substitutes has already indicated that the levels of naturally
occurring estogens in these products are high enough to affect mature
female cycling, need I say more? Unfortunately this sort of work is
politically incorrect so gets ignored. I have no problem with
identifying problems in this imperfect world of ours and trying to make
it a better place. This is a good thing (caps). I do have a problem with
not properly identifying the real reason because it is politically
incorrect to do so. This direction lies in our black and superstious
past and should be resisted.

My apologies for such a long rant. Perhaps a rather excellent bottle of
English wine (or two) had something to do with it!  :-)

------------------------------- 
'Oz     "When I knew little, all was certain. The more I learnt,
        the less sure I was. Is this the uncertainty principle?"

From: Oz <Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.agriculture
Subject: Re: Pesticides and Reproduction
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 07:31:52 +0100

In article <4off71$fiv@news.uni-c.dk>, Torsten Brinch <iaotb@inet.uni-
c.dk> writes

>>There are normally negative feedback routes to control these levels. If
>>the consumed ones substitute in this feedback loop then all is well, we
>>would simply produce less to compensate. If they bind to receptors and
>>don't let go/get degraded we would see *lower* levels of internally
>>produced hormones than expected. If they don't bind, then they shouldn't
>>be estrogenic. With the exception of the relatively large quantities
>>consumed in food the man-made ones should never be at high enough
>>concentrations to affect this loop.
>
>Nonsense. Please educate yourself.

Please educate YOURself. Take a look at the pituitary gland. It has
feedback mechanisms to control hormone levels, most (all?) hormone
systems do. The best known one is the insulin feedback loop. In some
systems the adding of external hormones can reduce the internal
production to nearly nil which causes problems when the time to remove
the medication occurs unless it is done carefully.

What you SHOULD have said is that it is exactly that loop which extra
estrogen disrupts. Unlike most hormone levels it is vital that estrogen
is allowed to increase or reproduction fails.

Although I last looked at this many decades ago I am pretty sure that
*within limits* male estrogen production will reduce to compensate for
estrogens coming in from outside. However it is obvious that internal
estrogen production cannot balance this once internal production has
reached zero. As a totally unscientific point a good friend of mine, of
chinese extraction, who lived for many years in the UK noted that he
shaved noticeably less now he has returned to Singapore. His diet in the
UK was largely european, but is now Oriental with a very high intake of
beans of all sorts (particularly soy). Oh, yes, he had no trouble
producing two beautiful children.

>>>So you must be thinking of some estrogen-like constituents 
>>>in our food, which can't effectively be eliminated, 
>>>and, as you write, are real risks. 
>>
>>>Flavonoids in apples? Beer? Potatoes? Cabbage maybe? 
>>>Daidzein, genistein or maybe phytosterols in soy 
>>>bean products?
>
>>Ah, you have some of them. 
>>Given the normal intake of these products
>>what are the relevent doses compared to the man-made ones?
>
>I think this is not an answerable question.

Oh yes it is. It might however not be the answer you would like to hear.
However it should be, one must search for the truth however unpalatable
to ones preconcieved ideas it may be. I have to put up with it too! This
way I learn.

If you are being paid to produce evidence against something then there
is a problem. I would hope, and indeed expect, that in your case truth
will always win.

------------------------------- 
'Oz     "When I knew little, all was certain. The more I learnt,
        the less sure I was. Is this the uncertainty principle?"

From: Oz <Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: misc.education.science,sci.environment,misc.consumers,
	sci.med.nutrition,sci.agriculture,talk.politics.animals,rec.food.restaurants,
	alt.food.mcdonalds,alt.mcdonalds,rec.food.veg
Subject: Re: Hormones in Soy Baby Milk.
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 08:04:36 +0100

In article <4p0917$i70@news.express.co.nz>, David J Woodhams
<woodhams@iprolink.co.nz> writes
>At the time I responded to Oz's initial contribution to this thread I
>did not have his full reponse to my previous post so did not reply to
>all his questions.  Questions and answers follow:
>
>>Oz <Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>If this is true then why are looking for trace amounts of poorly
>>estrogenic xenoestrogens.
>
>The consensus statement from the Wingspread Work Session (1) includes
>a footnote to para 1 ("We are certain of the following:"...) which
>lists about 25 "chemicals [and families of chemicals] known to disrupt
>the endocrine system" , the last three of which are: "soy products and
>laboratory animal and pet food products".  
>
>For some reason, perhaps political correctness, later discussion of
>the findings seems to overlook the soy products and deals only with
>the manmade chemicals.
>
>>Do you have any similar results for other beans? 
>
>The NZ study has looked only at soy beans and has focussed mostly on
>the soy infant formula issue.  As far as I know nobody is marketing
>lima bean or navy bean infant formula.

The genetic spectrum of populations is undoubtedly affected by diet. For 
example lactose intolerance is virtually nil in pastoral societies, or 
those that have descended from pastoral societies. The high use of soy 
in asian diets, particularly chinese, for many many generations should 
have removed or reduced any genetic material that cannot cope with this 
diet. Europeans have only been exposed to high level soy usage in food 
for this generation, indeed a high level of pulses for this generation. 
One should not be surprised if some members of the population have a 
problem with the complex mix of biochemicals that is found in beans.

I suspect that we are beginning to see some of the results of this diet 
change. As seems to be usual in this sort of situation we are running 
about being politically correct and looking very hard and expensively in 
the wrong direction (man made chemicals). If beans are the prime cause 
of the reduced sperm count then we need to find out if this is a simple 
drop to a new lower level of sperm count that has little effect on 
fertility, or ....

Generally speaking few people are aware of the toxins and active 
chemicals that exist in vegetables. Although people are aware that some 
plants are poisonous and some (like tobacco) contain active chemicals 
they rarely consider that edible plants also contain a witches brew of 
active chemicals. We are equipped to deal with most of these fairly well 
probably because our monkey ancestors survived by eating moderately 
poisonous rain forest tree leaves. However it does not mean that 
vegetables are perfectly safe for all people at any intake. For example 
brassicas are known to contain mustard oil which is carcinogenic and
very toxic. Basil is known to be very carcinogenic (but VERY nice).

We know very little indeed about the toxicity of common vegetables, yet 
we know a HUGE amount about OP's that are either not in our diet or are 
in at microscopically low levels. This is a mistake.

Oh heck, I'll have to stick to a nice safe toxin free steak. Ooops!


------------------------------- 
'Oz     "When I knew little, all was certain. The more I learnt,
        the less sure I was. Is this the uncertainty principle?"

From: Oz <Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: misc.education.science,sci.environment,misc.consumers,
	sci.med.nutrition,sci.agriculture,talk.politics.animals,rec.food.restaurants,
	alt.food.mcdonalds,alt.mcdonalds,rec.food.veg
Subject: Re: Hormones in Soy Baby Milk.
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 21:09:43 +0100

In article <slrn4rbi1h.98.root@tailor.roman.org>, root
<root@tailor.roman.org> writes
>On Tue, 4 Jun 1996 08:04:36 +0100, Oz <Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> : In article <4p0917$i70@news.express.co.nz>, David J Woodhams
> : <woodhams@iprolink.co.nz> writes
> : >At the time I responded to Oz's initial contribution to this thread I
> : >did not have his full reponse to my previous post so did not reply to
> : >all his questions.  Questions and answers follow:
> : >
> : >>Oz <Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> : >
> : >>If this is true then why are looking for trace amounts of poorly
> : >>estrogenic xenoestrogens.
>
>Which are destroyed by, e. g., cooking and digestive processes.
>
> : The genetic spectrum of populations is undoubtedly affected by diet. For 
>
>Which then brings up the question of why populations of Chinese, Thai,
>and Japanese who have been brought up on cooked soy products don't
>seem to suffer from things like infertility.

Easy one this. Because those that were susceptible didn't breed so their 
genes simply disappeared. Those that were resistant bred more 
successfully and their genes took over the population. Exactly what 
probably happened for the European pastoral societies. If you got sick 
eating milk products then you didn't thrive and you didn't breed well 
and your poor (in that situation) genes dies out from the population.

Unfortunately Europeans have not (yet) gone through this selection
procedure.

> : Oh heck, I'll have to stick to a nice safe toxin free steak. Ooops!
>
>Make sure you cook it well done.  Steak isn't safe either.  And, the
>animal that the steak came from was fed uncooked or partly cooked
>soy products.  (I wonder if anyone recalls the problems of early
>7 year old puberty that were happening in places like Massachusetts'
>Cape Cod some years back as a result of children eating cooked chicken
>laced with hormones.)

I'll take the risk. I like my stakes rare and bloody. 

------------------------------- 
'Oz     "When I knew little, all was certain. The more I learnt,
        the less sure I was. Is this the uncertainty principle?"

From: iaotb@inet.uni-c.dk (Torsten Brinch)
Newsgroups: sci.agriculture
Subject: Re: Pesticides and Reproduction
Date: 5 Jun 1996 00:02:30 GMT

Oz wrote:

>I don't believe this, surely it cannot be true. It would be really 
>irresponsible to allow this to be fed to babies. Why isn't cow milk 
>powder used, it's relatively cheap and already designed for baby mammals 
>with only a small change in protein and fat levels.

>If what you are saying is correct then my original postulate looks
>increasingly likely. In fact, downright probable. Doubtless Torsten will
>come on and put us right.  :-)

Right here to your service.

Of course it can be true, Oz. Soy protein with a high content 
of genistein and daidzein should not be fed to babies. As you
note that *would* be pretty silly, since milk has been invented
for that purpose.

I would consider it a faddist diet for an adult if he were to base
his protein demand (minimal 20 g/day, optimal around 1 mg/kg bw) solely
on soy protein. In my lifetime, soy protein has been increasingly added
to food. Personally I have always considered this an *adulteration* 
and avoided the crap. (As a delicate sidebar: My digestive system is 
not particularly fond of it either :-).

When discussing soy protein with other people, I've met 
the counter argument: "Protein is protein." 
Next time I'll remember to 
say: "Eh.. you have heard about phytoestrogens, haven't you?" :-)

But seriously, Oz. Don't expect to find *THE* cause for the suspected
decrease in sperm count (and other suspected effects). 
Sharpe and Skakkebaek (Lancet (1993) 341, 1392-1395) 
list a range of changes which have happened in the past 50 years:

a. Low fibre diet increases recycling of excreted oestrogens in women.
b. increased body fat can
    i.  convert certain steroids to oestrogens
    ii. increase bioavailable oestrogen by decreasing secretion
        of sexhormone binding globulin (SHBG)
c. synthetic oestrogens (DES, hexestrol, ethinyl oestradiol) have
   been used, which are very potent because they don't bind to SHBG.
   some of them have even been found in water sources.
d. orally active anabolic steroids have been used in livestock.   
e. changes in diet, notably an increase in consumption of soy bean
   products, has increased the consumption of phytoestrogens.
   Interestingly these compounds may increase the production
   of SHBG, thus decreasing the concentration of bioavailable
   *endogenous* oestrogen.
f. increased consumption of dairy products with (natural) oestrogens.
g. a long range of different environmental 'oestrogenic' chemicals
   has been employed and spread in the environment.

All in all, the exposure to oestrogens has probably increased
in the last 50 years. Quote from the Sharpe & Skakkebaek article:
'The extent of this increase, its source(s), and its consequences are 
likely to differ between countries and between individuals if the routes
of exposure listed <..> are all valid.' 

One major difference between the phytoestrogens and the environmental
manmade 'oestrogenic' chemicals is their biodegradability. The former
does not bioaccumulate and are rapidly degraded (proof: reproduction
is still possible), whereas the latter are moderately to extremely 
persistent and bioaccumulative.

Neither should be neglected. 

And if you don't mind:
Could we for just a second stop staring at our testicles
and note:

The man made compounds from the list are the most likely  
to be causing environmental effects right now, or in the future.

OK. Back to the balls.

Kind regards,

Torsten Brinch

--
Every litter bit hurts.

From: Oz <Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: misc.education.science,sci.environment,misc.consumers,
	sci.med.nutrition,sci.agriculture,rec.food.veg,sci.bio.food-science,
	alt.infertility
Subject: Re: Hormones in Soy Baby Milk.
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 14:02:18 +0100

Shifted from the old thread.

In article <4p2iqm$oth@news.uni-c.dk>, Torsten Brinch <iaotb@inet.uni-
c.dk> writes
>Oz wrote:
>
>>I don't believe this, surely it cannot be true. It would be really 
>>irresponsible to allow this to be fed to babies. Why isn't cow milk 
>>powder used, it's relatively cheap and already designed for baby mammals 
>>with only a small change in protein and fat levels.
>
>>If what you are saying is correct then my original postulate looks
>>increasingly likely. In fact, downright probable. Doubtless Torsten will
>>come on and put us right.  :-)
>
>Right here to your service.
>
>Of course it can be true, Oz. Soy protein with a high content 
>of genistein and daidzein should not be fed to babies. As you
>note that *would* be pretty silly, since milk has been invented
>for that purpose.
>
>I would consider it a faddist diet for an adult if he were to base
>his protein demand (minimal 20 g/day, optimal around 1 mg/kg bw) solely
>on soy protein. In my lifetime, soy protein has been increasingly added
>to food. Personally I have always considered this an *adulteration* 
>and avoided the crap. (As a delicate sidebar: My digestive system is 
>not particularly fond of it either :-).

Um. Soya beans are about 90% DM and 45% CP. So a consumption of 60 gms 
of soy protein is equivalent to about 150 gm of beans a day. About six 
oz for the colonialists. Allowing that as consumed is at 25% DM, that 
would be about 540 gms or just over one lb of beans 'ready to eat'. Half 
a pound per meal, every meal, sounds somewhat on the high side but is 
not so far off. Certainly there will be people (men included) consuming 
around 10%+ of this, I would have thought. Certainly an 840 gm tin of 
baked beans can easily be consumed as part of a meal for four or about 
210 gm per person so we are nearly half way there on bean intake 
already.

>When discussing soy protein with other people, I've met 
>the counter argument: "Protein is protein." 
>Next time I'll remember to 
>say: "Eh.. you have heard about phytoestrogens, haven't you?" :-)
>
>But seriously, Oz. Don't expect to find *THE* cause for the suspected
>decrease in sperm count (and other suspected effects). 
>Sharpe and Skakkebaek (Lancet (1993) 341, 1392-1395) 
>list a range of changes which have happened in the past 50 years:
>
>a. Low fibre diet increases recycling of excreted oestrogens in women.

Shouldn't worry men so much.

>b. increased body fat can
>    i.  convert certain steroids to oestrogens
>    ii. increase bioavailable oestrogen by decreasing secretion
>        of sexhormone binding globulin (SHBG)

Certainly fat animals show a *marked* decrease in fertility. Now I have
a reason why this should be so. How about fat men?

>c. synthetic oestrogens (DES, hexestrol, ethinyl oestradiol) have
>   been used, which are very potent because they don't bind to SHBG.
>   some of them have even been found in water sources.

But compared to phyto-estrogens their concentration is very low. This is
good, well better than high anyway.

>d. orally active anabolic steroids have been used in livestock.   

Hmmm, Ireland and Belgium but not in the UK so I'm safe there.
At least not for many years. Anyway using them in livestock is not a
problem. It's only a possible maybe problem if doses within say 1/100 of
the NEL are reached.

>e. changes in diet, notably an increase in consumption of soy bean
>   products, has increased the consumption of phytoestrogens.
>   Interestingly these compounds may increase the production
>   of SHBG, thus decreasing the concentration of bioavailable
>   *endogenous* oestrogen.

As I said before. However what's imprtant is the level of total
estrogens within the body.

>f. increased consumption of dairy products with (natural) oestrogens.

Any idea of the levels compared to soy?

>g. a long range of different environmental 'oestrogenic' chemicals
>   has been employed and spread in the environment.

When in doubt blame ......

>
>All in all, the exposure to oestrogens has probably increased
>in the last 50 years. Quote from the Sharpe & Skakkebaek article:
>'The extent of this increase, its source(s), and its consequences are 
>likely to differ between countries and between individuals if the routes
>of exposure listed <..> are all valid.' 
>
>One major difference between the phytoestrogens and the environmental
>manmade 'oestrogenic' chemicals is their biodegradability. The former
>does not bioaccumulate and are rapidly degraded (proof: reproduction
>is still possible), whereas the latter are moderately to extremely 
>persistent and bioaccumulative.
>
>Neither should be neglected. 

And both should have their *real* effects examined.

>And if you don't mind:
>Could we for just a second stop staring at our testicles
>and note:
>
>The man made compounds from the list are the most likely  
>to be causing environmental effects right now, or in the future.

Says Torsten since it's one of his hobbyhorses and he finds it hard to
take his blinkers off.   :-)

------------------------------- 
'Oz     "When I knew little, all was certain. The more I learnt,
        the less sure I was. Is this the uncertainty principle?"

Subject: Re: Hormones in Soy Baby Milk.
From: Oz <Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>
Date: Jun 06 1996
Newsgroups: misc.education.science,sci.environment,misc.consumers,
	sci.med.nutrition,sci.agriculture,rec.food.veg,sci.bio.food-science,
	alt.infertility

In article <4p5erj$73m@news.cis.okstate.edu>, COUGER GORDON <gcouger@tac
oma.ceatlabs.okstate.edu> writes
>>root@tailor.roman.org (root) wrote:
>>> : Oh heck, I'll have to stick to a nice safe toxin free steak. Ooops!
>>> : 
>>>Make sure you cook it well done.  Steak isn't safe either.  And, the
>>>animal that the steak came from was fed uncooked or partly cooked
>>>soy products.  (I wonder if anyone recalls the problems of early
>>>7 year old puberty that were happening in places like Massachusetts'
>>>Cape Cod some years back as a result of children eating cooked chicken
>>>laced with hormones.)

I was under the impression that this was caused by the necks of
caponised chickens going into pies. Certainly this did occur and it's
why caponisation is no longer permitted. Actually it's probably why this
whole 'hormones in meat' scare began. A total confusion between the
massive dose required to caponise a male chicken, and the minute dose in
the ear required to produce leaner meat in steers. This then spread to
any growth promoter regardless of its real safety. Thus are mindless
things done. I wonder if anyone has a date for the caponisation problem?

I am always amused by a local farmer who has a sign up saying 'Hormone
Free Beef'. 


>The only device that is safe is a coffin and then only to the
>properly embalmed occupant.
>
>I chalange anyone to find a totaly safe anything for a living being.

Yup. Life is indeed a fatal disease with no cure.


------------------------------- 
'Oz     "When I knew little, all was certain. The more I learnt,
        the less sure I was. Is this the uncertainty principle?"

From: Oz <Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: misc.education.science,sci.environment,misc.consumers,
	sci.med.nutrition,sci.agriculture,rec.food.veg,sci.bio.food-science,
	alt.infertility
Subject: Re: Hormones in Soy Baby Milk.
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 06:37:47 +0100

In article <4p7hdl$7ik@baggins.dazixco.ingr.com>, Kathryn Claytor
<kclaytor@ingr.com> writes
>In article <H5CQyFAfqmtxEw3B@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>, Oz <Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> 
>writes:
>
>> whole 'hormones in meat' scare began. A total confusion between the
>> massive dose required to caponise a male chicken, and the minute dose in
>> the ear required to produce leaner meat in steers. 
>> properly embalmed occupant.
>
>I never heard of such a thing.  I didn't know they had hormones they gave cows
>that make them leaner.  

Estrogens were given to STEERS to make them leaner. There were also
various other growth promoters. There are really only two ways to
increase efficiency, less fat since fat takes over twice as much energy
to produce as lean, and make the animals eat more. 

>It seems like an awesome idea.  It is supposedly so
>unhealthy to be fat, I wonder why they don't have a hormone they could give to
>people to make them leaner.

Oh there are several. All have unfortunate side effects I believe.

Pity.

------------------------------- 
'Oz     "When I knew little, all was certain. The more I learnt,
        the less sure I was. Is this the uncertainty principle?"

Subject: Re: Hormones in Soy Baby Milk.
From: Oz <Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>
Date: Jun 11 1996
Newsgroups: misc.education.science,sci.environment,misc.consumers,
	sci.med.nutrition,sci.agriculture,rec.food.veg,sci.bio.food-science,
	alt.infertility

In article <dam-1106961014010001@kerrera.dcs.gla.ac.uk>, The Nit Nurse
<dam@kerrera.dcs.gla.ac.uk> writes
>|> In article <H5CQyFAfqmtxEw3B@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>, Oz
><Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>[snipped by someone else]
> 
>|> > whole 'hormones in meat' scare began. A total confusion between the
>|> > massive dose required to caponise a male chicken, and the minute dose in
>|> > the ear required to produce leaner meat in steers. 
>
>Are you sure about that? I thought the 'homones in meat' issue was a bone
>of contention between the US and the EU - the EU has banned the use of
>any hormone in the food chain (including chickens) while the US uses them
>in cattle, thus US meat is banned in EU states. This eventually led to the
>US trying to flex its muscle and force the EU to drop its ban on hormonal
>meat on the threat of trade sanctions, about 2 months ago. You seem to
>be inferring that EU caponised male chickens are dosed with hormones. Is this
>true?

Well it was 25 years ago. I believe hormone caponising has long since 
been banned.

IMHO the ban on hormones in animals is largely due to ignorance and 
paranoia in Germany, fed by the quite ruthless and scaremongering press 
there. I find it quite astonishing that even German scientists are often 
quite unable to be objective over this (and many other) subjects. The 
press says it, so everyone says it, so it must be true, those who object 
seem to be regarded as outcasts. OK, I exaggerate here somewhat and no 
country is immune from this.

I mean, animals make hormones, we make hormones, man has been eating 
hormones for hundreds of thousands of years, vegetarians eat hormones 
(eg phytoestrogens), wow, heavy, look around you at all the dying 
people. NOT! We need to watch the levels in our food, particularly those 
with odd diets (eg vegetarians, junk food addicts) but keep things in 
perspective.

There is no such thing as a hormone free animal. Likely there is no such 
thing as a hormone free vegetable. It may well not be good for us NOT to 
eat a certain amount.

>[Britain wavered, but the EU refused. There's been no moves by the US to
>carry out their threat]

To be honest it would be quite serious for the EC to allow the free 
importation of very cheap beef from the low cost producers. Most of the 
countryside in the most beautiful parts of the EC is maintained by 
marginal beef and sheep producers many of whome are living in near 
penury as it is. I have a friend who does accounts for a number of these 
and she had to take a tax inspector up to visit one whose income was
under 5000UKP ($7500) per annum to show him how you lived in this
amount, he was not alone.

------------------------------- 
'Oz     "When I knew little, all was certain. The more I learnt,
        the less sure I was. Is this the uncertainty principle?"

Newsgroups: sci.agriculture,sci.environment
From: B.Hamilton@irl.cri.nz (Bruce Hamilton)
Subject: Re: Pesticides and Reproduction
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 16:01:32 GMT

paul.savage@chem.csiro.au (Paul Savage) wrote:
[ Tony Tweedale wrote... ]
>> write about many  toxic data points as if we knew ll about the toxicity of
>> all these dangerous compounds oz  is so enamoured of.  the unknowns are
>> often of greater magnitude than the knowns.  see,  e.g., the article that
>> i assume prompted this thread, about how some weakly estrogenic 
>> pesticides are up to 1,600 times more estrogenic when combined.

>Could you give the reference again Tony? 

" Synergistic Activation of Estrogen Receptor with Combinations of
Environmental Chemicals"  S.F.Arnold, D.M.Klotz, B.M.Collins, P.M.Vonier,
L.J.Guillette Jr., J.A.McLachlan
Science v272 p1489-1492 ( 7 June 1996 )

Note the "some" in Tony's piece. In fact, only one example reached ever
reached 1600X (endosulfan and dieldrin ). If you review the data in tables 1
and 2  "Concentrations of environmental chemicals required to achieve 50% 
beta-galactosidase activity (EC50) in a simple Yeast Estrogen system ", and
"Concentrations of environmental chemicals required to achieve 50%
displacement or inhibition (IC50) of human Estrogen Recepter binding of 
[3H] 17beta-estradiol", you will find it's generally much less.

                              b-Gal       h-ER binding    
                            EC50 [uM]     IC50 [uM]          
17beta-Estrodiol              0.0001       0.001
Endosulfan                     >33          >50
Dieldrin                       >33          >50
Toxaphene                      >33          >50
Chlordane                       ND          ND
Endosulfan + Dieldrin         0.092        0.324
Endosulfan + Toxaphene        0.121        0.339
Endosulfan + Chlordane        0.189        0.363
Dieldrin + Toxaphene          0.210        0.498
Dieldrin + Chlordane          0.286        0.514
Toxaphene + Chlordane         0.306        0.533 

Note that while the studies were in yeast cells, they did demonstrate
1600 times activity, but with the hER the measured increase was 200x. 
They have taken reported IC50 values for endosulfane ( 631uM) and 
Toxaphene (470uM) to obtain the "1000x" number reported in the abstract.. 

It's also worth reading the commentary piece " Environmental
Estrogens: Can two "Alrights" make a Wrong?" by S.S.Simons Jr.
in the same issue on p.1451. It notes the questions raised by this
paper, and notes that the single pesticides are required at about
100,000 times the concentration of the 17beta-estradiol to cause
the same induction of b-Gal expression. The author also describes
the beta-Gal Dieldrin and Endosulfan increased  potency as " more 
than 100 times of either compound alone " . It also notes that mixtures
of three compounds  had little further increase in potency. Not as
alarmist as the authors....

>Anyhow, nice to hear from you again Tony. Please try to keep your line
>length under 80.

Didn't you appreciate his ability to predict the future?....:-)
Still the same....

>>cmcr@ism.net			|| " 'Are the people being protected?' is too
>>(Cold Mountain, Cold Rivers 	||    narrow a question."
>>@ Internet Services of MT)	|| -API lobbyists meeting, 12 Dec. '96

               Bruce Hamilton

From: Oz <Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.agriculture,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Pesticides and Reproduction
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 18:17:05 +0100

In article <aquilla.1188092214D@emba-news.emba.uvm.edu>, Tracy Aquilla
<aquilla@salus.med.uvm.edu> writes
>
>The last sentence is mere speculation and is unsupported by any experimental
>data. As a matter of fact, there is a rapidly-growing volume of literature
>providing solid experimental evidence indicating that "natural estrogens"
>can have significant effects on human physiology. I have a longer list
>available, but here's one to begin with:  Clarkson et al., (1995),
>Estrogenic soybean isoflavones and chronic disease. Trends Endocrinol. Met.
>6:11-16.

In the last couple of days the UK govt advised those using soy milk
replacer (about 600 in the UK) to take medical advice due to significant
evidence that these may be responsible for reporductive problems in
later life.

Maybe they read sci.agric!

------------------------------- 
'Oz     "When I knew little, all was certain. The more I learnt,
        the less sure I was. Is this the uncertainty principle?"