Let’s explore phthalates: What are they? Why are they used? What are the potential consequences of exposure to these substances?

What are phthalates?

The United States Centers for Disease Control (CDC) explains that phthalates are “a group of chemicals used to make plastics last longer.” Some companies use phthalates to help dissolve other materials.

You can find phthalates in a variety of products, including:

• lubricating oils
• vinyl flooring
• personal-care products such as hair sprays, shampoos, and soaps
• medical supplies, including intravenous tubing, bags, and gloves (BPA, phthalates)

Some phthalates are in materials in products such as garden hoses and plastic packaging.

Phthalate dangers

We have long known the hormone-disrupting properties of phthalates. Phthalates can affect your endocrine system. What effect does endocrine disruption have on our health?

Endocrine-disrupting chemicals mess with our endocrine physiology by interfering with the creation of hormones, metabolism, and cellular actions.

Did you know that endocrine-disrupting chemicals are in legumes, soy, and other plant-based products? Still, the primary source of these substances is industrial processes. We can find EDCs in the air, soil, and water.

Endocrine-disrupting chemicals can cross the placenta. Here are some of the medical conditions that may be related to in-utero phthalate exposure:

• type-2 diabetes
• cancer
• male reproductive disorders

However, we do not have definitive evidence that endocrine-disrupting chemicals are the culprits for these conditions in humans.

Phthalates in the population

As noted above, phthalates can cross the placenta to affect a fetus. The toxins can also enter our bodies via sites such as personal care products, clothing, or toys.

To better understand the volume of phthalates that have entered people’s bodies, scientists have measured phthalate metabolites in the urine of individuals in the United States. The researchers measured 13 phthalate metabolites in the urine of over 2,600 individuals.

Here are the findings of this historical study, published in 2010 by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC):

• Phthalate exposure appears widespread in the population.
• Adult women have higher levels of many phthalate metabolites (compared with men), given that soaps, body washes, shampoos, cosmetics, and other personal care products can contain phthalates.
• Non-Hispanic Blacks have higher levels of phthalate exposure compared with non-Hispanic whites.

The finding of phthalate metabolites does not necessarily translate to ill health effects.

Phthalates — A new study

New York University researchers recently evaluated 5,000 adults ages 55 to 64 years. Publishing in the journal Environmental Pollution, they report this disturbing finding:

Phthalate exposure is associated with early death. Those with higher urinary levels of phthalates appeared more likely to die of heart disease. No association with cancer death emerged.

Extrapolating to those ages 55 to 64 years, the study authors identified more than 90,000 phthalate-attributable deaths per year in the USA.

However, higher concentrations did not increase the risk of death from cancer.

Study lead author Leonardo Trasande explains that “until now, we have understood that the chemicals connect to heart disease, and heart disease in turn is a leading cause of death, but we had not yet tied the chemicals themselves to death.”

Phthalates — My take

The New York University phthalate does not establish a causal relationship between phthalate exposure, cardiac disease, and early mortality. In addition, we do not fully understand the biological mechanisms that may underlie the phthalate/early death relationship.

Other studies suggest that phthalate exposure is associated with over 10,000 deaths per year (given an association with low testosterone in males) in the United States.

Phthalate exposure may be undermining our health and well-being. Exposure to endocrine-disrupting agents can occur in many ways, including through inhalation of gases and particles in the air, skin contact, ingestion of dust, food, and water, across the placenta, or from mother’s milk.

I am reducing my use of plastics in food preparation and storage. No more bringing grapes to work in plastic bags — welcome the stainless steel Japanese-style lunch box (bento box). We may also reduce our phthalate exposure through the use of filtered water.

Finally, do we all need many fragrance-containing cosmetics, detergents, or soaps? We may drop our phthalate exposure by going fragrance-free. The study authors call for regulatory intervention.

In 2017, the US Consumer Product Safety Commission banned the use of eight ortho-phthalates in children’s toys and child-care articles. But for vinyl plastics and personal care products, there’s no specific legislation by other governmental agencies:

Why phthalates should be restricted or banned from consumer productsMarch 10, 2021 – In this Big 3 Q&A, Russ Hauser, Frederick Lee Hisaw Professor of Reproductive Physiology, and…www.hsph.harvard.edu

Read about the approach for the European Union here. Thank you for joining me.

The post Are You Exposing Yourself to This Potentially Lethal Chemical? appeared first on Medika Life.

Now you have brought your ideas and expertise to Finn Partners to focus your energies on communications for the environment, health, energy, and sustainability. Servant to the nation, advisor to major corporations, teacher and public advocate. Let’s talk about the environment and health. I think the two topics are inseparable.

Bashe: Our world has been struggling with one of the greatest public health crises of our generation. I sense that this period has sensitized us to something even bigger — a threat to our planet. COVID-19 was in our face. Its immediacy was palpable. Yet, I wonder if you agree that climate change and environmental degradation are far greater danger to our way of life. What do you think — is environmental health the great public health uniter?

Martineau: Gil, that is a great question and one I’ve thought about a lot during the last 16 months as we’ve dealt with the pandemic. How can we take the incredible focus and attention we’ve given to COVID 19 and translate it to meeting the climate challenge together? The impacts of COVID were real and immediate — we all know people who lost their lives or became very sick. Climate and environmental degradation pose a greater danger, but the adverse impacts are more incremental and harder to see. We live in a snapchat world of 30 second messaging. It’s hard to have that same sense of urgency when the degradation and impacts are more incremental and long term. But communicating the seriousness of the issue from a public health perspective could be the great uniter.

Bashe: I’ve often said that communication is part of the care. But, during COVID-19, I felt it was part of the problem — the pandemic of poor communications. Are communicators doing enough to rally corporate leaders — policy officials — to recognize that there is no going back when it comes to environmental health?

Martineau: Effective communication can certainly make a huge impact. During COVID, too much of the messaging was to and from corporate leaders and policy officials — urging companies to send everyone home, suspend large group gatherings, convincing people to take protective measures and get the vaccine when it became available. 

Successful communication must be three-part process:

1. Create an effective message

2. Make sure people are willing to listen

3. Make sure those who are listening are willing to respond.

As we saw with the pandemic, some public officials and other leaders who refused to accept good science, made the issue political and created their own set of “facts” because they did not trust the messenger. A significant percentage of the population still believes that the pandemic response was a political tool to control behavior, not a public health initiative. We need to find different ways to communicate with people the importance of critical public health issues and depoliticize them. We need to find better messengers — be they ministers in the pulpit, trusted sports heroes or a favorite music legend.

Bashe: Just like science moved mountains to shift molecules from lab benches into jabs in people’s arms, people may expect miracles to tackle our environmental challenges. How can law makers create policies to get us in the right direction — to accelerate innovation?

Martineau: We must create urgency.

Most human beings and government institutions are risk avoiders — we fear the unknown and stick with what we know. So, we need to create that sense of urgency in order to accelerate innovation. A few examples: offer tax breaks for innovative solutions to those things adversely impacting public health; incubate startup companies working on new solutions to old problems; and enlist research labs in our universities to stimulate innovation.

We have to communicate how climate change can interfere with our daily lives. We saw such an incredible response to COVID for two main reasons:

1. It changed our way of life overnight — travel shut down, restaurants closed, our personal and work life turned upside down

2. We saw people dying in large numbers every day. The impacts were real and immediate. Other public health issues are more incremental on both fronts. The changes to how we live will be more incremental and the loss of life or other health impacts more incremental.

Bashe: Some suggest that we have a ticking clock — a ticking that grows louder and louder — on the count-down to environmental danger where things will spiral out of control. How do voices of influence within the health ecosystem join others to ensure companies make sustainability both a requirement and a business builder?

Martineau: I agree the clock is ticking and growing louder because in the past few years, at least in the US, we detoured from addressing environmental and public health issues. But we can get where we need to be before we spiral out of control. Prominent voices in the health ecosystem can be a major force for change. The health sector can influence both the public and private sector behavior.

Leaders in health care world must raise their voices and support measures to mitigate the dangers. The health care industry has enormous power it can bring to bear in shaping forward thinking in the political arena.

The health care sector has enormous economic leverage it can use to shape private sector behavior towards more sustainable business models. ESG (Environment, Social, and Governance) principles are all about risk management. The health sector can embrace ESG itself and it can demand it from its supplier partners. Not only is it the right thing to do, but it also makes good business sense. An increasing body of data shows that corporations that do well on ESG measures are doing better financially. Companies with good performance on ESG issues also have higher employee engagement. Younger employees want to work for socially responsible companies. Customers also can and should expect it from their vendors.

Bashe: How can people responsible for public health and wellness communicate the implications of what we face without scaring the life out of people or having them tune out? What are the paths to getting people to understand communities can affect change?

Martineau: Again, COVID-19 has given us a reality check that these issues are real, but solvable. We cannot just scare people or say our whole lifestyle must change. Instead, we should identify solutions that seem doable and will not completely turn our lifestyle on its head. We can address the carbon impacts of transportation without making everyone ride their bike to work. Innovation will make solutions appear feasible and spur adaption. A decade ago, who would have imagined General Motors pledging to make only electric vehicles by 2035. And yet, here we are.

Bashe: Doctors lost the ears of our nation when it comes to COVID-19. Who are the voices of influence when it comes to the environment? Who do you listen to closely to inform your opinions?

Martineau: Doctors may have lost about 40% of the nation on the issue, but many of us took it very seriously. And a lot of that 40% was due to politics, not science. In the environmental world, there are several sources for information. The EPA is once again relying on data and science to shape policy. NGOs like the Natural Resources Defense Council take a pragmatic approach to environmental regulatory programs and collaborate with industry and government policy makers. I have great respect for Gina McCarthy, now the White House lead on climate. I got to work with her on a wide variety of issues when she was EPA Administrator. She is willing to listen and is smart, savvy, passionate and pragmatic. More and more businesses are becoming proactive on environment and sustainability issues and taking the long view of what is good for business.

Bashe: The socially conscious investor is screening for sustainability according to Environmental, Social, and Corporate Governance (ESG) criteria. Health companies rely on communications to help them report ESG compliance. What is meaningful reporting for health enterprises such as hospital and pharmaceutical companies?

Martineau: Health care companies have a special role in ESG reporting, especially the “E.” As an industry whose very purpose is to protect public health and promote wellness, health companies must analyze their ESG performance. We used to think that the manufacturing, chemical, and utility sectors were the only ones with environmental issues. Yet hospitals operate 24/7/365 and use substantial electricity and water. Moving to energy efficient lighting, HVAC systems and equipment can help reduce carbon impact. Water saving measures can reduce water usage. The handling of medical waste can be an important metric.

Today’s ESG metrics will also look at supply network performance. Health care companies need to analyze their supplier network just like the auto industry does. Companies need to establish their baseline, determine where they need to be, set goals, and demonstrate progress with verifiable information. First and foremost, the ESG commitment must be central to the business culture. It cannot be a “check the box” item. It must be real to have impact.

Bashe: We can expect Environmental, Social, and Corporate Governance to move from the corporate to non-profit/public spheres. We tend to look at growth and profit as the measure of business success. With our world in the balance, do you think we need an environmental impact ranking and health metrics?

Martineau: Environmental impact and health metrics are emerging. Some of the metrics being used in ESG reporting go to environmental impact, less so to health metrics. Beyond the direct operations of a business, be it a hospital or manufacturing plant, how do you fully assess the full environmental impacts of a business? From the operations of the supplier to the transportation used to get the supplies to you and your product to your customer, to the waste generated after the use of your product, it’s complicated. We must uncomplicate it. Relative to health metrics, you can look at everything from the health impacts of the products you produce to whether you provide health benefits to your employees. The challenge is to come up with a uniform set of metrics to enable fair comparisons. Many companies are asking for just that and all must find their path to improve.

Health is both an industry and a collective mindset.

The clock is ticking on creating a healthy, sustainable planet. This conversation with environmental affairs expert Bob Martineau frames the urgency and possibilities going forward. Health is both an industry and a collective mindset. While we work to invent new life-saving molecules against disease, we must dedicate ourselves to invention — new policies and technologies — that lead to the health of our planet. This interview can begin to frame our thinking.

The post Bob Martineau on How Our Planet’s Wellness Impacts Our Own appeared first on Medika Life.

A friend of mine also read the article, he is an OBGYN and his response bothered me. “Yes, we know about this, I just have no idea if we can fix it.”

So is it fixable? The research I referenced above was only looking for very specific contaminants, namely PFA’s. There are more, quite a lot more, as it turns out and I’m not even going to go down the route of listing these additional environmental toxins and I’ll explain why.

It’s pointless. As hard as it to acknowledge this fact, it’s the truth. While legislation lags about twenty years behind the industries that poison us, even if we were to pass a blanket ban today on everything we know to be harmful, contamination of our environment and us is complete and absolute. 

It would take two or three generations, perhaps longer, to cleanse ourselves and the planet of the poisons we have been spreading and consuming for decades.

That’s assuming a complete and immediate cessation of all manufacturing of plastics etc and harmful chemicals, pesticides, veterinary antibiotics (fed to our food), and a host of other materials. Never happening, so discussing it is moot. We need to accept the situation and deal with it. 

So do I breastfeed?

Yes is the answer to the question asked by moms either breastfeeding now or considering it. Breastfeed, please. I’ll explain why and the answers, which may appear simplistic on the surface are based on common sense and risk management. 

1. The Immunity Issue

This is a biggie and for a good reason. Your newborn is delivered into a world it’s completely unprepared for. The baby’s immune system is not functioning yet and it will take months and years to mature into a properly functioning system. Your milk contains your baby’s first-ever “vaccination”, courtesy of nature.

While it adapts, your bundle of joy is going to need a little help from mom. You can provide this via your breast milk, particularly for the first few days after birth, even if you decide later to switch to formula. Your initial supply of milk is loaded with extra colostrum, a sticky substance that is loaded with your antibodies and sIgA. Nature knows it needs to help the newborn and colostrum is how it achieves that. 

Colostrum is also called beestings or first milk and to understand just how magical it is, refer to this article. Please also read the note in the footer of this article on colostrum supplements.

By sharing your immunity with your baby you’re providing an invisible shield that will help the child ward off diseases and other nasties floating about. You’re providing your child’s throat and nasal passages extra protection and helping to populate the child’s gut biome. Your colostrum gives the baby’s own immune system a helping hand, in effect kick starting it with a helpful supply of data. 

Incidentally, natural birth also boosts a child’s immunity as they are exposed to a whole host of bacteria on their trip out the womb that stimulate their immune systems. Babies born by Caesarian Section (CS) lack this added boost, so the argument for breastfeeding CS babies is possibly even stronger.

2. Breast milk versus formula

Yes I know there are some fantastic products out there and for mothers that cannot breastfeed, out of choice, or because of issues like lactose intolerant infants or supply issues, these are a godsend. 

They aren’t however breast milk. It’s very rare to see an obese baby if it’s breastfed. Formula babies tend to pack on the pounds and regulating the baby’s weight is an important part of forming a healthy adult. Many parents don’t. A lot of this has to do with supply and demand. It’s hard work breastfeeding for a little mouth, whereas with a teat-and-bottle, supply often exceeds demand.

Also, formulas cannot provide antibodies. That’s a job for breast milk and only breast milk. Depending on where you live and the quality controls put in place by regulators, you also have to rely on manufacturers ensuring their products don’t contain anything that impacts your child’s health, both now and in later life. Breastmilk doesn’t suffer from this issue.

3. Futility

Yes, there’s that reason again and this is why it is futile. Whatever toxins your breast milk contains I can assure you that the benefits of your milk To the child far outweigh the risks it carries. 

There are risks. Anyone who says otherwise is lying to you. We know they exist, but if science is honest about it, it’s just not a field anyone is interested in. Short-sighted? Yes, horribly so, and sadly unlikely to change in the near future. 

Many of our adult diseases may and probably do stem from childhood exposure to environmental toxins. There is money to be made in treating the sick adult, while very little profit exists in keeping the child healthy. 

Another reason linked to futility is this. If you don’t poison your child with your breast milk, you’re sure to get him as soon as he starts eating. 

The plastic bottles and teats used for their formula contain contaminants, the utensils and pans you cook with are loaded with plasticizers that leech into everything. The food you buy is contaminated and even produce marked as organic is tainted. There is no escaping this, which is why your breast milk really matters to your child.

You want to give them the best start you can in life. A real fighting chance to equip them for what lies ahead and the best way you can do this is with your breastmilk Breast really is best.

Don’t Stress it

If you want your milk to dry up or for supply to become erratic, try stressing. You’ve got more than enough to worry about over the next few months as the baby grows and breastfeeding honestly shouldn’t be on this list. Yes, you may be imparting toxins and chemicals to your baby via your breastmilk, but the baby will be exposed to these in their very near future in any case. 

As we’ve pointed out, unless you’re going to move in with Heidi in some remote hut in the Alps, drinking from underground streams, and churning yak milk for cheese, you’re going to be contaminated with these pollutants.

By offering your child your breastmilk you’re actually enabling an incredibly adaptable little system with the best possible chance it may have to combat these pollutants later in life. So hand out that free shield mom, you’ve been given the amazing ability for a reason. Don’t ever doubt it.

Colostrum Supplements

Medika Life isn’t here to sell you anything, our only concern is your health and your ability to make informed choices about it. Colostrum supplements are a huge waste of money. There is no real documented science to suggest drinking cow-derived (bovine) colostrum later in life is of any real and lasting benefit. In fact, it may even be harmful. You’re consuming antibody proteins derived from a non-human source.

Questions exist as to your body’s ability to be able to actually absorb these ingredients at all and if you manage that, what the outcomes will be. Colostrum supplements are also very pricey, so not only are you wasting your money, you may be exposing your health to indeterminate risks. Every other mammal on the planet enjoys a limited supply of colostrum at the point in their lives when they need it, and never again.

Once this time has passed, your body arguably may not tolerate or absorb the ingredient or may in fact perceive the foreign proteins as a threat. We are not, after all, cows. Please don’t bother replying to this with links to colostrum research, we’ve seen it and none of it proves anything.

The post Is it Safe to Breastfeed my Baby? Breastmilk and Environmental Toxins appeared first on Medika Life.

Lung cancer is the leading cause of death from cancer worldwide in men and the second leading cause in women. Worldwide, lung cancer occurred in 2.1 million patients in 2018 and caused an estimated 1.8 million deaths.

Sometimes lung cancer arises in the setting of no apparent cause. In uncommon cases, inherited genetics may play a role. While there is no way to reduce one’s lung cancer chances to zero, there are ways we can drop the risk of developing cancer in general (and lung cancer in particular).

We know the significant role tobacco can play in cancer. So the first pro tip is one you already know: Avoid tobacco. But avoiding cigarettes aside, what are practical ways we can lower the probability of getting lung cancer?

Physical activity offers innumerable health benefits. But did you know that exercise may reduce your risk of getting lung cancer? You may be surprised to learn that the answer is yes. A City of Hope (California, USA) study showed that physical activity could reduce the risk of developing lung cancer by nearly a third for women and up to half for men.

The workplace can be a place with chemicals that increase your likelihood of getting lung cancer. Such carcinogens include asbestos. For example, because construction in the past has often used asbestos, construction workers can be at a higher risk of lung cancer.

Those who worked in shipbuilding and insulation can be at exceptionally high risk. Make sure that you have appropriate protective gear if you work in an environment of risk. Even family members can experience an increased risk, as the asbestos fibers could be carried home on a worker’s clothing.

Fortunately, asbestos use is on the decline in the USA. Still, the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) estimates that over a million American employees in construction and general industries face significant asbestos exposure on the job.

House ventilation. What, you might ask? We turn to the naturally occurring radioactive gas, radon. Occurring naturally in the earth’s crust, it can be in our homes, with upwards of 10 percent of lung cancer cases secondary to radon exposure. Basements and lower levels of buildings in specific geographic regions can be particularly problematic.

Go here to get advice on checking levels in your home: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) offers advice on checking radon levels at home. While we are on the topic of environmental toxins, air pollution comes to mind.

In a 2018 study, three separate meta-analyses have shown a link between greater air pollution and a significant increase in lung cancer risk. Association is not causality, but moving to a less polluted area may reduce one’s risk of developing lung cancer.

I want to end by reminding you of some early symptoms of lung cancer. The most common symptoms include a new cough of two to three weeks’ duration, a chronic cough that worsens over time, a recurrent chest infection, and shortness of breath.

If you have any of these symptoms, it does not necessarily mean they have lung cancer, but they should seek medical attention immediately. Finally, if you have a history of smoking, ask your care provider if you are a candidate for lung cancer screening with a low-dose CT scan.

Thank you for joining me today.

The post Lung Cancer: It’s Not Just Cigarettes. appeared first on Medika Life.