“There are a lot of compounds that give quite strong responses in a culture dish that really don’t produce any effects on lab rats,” said Foster, who is deputy director of the National Toxicology Program's Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction, which is part of the National Institutes of Health.
The major concern, Foster said, is what happens when people are exposed to mixtures of these estrogenic compounds.
“There are examples where you can take dose levels of compounds on their own that won’t produce an effect, but when you put these compounds together, you may get something different,” he said.
However, Foster said people should keep in mind that they already ingest significant numbers of fairly potent estrogens in their diets by consuming foods like tofu and milk, so findings like these shouldn’t necessarily scare people until more research has been conducted.
“It’s clear that humans are exposed to a mixture of these estrogenic compounds,” Foster said. “But you have to try to balance out what might already be present in your diet or your lifestyle with these things that might be coming from some other sources,” such as food additives.
Systems like the one used by the Italian researchers are useful for screening potentially estrogenic additives, Foster said, adding that it’s a “good first step” towards identifying these compounds.
Of the estimated 3,000 additives used in the United States to preserve foods or improve their taste and appearance, only about 2,000 have detailed toxicological information available, according to the FDA.
"Our results are part of a bigger, more important problem, which is that there could be other additives used in foods that could have estrogenic activity," Cozzini said.
Globally, the market for additives is expected to reach more than $33 billion by 2012. There are five main reasons that companies add compounds to food: to emulsify, to preserve, to add nutritional content, to add flavor or color and to balance alkalinity and acids.
"With some 3,000 compounds being used in food formulations there may be other additives with estrogenic properties that come to light with these types of studies," Hicks said.
Using the traditional animal testing system, “it would be impossible to test all of the additives in a short time,” Cozzini said. “Every day we discover new molecules, and we must continue to identify new ways to study them.”
Propyl gallate is considered “Generally Recognized As Safe” (GRAS) by the FDA, a title given to food additives that don’t require approval because they have a proven track record based on either a history of use before 1958 or on published scientific evidence. Examples of other GRAS substances include salt, sugar, spices and vitamins.
The other estrogenic one, 4-hexyl resorcinol, which is used on raw shelled seafood to inhibit melanosis, or black spots, was petitioned in 1990 for GRAS status. Its status is still pending, according to Michael Herndon, an FDA press officer.
The FDA’s lack of testing for estrogenic compounds doesn’t stop at additives. In 2008, an independent advisory board said the FDA ignored critical evidence concerning another estrogenic compound, bisphenol A, a plasticizing chemical found in polycarbonate baby bottles and the linings of metal foods cans.
“What we’ve seen with the FDA’s handling of BPA is that it’s had its head in the sand,” said Renee Sharp, director of the Environmental Working Group’s California office. “If you look at its assessments, what you see is that it has consistently ignored independent science and consistently used outdated methods in its assessments.”
Subscription Center
See what we're tweeting about
6 Comments
Add CommentBe an informed consumer and read the "F"ing label, there are worse things in prepared foods then endocrine disruptors and mimics.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPeople who consume large amounts of bottled water and soft drinks are doing the rest of us a favor by removing themselves from the breeding population.
If anyone's to blame in this potential mess, it's not the victims but the producers and politicians. As far as labels go, not even huge warnings of death and cancer have much effect on nicotine addicts. We're all "addicted" to food. In addition we all know the efforts made by producers and most politicians to stop such labels being used on their favourite profit generators. "Dangerous fats" will never appear on labels on dairy products. And booze has finally grudgingly permitted "Enjoy responsibly" in certain jurisdictions, instead of "addictive, destructive, can kill you". Booze kills.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPoliticians and producers should be labelled. With a big red K branded on their foreheads - K for Killer.
3000 additives? that's really crazy... and for what? improving collor...? I'd rather eat in black and white then dying of cancer.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt seems that there is nothing safe to be available for human health, this article reminds me about the toxic milk issue in China, which caused a great number of infants' and children's death. I think it is the time to restrict the additives or make thorough tests on these stuff that do not originally belong to foods.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Perhaps humans"?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow much is the average sperm count down in American men, again? I forgot the number but it is huge. Over 30% IIRC. And the age of menarche keeps going down too.
Just don't eat/drink any of that artificial stuff. If it comes from a factory (unless it's something traditional like a bakery) don't eat it.
Oh and don't forget soy - it has some of the most powerful phytoestrogens of all foods. Unless you're a grown woman you do *not* want that.
What a poorly researched article! I'd suggest looking at the DATA, rather than the hype. For instance, anyone can clearly see that the conclusions drawn by the authors of the PET study are illogical, if you look at their data.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis does not belong at Scientific American. It is a witch hunt, not science.