FAT CHEMICAL: A chemical found in fatty foods could be sentencing people to metabolic problems such as obesity and fatigue.
Image: ISTOCKPHOTO/FOTOSMURF03
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
Researchers have for the first time found a connection between exposure to certain chemicals and insulin resistance, according to a study published in the online edition of Environmental Health Perspectives.
A group of European scientists examined whether exposure to persistent organic pollutants (POPs) contributed to insulin resistance, which has been increasing around the world. More than 25 percent of U.S. adults suffer from metabolic conditions stemming from insulin resistance that include fatigue, obesity and difficulty regulating blood levels of fat and sugar.
Researchers fed rats a high-fat diet of either crude or refined fish oil from farmed Atlantic salmon over 28 days. The crude fish oil contained average levels of POPs that people are exposed to through fish consumption, while the refined oil contained none. Both had equal fat levels.
They found that rats exposed to the crude fish oil developed belly fat and could not regulate fat properly. They had higher levels of cholesterol and several fatty acids in their livers. Those exposed to the refined fish oil experienced none of those symptoms.
Researchers said the findings provide "compelling evidence" of a causal relationship between POP exposure common in the food chain and insulin resistance, and highlight the need to understand the interactions of POPs and fat-containing foods such as fish, dairy products and meat.
How to deal with POPs is particularly challenging because they persist in the environment for long periods and can build up in animals' tissues.
The 2001 Stockholm Convention, which the United States has ratified but not signed, lists and bans numerous POPs from manufacture and use. The researchers say their evidence reinforces the need to have international agreements aimed at limiting the release of POPs into the environment in an effort to protect public health.
Reprinted from Greenwire with permission from Environment & Energy Publishing, LLC. www.eenews.net, 202-628-6500
See what we're tweeting about
8 Comments
Add CommentGood luck on getting rid of, or regulating of, those deadly chemicles. If there is the possibility of loosing one job...you'll have a war to fight. The world is grossly over populated and I think they are using those chemicles to lower the population.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI just love conspiracy theorists! In the course of human progress we have, no doubt, polluted the earth, and as Rachel Carson observed so eloquently, we are seeing the cumulative effects of said pollution in our food supply. As industry steps up to reduce pollution in production and transportation, and as governments protect individuals' and business' ability to make positive changes, we will (eventually) see a decline in adverse effects.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI applaud this research because it is plain to me that rising obesity and diabetes mellitus rates are not the simple mathematical result of eating more and moving less, although logically I believe those factors certainly contribute. There are several undefined factors which might be controllable if they are known- the key being *if they are known*.
I love science precisely because it is the seeking of knowledge, regardless of and beyond our concepts and beliefs. If we are emotionally fenced in by our beliefs and refuse to take into account new information, we are the worst hypocrites.
Ach. Too much mess per person, x too many people. Again. Where's my Human Sterilization Virus team? Get crackin.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCleaning up pollution is something everyone seems to agree upon.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI keep doing more to clean up our enviroment. I'm always looking for another small way to make a positive change. It's not a easy as I thought it would be, but it's not taxing us.
Not just too many people... too many people who will do nothing to help and/or add to the problem!
What profit is to be made in cleaning up the chemicals? None.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo there will be no concerted effort to actually remove the existing chemicals from the environment.
The only likely profit is if the same products can be made without having to add the chemicals in the first place, thereby eliminating one or more ingredients and reducing production costs.
However, if these chemicals MUST be used in the process, there will be no reduction of the chemicals, as it will not be profitable to do so.
As pointed out before, if it means the loss of one job or, more importantly, one dollar of profit, it will not be acted upon.
Humans reproduce. Humans die. There will always be replacement consumers. However, as more profit on the quarterly report is more important than 'not quite as much profit', there is no care as to whether the humans buying those products are healthy or not... they're an expendible resource due to their prolific reproduction.
no, the world is NOT grossly overpopulated...the problem is OVERCONSUMPTION by the "west"...http://www.alternet.org/environment/136449/consumption,_not_population_is_our_main_environmental_threat/
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's horrible~~But there is something we can do.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow about stopping the use of herbicide for cosmetic purposes? No herbicides on driveways, garden edges, curb edges and all the other destructive and totally unnecessary herbicide use. Plants repair the environment. No-one ever cleared weeds and found they had poisoned the earth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this