American herbal supplements consumers may be interested to know that the American Herbal Products Association (AHPA) has issued new standards guidelines. The guidelines relate to contamination by microbiological and mycotoxin agents and heavy metals.
A full copy of the updated guidelines is available on the AHPA Web site . It’s original guidance on Heavy Metals was adopted October 2008 while its original guidance on Microbiology and Mycotoxins was adopted in June 2003.
The AHPA includes domestic and foreign companies doing business as growers, processors, manufacturers and marketers of herbs and herbal products. These include foods, dietary supplements, cosmetics and non prescription drugs.
According to a statement from the AHPA: “The approval of guidance policies by the Board suggests that adherence to these guidelines will support responsible trade in herbal products and is in the best interest of consumers. Therefore, AHPA highly recommends members and industry follow the association’s guidelines in addition to its trade requirements.”
Typical of industry based bodies the guidelines appear to reflect reality, not perfection. As neither membership of the association nor adherence to the guidelines is mandatory it would be good if labeling were to be introduced to signify standards compliance.
Tags: herbal supplements, herbs, supplements
The December 2009 edition of The Health Gazette Ezine will be published on schedule, December 1st. This month’s feature article is titled “Meat: Not a Health Food.” Some of the risks associated with eating meat long term as part of a regular diet are updated and newer research finding linking red and processed meats to diabetes type-2 are introduced.
If developing conditions including obesity, various cancers, vascular degeneration (including heart attacks and strokes), diabetes and osteoporosis is something you want to avoid then you really need to examine your consumption of meat. The author does not advocate vegetarianism but does clearly recommend a different approach to meat than the typical western diet.
The December edition will be available in the subscriber’s archive in a few hours time.
Tags: Health Gazette Ezine, meat
High levels of workplace exposure to Bisphenol-A may increase the risk of reduced sexual function in men, according to a Kaiser Permanente study appearing in the journal Human Reproduction, published by Oxford Journals.
The five-year study examined 634 workers in factories in China, comparing workers in BPA manufacturing facilities with a control group of workers in factories where no BPA was present. The study found that the workers in the BPA facilities had quadruple the risk of erectile dysfunction, and seven times more risk of ejaculation difficulty.
This is the first research study to look at the effect of BPA on the male reproductive system in humans. Previous animal studies have shown that BPA has a detrimental effect on male reproductive system in mice and rats.
Funded by the U.S. National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, this study adds to the body of evidence questioning the safety of BPA, a chemical made in the production of polycarbonated plastics and epoxy resins found in baby bottles, plastic containers, the lining of cans used for food and beverages, and in dental sealants.
The BPA levels experienced by the exposed factory workers in the study were 50 times higher than what the average American male faces in the United States, the researchers said.
“Because the BPA levels in this study were very high, more research needs to be done to see how low a level of BPA exposure may have effects on our reproductive system,” said the study’s lead author. De-Kun Li, MD, Ph.D., a reproductive and perinatal epidemiologist at Kaiser Permanente’s Division of Research in Oakland, Calif. “This study raises the question: Is there a safe level for BPA exposure, and what is that level? More studies like this, which examine the effect of BPA on humans, are critically needed to help establish prevention strategies and regulatory policies.”
The researchers explained that BPA is believed by some to be a highly suspect human endocrine disrupter, likely affecting both male and female reproductive systems. This first epidemiological study of BPA effects on the male reproductive system provides evidence that has been lacking as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and various U.S. government panels have explored this controversial topic.
This study is the first of series of studies that examine the BPA effect in humans and are to be published by Dr. Li and his colleagues.
The study finding, Dr. Li also points out, may have implications of adverse BPA effects beyond male sexual dysfunction. Male sexual dysfunction could be a more sensitive early indicator for adverse BPA effects than other disease endpoints that are more difficult to study, such as cancer or metabolic diseases.
For this study, researchers compared 230 workers exposed to high levels of BPA in their jobs as packagers, technical supervisors, laboratory technicians and maintenance workers in one BPA manufacturing facility and three facilities using BPA to manufacture epoxy resin, in several regions near Shanghai, to a control group of 404 workers in the same city from factories where no BPA exposure in the workplace was recorded. The factories with no BPA exposure produced construction materials, water supplies, machinery, garments, textiles, and electronics. The workers from the two groups were matched by age, education, gender, and employment history.
Researchers gauged BPA levels by conducting spot air sampling, personal air sample monitoring and walk-through evaluations, by reviewing factory records and interviewing factory leaders and workers about personal hygiene habits, use of protective equipment, and exposures to other chemicals. A subset of workers also provided urine samples for assaying urine BPA level to confirm the higher BPA exposure level among the workers with occupational BPA exposure.
Researchers measured sexual function based on in-person interviews using a standard male sexual function inventory that measures four categories of male sexual function including erectile function, ejaculation capability, sexual desire, and overall satisfaction with sex life.
After adjusting for age, education, marital status, current smoking status, a history of chronic diseases and exposure to other chemicals, and employment history, the researchers found the BPA-exposed workers had a significantly higher risk of sexual dysfunction compared to the unexposed workers.
The BPA-exposed workers had a nearly four-fold increased risk of reduced sexual desire and overall satisfaction with their sex life, greater than four-fold increased risk of erection difficulty, and more than seven-fold increased risk of ejaculation difficulty.
A dose-response relationship was observed with an increasing level of cumulative BPA exposure associated with a higher risk of sexual dysfunction. Furthermore, compared to the unexposed workers, BPA-exposed workers reported significantly higher frequencies of reduced sexual function within one year of employment in the BPA-exposed factories.
Source: Kaiser Permanente
So, it begins. Expect a gradual accumulation of evidence supporting the recommendation made by naturopathic practitioners a very long time ago. Avoid all the toxins you possibly can and cleanse internally as effectively as you can.
Tags: bisphenol A, BPA
A study published in The Lancet in September 2007 concluded that cocktails of six artificial food colours – Allura Red (E128), Ponceau 4R (E124), Quinoline Yellow (E104), Sunset Yellow (E110), Tartrazine (E102), and Azorubine/Carmoisine (E122) – and sodium benzoate were linked to hyperactivity in children. These are the so-called Southampton colours. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has lowered the acceptable daily intake (ADI) for three of these food colours. As it happens, none of the scientific reasons given are associated with hyperactivity.
After its initial review of the study, the EFSA issued an opinion that this study gave no grounds for changing the ADI of any of the colours. This was largely based on the opinion that the methodology made it impossible to attribute the observed effect to any of the chemicals in particular.
Following a further requested review the additives panel again found no reason to lower the ADI of any of the colours based on the Southampton study and other studies on the colours independently.
However the review did find some evidence that warranted lowering the ADIs for Ponceau 4R, Quinoline Yellow and Sunset Yellow on different grounds.
For Quinoline Yellow, the ADI has been lowered from 0-10mg per kg of bodyweight a day (mg/kg bw/day) to 0.5 mg/kg bw/day. This was because it uncovered a rat study on the long-term effects on reproduction and development of pups that was not taken into account for the original level.
For Ponceau 4R, the ADI has been lowered from 0-4 mg/kg bw/day to 0.7 mg/kg bw/day. This is based on a 1974 mouse study which saw a connection with non-inflammatory kidney disease.
For Sunset Yellow, the ADI has been lowered from 0-2.25 mg/kg bw/day to 1.0 mg/kg bw/day, based on evidence for an effect on the testes of rats. This is a temporary new ADI for a two-year period, however, since the studies of concern did not look at testes histopathology, sperm morphology or mobility.
The new ADIs were determined based on the toxicity levels observed in the animal studies, with a wide safety margin built in for humans. Although in relation to the other three Southampton colours the review did show up some evidence on intolerance reactions, such as skin irritations in a small part of the population, these effects were not considered grave enough to change intake advice.
Notwithstanding the repeated conclusion that the Southampton colours are not linked to hyperactivity, the use of warning labels about a hyperactivity link for products containing any of the Southampton colours will be mandatory from July 2010. The European Parliament decided to include this label in the new additives regulation despite EFSA’s opinion on the Southampton study.
Of course the safest level of these colour additives is zero. While regulators and industry influenced review panels determine that the colours may be safely added to foods, intelligent consumers will vote for family health with their wallets and purses. The sad reality is that not everywhere enjoys effective labelling laws or effective safety monitoring and not all consumers are equipped to make informed selections.
At least some progress is being made in Europe. That’s something.
Tags: food colouring, hyperactivity, Ponceau 4R (E124), Quinoline Yellow (E104), Sunset Yellow (E110)
Bisphenol A (BPA), a chemical used in the lining of food packaging that contaminates a wide range of manufactured food products, has been linked to several serious health risks. A brief study based on limited sampling by the Consumers Union (CU) has found significant levels of BPA in a wide variety of canned food. The levels in some instances could approach those known to cause harm in animal studies. What is interesting is that levels were detected in products labelled “BPA Free”.
A full list of products tested and levels detected is available here.
The CU acknowledged that the study was limited, stating the tests “convey a snapshot of the marketplace and do not provide a general conclusion about the levels of BPA in any particular brand or type of product tested.”
The BPA levels detected in canned foods ranged from 0.3 parts per billion (ppb) to 191ppb. The highest level was detected in canned Del Monte Fresh Cut Green Beans Blue Lake but its levels ranged to a low of 35.9 ppb. Progresso Vegetable Soup BPA levels ranged from 67 to 134 ppb, while Campbell’s Condensed Chicken Noodle Soup had BPA levels ranging from 54.5 to 102 ppb.
It is troubling to note that some products one might expect to have no BPA food contamination actually did contain BPA. For example, “Vital Choice’s tuna in ‘BPA-free’ cans were found to contain an average of 20 ppb of BPA and those of Eden Baked Beans in “BPA-free” cans averaged 1 ppb BPA.”
A letter from the CU to the FDA pointed out that, based on average levels detected, one serving of the Del Monte green beans sample or Progresso soup sample could “easily lead a consumer to exceed the FDA Culmulative Exposure Daily Intake (CEDI) level of 0.185µ/kg-bw/day” (that’s zero point 185 micrograms per kilograms of body weight per day – the assumed daily consumption of most people by the FDA). Of more concern, it added, was that one serving of the highest level could expose a small child of 22lbs to a “level that nears or exceeds those that have been shown to cause harm in animal studies published in scientific literature (2.4µ/kg-bw/day).”
BPA is commonly encountered in canned foods since it is used in the epoxy placed on the cans’ linings. However BPA is also used in the manufacture of polycarbonate used for food containers, including such things as babies bottles. Even if you never eat canned foods you could still become exposed to BPA. Indeed, studies by the CDC found bisphenol A in the urine of 95% of adults sampled in 1988–1994 (Calafat AM, Kuklenyik Z, Reidy JA, Caudill SP, Ekong J, Needham LL (2005). “Urinary concentrations of bisphenol A and 4-nonylphenol in a human reference population”. Environ. Health Perspect. 113 (4): 391–5. PMID 15811827).
Health Canada announced in 2008 that the sale, import and advertising of the chemical in baby products would be banned. That is a good start for Canada but it fails to go far enough.
Bisphenol A is an endocrine disruptor, which can mimic the body’s own hormones. Earlier this year the Endocrine Society released a scientific statement expressing concern over current human exposure to BPA.
Various ill-effects from BPA have been identified in animal studies. Several studies have either linked the chemical to diseases or raised serious questions about probable links to pathologies in humans. These include obesity, breast cancer risk, neurological conditions, and thyroid function.
In spite of the growing human data and findings of cancer links in animal studies conservative authorities, known for being slow to admit a need to change their opinions (and regulations), still support the use of BPA. Food Standards Australia and New Zealand even goes so far as to boldly state: “Bisphenol A does not cause cancer.” (http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/newsroom/factsheets/factsheets2008/bisphenolabpaandfood3898.cfm).
The FDA is considering its opinion and is due to make an announcement by the end of this month. Chemical makers are watching the decision carefully since they have a lot at stake. Last year sales of bisphenol A topped $6 billion worldwide. Why is it that this figure alone reduces confidence that the FDA will actually put people’s health needs first in their thinking? Could it be the FDA’s track record perhaps? Their whole modus operandi?
The Journal Sentinel reviewed 258 studies on bisphenol A in 2007 and found that an overwhelming number of the tests conducted by independent scientists showed the chemical caused health problems in laboratory animals, including cancer, obesity, hyperactivity and diabetes. Studies paid for by the chemical industry, however, almost never found harm.
Is it any wonder that the North American Metal Packaging Alliance (NAMPA), the American Chemistry Council (ACC), as well as food giants such as Del Monte, Campbell and General Mills have all reaffirmed the safety of BPA and decried the findings of the CU study? They are merely following a recognisable script. What else could they say? Who in their right mind would give them any credibility? Judging by past performance, the FDA and other regulators might.
Some state authorities have grown weary of the FDA’s predictable behaviour. Attorneys general from New Jersey, Delaware and Connecticut sent letters to the makers of baby bottles and baby formula containers urging them to discontinue use of bisphenol A. “Unfortunately, the federal Food and Drug Administration has been asleep at the switch, in fact resistant to respecting the scientific evidence that grave harm can result in use of this product,” said Richard Blumenthal, Connecticut’s attorney general.
So take responsibility for yourself. Do what you can to avoid BPA consumption. Use glass containers rather than plastic or polycarbonate, eat fresh foods rather than canned. When it comes to feeding babies, breast feed if you possibly can and do not be put off lightly, it is by far the best way to go. And let us hope that regulators will have the intelligence, morality and courage to ban BPA completely from anything connected to the food chain.
Tags: bisphenol A, BPA, FDA, food contamination