Bisphenol-A (BPA) has already been linked to loads of problems, but now scientists ask, is it making our kids mean, too? The latest research links BPA exposure during early pregnancy with behavior changes in two-year-old girls and boys.
According to the study published in the October issue of Environmental Health Perspectives, the higher a mother’s BPA levels were during the first 16 weeks of pregnancy, the more likely kids were to exhibit the behavior changes. Girls were more aggressive and hyperactive than the norm while boys were more anxious and withdrawn.
The study also examined the effects of a mom’s exposure to lead and cigarettes, oddly enough neither one was linked to toddler behavior changes.
This is a chilling look at the questionable safety of nearly everything we store food in, drink from, wear, walk on, rest on and drive. Chemicals used to make everything from water-repellant jackets and flame retardants to unbreakable plastics used for food storage are building up in our bodies and the environment with possible far-reaching consequences, says journalist Baker. She focuses on endocrine disruptors that alter hormone levels, even in fetuses. Individual chapters consider the weed killer atrazine; phthalates found in many cosmetics; and perfluorooctanoic acid, used in nonstick and stain-repellant coatings. Lab studies have linked these chemicals to cancer, diabetes, obesity and attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, among other problems. Baker blasts both Democrats and Republicans in Congress for the toothless Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, which leaves testing and reporting results to the manufacturer. But the companies rely on skilled public relations firms to attack scientists who raise safety concerns. The current pro-business administration also takes some licks from Baker. Although she offers suggestions for reducing exposure to these chemicals, No place—and no one—is immune.
I’ll come back to the Mycotoxin issue soon. Instead, I’ll talk today about my serious worries about Climate Change.
People involved in world agriculture have no patience with the supposed “debate” about climate change. We are already seeing the effects, and the projections for the future are not encouraging. The most troubling feature of this phenomenon (and one that occurs even if you don’t believe that it is human-driven) is that we are facing increasing variation in climatic events. The yearly changes in average temperature or even annual rainfall may not be dramatic, but what we are anticipating is that there will be more extreme weather events. Climate averages are not what matters for crop production - Variation is. A few days of intense rain or heat at the wrong time can devastate a crop. A few weeks of drought can do the same. A single hail or frost event can make all the difference in what a farmer can harvest. We have always had those risks for farming and only long term data will demonstrate whether there has been an increasing trend as is predicted. For instance, It isn’t possible yet to say that the current, extended drought in Australia is caused by elevated greenhouse gasses, but some day we will know whether it was by looking back historically. Of course that will be too late. Our actions have to come now. The other huge threat from climate change is that water supplies will be more limiting in many areas that are irrigated today. Though that area is much smaller than rain-fed areas, it is very important to the food supply.
Some have predicted that “Global warming” and elevated CO2 will boost crop production in certain areas. There might be some occasions where higher temperatures will enhance some yields in normally cold areas, but if the warmth comes with other extreme weather events, the benefits will be diminished. It also turns out that plants can’t really take full advantage of high CO2 levels. Basically, there is no real “up-side” of climate change for farming.
Tired of the general confusion and hoping to provide both companies and consumers with a better understanding of “green” claims, the American Chemical Society’s Green Chemistry Institute has a plan. Working with representatives from the from the ACS, major chemical and pharmaceutical companies, trade groups, nonprofit environmental organizations, and academia, they hope “to build a comprehensive, multiattribute, consensus-based standard with third-party verification that a company can certify against to say its product is green or that its manufacturing process or [...]
Scientists have determined the chemicals that make the Central Valley a rich agricultural region are responsible for frog deaths and tadpole abnormalities in the Sierra Nevada Mountains.
Just when it seems things can’t get much worse for our cold-blooded friends, researchers have added pesticides to the growing list of causes (such as habitat loss and chytrid fungus) for the massive worldwide decline in amphibian populations.
An article in today’s Central Valley Business Times says that zoologist Don Sparling and his team are continuing to build up a body of evidence that shows neurotoxin pesticides are making their way out of the valley’s farms and into the snow and streams where the frogs live and breed - with catastrophic consequences.
I spent the first weekend away from my sons ever at BlogHer ’09 in Chicago. And my favorite session—hands down—was the Green Bloggers session. (Why yes, it was nice to meet the writers I adore!)
There, while we discussed good resources for product ingredient lists and standards, an audience member dropped what sounded like a bomb to all of us in the natural parenting, green cleaning and organic living world:
On January 1, 2010, all household products will have full ingredient lists on their labeling.
How did this amazing change in chem-laden products come about? Blame Thank Canada.
In the constant push for ever newer and greener technology and energy, we sometimes forget that it is often both simpler and cheaper to revisit old techniques in new ways. And that’s exactly what a group of researchers in California has done.
Editor’s note: The following post was originally published on Green and Clean Mom in August 2008, but the information on BPA is still relevant and important to consider. “Green & Clean Mom can inspire you to try a little harder, be a catalyst for change and to offer you some new tips and news on how to be the green, sexy and sassy mom…I know you are!”
Okay, war sound harsh but it’s a battle of sorts. Is BPA safe or isn’t it? Is it a myth that BPA is harmful and the media is fooling us because we don’t have the facts? Well, according to Mom Style News or Mom Myth Busters (same author), yes. If you follow me on twitter you might know, Friday there was a big twitter debate going on over this. The Good Human, Safe Mama, To Think and Nature Mom , twittered their opinion.
Here is it is folks, BPA might not kill you if your child drinks out of a sippy cup or has some canned food lined with BPA. Sure, I conceded to this. BPA is a chemical and the FDA and EPA has limits of safety so companies use this and then hide behind it, because they can. Companies that have gone with BPA free products have done so because of consumer demands. Why are consumers demanding this? Duh, because there are risks. Who’s most at risk? The fetus, infants and children are most at risk. Even the reports sited by Mom Style News don’t discount that, she just says they are minimal. Well, my son has a minimal risk of getting hit on our road when he crosses it because of the traffic statistics or what I observe. So I should let him just take that “minimal” risk. It’s just a possibility and not a fact! That’s how ridiculous this debate is! Here are the facts that have led ME to know that choosing BPA FREE is the right thing to do and since Mom Style News is all about the facts and going by what the facts are and not just reading mommy blogs (which I love, support, read and rely on) here it is…
The Nordic countries are the northernmost cultural community within the Europe.
