Wednesday, May 29, 2013
Source:
Nature.com

“Chemical” is not a dirty word. Nor is it a synonym for “poison” or “toxin.” Chemicals are the basic building blocks of all matter and classifying them as “safe” or “dangerous” is inappropriate. But of course there are safe or dangerous ways of using chemicals. In any case, chemicals are not to be feared or worshipped, they are to be understood. And perhaps the most important point to understand is that the presence of a chemical does not equate to the presence of a risk.
Thanks to our analytical capabilities, we can now routinely detect substances down to the part per trillion (ppt) level. That’s not finding a needle in a haystack; it’s finding a needle in a world full of haystacks. At that level, we can detect a myriad of chemicals should we choose to look for them! And by selectively referencing the scientific literature, the spectra of risk can be readily raised.

Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Source:
Forbes

Forbes interviewed Professor Richard Sharpe, a leading expert on male reproductive health, who is directing a research team at the UK’s Medical Research Council (MRC) Centre for Reproductive Health at the University of Edinburgh in Scotland. Sharpe argues that the controversy on BPA stems not in the in chemical posing a threat, but in the refusal of a small group of scientists to accept that their basic research, consisting of small studies with questionable methodologies and limited statistical power, could not be replicated by much larger studies using larger sample sizes and more sophisticated and careful methods.

Monday, February 18, 2013
Source:
American Chemistry MATTERS

Toxicologist Justin Teeguarden’s investigation of 150 studies on BPA, which included 30,000 people in 19 countries, including infants and children, concluded that concentrations of BPA in the blood were not high enough to result in “estrogenic” activity, as some other scientists claimed. When BPA is taken in orally, it is rapidly converted to a substance with no known biological activity as it is absorbed into the body, leaving very little BPA to enter the bloodstream. Professor Richard Sharpe of the Medical Research Council’s Centre for Reproductive Health in Edinburgh also cast doubt on studies linking BPA to obesity at the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) conference where Teeguarden presented his findings.

Friday, February 15, 2013
Source:
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

BPA in the blood of the general population is many times lower than blood levels that consistently cause toxicity in animals, according to a meta-analysis of almost 150 BPA exposure studies by toxicologist Justin Teeguarden of the Department of Energy's Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Wash. According to Teegauarden, people's exposure may be many times too low for BPA to effectively mimic estrogen in the human body. His analysis was presented at an annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Friday, February 15, 2013
Source:
The Wall Street Journal

The Wall Street Journal interviewed Justin Teeguarden on his meta-analysis of 150 studies about BPA. His analysis concluded that human exposure to an ingredient in many plastic bottles and food containers is too low to be worrisome. Teeguarden’s research was funded by the Environmental Protection Agency.

Wednesday, January 2, 2013
Source:
Nature.com

In the US, the number of chemicals routinely measured in people’s bodies has grown rapidly – our powerful analytical capabilities now allow us to identify over 1,000 individual chemicals in a single blood sample. Unfortunately, however, our analytical capabilities have outpaced our ability to interpret these data, according to Judy S. LaKind, Ph.D., President of LaKind Associates, LLC, Adjunct Associate Professor, Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Maryland School of Medicine and Adjunct Associate Professor, Department of Pediatrics, Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine.

Pages