Wise Up Journal
By Gabriel O’Hara
It’s worth finding out why the Canadian government has started banning the widely used chemical BPA in containers that hold products for human consumption. The scientific data highlighted in this report is one of the most significant pieces of evidence to explain what is causing the plummeting fertility and skyrocketing cancer rates worldwide along with other reproduction defects. Frederick Vom Saal, Professor of Biology at the University of Missouri Columbia, accommodated Fox News in performing tests on plastics, in particular food cans with plastic linings. The popular food products in cans tested were purchased at an average supermarket. The professor of biology tested for the chemical BPA (Bisphenol-A) to determine how much is leaked into foods or liquids from the unstable plastic lining on a microscopic level. Plastics manufactures add BPA to their products as it can create a glass like surface and are less prone to crack. The implications are significant as in the news broadcast professor Vom Saal explains that the chemical BPA is known as a synthetic female sex hormone mimicker and in “1936 was considered for use as an oestrogen drug”. It is an unstable chemical that leeches out at very low but powerful levels.
“We started testing it at levels tens of thousands of times below what any body has ever tested before and found it profoundly damaged the male reproductive system. We know it causes brain damage and it causes breast cancer and prostate cancer,” said Professor Vom Saal.
This test involved the purchase of different canned products right off supermarket shelves. The food was removed from the cans. The cans were rinsed with water until clean and left to dry. Then ultra pure filtered water was poured in to the cans. The test was to determine how stable can linings are with merely water being in contact with them for only 24 hours. Professor Vom Saal explained, “every single product here put out an amount of Bisphenol-A that would be in the danger zone. This is a chemical that can alter the way your cells function at below a trillionth of a gram. One million times lower than this.”
If one trillionth of a gram is dangerous and can alter your cells then it is easy to conclude that with a dose one million times higher we’d defiantly see high fertility drops and sperm DNA damage in exposed populations. One millionth of gram is expressed as a microgram. Cans of peas were scientifically tested at over 18 micrograms by the professor of biology. Cans of Tomato sauce were tested at over 30 micrograms. People who buy juice and tomato sauces are getting an even greater dose of the female sex hormone as citric acid causes larger leeching of Bisphenol-A.
This particular test was for 24 hours unlike the food products and drinks that sit on the shelves of grocery stores and stockrooms for months. Most people’s daily diet has levels of the female sex hormone many times higher. Even the inside of paper juice cartons are lined with plastic.
So where are the human population fertility and DNA damage statistics to backup the findings of these tests?
The Centre for Disease Control, a U.S government agency, performed tests on the public and concluded that “ 95% of Americans have detectable levels of Bisphenol-A in their urine” .
Of course an over supply of the female sex hormone oestrogen is not good for boys or the developing foetus. Last years Canada’s state run broadcaster the CBC reported that since the 1950’s there has been massive damage done to sperm in the general human population. The CBC stated: “ Eighty-five per cent of the sperm produced by a healthy male is DNA-damaged. Damaged sperm have been linked to a 300% increase in testicular cancer – a form of cancer that affects young men in their 20s and 30s. The average sperm count of a North American college student today is less than half of what it was 50 years ago.”
The professor placed Bisphenol-A together with breast cancer cells can they multiplied rapidly. Breast cancer is skyrocketing worldwide. When a woman’s body has a surplus of oestrogen it helps oestrogen based breast cancer to grow. With cancer cells the levels of BPA in tin cans with plastic linings “would massively stimulate these cells” said the professor of biology. Doctors advise women with such cancer to avoid the contraceptive pill as it increases oestrogen levels. However unlike independent research scientists over worked hospital doctors with very little time on their hands are not aware that BPA is known as a synthetic oestrogen and that anyone who consumes food or drinks from plastic have detectable levels of BPA in their urine. Oestrogen based cancer is now the number one cancer among women. The CBC reported that bisphenol-A “languished until the 1930’s, when it was discovered that it could be used as a synthetic estrogen.” In the 1950’s it started being used in plastics but “between 1980 and 2000, U.S. production of bisphenol-A grew nearly five times. And it is now a ubiquitous component of clear polycarbonate plastic,” states the CBC.
- 100%: Bisphenol-A (BPA) mimics the female sex hormone oestrogen.
- 100%: BPA leaks into food and drinks.
- 100%: In animals minute levels thousands of times lower than what humans consume profoundly damaged the male reproductive system and caused cancer.
- 100%: Oestrogen breast cancer has skyrocketed worldwide .
- 100%: Anyone who consumes food or drinks contained in plastic have detectable levels of BPA in their urine.
- 100%: Healthy American males were test to have just 15% non-defective sperm remaining and less than half the sperm count of males in the 1950’s.
- 100%: Breast cancer cells multiply rapidly when BPA is added.
- 100%: A female sex hormone chemical is not good for boys.
- 100%: Canada has started banning BPA.
In a CBC documentary titled The Disappearing Male doctor Shanna Swan Director of Reproductive Epidemiology at the University of Rochester said, “the world health organisation standards for classifying a man as infertile have moved downwards. So for example very early it was sixty million per millilitre then down to forty million per millilitre, now it’s twenty million per millilitre and they are talking about putting down to ten. And that is because if a man goes in for a seamen analysis they can’t have too many classified as abnormal.”
Also in the CBC documentary a fertility clinic reveals that twelve years ago for every ten people’s sperm screened seven or eight would be acceptable, at the then World Health Organisation standards. Over time it became harder to find acceptable sperm because they noticed of that same collage aged population only three or four would have adequate sperm quality, even with falling ‘acceptable’ levels.
At the end of this rare Fox News broadcast, after presenting the viewer with scientific data on Bisphenol-A, it discredits that legality by giving opinions that Bisphenol-A is safe. When given conflicting information from a perceived authority source most people are left confused and in ‘information limbo’ of inaction and continue the status quo. One of the so called experts the Fox News corporation brings on at the end just works for a “trade organisation that represents the chemical companies” and gives the opinion that the opinions of regulatory agencies around the world view sex hormones in the human diet as safe. Canada has already started banning BPA. Government health regulatory agencies countless times in the past have acted like their political counter parts when a major incident arose. They nicely plead legal incompetence. It works almost every time. In the banking industry high paid banking experts can overextend a bank’s liabilities many times and say they did not know this would lead to bankruptcy. When all banks do it and the economy goes into recession or depression expert government finance ministers also claim they didn’t have a clue. With regards pleading legal incompetence in the health industry, it worked with asbestos and it worked with SV40. Professor Vom Saal said, “there are seven hundred scientific published studies about the health effects of Bisphenol-A that the FDA has never gotten around to looking at.” On C-Span when questioned about conflict of interest studies Norris Alderson of the FDA told senators, “we don’t normally ask for independent sources.” If the FDA did officially look at those scientific studies that differ from the chemical companies’ studies they could not legally plead innocent incompetence if they did not act on that information.
These ‘watchdog’ agencies are a corporation’s best friend not the publics. The general public don’t seem to mind or are unaware of the fact that people on board these agencies have conflicts of interest having formally worked with companies manufacturing the products they approve. Monsanto Corporation for example: Linda Fisher minister for the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) worked as the executive vice president for Monsanto Corporation seven years prior to that. Prior to those years of employment by Monsanto she worked for the EPA and prior to that she worked for Monsanto and prior to that for the EPA. Deputy Commissioner for FDA policy : Michael Taylor – Monsanto’s Senior Counsel. Supreme Court Justice : Justice Clarence Thomas – Monsanto’s Lawyer for Regulatory Affairs. Secretary of Commerce : Micky Kantor – Board of Directors, Monsanto. Environmental Protection Agency : Lidia Watrud – Biotech Researcher, Monsanto. Secretary of Agriculture : Anne Veneman – Board of Directors, Calgene, purchased by Monsanto. FDA Commissioner : Michael Friedman -Senior vice president, GD Searle, a division of Monsanto. EPA Chief Administrator : William Ruckelshaus – Monsanto Board Member. Secretary of Defense : Donald Rumsfeld – President of Searle, subsidiary of Monsanto. Attorney General of the United States : John Ashcroft – recipient of Monsanto’s largest campaign contribution in the 2000 election and is pro Monsanto patents on food and DNA. This is just one company sample of the countless examples of the revolving door between corporations and government watchdog agencies. These agencies give the public a false sense of security.
When a court case is taken against one of these agencies on the very rare occasions when they cannot prove innocent incompetence, in no doubt a long dawn affair, they simply settle on a payout using taxpayers’ money instead of money from the corporation responsible because the corporation’s product was approved by the government agency. The plaintiffs, who are often very ill, must sign a confidentiality contract when agreeing to the payout. So far only the Canadian government have banned Bisphenol-A, but merely for baby bottles not for baby cups or anything similar. The government ‘watchdog’ agency says it’s too dangerous for babies to drink from plastic bottles because they leech the synthetic female sex hormone BPA. However, the agency does not comment on babies receiving BPA from plastic weaning cups or a developing foetuses receiving BPA from a mother who consumes goods contained in plastic. Banning plastic baby bottles was a hollow gesture due to too much of the Canadian public being aware of BPA.
A handful of ordinary people may give up their livelihood to hound these agencies to look at scientific data not provided by corporations that they previously have not or refuse to look at. But these people are out done and out numbered by paid corporate lobbyists who do get meetings with regulatory agents, some of whom are their previous colleagues. Asbestos was in common use and was not poisonous, even if you died from it, until governments slowly in the 1980’s made it official that it was poisonous. Not until then were busy doctors told the dangers of asbestos and were given permission by their medical association to discuses it with patients without losing their licence. The FDA has never looked at the effects of BPA on a developing body because the chemical companies, even using skewed studies, never handed them one. Since 1976 the U.S. government has banned just five chemicals. Until non-conflict of interest data is officially looked at and Bisphenol-A is given the ‘danger rubber stamp’ individuals in the general population will rely upon the glimmer of independent scientists continuing to alert their fellow man. In the meantime over-worked and heavily regulated hospital doctors can continue attending annual conferences to discus how surprised they are at the increase of reproduction damage and question why nowadays so many people with no cancer history in their family suddenly have bad hereditary cancer genes. Since it was known in the 1930’s that Bisphenol-A mimics a female sex hormone I would not hold my breath waiting on that rubber stamp.
If the data on this chemical were made widespread the billion-dollar Bisphenol-A industry would end, the rate of DNA damage to sperm and reproductive damage would halt, health would increase and of course population levels would also see an increase. I’d imagine there are not too many mothers who would knowingly purchase a plastic bottle of spring water, a bottle of female sex hormones, for their little boy if they know about BPA. News corporations who all have vested interests with big business or governments constantly tell the public relatively meaningless information about calories rather than important data about Bisphenol-A. The public would be lucky if Bisphenol-A got mentioned once a year even with discrediting opinions tacked on at the end. The only question left is: Will a significant percentage of the public become conscious of this chemical before sperm DNA damage rises from 85% to 100%?