
Endocrine-disrupting chemical exposure in US: disease burden and cost analysis - bookofjoe
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8587(16)30275-3/fulltext
======
ZeroFries
Soak all your produce in baking soda water for 10 minutes.

[https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.jafc.7b03118?source...](https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.jafc.7b03118?source=cen)

~~~
cwkoss
I feel like this would affect the flavor?

~~~
majjam
Apparently not, less so than using vinegar which is what I have been using.
That being said, I'll let you know once I've eaten my lunch...

~~~
cwkoss
How was lunch?

~~~
majjam
Sorry for the delay! It was fine, couldn't taste the baking soda at all.

------
crawshaw
How do I buy food in the US that I know hasn't been exposed to such
pesticides?

~~~
Analemma_
Buy from a farmers' market, and ask. Most of the sellers will know off the top
of their heads exactly how their crops have been grown and what was/wasn't
used, and if they don't, that's a seller to avoid.

As an added bonus, farmers' markets tend to be cheaper than supermarkets even
as the food is better. It mystifies me that they aren't more commonly used and
have a reputation as being for rich hipsters (i.e., like Whole Foods).

~~~
linkmotif
Never been to a cheaper farmer’s market in my life. I’ve lived in New York,
Chicago and Baltimore. Intrigued by this concept. Can’t imagine it actually
exists anywhere.

~~~
zdragnar
Toll roads, long driving, competition and dealing with parking and paying to
set up in a high-demand area are all problems farmers face at large city
markets. Go almost anywhere else and you'll indeed be surprised.

------
qiqing
Does anyone have the PDF to the full article? I'm curious to read more than
the summary.

~~~
geoalchimista
You can find download links from Google Scholar. Here is one from researchgate
posted by the corresponding author (which is totally legal):
[https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Leonardo_Trasande/publi...](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Leonardo_Trasande/publication/309306512_Exposure_to_endocrine-
disrupting_chemicals_in_the_USA_a_population-
based_disease_burden_and_cost_analysis/links/580a284c08ae74852b52ef36.pdf)

Don't pay for the article. The money goes 100% to the publisher not the
authors.

~~~
qiqing
Thanks! In case anyone is curious, I found the excerpt that had what I was
looking for (the list of specific endocrine disrupting compounds). From page
2:

"The probabilities had been based on assessment of the toxicological and
epidemiological evidence for 15 exposure–response relations between EDCs
(PBDEs, organophosphate pesticides, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane,
di-2-ethylhexylphthalate, bisphenol A, benzylphthalates and butylphthalates,
and exposures to combinations of these substances; appendix) and disorders
(loss of intelligence quotient [IQ] points and consequent intellectual
disability, attention deﬁcit hyperactivity disorder, autism, adult and
childhood obesity, adult diabetes, crypt-orchidism, testicular cancer, male
factor infertility, early cardiovascular mortality due to reduced
testosterone, leiomyomas, and endometriosis) with use of a modiﬁed Delphi
approach to achieve consensus."

------
bayesian_horse
Good luck with the current EPA...

------
cryoshon
note: monsanto's roundup chemical is an endocrine disruptor. we put it on most
of our food supply. this contributes to the high cost burden.

secondary note: you don't want to have endocrine disruptors anywhere. they
aren't good for you.

~~~
kevinconroy
I wanted to up vote you, but did some research and turns out that both the FDA
and the European Food Safety Authority have not found evidence that it is:

"The current assessment concluded that glyphosate does not have oestrogen,
androgen, thyroid and steroidogenesis (EATS)‐mediated endocrine disrupting
properties based on the facts that no endocrine‐mediated adverse effects were
identified in apical studies; the weak evidence seen in a limited number of
supplementary in vitro studies was inconsistent with the findings of the
acceptable OECD (Organisation for Economic Co‐operation and Development) tests
and it was not expressed in vivo in the OECD Level 4 and 5 studies; and no
EATS‐mediated endocrine mode of action was identified. Since the database
available to reach this conclusion was quite comprehensive, it was concluded
that the data gap identified in the previous EFSA conclusion (EFSA Journal
2015;13(11):4302) was adequately addressed."

Source:
[https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.2903/j.efsa...](https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.2903/j.efsa.2017.4979)

~~~
cryoshon
roundup is likely more harmful then glyphosate alone, which has been itself
confirmed as harmful in a handful of investigations:

[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0300483X0...](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0300483X09003047)

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1257596/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1257596/)
"Surprisingly, Roundup is always more toxic than its active ingredient... We
conclude that endocrine and toxic effects of Roundup, not just glyphosate, can
be observed in mammals."

[https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00244-006-0154-8](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00244-006-0154-8)

"The cytotoxic, and potentially endocrine-disrupting effects of Roundup are
thus amplified with time. Taken together, these data suggest that Roundup
exposure may affect human reproduction and fetal development in case of
contamination. Chemical mixtures in formulations appear to be underestimated
regarding their toxic or hormonal impact."

------
tlb
Consider the possibility that some such chemicals are good for society. For
example, exposure to pseudoestrogens may reduce violence. Medical literature
doesn't really have a category for this -- there is only 'burden and cost' of
environmental effects, assuming that any change from evolved human biology is
bad.

But it seems like evolved human biology is a little too violent for the
society we want, and perhaps we'd benefit from even more X in the
water/air/food supply.

~~~
eebynight
This is a perfect example of naive intervention. there is no evidence that
pseudoestrogens may reduce violence and I have no idea how you came to such a
ludicrous conclusion.

Is it because you believe the myth that high testosterone causes violence?
That "roid rage" people normally picture when thinking of people who do
steroids is actually people who neglect or don't put enough effort into post
cycle therapy or aromatase inhibitors to LOWER their estrogen levels.

Yes taking steroids greatly increases Estrogen levels as well and this is the
main reason many men who have done steroids without proper cycling have some
semblance of breasts...

If anything this "violent" society you speak of is most likely a result of
these pseudoestrogens / xenoestrogens and other endocrine disrupting
chemicals.

~~~
smt88
The positive correlation between testosterone and violence is not a myth in
animals.

It has also been observed in humans, though the correlation is weak[1].

1\.
[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S135917890...](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S135917890000032X)

~~~
felix_nagaand
A weak correlation cannot intelligently be used to justify anything except
further research...

~~~
nostrademons
In this case, it's a weak correlation across a meta-analysis of 45 independent
studies. While I'd agree that further research would probably be beneficial,
this is a result _that already includes some further research_.

