Caution: Hormonal Female at the Keyboard!

Just came back from a HeadStart conference and met lots of really great, really committed parents and educators.  I am thankful today that the federal budget does not include a 22.8% retroactive cut for this important and universally beneficial program.  What's to come remains to be seen, as with all things, but for today, we can breathe a sigh of relief.

And then get back to work.

I met and observed parents and teachers who deal with kids on a daily basis that have things like ADHD and autism and their desire for answers and help was palpable.  Maybe I'm more sensitive to it now, maybe I'm projecting my own emotions - I'm never sure.  But I can't help but feel that what's there is something I can understand.  That all of you can understand.  So I ask again that all of you broaden your scope, open your weary hearts just a little wider, and recognize that whatever ails your family - because childhood illness is a familial ailment - there's a whole lot of people out there going through a very similar thing.  It just has a different name, that's all.

So the topic for today, as you might have guessed from the title, is hormones.  While I'm trying to include the call to action in every post, I feel like I'm failing to remain true to my original inspiration, and seeing those moms tear up as they talked about their autism struggles brought me back a little bit.  Hearing about little Noah's struggle to hang on as cancer takes over his little body . . . brought me back.  We have to do better for these kids.  I don't know that pressing for more research is necessarily THE answer.  It's an answer, but maybe there isn't just one question, you know?  We have to be relentless, creative, practical, open-minded, and multi-pronged in our approach.  For all kids.  For our kids' kids.  Whatever crazy shit I might come up with, please know that it's all for them, and mine.  Yours.  Ours.

Anyway,  hormones.


What do you think of when you think "hormones?" 

I'm just guessing here, but I'd say that for most of us, it has to do with sex, reproduction, and the expression of sex-specific characteristics.  Or maybe those female mood swings . . . Right?  Unless you're in the medical field, your studies probably didn't cover much on hormones other than this particular kind.  But this is but a small part of what hormones do.

Hormones are like chemical errand boys, delivering messages from the brain to various parts of the body, messages relating to growth and development, both sex-related and not.  That they act in a specific manner for a specific length of time at a specific amount to a specific organ or organ system is nothing short of miraculous.  With the many systems within our bodies, timing is important.  The balance is very delicate, amazingly fine-tuned. 

Insulin is a hormone.  Therefore diabetes is a disease of hormone dysfunction.  Same with certain cancers.  Many of you are familiar with hypo- or hyper-thyroidism - both are hormone dysfunctions, the former being too little and the latter being too much thyroid action.  The HVA and VMAs that my daughter's urine gets tested for monthly are the metabolites of certain adrenal gland hormones.  And these are but a few examples.  So the next time someone accuses you of being "hormonal," you know what to say to THEM. 


We're all hormonal!  All the time!  It's not just a girl thing.

Hormones are essential.  We've got that part down.  Now let's get just a wee bit more specific, shall we?

Just how do hormones work?  Well . . . as with most things, it starts in the brain.  A signal gets sent to an endocrine gland (there are several, all part of the endocrine system) to produce and secrete its particular hormone into the bloodstream at a particular rate and in a particular amount.  Theoretically, since the bloodstream reaches all of the cells in the body, perhaps every cell might be bathed in every hormone - but the hormone works its magic on only those cells that are "receptors."  Only they will receive the message, so to speak.  Then the hormones metabolize and are excreted from the body when their work is done.

Knowing now what you do about how hormones work, let's talk about hormone (or endocrine) disruptors.  Hormone disruptors are chemicals that disrupt the process at some stage.  Some mimic hormones by faking out the brain, or making the endocrine gland think the brain signaled it.  Some mess with receptor cells; others mess with the metabolism process.  Some just affect the rate or amount of hormone released into the blood.  Because the work of hormones is so precise, even an imperceptible "pebble" can create a far-reaching and long-lasting ripple effect. 

Now, about those endocrine disruptors.

Most of you already know about bisphenyl-A, or BPA, because it's been in the news for awhile.  BPA is an endocrine disruptor.  It's commonly found in the lining of cans, like those of green beans and soup.  It's also found in plastic bottles, particularly those #7 plastics (look for the number by the recycling sybol: it's called the "resin identification code number" and specifies what's added to the plastic. Not all #7's contain BPA, but all plastics with BPA generally fall into this category.) BPA mimics estrogen.  It's also a suspected neurotoxin and may specifically mess with reproduction.  It's bad news and the 2011 Ban Poisonous Additives Act, S. 136, which we should all just enthusiastically and relentlessly support, would ban its use (at least in infant and toddler food products; it's not clear to me that it's an across-the-board ban.) 

Some other endocrine interruptors commonly found in the typical household include phthalates (usually in plastics and perfumes) and parabens (usually in preservatives of food and cosmetics.)  These are difficult to avoid but possible to reduce exposures to with careful label reading.  You can choose phthalate-free cosmetics and bath products.  The Environmental Working Group's Cosmetics Database (http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/) is an excellent resource for this.  You can avoid phthalates in your bottled water by avoiding those with the #3 resin identification code number.  With parabens, you can seek out preservative-free foods (or make stuff from scratch, even better) and look for "paraben-free" on the label of cosmetics and personal care products. 

Pesticides and herbicides are also endocrine disruptors.  Well, duh.  They destroy entire colonies of living creatures . . . To me, does it really matter what those two do to us?  It should be obvious that when you spray something on a weed and it withers before your very eyes, it can't be real good for you.  Kills bugs dead?  Wow.  That can't be good for us, either. 

What is seemingly obvious has also been studied.  And the actual studies are quite chilling.  In their book Our Stolen Future, authors Theo Colbin, Dianne Dumanoski, and John Peterson Myers tell of a 2002 University of California - Berkeley study in which 15% of the developin frogs exposed to atrazine at the very low concentration of 0.1 ppb acquired hermaphroditic reproductive tracts.  That is some freaky stuff.  Is all that atrazine necessary?  I don't know.  I don't farm.  I'm not trying to support my family at the mercy of a growing season and a sun that nourishes all manner of plants indiscriminately, including weeds.  But I do know that atrazine is not good for us.  Just how bad is it?  Do you really need to know "just how bad?"  If it does that to frogs, maybe we should be finding ways to use less of it, rather than more.  (Which takes me back to the GMO discussion from a couple of weeks ago.  The big selling point of these GMOs is that they withstand more pesticides.  Why would you want seed that withstands more pesticides?  So you can use more of them.  That is not a good thing for children's health.)

Now back to those pesticides and herbicides:  we're an instant-gratification people.  They're not just in our food, they're in our homes, on our lawns.  We want our lawns to be green by this weekend!!!  But there are greener - and safer - ways to green a lawn.  Just takes a little planning.  As for home use, we should be able to avoid both with some good old-fashioned hard work.  A clean and uncluttered house will always have fewer roaches and spiders than a messy one.  (It will also reduce your stress, which can't hurt either.) As for weeds . . . maybe we should spend a little effort convincing people that weeds aren't so much a nuisance as they are just nature's expression of itself.  Why we're trying to grow plants from Costa Rica in states like Michigan is beyond me, really.  That weed, my friend, is a native plant.  It's succeeding because it is better adapted to that spot than what you wanted to grow there.  If it's an invasive plant, then the best way to get rid of it is to pull it out by its roots and stop bringing non-native plants in.  Another benefit to using native plants is that we'll use less water.  Water conservation is a good thing!!!  You'll find some help with pest problems in your home, lawn, and garden by visiting Beyond Pesticides.  Here's the link:  http://www.beyondpesticides.org/doorway/pestproblem.htm

Those are some things that you can do, now, easily, at home.  Did you know that plants clean the air?  Something as simple as adding a houseplant or two . . . baby steps.  Life is busy.  Don't give up just because you can't do everything. 

Now, what can the socially-conscious future grandparent (or great-grandparent) in you do to help this and future generations?  Well, I'm a fan of political activism.  (In case you didn't catch that before.)  There are three bills in particular that are in the works and that are pertinent to today's discussion, and I'd like for you to learn a little about them, and maybe make some more calls.

The first is the Ban Poisonous Additives Act of 2011 (S. 136.)  It's gone to committee and hasn't come out yet . . . let's ask our senators to revive it.  And pass it. 

The second is the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2011 (S.718.)  It amends FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act of  1947.) FIFRA is a piece of legislation that preceded even the EPA - it's been around that long! FIFRA replaced the Federal Insecticide Act of 1910.  So the concept isn't new.  The argument in favor of the legislation is that it ends a redundant permit process.  I'd love to hear some feedback on whether the FIFRA amendment is a good idea - I believe that we need to be very, very careful with pesticides and herbicides, especially in and about our waterways, but it's not clear to me that the permit process is necessarily redundant - it seems multi-pronged, not redundant, but then I'm not the one dealing with the permits.  So a point-of-view would be useful.  I'm always uncomfortable with any legislation with a title like this one . . . in any event, we can expect some action very soon on the FIFRA amendment.    http://envirn.org/pg/blog/read/11291/beyond-pesticides-asks-you-to-take-action-now-in-senate-bill-to-strip-clean-water-act-protections-from-pesticides  will take you to a "letter" that you can send to your senators regarding the proposed amendment to FIFRA.  
You can also call your senators, referencing your opposition to S. 718.  Find them at http://www.congress.org/ or click on this link to do it via email.  http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/7106/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=6307


I'm including the text of the FIFRA amendment that's up for vote sometime this week - it's in committee right now.  I am personally opposed to it.  You may have cause to feel differently.  I can't speak to your individual employment so I'll include the text, if you're interested.  The farm lobbies are supporting it, as are the chemical companies.  It's a little dry, so I'll put it all in bold between dividing lines for ease of skipping, but here it is if you care to read it:

__________________________________________________________________________________
AN ACT
To amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to clarify Congressional intent regarding the regulation of the use of pesticides in or near navigable waters, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2011'.

SEC. 2. USE OF AUTHORIZED PESTICIDES.

Section 3(f) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136a(f)) is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(5) USE OF AUTHORIZED PESTICIDES- Except as provided in section 402(s) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the Administrator or a State may not require a permit under such Act for a discharge from a point source into navigable waters of a pesticide authorized for sale, distribution, or use under this Act, or the residue of such a pesticide, resulting from the application of such pesticide.'.

SEC. 3. DISCHARGES OF PESTICIDES.

Section 402 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1342) is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(s) Discharges of Pesticides-

`(1) NO PERMIT REQUIREMENT- Except as provided in paragraph (2), a permit shall not be required by the Administrator or a State under this Act for a discharge from a point source into navigable waters of a pesticide authorized for sale, distribution, or use under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, or the residue of such a pesticide, resulting from the application of such pesticide.

`(2) EXCEPTIONS- Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the following discharges of a pesticide or pesticide residue:

`(A) A discharge resulting from the application of a pesticide in violation of a provision of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act that is relevant to protecting water quality, if--

`(i) the discharge would not have occurred but for the violation; or

`(ii) the amount of pesticide or pesticide residue in the discharge is greater than would have occurred without the violation.

`(B) Stormwater discharges subject to regulation under subsection (p).

`(C) The following discharges subject to regulation under this section:

`(i) Manufacturing or industrial effluent.

`(ii) Treatment works effluent.

`(iii) Discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel, including a discharge resulting from ballasting operations or vessel biofouling prevention.'.

Passed the House of Representatives March 31, 2011.
Attest:
KAREN L. HAAS,
Clerk.
END
__________________________________________________________________________________


The third is the Safe Chemicals Act of 2011, introduced just last Thursday in the Senate.  Read about it at http://www.saferchemicals.org/2011/04/safe-chemicals-act-of-2011-introduced-today-legislation-would-protect-american-families-from-toxic-chemicals.html and at   http://blogs.edf.org/nanotechnology/2011/04/14/tsca-reform-2-0-aka-safe-chemicals-act-of-2011-tastes-great-less-filling/  Contact your senators and ask them to support this one.  I don't have a bill number for it - it's that new.  As it stands now, chemicals enter the stream of commerce and are assumed safe if not known to be toxic.  That's assinine!!!  That flies in the face of everything we assume about government and regulation . . . wouldn't you expect that some threshold testing had occurred?  But it hasn't.  Because lots of chemicals are "grandfathered" in, and the others are just tested for toxicity.  Not safety.  There is a difference.  Something that has not been shown to harm me has not been shown incapable of harming me.  Do not put me in a cage with a tiger and tell me it hasn't bitten me yet. 

What's more, back in the day when the asbestos scare happened, the EPA tried to ban it and . . . well, we still have asbestos here.  The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)(the one still governing today) supposedly didn't give the EPA the authority to ban anything unless the EPA provided, according to the 5th Circuit Court, "substantial evidence" to justify the ban under TSCA. The court agreed that asbestos was a carcinogen, but . . . the EPA had failed to demonstrate that the ban was the "least burdensome alternative" for eliminating the "unreasonable risk" of exposure to asbestos, as required by TSCA. The court questioned EPA's analysis of product substitutes, finding that the proposed substitutes were unavailable or potentially harmful and rejected the EPA's cost/benefit analysis.  The 5th Circuit dismissed the EPA's determination with regards to the presence of unreasonable risk.  There's not an American out there that hasn't heard that asbestos causes cancer, and yet . . . it's still around.  We need the Safe Chemicals Act. 

Pragmatically principled.  Single-minded, relentless, ever-present.  The single vote wields power when there is a certainty that it will be cast.  Passion is a promise to show up and stand by our principles.  By voting.  We show up by voting.  Still, we "show up" not just at the ballot box, but every time that we contact our elected officials and let them know what we stand for. 

Anyone out there ever have to fill out a job application, or send out a resume?  Odds are, you took special care to highlight your good points, putting the best version of yourself forward.  At the interview, you did the same.  And once you were hired, your employer breathed a sigh of relief and never once came back to check up on your work, because he knew he'd hired the right person for the job.  No?  That's not how it happened?  Hmm.  Because that's kinda how we "employ" our legislators. 

So check up on those that we have "hired."  What do you stand for?  Do they know what you stand for?  I know what I stand for.  Sure, there's a few bugs to work out; but I consider the "bugs" proof that my mind remains open to new points of view.  There are few things that I know for sure.

Among the things I do know:  kids are getting sick, at early ages, with diseases that were once rare or that only struck the adult population.  How do you explain toddler obesity?  What's that about?  I know that, in significant part, a lot of this is happening because of choices that we made, as a people, through our policies, as a lifestyle.  Finally . . . I know that whatever it takes, no matter how hard it is, that we have to take this on.  It's our assignment. 

So do the work:  Save all of the kids, and call your senators.  Oppose S. 718, support S. 136 and the Safe Chemicals Act.  Save your kids, and check your bathroom cabinets, reconsider pest control, and cut back on your canned foods consumption.  Check your plastics.  Read some labels.  Don't worry about doing everything.  (You can't.)  Just do something.