ADELAIDE, Australia — Are common products inside our homes potentially the cause of serious health conditions? New research indicates that everyday chemicals are linked to chronic diseases in men.
A team of researchers from the University of Adelaide and the South Australian and Medical Research Institute carried out the research focusing on phthalates, which are common chemicals that most of us come into contact with daily.
Phthalates are often found in a variety of consumer goods including children’s toys, food packaging and medications. (This PDF from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences explains how to determine if products contain phthalates.)
In December 2013, California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment officially listed diisononyl phthalate, a commonly used phthalate, as a chemical “known to the state of California to cause cancer.” Later, in April 2016, a “No Significant Risk Level” was established at 146ug per day for the same phthalate.
The researchers performed observations on 1,500 men from South Australia. The team found phthalates levels were detected in the urine of more than 99% of those 35 years or older. The lead author of the study, Zumin Shi, specified that high phthalate levels correlated with a likeliness of suffering from some the most prominent chronic diseases in the United States.
“We found that the prevalence of cardiovascular disease, type-2 diabetes and high blood pressure increased among those men with higher phthalate levels,” says Shi, an associate professor at the Adelaide Medical School and the Freemasons Foundation Centre for Men’s Health, in a university press release.
“Importantly, while 82% of the men we tested were overweight or obese – conditions known to be associated with chronic diseases – when we adjusted for this in our study, the significant association between high levels of phthalates and disease was not substantially altered,” adds Shi.
Previous research found that men who frequently ate processed foods, drank sodas, and consumed fewer fruits and vegetables showed higher levels phthalates.
In the current study, levels remained the same even when socio-economic status and healthy habits were taken into consideration.
Shi suggested that although the studies were performed on men, it is likely that similar results would appear in studies with women.
“While further research is required, reducing environmental phthalates exposure where possible, along with the adoption of healthier lifestyles, may help to reduce the risk of chronic disease,” he adds.
The findings were published in the October 2017 edition of the journal Environmental Research.
Ummm where did they establish which is the cause and which is the effect?? So men over 35 with those conditions have higher levels? Did they establish anywhere whether the higher levels were because those men had those conditions or those conditions were caused by higher levels? It seems the former is more likely true since it only seems to be significant after 35. Wouldn’t that indicate that the presence of elevated levels can be an indicator of those conditions (ie a canary in the coal mine) and not the cause of them? It is unlikely that all of the sudden increased exposure happens at 35, but rather something in their system is failing that prevents dealing with that chemical that may also indicate the system isn’t functioning properly as a whole.
This seems substantiated by this “Previous research found that men who frequently ate processed foods, drank sodas, and consumed fewer fruits and vegetables showed higher levels phthalates.”
So in this instance the presence of phthalates is a tangential product of an unhealthy diet, it has nothing to do with the results of that unhealthy diet.
Scientists or journalist, or both, once again failing to establish a cause/effect relationship that is a basic premise of making a scientific claim and the scientific process.
Just quit doing what you’re doing and do something else. Everything will be fine.
What a useless article. What were the brands this stuff is in? Is it soap? carpet cleaner? window cleaner?
Women do the cleaning and they are immune to it? They are evil beings
I now have my justification for my wife. I will relegate my chores to the garage, under the hood, and in the yard.
Ok, so it wasn’t the twinkles, soda, deep fried cheese sticks with ranch dressing, or that slightly melted “to go” container that you ate from the microwave last night that gave you explosive colon disease. It was the plastic wrapper. This is where we are at in America today.
UH, no? Why?
You know those people at the food stores who try to buy “Real Food” instead of just the cheaper and easier to eat Processed Food are such pains.
Looks like you ain’t going to make it! LOL! MAGA
If you torture it long enough ‘the data’ will tell you whatever you want it to.
So according to the last paragraph, eat less junk food, lead a healthier lifestyle, and you will be “healthier”? Go figure. But, a tiny trace amount of a chemical found in packaging is what’s causing you to not exercise and be fat. Sure, if you say so.
See, I told you she was trying to kill me…
The rise of the use of plastics containing phthalates coincides with the rise of the use of High Fructose Corn Syrup.
is there a study for that?
Obviously High Fructose Corn Syrup causes high phthalate plastic.
Obviously. Just like cargo causes airplanes.
Hence the sarcasm intended in my response.
There is also a strong positive correlation between wearing shoes and having heart attacks. So are shoes the causative factor? I think NOT!
EVERYTHING is “known to the state of California to cause cancer.” ….
yes, when i order products online made of plastic, there is now a california disclaimer that some substance in them might cause cancer…MIGHT. don’t buy round up weed killer you’ll die, or at least if you live in california
“Importantly, while 82% of the men we tested were overweight or obese…”
That pretty much blows up the claim that phthalates are the problem as far as I am concerned.
Agreed 100%.
By choosing a dramatically unbalanced sample set from the very beginning of the experiment.
Statistics.
Unbalanced? Do you know the % of the population that are overweight in the US…? 82% is a fairly accurate representation.
Barely tops 50%, unless you conveniently “redefine” overweight, which has happened several times over the years, to where we now use the laughable BMI scale, where a weightlifter with 2% body fat can be classified as obese.
You can pull up 100s of studies that show the impacts plastics have on the endocrine system…
MIT and UC Berkeley got concerned enough about junk to look into it. They determined that 67% of “medical” studies were incorrect, flawed and dishonest to the point of fraud. They are setting up, hopefully, a sort of Snopes for science.
Sure, trust UC Berkeley to root out fraud.
I’d laugh but I simply don’t have any left in my tank.
Progressive, PC chicanery aside, the last time I checked, MIT and UCB were still highly regarded in the sciences and healthcare.
You are not going to die.
.
.
Yes , you’re going to die.