Written by Dan Gwartney M.D.
05 May 2014

 Girlie-Man Epidemic - Endocrine Disruptors Increase Fat & Lower Testosterone

 

 

girlyman1Conspiracy theories have existed for thousands of years, probably because conspiracies have existed even longer. Admitting this does not necessarily lend credence to some of the more fantastic theories— extraterrestrial aliens establishing a base on the dark side of the moon (would be way cool); Elvis is still alive and regularly appears at discount retailers; or Montgomery Burns is going to block out the sun (whoops, Simpsons reference).

 

Though there are likely more false conspiracy theories than real ones, it would be as naïve to believe no conspiracies exist as to believe them all. The challenge, or fun, or obsession, is to separate the wheat from the chaff (the true from the false). The pursuit of tracing presumed conspiracies from theory to fact requires evidence, but too often relies on leaps of faith. As tantalizing as (peaceful) contact with extraterrestrial intelligence would be, there remains no conclusive evidence of such an event in any publicly disclosed documents or materials. Though this is an area of interest for me, I still await something tangible or verifiable before broadcasting “Beam me up, Scotty” into the stratosphere; admittedly, I do shout this at hot air balloons that pass over my home, but apparently none are equipped with transporters.

 

The most damning evidence against any contact, for me, lies in the quote by the late science fiction novelist Arthur C. Clarke (2001: A Space Odyssey) during his 90th birthday reflections, “If I may be allowed just three wishes, they would be these. Firstly, I would like to see some evidence of extra-terrestrial life. I have always believed that we are not alone in the universe. But we are still waiting for ETs to call us— or give us some kind of a sign. We have no way of guessing when this might happen— I hope sooner rather than later!” If anyone might have received notice, it would have been him.1

 

On the other end of the spectrum are conspiracies that have been proven to the satisfaction of many to be true. Tobacco companies were successfully sued for substantial sums for hiding the harmful, actually deadly, potential of smoking.2 The manipulation of tobacco plants and processing to create more addictive blends, and pressures on government agencies to minimize the “health” declarations, support the argument that tobacco companies regard revenue, profit and market share over public health.3

 

Sadly, the vice of smoking is the perfect tool to serve the avarice (greed) of … well, just about everyone. Many Congressional seat campaigns (our honorable Senators and Representatives) receive substantial contributions from the tobacco industry, and tobacco lobbyists are well financed.4 One of the most powerful individuals in our nation, former Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, owned only a single stock at the time of his appointment— Altria (formerly Phillips Morris, manufacturer of Marlboro and other popular brands).5

 

Conspiracies need not be limited to matters of a galactic or global scale— they also occur locally. In addition to the natural resources it enjoys, America derives much of its strength from industry. Though much of that has been exported to developing countries, the number of factories, refineries and laboratories is considerable. Unfortunately, some of these sites have been the source of environmental pollutants entering the local ecosystem (water, soil, or air).

 

An accidental exposure is serious and distressing, but it pales in comparison to the maliciousness of contamination that happens through intent or by failure to acknowledge and correct the source of the toxin. The 2000 movie “Erin Brockovich,” starring Julia Roberts, is based on the 1993-1996 crusade by legal clerk (now environmental acitivist) Erin Brockovich against Pacific Gas & Electric, revealing the contamination of one town’s water supply, caused by the known leakage of a toxic heavy metal (hexavalent chromium).6 The pollution was associated with cancers, birth defects, and organ failures among the affected population.7

 

 

Pollutants on the Rise

 girlyman2The number of known pollutants has expanded geometrically over time. However, another related concern exists that is perhaps even more frightening— the exposure of humans to physiologic/metabolic toxins in foods and products used in normal commerce. These toxins may arise from viral, microbial or chemical sources. Occasionally, a focus of food poisoning caused by E. coli or Salmonella makes news; some may remember the mysterious deaths in 1993 caused by hantavirus-contaminating pine nuts; the uncoupling/weight loss-effect of 2,4-dinitrophenol (DNP) was discovered through the investigation of deaths related to occupational exposure to the chemical.8-10 The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and other agencies attempt to monitor for and protect against such agents before they affect public health.

 

Among the most publicized examples of a chemical toxin frequently encountered in food or commercial products is the chemical bisphenol A (BPA), a plasticizer used in many common food and beverage containers, as well as certain medical and dental devices.11 Though questions regarding the safety of BPA were raised as early as the 1930s, commercial applications using BPA expanded; over 2 million tons of the material was produced annually in recent years, with approximately half that occurring in the United States.12 Mainstream media raised public awareness as government agencies and medical organizations published alarming reports and position papers.13,14 Almost overnight, concerned mothers yanked bottles from feeding infants and cyclists pedaled as quickly as they could to the nearest recycling bin to dispose of containers marked damningly with the accursed “3” or “7” grade plastic.15 A rush to stainless steel or aluminum containers ensued, only to be halted embarrassingly by the disclosure that many of these “BPA-free” products were, in fact, lined with BPA-based material.16

 

What concerns could possibly be due to such a ubiquitous material? After all, plastic is in the hands and pockets of Americans from the minute they are weaned. The concerns— based on animal and human studies— are not limited to, but include harm to a developing fetus; structural and functional neurological damage; behavioral changes; thyroid function; reproductive and sexual function; and others.13,17-20 A recent study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association assessed the relationship in 1,500 adult humans between BPA levels in the urine and various chronic conditions.12 High levels of BPA were associated with a greater incidence of heart disease, diabetes and elevated liver enzymes.

 

Much of the clinical, toxicological and legislative concerns about BPA relate its properties as a xenoestrogen (an environmental chemical that has female sex steroid-like actions on people or animals). BPA is known to bind strongly to the estrogen-related receptor, and is associated with increased predisposition to cancers of the breast and prostate, and lower testosterone.21-26 In addition to impeding testosterone production, BPA also acts as an anti-androgen, reducing the ability of testosterone and DHT to stimulate the androgen receptor.27

 

 

Beware of Falling Testosterone

 girlyman3Other endocrine disruptors exist that interfere with testosterone synthesis, such as the class called phthalates (also used heavily in plastics).28 In addition to the hefty body of animal data showing lower testosterone and disrupted hormone production, studies correlating phthalate exposure in adult human males show that this class of widely-used chemical is associated with lower testosterone.29,30 Phthalates also suppress aromatase function, further lowering estrogen production— a hormone vital for normal bone mineralization, brain function, etc., in men.30 Endocrine disruptors not only affect the body physically, but also affect the behavior of humans and animals subjected to these chemicals, especially during key developmental points in life. Male rats and human boys exposed to BPA and phthalates exhibit less masculine behavior, likely through effects on neurosteroid-related behavior.31,32

 

These are not the only endocrine disruptors present in our environment, but their example demonstrates how the population is exposed to these commonly-used products, resulting in the accumulation of concentrations sufficient to disrupt testosterone production and the testosterone:estrogen ratio. Though it may seem academic, looking at these sterile studies, it offers a logical explanation for the population-wide decline in testosterone concentration experienced by American males over the last several decades. The New England Research Institute published a study in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism which concluded, “These results indicate that recent years have seen a substantial, and as yet unrecognized, age-independent population-level decrease in T in American men, potentially attributable to birth cohort differences or to health or environmental effects not captured in observed data.”33

 

In addition to the testosterone-lowering effect of these endocrine disruptors, they also appear to have properties that worsen another health care crisis that has grown to epidemic proportions in the last 30-40 years. It is no secret that as a nation, the United States has watched its citizens get heavier to the point that normal-weight people are the minority, and two-thirds of Americans are overweight or obese. Clearly, there are numerous factors that account for this trend, but in addition to economic and recreational variables, and changes in the food supply, one needs to also appreciate the effect of these ubiquitous endocrine disruptors. Studies have shown these chemicals accumulate in all populations, even Canadian Aboriginals and Native American (Mohawk) populations that are culturally distant from much of America’s industrialization.34,35

 

A review in the journal Molecular and Cellular Endocrinology states, “Evidence points to endocrine disrupting chemicals that interfere with the body's adipose tissue biology, endocrine hormone systems or central hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis as suspects in derailing the homeostatic mechanisms important to weight control.”36 In addition to the xenoestrogens and endocrine disruptors, another class called organotins (i.e., tributyltin chloride, triphenyltin chloride) activate genes that promote the differentiation of fat cells, which arise from the same precursor pool as muscle cells.37,38 So, it would tip the balance to less muscle and more fat tissue, as well as increasing fat storage in existing fat cells. Reports, studies and reviews regarding these “obesogens” are appearing in medical and science literature with fearsome regularity.39,40

 

As with nearly all life science research, humans can be measured to see if there is an expected (or unexpected) relationship between a factor and health, but ethics require (rightly) that people not be knowingly exposed to harmful substances or conditions. Thus, much of the basic science that explores possible pathways or more strongly supports the cause-and-effect relationship is heavily dependent upon animal studies.

 

Knowing how environmental endocrine disruptors, xenoestrogens and organotins— derived from industrial sources that are monitored by the Environmental Protection Agency and other agencies— saturate the American environment to the degree that offers an explanation for the long-term decline in testosterone, could lead the paranoid to put on the tinfoil hat. Heck, they may even form tinfoil jockstraps— considering the target of the chemical assault.

 

We must avoid a run on The Catcher and the Rye by J.D. Salinger (a book read by some of the more notorious murderers, and the character Jerry Fletcher, played by Mel Gibson in the 1997 movie “Conspiracy Theory,” also starring Julia Roberts). So let’s emerge from the rubber room of conspiracy and direct attention away from shadow government forces directing the systemic chemical castration of American society, preventing access to androgen-based therapy, and fattening citizens to promote a culture of compliance, dependence, frailty, and profits for multinational pharmaceutical companies. Wow, where is the tinfoil?

 

To those with a firmer grasp on reality, it is likely an example of lax legislation, insensitivity to men’s health (as well as population health), greed, and inept monitoring more so than any malice. Yet, whether purposeful or a consequence of neglect, it matters little. The impact of these endocrine disruptors and other harmful agents is slowly emasculating men and plumping up our nation. The effects are great enough to be measured, and are the exact opposite of what any of us would wish. Has the temptation of plastic lured our culture into a “golden cage,” where one gives up his health and freedom for luxury and convenience?

 

Nonetheless, people need to be aware of factors that may predispose one to weight gain, hormonal interference, and looming health risks. Nobody would stand back if a mercury spill occurred, or lead paint was reintroduced. It is vital that the public elect leaders to investigate, so that we may: a) identify chemicals that disrupt function, development or metabolism; b) locate the source of these environmental toxins; c) commence with effective clean-up of soil/air/water and removal of the unsafe product from industry and commerce; d) identify suitable replacements for the offending agents; and e) educate the public on how to minimize exposure.

 

For now, the best that can be offered is to make the changes that one can control (diet, exercise, etc.), substitute fresh or frozen food for canned (metal cans are often lined with BPA-based liners), use glass containers in place of plastic (especially when heating foods and beverages), and watch for relevant news and information.41 Failing to make the appropriate changes will allow this damage to continue and the unrecognized harm could approach, even exceed, the impact of other publicized threats, such as secondhand smoke or excessive tanning.


 

DISCUSS THIS ARTICLE ON THE MD FORUM