Exposure to phthalate compromises brain function in adult vertebrates
(sciencedirect.com)139 points by PaulHoule 6 days ago
139 points by PaulHoule 6 days ago
I've been speculating on industrial pollutants that act as endocrine disruptors for years now, and every so often some evidence emerges. People understandably don't like such mundane explanations when they've built large parts of their identity around the issues it may have caused them though.
You're idea is hardly novel. I've had plenty of people tell me this or that chemical caused me to be trans. I've also spent plenty of time researching possible biological causes of transness. I'm personally open to the idea that maybe there's a biological cause but I haven't found a convincing explanation yet.
The problem is that when I have conversations with people about soy turning me trans or social media turning me trans they are often trying to use that as a way to deny me any agency over my own life.
Trans people have been around ages, same as gays and all that. Yet no gay gene discovered.
We know that a living being is just not only DNA, but also its environment; now on top of that add all the big complexity of human social behaviour and gender into it. I doubt they will find a "cause" to trans-ness.
As somebody under that umbrella myself
> soy turning me trans or social media turning me trans I agree is absolutely mind-numbingly naive.
However, I feel like there's only so many options for where sexuality and gender-identity can come from -- and if we know there's no god doing it, and we know it's not entirely learned (because of case studies of surgeons who assigned a gender to babies with ambiguous genitals), the remainder must be from the environment... and it just so happens that almost all of the body's signaling around gender, puberty, and development is chemicals in one form or another.
Combo of tricyclic antidepressant and amphetamines "turned me gayer and gayer" (and gave me the shitters) which reversed a few weeks after I stopped them. My Testosterone was stable throughout those months.
And I just remembered a girl I studied with whose ex-boyfriends turned gay or bisexual post-relationship. Pretty sure it was her gut bacteria.
Completely anecdotal, but I recently did a round of oral antibiotics and afterwards followed up with an expensive probiotic.
It was like $60 a bottle for a 1 month supply, but I was told that oral antibiotics can wreck your gut biome so I figured this was the ideal time to repair/replace the biome I have.
In the 6 weeks since then I've lost ~30 lbs (I am following a diet, of course, this has been wildly successful but intentional in the abstract) and I have more energy, sleep better, and have lost my baseline "snack late at night" urges. Physiologically I do not feel deprived of food, hungry, or tired all the time like I have with previous diets. I've also cut my caffeine intake to almost 1/3rd of its previous amount and I drink more water.
I am sure there's a lot going on beside that, so I am not blaming my progress on the 1 thing by itself, but that being said, it does seem highly coincidental and correlated.
Might be worth a deeper dive, blow out (mostly) healthy people's gut bacteria, replace it with very specific blends, accumulate the data on what changes happen or what people report happening in the 2 weeks, 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months 1 year afterward.
They should look on the bright side: eliminating plastic exposure could be a great wellspring of identity. I mean to really avoid them you’d have to make all your food from raw unprocessed ingredients, and then there’s clothing, all the objects you interact with throughout the day, etc.
Edit: expanding a bit more on the idea. DIYing all the stuff you’d need to avoid plastics is a much bigger identity statement than neurodivergent. Tho saying I’ve been subtly poisoned is far less sexy than saying I’m neurodivergent.
Food. It’s food. We are only just beginning to understand the less obvious effects of the modern diet, including all the processing and additives. Much has not been explored, such as is if the abundance of various toxic chemicals at supposedly safe levels has a synergistic effect, for example the many endocrine disrupting compounds with diverse mechanisms. But over the past decade it has become pretty clear that the Gut-Brain relationship is extremely important, including in understanding psychopathology.
Another emerging idea is that much of the negative health trend that’s been progressing extra rapidly since the 90’s is the result of mitochondrial dysfunction, driven by the multifactored (ultraprocessed foods, icides and tives, sedentary lifestyle, the incessant toxin-boosted immune shocks throughout development, possibly even omnipresent modulated emf) assault on our biology. It makes a lot of sense, to me at least, that crippling the source of cellular energy would precipitate seemingly unrelated chronic pathologies. This last paragraph especially is still highly speculative and controversial.
What you're detailing is a growing body of study under the BioPsychoSocial model. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biopsychosocial_model?wprov=sf...
From personal experience I can say a dietary change reduced systemic inflammation for me and had as much of an effect on recovery as medication treatment. The anti-inflammatory diet eliminates foods well-known to cause inflammation in a sizable portion of the population. Out gut micro-biome takes the pharmacokinetics of nutrition even deeper by introducing another layer of breakdown or secretion.
Thanks for clearing this up, I certainly find your citations compelling.
It’s trivial to find studies detailing lower-magnitude negative effects of the things mentioned, but in isolation. As far is I’m aware, the net impact on our biology of the dozens of environmental stressors we face remains to be studied.
This doesn’t directly go to anything I said, but I will share this fun review: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221475002...
"The fact that we were able to detect similar effects of phthalate exposure on the function of central neurons for the low and 10-fold higher environmental concentration tested is important in this context: humans get exposed to phthalates mostly through ingestion and their indoor environment, while fish in this study got exposed to phthalates through the surrounding water. These differences in exposure may mean that humans generally take up fewer phthalates from the environment than the fish in the present study. However, even if fewer phthalates are taken up and reach/cross the BBB in humans, it must be assumed on the basis of our results that the effect could still be similar to that observed in our experiments on goldfish. "
It seems sloppy not to attempt to address the relevance of typical human exposure to the study amounts?
This group didn’t have authorization or funding to do an experiment on humans, and of they attempted it the criticism would have been that the study was done wrong in some way
No other group seemed interested in doing the study of this specific material
Ideally now some other groups are interested
But why did they chose one of the furthest classes of vertebrates compared to humans, exposing them in a way that is impossible for a human since we don't live underwater?
The obvious thing to do would be to use mice and put phtalates in their food. Maybe I am missing something, but it seems like a much better model if studying the potential effect in humans is the goal.
I was thinking of putting a Reverse Osmosis filter in my Kitchen. Would RO water just leach this chemical out then from plastic containers? Since the RO water is pretty pure. All the RO units I've seen are made of plastic.
My dilemma is that a massive car battery plant is being built right next to a local creek. The city water intake is down river. They obviously placed the plant next to a creek for a reason. The creek already smells like sewage because they have a water treatment plant on it. My nose tells me not to trust the quality of their "treating of water", since the creek smells like sewage and has algae blooms.
So was thinking of getting a kitchen RO unit. Currently use a Britta filter.
> I was thinking of putting a Reverse Osmosis filter in my Kitchen. Would RO water just leach this chemical out then from plastic containers? Since the RO water is pretty pure. All the RO units I've seen are made of plastic.
High density polyethylene is made without plasticizers.
> My nose tells me not to trust the quality of their "treating of water", since the creek smells like sewage and has algae blooms.
That's hydrogen sulfide. Humans are _highly_ sensitive to it, but in general it's safe in itself.
I don't know what the standard way to do it is, but, surely it's not too complicated to add some tasty minerals back in.
I make a water sweetener with a variety of electrolytes and sugar, and regularly add a tiny bit to my water bottle. Placebo or no, I love it.
One can also absorb chemicals through the skin (it is the largest exposed organ infact), so I've been thinking of getting a shower or whole-house filter. Definitely upgrade from the Brita though. Brita's aren't very effective at filtering PFAS last I read.
But to answer your question, I'd speculate that the filtered water from the RO filter would be superior to anything coming out of your tap, even if it had phthalates in the filter. You also have to account for PFAS, heavy metals, medicines people excrete back into the water supply, and many many other things...
Any comments how legit something like Whole Foods bans are effective?
“We’ve banned more than 240 typically used ingredients, including parabens, phthalates, formaldehyde donors, oxybenzone, PFAS and EDTA.”
https://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/quality-standards/beauty-bo...
Reminder that a recent autopsy study found that the average American brain now has about a quarter oz of microplastics in it [0]. That's up 50% from 8 years ago. Phthalate directly in the brain itself.
Microplastic is now found basically everywhere we look, from our own testicles/ovaries and other organs, to wild animals who never heated a ready meal in the microwave in their life. Yet plastic producers show no intention to err on the side of caution when it comes to plasticizing the planet.
Which is a shame, because there are alternatives.
0 - https://edition.cnn.com/2024/08/23/health/plastics-in-brain-...
I still vaguely remember hearing all the people saying to switch to plastic bags to save the trees. Huge ad campaigns, videos of sad animals and burned down, gutted forests on the TV and news all hours of the day.
25 years later and we are drowning in plastic, carrying it in our brains and gonads, it falls from the sky like rain, it is in the food we eat, our newborn children inherit the plastics from their mothers.
If I were a trickster god or the devil himself I couldn't have come up with a better joke than this.
> I still vaguely remember hearing all the people saying to switch to plastic bags to save the trees. Huge ad campaigns, videos of sad animals and burned down, gutted forests on the TV and news all hours of the day.
Damn, I'd pretty much forgotten those. So bizarre.
I know for a fact that at the same time those ads were running, many scientists were telling anyone who would listen that plastic wouldn't biodegrade for thousands of years...
And then there's the crazy fact of no one ever being held responsible for all that. I think you're the first person I've heard even mention them for decades; as if they were utterly memory-holed.
Curious about this now, I'll have to look into it a bit. Thanks!
Noo, but "think about the economy, think about the poor production line being halted or the prices modified, we cant do that".
Reminds me of the situation of climate change on Spain. The whole thing blew up yet the only thing they can do is damage control once it is too late.
The people throwing mud at authorities for insufficient protection measures against droughts are probably the same who protested against the planned reduction of Tagus river water redirection. Because killing the environment is only acceptable when it benefits me...
Is the geographical use of these plasticisers related to the geographical spread of the problems ?
>>> Asia-Pacific is by far the region with the highest sales of plasticizers. According to Ceresana’s forecast, this region of the world, which accounts for almost two-thirds of plasticizer consumption today, will continue to record above-average growth rates in the coming years. Demand for plasticizers is also growing by more than 2% pa in Africa and the Middle East, while it is hardly growing at all in Western Europe
> Typically, plasticizers are not chemically bound to the polymer, but can leak out over time and thus can affect humans and other organisms.
I wouldn't risk heating food with any kind of plastic.
I'd like to see a study of the dosage from heating food in plastic containers vs the risks from storing food in plastic for days or weeks while in the supermarket, or transporting water for food making in plastic pipes, or growing crops for human consumption in phthalate contaminated land, or eating food from cans lined with phthalates etc.
There are so many potential sources, and it doesn't really make any sense to put effort into something that isn't a substantial source.
Contact is enough to leech into food, though some are easier to leach into than others. Heat, time, acidity, fattiness increase rate of absorption. https://www.npr.org/2024/09/19/nx-s1-5116541/chemicals-from-...
I think since it eventually reaches ground water so everyone's water supply is at risk, we might consider that eliminating usage in one use packaging that is never recycled is better than thinking about individual use cases.
Vast majority of food packaging is plastics like PP and PE that don't use phthalates (or any other plasticiser) as they are naturally... plastic. PVC (soft) is the major application of plasticisers.
Hard PVC pipe does not contain plasticiser: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic_pipework#uPVC_(unplast...
Obviously this is baseless speculation, but I sure do wonder if various psychological conditions that are so diverse and hard to pin down (i.e. 3 out of these 9 symptoms around attention, social behavior, or impulse control) are ultimately just going to be proven to be purely biological. And since genetics can only explain less than half of it, it sure seems that something messing with chemical signaling would be a reasonable explanation for the rest.