Man-made chemicals that have long made life easier for everyone from cooks to clothiers are getting another round of scientific scrutiny. They may be related to unhealthy levels of cholesterol, a study released Monday suggests.

Jessica Nelson, one of the authors of a new study of chemicals' impact on cholesterol

The chemicals are PFCs, and they’ve already been proven problematic. The Environmental Protection Agency and the top producers of one PFC (perfluoroalkys) have agreed to eliminate its use and emissions worldwide by 2015.

Even if they were eradicated tomorrow, the researchers at Boston University School of Public Health point out that some PFCs linger in the body a long time – one has a half-life of up to 8½ years.

There are hundreds of PFCs, and science is just scratching the surface of their potential impact on people. The chemicals are used to create non-stick or repellent materials on a laundry list of products. Your cooking pan, that waterproof jacket, your carpet and the packaging your frozen dinner came in all contain PFCs. The chemicals are used in almost every industry, from automobiles to electronics, textiles to cleaning products.

“PFCs have been used for over 50 years,” said Jessica W. Nelson, one of the authors of the study. “It is a large family of chemicals. There has been a fair amount of study in animals, but studies with people have been fewer.”

In studies of animals, there were direct correlations between high PFC levels and a host of illnesses, including cancer and developmental problems, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.

“So far, these have mostly consisted of studies in people who work with PFCs and have higher exposures. Studies of people exposed to background levels are just starting to come out,” Nelson said.

Many water-repellent fabrics and surfaces contain PFCs.

“We really don’t know specifically how people are being exposed to PFCs. . . . They’re used widely in industry as surfactants and coatings. They make products resistant to stains, oil and water,” Nelson said Monday. “They’re used in products like pizza boxes, microwave popcorn bags, take-out food wrappers, textile coatings, carpet treatments . . . “

Researchers believe PFCs may enter the body through food and drinking water, ingesting and inhaling air and dust, or directly from products.

So what is the correlation between the PFCs and cholesterol?

The scientists were able to gather blood serum from 2,094 people, making use of a large, varied group of Americans who have been part of an ongoing survey by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“Our study found an association between blood levels of several PFCs and higher levels of bad (LDL) cholesterol,” Nelson said. Of the study participants, the 25 percent carrying the highest levels of PFOS, PFOA and PFNA (perfluorononanoic acid) in their bodies had higher levels of “bad” serum cholesterol.

The study participants with the least amount of those three PFCs had less “bad” cholesterol in their bodies. There was not a clear link between PFCs and body size/weight and insulin resistance, which the researchers also analyzed.

Non-stick cookware has long been made with PFC coatings.

One interesting finding in the study suggests that even typical adults with relatively low levels of the three PFCs in their bodies had higher LDL cholesterol than the general population. This was especially pronounced in people with PFNA in their systems.

The fourth chemical, PFHxS (perfluorohexane sulfonic acid), which has not been studied extensively, did not appear to have a strong link with cholesterol levels.

Researcher Nelson emphasized that their findings are “exploratory, and need to be followed up.

“Our results do not say that PFCs cause higher cholesterol. However, the association that we found – together with what other studies have found – is cause for concern and more research.”

The most prevalent chemical, PFOS, was more common in non-Hispanic white males, and age didn’t appear to be a factor.

The ranks of people with high levels of “bad” cholesterol has been growing, and that is linked to coronary heart disease, among other health problems.

“Despite its limitations, this study contributes to the literature suggesting that PFC exposure may disrupt cholesterol metabolism or homeostasis in humans,” the report said.

The study appeared in the Environmental Health Perspectives journal and is available online. The journal is part of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.

The EPA has answers to frequent questions about PFCs, and more information is available from the nation’s Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

A new study shows that chemicals found in flame retardants also are turning up in certain meat — and no, they’re not there intentionally to quell that internal fire from the barbecue.

These chemicals, known as PBDEs (polybrominated diphenyl ethers) have been shown to have negative health consequences; they’re suspected of interfering with the human endocrine system and fertility and causing neurological damage. Until now, that meant we might want to evaluate the PBDEs in our upholstered furniture and mattresses, get our babies out of “flame retardant” clothing, and reduce our exposure to other things made with polyurethane foam and fabrics required to be flame retardant.

Researchers publishing in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives this month suggest we might want to also consider what we’re putting on our plate. They’re not quite sure how they’re getting there, but they’ve found that PBDE accumulation in the human body is associated with eating high-fat poultry and red meat.

The scientists, from the Boston University School of Public Health, speculated in the June article that the animal’s feed may have been contaminated or that PBDEs accumulated during the packaging and processing of the meat. PBDEs tend to aggregate in fat tissue and do not easily degrade.Somehow, though, their research found that this meat increased the levels of PBDEs in human consumers.

The researchers, however, found no similar accumulation related to the consumption of dairy or fish.

“Our study offers the first large-scale look at the effect of the American diet on PBDE body burdens showing significant associations with poultry and red meat consumption,” wrote the research team in a statement. “As PBDE-containing products continue to degrade and enter the waste stream in larger amounts, future exposure to PBDEs may begin to shift more heavily from the indoor environment to the outdoor environment and, consequently, the diet.”

EHP is an open access journal published by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Calling the fight against cancer “one of the most notorious public health failures of the 20th century” four leading cancer and environmental experts called on Congress and the Obama Administration this week to acknowledge the role environmental carcinogens play in triggering cancer and dedicate more money to cancer prevention.

In a letter to Congressional leaders, the national medical and scientific experts said they were concerned that prevention has received little attention in the Obama Cancer Plan. They noted that health care costs could not be brought under control without a better plan to fight the disease that claims 1,500 American lives daily and costs $89 billion a year to diagnose and treat. (Costs rise to $219 billion annually, when lost productivity and premature death costs are factored in).

“The connection between our losing the cancer war and the need to control costs through prevention is clear. Cancer is not only one of the most costly and sometimes deadly diseases in America, it is also one of the most preventable,” they wrote.

As Congress ramps up this week to craft what could be a massive health care reform package, the advocates asked that elected leaders make revisions to the National Cancer Act (of 1971) that would reduce Americans’ exposure to carcinogens by half over the next decade.

They also want a complete public registry of carcinogens.

For too long, they say, the National Cancer Institute has blamed the vast majority of cancer on human behaviors, such as lack of exercise, poor diet and sun exposure – ignoring the role of environmental carcinogens.

But environmental and occupational exposures to carcinogens are the primary cause of non-smoking related cancers, say the petitioning experts, led by Dr. Samuel S. Epstein, MD Chairman, Cancer Prevention Coalition in Chicago. They cited “preventable exposures to carcinogens in the workplace and environment” such as nitrites in processed meats, formaldehyde, chlorinated organic pesticides, organic solvents and other substances.

The letter listed many more examples of how environmental factors, beyond tobacco use, that are believed to cause cancer.

“To be sure, smoking remains the best-known and single largest cause of cancer, particularly lung cancer. While incidence rates of lung cancer in men have declined by 20% over the past three decades, rates in women increased by 111%. But more importantly, non-smoking cancers — due to known chemical and physical carcinogens — have increased substantially since 1975. Some of the more startling realities in the failure to prevent cancer are illustrated by their soaring rates of increase. These include: