SUPPORT OUR
SPONSORS
Early Puberty's Toxic Causes and Effects
-
New report links chemicals to problematic early development
By JESSIKA FRUCHTER
San Francisco Bay Guardian, November 21, 2007
Straight to the Source
As if growing up weren't hard enough, a new report published by San Francisco's Breast Cancer Fund says girls, particularly African American girls, are hitting puberty earlier - and it's lasting longer.
Environmental toxins, obesity, and psychological stressors are all cited as possible reasons for the trend in the report written by Ithaca College professor Sandra Steingraber. It was commissioned about a year ago to put together what she calls "pieces of a big jigsaw puzzle."
Steingraber found that many girls now start to develop breasts as early as eight years old - two years earlier than they did a few decades ago. On average, however, girls begin menstruating only a few months earlier than they once did - making puberty a lengthier process.
The consequences of growing up too soon are serious - depression and anxiety, eating disorders, sexual objectification, and early drug and alcohol abuse are just a few.
"As a mother of a nine-year-old girl," Steingraber says, "I was really impressed by the consequences, not just the causes. The world is not a good place for early-maturing girls."
The implications are not just psychological. According to Steingraber's report, menarche before age 12 raises breast cancer risk by 50 percent.
"The data is pretty ample linking the two," she says. "The earlier a girl gets her breasts, the wider the estrogen window." Longer lifetime exposure to estrogen increases the risk of developing many forms of breast cancer.
Steingraber points to obesity and endocrine-disrupting chemicals (toxins that interfere with the hormonal system) as major factors in the new puberty equation. Phthalates, bisphenol A, and dioxin are a few of the culprits often cited by environmental health advocates as contributors to earlier puberty onset. These chemicals are often found in cosmetics and personal care products like shampoo, hand lotion, and sunscreen. They are also used in pesticides.
Full Story:
http://www.sfbg.com/entry.php?entry_id=5029&catid=&volume_id=317&issue_id
=326&volume_num=42&issue_num=08
Environmental toxins, obesity, and psychological stressors are all cited as possible reasons for the trend in the report written by Ithaca College professor Sandra Steingraber. It was commissioned about a year ago to put together what she calls "pieces of a big jigsaw puzzle."
Steingraber found that many girls now start to develop breasts as early as eight years old - two years earlier than they did a few decades ago. On average, however, girls begin menstruating only a few months earlier than they once did - making puberty a lengthier process.
The consequences of growing up too soon are serious - depression and anxiety, eating disorders, sexual objectification, and early drug and alcohol abuse are just a few.
"As a mother of a nine-year-old girl," Steingraber says, "I was really impressed by the consequences, not just the causes. The world is not a good place for early-maturing girls."
The implications are not just psychological. According to Steingraber's report, menarche before age 12 raises breast cancer risk by 50 percent.
"The data is pretty ample linking the two," she says. "The earlier a girl gets her breasts, the wider the estrogen window." Longer lifetime exposure to estrogen increases the risk of developing many forms of breast cancer.
Steingraber points to obesity and endocrine-disrupting chemicals (toxins that interfere with the hormonal system) as major factors in the new puberty equation. Phthalates, bisphenol A, and dioxin are a few of the culprits often cited by environmental health advocates as contributors to earlier puberty onset. These chemicals are often found in cosmetics and personal care products like shampoo, hand lotion, and sunscreen. They are also used in pesticides.
Full Story:
http://www.sfbg.com/entry.php?entry_id=5029&catid=&volume_id=317&issue_id
=326&volume_num=42&issue_num=08
Comments
diana
Nov 25 2007, 02:48 PM
If we could ever learn to frame these kinds of issues better, we could do good without concurrent harm. Could. Correlation means correlation, not *causation.* And who benefits from the slant of a given study or article? Who or what is demonized, focused on, and who or what gets to skate into the background?
A big decrease in the age of onset of menarche has been evident for a long time, because I first heard about it when my kids were in early grade school, eleven years ago. Back then they were blaming hormones in meat and milk. Now, of course, one of the front runners is "obesity." If we can shift blame onto girls' innate wrongness, then the environmental causes are less subject to scrutiny. And speaking of innate wrongness -- estrogen comes up as another culprit. I can see the pharma ad now: "Estrogen is dangerous, leads to breast cancer, so protect your daughter with new Aestroend, the pill that dramatically decreases the deadly estrogen created pathologically by a female body!"
Our food is tainted, as are the air and the water we take in. As to psychological stressors? If becoming an obvious female is stressful, isn't it more meaningful to look at the culture in which females face this stress? Gee, maybe there's something wrong with how we treat adult females if leaving childhood is inherently traumatic! And might there be specific negative effects in becoming a Black woman in a racist, patriarchal culture??? One might think ... but they didn't.
How we frame is who we blame. A breast cancer group blaming the female hormone, estrogen, Black race and body fat/ness for breast cancer is absolutely unconscionable! Adiposity is even more associated with Blackness than with other races, and is associated, as well, as with poverty. So let's blame the victim, and keep Monsanto out of the limelight. How freaking convenient! --d
humanmilkpatentp...
Jan 12 2008, 08:56 AM
How we frame is who we blame. A breast cancer group blaming the female hormone, estrogen, Black race and body fat/ness for breast cancer is absolutely unconscionable! Adiposity is even more associated with Blackness than with other races, and is associated, as well, as with poverty. So let's blame the victim, and keep Monsanto out of the limelight. How freaking convenient! --d
[/quote]
I think you have made a profound statement, "How we frame is who we blame." This is also evident in hiv/aids "science" and in the "ricket epidemic" (blamed on vitamin D deficiency) of African American breastfed babies. How does an infectious disease target only certain races? Defies logic. In the case of rickets, the blame is placed on breastfeeding and again on race. Yet the science defies logic but it is convenient way to sell testing, drugs, and supplements.
Add a Comment
Comment on this story in the OCA Forum and your comment will also be added here.
Requires a valid OCA Forum username and password.

Noticias
y campañas
de la OCA
en español




