Data suggest that the exposure to EDCs from natural dietary sources may be\u00a0higher\u00a0<\/a>than exposure to synthetic EDCs although this is a difficult comparison to make conclusively. Epidemiological studies of the health effects of both show mixed, complicated (i.e. confounded by associated factors), and mostly small results. Despite this nuance, we tend to view natural EDCs favorably, and synthetic EDCs unfavorably, despite having similar chemical properties. Source, not evidence, is the foundation for the difference in attitude toward natural and synthetic EDCs.<\/p>\n Now, this is not meant to make you afraid of eating soy, kale, berries and all these other foods, or of using your shampoo. I point this out to draw attention to the fact that that we tolerate a lot of risk in our lives and that exposure and risk are unavoidable parts of life. A simplistic dichotomy between the hazards of synthetic exposures and safety of natural exposures is often not based\u00a0on evidence. There is truly no such thing as a risk-free, exposure-free life, even with so-called \u201call-natural\u201d products. However, there are some simple and easy steps to reduce exposures if you are concerned, like avoiding soy-based products and use less plastic in food preparation and storage during sensitive developmental periods.<\/p>\n Reducing and mitigating risks where it is feasible to do so is reasonable, but it is often not a simple undertaking. For example, a recommendation to completely avoid phytoestrogen containing food would be misguided as evidence consistently shows that, despite concerns about exposure to phytoestrogens at certain times in life, a diet rich in a wide variety of fruits and vegetables produces a net benefit\u00a0<\/a>for health.<\/p>\n The similarities between natural and synthetic chemicals are often overlooked as we fall victim to our assumptions that natural is good and synthetic is bad. A chemical\u2019s properties are not affected by how it was produced. Synthetic chemicals that have a biological effect are able to do so because they are able to mimic or interact with systems that exist in nature. Chemistry, not source, determines how a chemical acts in a biological system.<\/p>\n From a 2010 review<\/a>, \u201cThe pros and cons of phytoestrogens\u201d:<\/p>\n Phytoestrogens are intriguing because, although they behave similarly to numerous synthetic compounds in laboratory models of endocrine disruption, society embraces these compounds at the same time it rejects, often with vigor, use of synthetic endocrine disruptors in household products. Thus, phytoestrogens both expand our view of environmental endocrine disruptors and propound that the source of the compound in question can influence the direction and interpretation of research and available data.<\/strong> While the potentially beneficial effects of phytoestrogen consumption have been eagerly pursued, and frequently overstated, the potentially adverse effects of these compounds are likely underappreciated. The opposite situation exists for synthetic endocrine disruptors, most of which have lower binding affinities for classical ERs than any of the phytoestrogens but can sometimes produce similar biological effects. (emphasis mine)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n In interpreting information about health effects of chemicals, wherever they come from, we must be aware of our biases in favor of the natural and against the synthetic to ensure that we analyze data objectively. Only when we consider evidence without bias can we arrive at sound recommendations and regulations. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" A chemical\u2019s properties are not affected by whether it was made by God, Mother Nature, evolution, or a chemist in a lab coat. There\u2019s a certain irony to drinking a soy latte from a BPA-free mug, but that\u2019s not something the chemophobic fear squad seems to understand. This fear-mongering crowd […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":333,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6,8,7],"tags":[9,11,10],"class_list":["post-325","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-chemophobia","category-endocrine-disruption","category-toxicology","tag-chemophobia","tag-endocrine-disruption","tag-toxicology"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.crediblehulk.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/325","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.crediblehulk.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.crediblehulk.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.crediblehulk.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.crediblehulk.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=325"}],"version-history":[{"count":8,"href":"https:\/\/www.crediblehulk.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/325\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":971,"href":"https:\/\/www.crediblehulk.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/325\/revisions\/971"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.crediblehulk.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/333"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.crediblehulk.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=325"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.crediblehulk.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=325"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.crediblehulk.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=325"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}![\"EDCs\"](\"http:\/\/crediblehulk.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/02\/Natural-1024x576.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\n