It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: InFriNiTee
This means to me that someone should set up a petition that will get people on board to request that the FDA force manufacturers to print out the chemical(s) that are used in their plastic manufacturing. I doubt that will happen, but if enough people signed that petition then it might actually happen.
originally posted by: InFriNiTee
Just because something is "banned" by FDA doesn't mean that they ENFORCE it. Several years ago, FDA put a tentative ban on partially-hydrogenated oils (soybean PHO, cottonseed PHO, etc., etc.). The tentative ban was written in a way that the corporations were supposed to "use up what they had" and switch to a "healthier" non-hydrogenated oil. They basically switched it out with canola oil (which has other health risks), and they still use partially-hydrogenated canola oil in lots of baked goods. Funny thing with that is that it usually doesn't say whether the canola is partially-hydrogenated or not. Just look at the ingredients in Famous Dave's food, Pizza Hut, Dominos, etc., etc., etc. They are still using it to this day.
One of the most significant findings from this study is the high prevalence of individuals with confirmed or strongly suspected prenatal DES exposure who self-identify as transsexual, transgender, intersex, or who have identified serious difficulties with gender dysphoria.
Throughout this study, the issue of gender dysphoria (Colucciello, 1996) and the prevalence of a significant number of self-identified male-to-female transsexuals (Cohen-Kettenis and Gooren, 1999) and transgendered individuals (Conway, 2004) as well as some individuals who identify as intersex, androgynous, gay and bisexual has raised fresh awareness of historic theories of a possible biological/endocrine foundation to variations in psychosexual development in humans (including sexual orientation, core gender identity, and sexual identity). Some of these theories were first forwarded in the 1960s by experts in sexual medicine (Benjamin, 1966, 1973; Diamond, 1965, 1996) and have been further refined relative to the role of hormones in shaping gender-based behavior and sexual orientation (Dorner, 2001; Friedman and Downey, 2002; Wilson, 1999; Michel, Mormont and Legros 2001; Rudacille, 2005). The discoveries in this study suggest that gender dysphoria and transsexual changes may be a plausible toxic endpoint for future exploration of the human health effects of exposure to endocrine disruptors. Further, they call into question the accuracy and adequacy of previous research and conclusions by Titus-Ernstoff et al. (2003) in which they conclude that there is little support for a hypothesis that prenatal DES exposure influences psychosexual development in males and females (Udry, 2003).
Behavioral and Somatic Disorders in Children Exposed in Utero to Synthetic Hormones: A Testimony-Case Study in a French Family Troop
Marie-Odile Soyer-Gobillard1 and Charles Sultan2
 Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Unité Mixte de Recherche 7628 Université P. et M. Curie (Paris6) Laboratoire Arago, F-66650 Banyuls sur mer and Association HHORAGES, (Halte aux HORmones Artificielles pour les GrossessES), Le Prieuré de Baillon, Asnières sur Oise,, France
 Service d'Hormonologie (Développement et Reproduction), Hôpital Lapeyronie, CHU de Montpellier, Montpellier, France et Institut de Génétique Humaine, CNRS UPR 1142, Montpellier, FranceService de Pédiatrie I, Unité d’endocrinologie et gynécologie pédiatrique, Hôpital Arnaud-de-Villeneuve, CHU de Montpellier, Montpellier Cedex 5,, France
This study shows that there are serious effects on the psychological and physical health of the descendants of women treated with synthetic hormones during their pregnancy. Preliminary results by a group in Paris have recently been published (1), based on observations and diagnoses of psychiatric disorders in a small sample of children from the HHORAGES families. As synthesized by Dodds in 1938, but not patented, diethylstilbestrol (DES), a synthetic non-steroid estrogen, given among others to pregnant women, was considered at the time as “an indisputable progress in the therapeutics of ovarian deficiency”, and was described in such terms as early as May 1939 in an advertisement shown in “Le Progrès Médical”, a French journal. Despite various alerts which were published as early as 1940, and after research work was conducted on animals proving carcinogenic effects, and despite Dieckmann et al. , which demonstrated the ineffectiveness of DES to prevent miscarriages or premature births in a large cohort of DES-treated women versus placebo-treated women, the product has been much used worldwide, and has caused a long list of damaging effects in the past, the present and very likely in the future [3-5]. The discovery of vaginal clear cell adenocarcinomas in “DES daughters”  led to DES being banned for pregnant women in 1971 in the US, but it was only in 1977 that it was banned in France, where this particular use of DES was removed from the Vidal pharmaceutical handbook. However, DES was still sporadically prescribed until 1981. Meanwhile, another steroid estrogen, also synthesized in 1938 by H. Herloff Inhoffen and W. Hohlweg, 17-alpha-ethinylestradiol, was often added to DES in cocktails, or at a later stage was used as a replacement, sometimes with synthetic delayed progestin. An example of prescription, time and doses is shown in Table 1.
Eventually I learned about additional long-term consequences of DES exposure, but the vast majority of them were in those assigned female. Even female homosexuality was recognized as a complication, along with breast cancer in the mothers as well as daughters, and an epidemic of infertility. A group, DES Action, sprang up in the 1970’s, fueled by the young women’s movement and books such as “Our Bodies, Our Selves.” Lawsuits were filed and won, Congress got into the act, and DES was eventually recognized as the worst drug disaster in American history. 5 million women were poisoned, and while the vaginal tumor developed in only 1:1000, it was still a true tragedy.