BPA Baby Blues May 24, 2008

Five months ago I asked my baby’s pediatrician whether I should be worried about BPA in his bottles, and his response was “there’s nothing to be concerned about.”  I wonder if he would give me that same answer today!  Since the 1950’s when BPA, the chemical bisphenol A, started appearing in more products such as the epoxy linings of cans and polycarbonate bottles, scientists have known about its potential health risks and estrogenic effects.  However, these risk have often been dimissed as being insignificant because of the low dose of BPA leaching out of these materials and the speed with which humans metabolize it.

However, when 38 leading toxicology experts said there is “some” concern about the current epidemiological effects of BPA in their consensus statement published in Reproductive Toxicology http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/newscience/2007/2007-0801bpaconsensus.pdf, concerned parties worldwide finally had more than a little scientific backing and the media took the issue to the frontlines.  Now everybody is talking about BPA and there is little doubt about the negative health effects on wildlife, humans, and most significantly, infants.  Yet there are still a lot of unanswered questions due to the finicky nature of this chemical, and how it impacts us in a wide range of ways depending on the dose, the life stage of the person, and what other chemical exposures exist.

What can you do to reduce your exposure as well as your baby’s?  First, steer clear of canned food – especially if pregnant or breastfeeding..  Yep, according to the Environmental Working Group canned food accounts for 99% of childhood exposure http://www.ewg.org/node/20933.  The worst offenders are infant formula, soup, vegetables, pasta, and meal replacements.  Secondly, check hard plastics for recycling #7, which means it is likely to have BPA in it.  If you must use these plastics, don’t microwave , put them in the dishwashwer, or put hot foods or liquids in them as heat breaks down the chemical bonds and releases BPA more quickly.  If the item has scratches throw it away.  Finally, baby bottles made of glass are chemically the safest, but there are also alternative plastics.  http://zrecs.blogspot.com/2008/02/z-report-on-bpa-in-infant-care-products.html has some fun reviews of BPA-free products.  Finally, stay in tune as Walmart, Target, and other key retailers ban BPA from their baby product shelves and offer more BPA-free choices. 

 

 

 

high fructose corn syrup – how bad is it? May 23, 2008

As I talk with friends and family, read health magazines and surf the net, I am hearing more and more about the horrors of High-fructose corn syrup, or HFCS.  I hear how it raises blood sugar, increases the fat stored in the abdominal region, and causes everything from alzheimers to cancer and diabetes.  And now even the FDA has come down saying that it isn’t a “natural” ingredient (check http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/news/ng.asp?n=84404-fcs-natural. )  

But is it that bad?  Biochemically, HFCS is has about the same ratio of glucose to fructose as table sugar, or sucrose:  about 55% fructose.  Once it is broken down and absorbed into the body, there’s not much reason to believe that it behaves that much differently than regular sugar – and that’s what many studies, including a recent one in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition,  (http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/87/5/1194) show as well.    So why the contradictory research about the ill-health effects?  I think it comes down to portions.  Because HFCS is relatively cheap, many food producers use it and people consume large quantities of it – roughly 40-44 pounds per person in 2007 according to the USDA.  And we all know that large amounts of junk food, whether it’s made with sucrose or HFCS – is not the best thing for the body.  Research supports that common-sense conclusion as well. 

So should we avoid it?  That’s a tough job in today’s processed food world, but minimizing bot HFCS and other kinds of sugars has always been sound advice if you’re watching your calories and trying to eat a nutrient-dense diet.  Check the nutrition facts label first – 4 grams of sugar equals 1 teaspoon, or 15 empty calories, regardless of what type of sugar it is.  If the label shows more than 10 grams of sugar per serving, you’re probably better off leaving it on the shelf.

Chocolate – the next health food? May 1, 2008

Before I begin to comment on this article I must confess my bias – I love chocolate.  Therefore, I am especially fond of any research that supports chocolate’s health benefits.  So what can we apply from the recent Yale University study at http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_63922.html) which indicates that pregnant women who consume more chocolate have healthier pregnancies?  

For starters, let’s look at the data:  researchers looked at 2,291 women who delivered a single baby, and asked them how much chocolate they ate in their first and third trimesters.  They also tested the cord blood for theobromine, a compound in dark chocolate that can help alleviate some cardiovascular problems by relaxing the arteries and stimulating the heart.  Apparently, the women women who reported eating the most chocolate and whose infants’ cord blood showed higher theobromine levels were actually 69% less likely to have preeclampsia than the women who ate the least chocolate! 

So should your OB prescribe a chocolate bar with prenatal vitamins yet?  While this study looks promising, we still don’t know which is the cause and which is the effect: whether the chocolate is the predictor, or whether healthy women with fewer preeclampsia risk factors are just more likely to indulge in lots of dark chocolate!  That said, it looks promising that small servings of dark chocolate, which is richer in these healthful compounds, fits into the healthy pregnancy diet.  As for me, I’ll keep enjoying my daily chocolate and keep looking for more studies to support the habit.