line taken by the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the Alliance
for the Responsible Use of Chlorine Chemistry is that synthetic
oestrogens such as dioxin that act as endocrine disrupters, are
dwarfed by the phytoestrogens produced by hundreds of plants that
"appear to produce endocrine disrupters...The estrogenic effects
from the phytoestrogens in our diets are an estimated 40 million
times greater than those from synthetic chemicals... To date, however,
there is no concrete evidence that either pose a risk to human health."
similar line has been used in Australia by the head of the Environmental
Health and Safety Unit of the Commonwealth government who has said
"While most of the focus has been on man-made chemicals, it is important
to recognise that endogenous oestrogens, therapeutic use, and phytoestrogens...
are produced or ingested in much larger amounts than environmental
pollutants." He said that there is "no definite proof for any connection
between environmental exposure of humans to oestrogenic substances
and increasing cancer incidences or decreasing male fertility" and
that the emphasis should be on the need for further research. (Priestly
British Plastics Federation also refers to the "presence of naturally-occurring
oestrogenic chemicals in foodstuffs such as soya, peas, beans etc."
And the Chlorophiles have argued that "plants give natural oestrogen
mimics in our food." They suggested that we ingest so many 'natural
carcinogens' in our food that we should not be concerned about a
minute amounts of carcinogens caused by chlorine products.
...back to top
B. G. 1995, 'Environmental Oestrogens - A danger to men and women
- or to neither?' Paper presented at the Environmental Health Short
Course, December 1.
Jonathan 1995, 'Nature's Hormone Factory: Endocrine Disrupters in
the Natural Environment', CEI Environmental Studies Program.)
...back to top