Health Outcomes
Cognitive Changes
By Natalie Rodgers
Evaluating PCBs and Cognition
Many of the EDCs found in food packaging and used in food processing materials that contaminate food can lead to altered cognition in humans. These cognitive effects can include increased incidence of Autism, ADHD, impaired memory, altered social behaviors, and altered reproductive behaviors to name the neurological impacts that are primarily studied. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are one type of EDC that has known impacts on cognition and neurological development and are persistent in the food chain and the environment despite being banned in the United States in 1977. Studies have found that in contaminated environments, women’s breast milk can contain PCBs that disrupt neurological and motor development when consumed by infants and young children (Bell, 2014). Associations have also been found in epidemiological studies of adult exposure to EDCs showing increased incidence of symptoms characteristic of depression (Bell, 2014). Studies in rats also suggest that PCB exposure impacts sexual and social interactions by reducing motivation to engage in such behaviors, due to disfunction of reward pathways that are consistent with the depressive symptoms found in humans (Bell, 2014).
​
Evaluating BPA & Phthalates and Cognition
EDCs disrupt at many levels of the HPG axis
Other EDCs, such as BPA and phthalates, have similar impacts on cognition because they operate at the level of gonadal hormones, the HPG axis, and neurotransmitters which are important both in reproduction and neural pathways. However, this interaction is complex and the specific interactive mechanisms which cause such effects are still being evaluated. Still, phthalates used in plasticizers in food packaging have been shown to cause ADHD symptoms in females and motor function alteration in boys (Schug et. al, 2015). BPA used in some plastic products in food packaging have been linked with ADHD symptoms, anxiety symptoms, social aggression, and social behavior changes through endocrine disruption (Schug et. al, 2015). There are studies that suggest EDC exposure may lead to increased anxiety-like behaviors and symptoms if exposure occurs early in life (Schug et. al, 2015).
​
​
Using the Social Model of Disability
It is important to note that in the case of conditions typically characterized as disabilities and disorders, such as Autism and ADHD, we do not view these outcomes as inherently poor. Our consulting firm subscribes to the social model of disability rather than the medical model of disability. The medical model of disability states that disability lies in deficits or damage in the body that should be treated or prevented. The social model of disability affirms that disability is simply difference in the body that society discriminates against and places social barriers against, preventing equal access. Hence, we believe that the higher incidence rates of Autism and ADHD among other changes as caused by EDCs are not inherently bad, but rather, that the current social systems do not have adequate support structures to accommodate increased incidence. Both neurodevelopmental and mental disorders often require social assistance through education/community support or medical treatment/management. However, like any program or treatment, these require valuable fiscal and personnel resources. Therefore, social consequences of EDC exposure may involve straining resources in already vulnerable communities to make up for inadequate current social systems that do not already provide equitable access to public goods, such as free public education, for people with differing abilities.
EDCs effect on reproductive health and fertility from a queer ecological lens
By Sara Taubman
​
This section will touch upon the health outcomes correlated to the specific EDCs in food packaging (BPA, Phthalates, and PFCs). While investigating these health outcomes, it is important to firstly acknowledge that many studies relating to EDCs center around reproductive health and sex differences in ways that often perpetuate a reprocentric narrative, as well as propagate cissexism. According to Butler, who addresses heteronormativity of environmentalism, reprocentricity is the “position of reproduction (or procreation) as being central to all people’s lives”(Butler, 2017) and cissexim is defined as “positioning cisgendered people as natural and normal”(Butler, 2017) Environmental studies are often quick to instill fear and negativity surrounding deviations from reproductive “norms.” Many environmental studies discussing EDCs label gonadal and reproductive organ variances, chromosomal variances, “or hormonal level changes as problematic or abnormal. Reinforcing the mission of this consulting firm, our goal is not to present change as negative, but to explore the possible physiological changes as natural variance in a neutral way. Each of our bodies are dynamic entities. We are all exposed to variant environments. Adaptation is the most natural course for humans. We constantly change. Diverse body types are beautiful, and when it comes to sex, it is critical that we break down the binary narrative. Furthermore, sex does not equate to gender, however, in many environmental studies, this assumption is made. For example, a paper may state that they study women’s reproductive health. Their study may be on uteruses in mice health, to draw implications about women’s reproductive health would imply that having a uterus and being a woman are inherently linked. However, not all women have a uterus and conversely not all people who have a uterus identify as a woman.
​
Much of the existing research regarding EDCs and reproductive health focuses on fertility. While fertility and reproduction are central in some people’s lives, it is critical to understand that reproduction may not be central, or even relevant in many people’s lives. As human beings, we are more than bodies to carry babies or bodies to fertilize other bodies. Reproductive health and fertility are important topics to consider, however, our value is not based on our ability to reproduce. Our value and health should not be determined based on our ability or desire to reproduce. When discussing fertility I acknowledge that by discussing reproductive health in this section, this is by no means the primary health outcome of relevance. While this section will focus on reproductive health, this may propagate concerns of a reprocentric narrative. To further understand the holistic health outcomes of EDCs, please view the sections within this tab. Reproductive health is only one piece to the picture.
The primary reproductive health concerns related to the EDCs in food packaging are decreased fertility and early puberty.(Report Disrupted Development the Dangers of Prenatal BPA Exposure, 2013) While BPA has been banned in baby bottles, according to a 2013 report on BPA by the Breast Cancer Fund, the most critical time of exposure of BPA is to a fetus.(Report Disrupted Development the Dangers of Prenatal BPA Exposure, 2013)
​
​“In the first 11 weeks of gestation, a time during which many pregnant women are not yet aware they are pregnant, the fetus’s organs and internal communication systems develop rapidly and can be exquisitely sensitive to external factors. Some organs, such as the mammary gland14 and the brain, develop throughout gestation, and therefore have a longer window of vulnerability. Fetal development of these and other organ systems is sensitive to fluctuations of estrogen, and to compounds that act like estrogen, such as BPA.”(Report Disrupted Development the Dangers of Prenatal BPA Exposure, 2013)
​
This means that during pregnancy, EDC exposure through food packaging such as canned food linings, could be a critical time to pay attention to EDC exposure. While some pregnant people may have a choice in which foods they consume, pregnant people of color will be more likely to live in communities affected by food apartheids. It is important not to place the lifestyle responsibility solely on the pregnant person, but to acknowledge the barriers that increase body burdens to certain people. This is at the roots of our consulting firm’s goals: to create community interventions to provide greater access to fresh foods.
​
The primary concern of decreased fertility in humans is present in many studies, however most acknowledge the limitations due to potential confounding variables. Furthermore, several studies acknowledge limitations due to the accuracy in mimicking dosing of EDC exposure on animal studies. An editorial review from the Frontiers in Endocrinology states that BPA and BPA analogues can decrease spermatogenesis and could also potentially have epigenetic effects on fertility. However, the article states that there are several limitations due to sperm quality variability and also potential confounding variables. (Barbonetti, A., D'Andrea, S., Bernabò, N., & Volle, D. H, 2020) One study from Gynecological Endocrinology did a comparison between fertile and infertile women, and found that the infertile women had an increased concentration in BPA serum levels. This study serves as potential evidence for a correlation between fertility and BPA exposure. (Caserta, D., Bordi, G., Ciardo, F., Marci, R., La Rocca, C., Tait, S., ... & Moscarini, M, 2013)
While fertility may be a health outcome of concern to some groups, it may not be for all. This article should be used as an informative source, but may be of varying relevancy. Please review our other health outcome articles in conjunction with this for a more comprehensive assessment of the health outcomes correlated to EDCs in food packages.
Metabolic Effects
By Katelin Tanjuaquio
Food packaging often contains EDCs which can disrupt metabolism, sometimes leading to obesity and diabetes. These EDCs most notably include Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAs), phthalates, and BPA. EDCs act upon the metabolic system in a variety of ways, depending on the specific EDC; the main methods include acting as a hormone and disrupting the current hormonal homeostasis, disrupting xenosensors in the liver, or interacting with specific metabolic receptors . Through these mechanisms, studies have found associations between a higher concentration of PFA exposure with a higher prevalence of diabetes risk (Cardenas et al., 2019). Another scholarly article also found several studies pointing to a positive association between PFA exposure from food packaging and high cholesterol levels (Casals-Casas & Desvergne, 2011). This article also found a positive correlation between phthalates and obesity and insulin (Casals-Casas & Desvergne, 2011). These all point to relationships between EDCs commonly found in food packaging and potential metabolic disruptions.
It is important to note, however, that, despite these associations, there is much difficulty in pushing for regulation. This is because of confounding factors. It is difficult to determine if associated health risks are a result of the EDCs themselves or due to nutritional quality of the food, lifestyle, or genetics, though hypotheses do point to the growing incidence of metabolic outcomes (Casals-Casas & Desvergne, 2011). Further, these findings are associations and not causal links. Overall, distinguishing between root causes is quite the challenge and must be addressed in tandem as we push for stricter regulation and solutions.
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
In looking at the impact of endocrine disrupting chemicals on the immune system, and related health effects, numerous studies show areas of concern. Researchers in a study into zebrafish found a mechanism by which exposure to EDCs in a critical stage of early life development could have ripple effects on a newborn organism’s immune system (Jin et al., 2010). Using zebrafish as a model organism, and targeting EDC exposure to occur during embryonic development, the researchers observed changes in transcription patterns among genes typically associated with immune system function (Jin et al., 2010). This study has relevance and suggests the need for further research into the immune system impacts of EDCs and in particular their impact on early life development especially into chemicals used in foods and food packaging given to infants and children. Similarly, a review of the literature of lab and animal studies regarding the impact of commonly used EDCs on immune system function discovered potentiality of the chemicals to have allergenic potential and even impact the epigenome, in addition to the immune system effects (Kuo et al., 2012). This piece can be useful to our overall understanding of the issue our consulting firm is tackling in terms of consumer safety in that, even if not definitively proven, the literature gives cause for concern given their widespread use in food packaging. Lastly, a review looking at the literature of the health impacts of common endocrine disrupting chemicals with a particular focus on how BPA might be causing dysregulation within the immune system further shed light on the worrisome unknowns and biological mechanisms at play (Rodgers et al., 2013). The comprehensive paper mainly discusses the impact the chemical has on cellular receptors that have the potential to cause or suppress inflammation responses like estrogen, aryl hydrocarbon, and PPAR nuclear receptors (Rodgers et al., 2013). This piece is relevant to our explorations of the biological impacts of EDCs as it discusses additional, non-obvious biological impacts food packaging EDCs can have, further highlighting the importance of studying and mitigating their effects. In exploring the literature of endocrine disrupting chemicals on the immune system, much is still unknown, however animal models and postulated mechanisms create legitimate risks that deserve more research and risk analysis.
​
​
​​