|
Ian Shaw Institute of Environmental Science
and Research, Christchurch.
New Zealand Science Review Vol. 58(2) 2001
p38-46.
Throughout
history people have accepted risk associated with eating.
Prehistoric humans risked death to capture and collect their
food. But the risk
was worth it because without sustenance they would perish.
In the Dark Ages food-related illness was rife.
The seasonality of food was a key issue and necessitated
preservation techniques (e.g., salting) to provide for the long
winter months when little grew and animals did not breed.
Meat was often so foul when eaten in the depths of winter
that complex mixtures of spices and herbs were necessary to hide
its terrible putrid taste.
The bacterial composition of these foods was complex and
presumable pathogenic. Indeed,
the diseases associated with food were far worse than most of those
that we are familiar with today.
As the ages passed people became aware that certain activities
might taint their food and cause illness.
At this point in history it was likely that consumers would
become ill both due to the microbes contaminating their food and
because of dietary deficiencies (e.g., Scurvy; vitamin C deficiency)
due to lack of specific nutrients or vitamin-containing foods at
particular times of the year (e.g., fresh fruit in winter).
By Victorian times, as the first Europeans were setting foot
in New Zealand, there was a very much better understanding of food
safety. Food was chilled
to keep it fresh using ice produced by wetting clay pots and encouraging
evaporation to reduce the temperature and so freeze water.
Jams and preserves were made to keep fruit fresh for the
winter and canning was introduced to keep meats, fish and vegetables
fresh for many years.
At the beginning of the
20th Century there was a healthy philosophy relating
to food. It was understood
that a balanced diet was essential to avoid diseases associated
with dietary deficiencies and there was a developing understanding
of food-related illness. By the 1920s the associated between food contamination and
illness was well understood.
McFarland (1924) pointed out that if human excrement is used
to fertilise crops, dangers might lurk in green vegetables
harvested from the land, whereas fruits from trees and bushes are
likely to be safe. He
also emphasised the importance of milk as a vector of tuberculosis
from cows to people.
As we move into the
new millennium we have moved away from an acceptance of risk associated
with food towards a paranoia about food-related disease.
At first this might seem healthy but we have gone far beyond
sensibility. We now
consider risk in a vacuum and are unwilling to set it in the context
of the risks of daily life.
For example, the risk of death travelling to a shop to buy
food is far greater than the risk of death from eating the food
that has been purchased (Shaw, 1999).
Most people blindly accept the former while bemoaning
the latter. In the
UK consumers are so worried about contracting new variant Creutzfeldt
Jacob disease (nvCJD) from BSE-contaminated beef that beef consumption
has plummeted. Since
the first case of BSE was identified in the UK in 1986 (Wells
et al, 1987) there have been approximately 80 deaths from nvCJD. In the same time period there were approximately 49,000 deaths
on the roads. Clearly
cars pose a greater risk than BSE.
The knock-on effect
that the BSE saga has had around the world is astounding.
Most developed countries will no longer import UK beef or
beef products. But
perhaps the most interesting outcome is that the Peoples Republic
of China recently (January 2001) banned UK meat and bone products
to eliminate a risk from nvCJD that pales into insignificance when
the myriad of other food-related risks are considered.
Estimating the dietary intakes of Xenoestrogens
First it is important
to set a level playing field.
To do this the estorgenic activities of the various xenoestrogens
are expressed relative to the most potent estrogen
(17b-
estradiol) utilising data from the E Screen assay (Muller et al.,
1995) (Table 4).
Using food intake
data (in this case for the UK from Gregory et al., 1990) and known
residues or levels of xenoestrogens in food (from UK government
surveillance data; pesticides, MAFF (1998); plasticisers, MAFF (1996,
1997); phytoestrogens, Price and Fenwick (1985)) daily intakes can
be calculated.
| Substance
|
E Screen |
|
(Relative
to 17b- estradiol)
|
|
|
|
|
Phytoestrogens
|
|
|
Coumestrol
|
10-1
|
|
Zeralenone
|
3.3 x 10-3
|
|
Genistein
|
2 x 10-2
|
|
|
|
|
Pesticides
|
|
|
Endosulphan
|
10-6
|
|
DDT
|
10-6
|
|
Toxaphene
|
10-6
|
|
|
|
|
Plasticisers
|
|
|
Nonylphenol
|
10-6
|
|
Tert-Butylphenol
|
10-7
|
|
Nonoxanol-9
|
10-6
|
|
|
|
|
Table 4:
Estrogenic potency of xenoestrogens relative to 17b-
estradiol (data from Muller et al. (1995)).
|
The pharmacological
impact of xenoestrogens is dependent on the plasma level attained
relative to normal levels of endogenous estrogens.
In the human male the plasma concentration of 17b-
estradiol = 20 ng/l (De Coster et al 1985; Ongphiphadhanakul and
Rajatanavi, 1998). Therefore
if a plasma concentration of exogenous estrogen could be attained
that is either a significant proportion of, or greater than, the
endogenous estrogen concentration, it is likely that a pharmacological
effect will result.
Assuming an average
human blood volume of 4 1 and total absorbtion of dietary estrogens
and that the body represents a single compartment pharmacokinetic
model (which of course it is not!), the human estrogenic pesticide
concentration based on dietary intake = 0.005 ng/l E. eq.
This is only 0.025% of the normal male estrogen concentration
and therefore is unlikely to have a pharmacological effect.
Similar calculations
can be carried out for the other groups of dietary xenoestrogens
as a means of assessing their potential impact on human males (Table
5).
|
Food
Source/Estrogen Class
|
Exogenous
Estrogen
|
Calculated
Blood Concentration
(ng/l
E. eq.)
|
|
Phytoestrogens
|
|
|
|
Beans,
Peas, Spinach
|
Coumestrol
|
11.5
|
|
Soya
|
Coumestrol
|
3
|
|
|
Genistein/genistin
|
143
|
|
|
|
|
|
Plasticisers
|
|
|
|
Total
diet
|
Bisphenol-A
|
0.1
|
|
Total
diet
|
Phthalates
|
0.03
|
|
|
|
|
|
Table 5:
Theoretical blood levels of phytoestrogens and selected
estrogenic plasticisers resulting from dietary intake in the
UK. Phytoestrogen
data from Price and Fenwick (1985); plasticiser data from
MAFF (1996, 1997).
|
From Table 5 it is
clear that the total plasma concentration of bisphenol-A and the
phthalates (ie, 0.1 ng/l E. eq.) is a very small proportion (ie,
0.67%) of the normal endogenous estrogen concentration in human
male blood and therefore that they are extremely unlikely to have
a pharmacological effect.
Therefore the dietary
intakes of estrogenic plasticisers and pesticides are likely to
be too low to cause effects (eg. reduced sperm count) in human males. However, the intakes of phytoestrogens are likely to be high
enough to result in significant pharmacological effects and provided
their intake was reasonable constant and prolonged, they are a possible
cause of the human effects attributed to xenoestrogens.
The most likely source
of phytoestrogens are legumes, particularly Soya.
It is therefore interesting to speculate that the human sperm
count decrease over the past five decades might relate to the introduction
of Soya into the western diet and the increasing popularity of vegetarianism
a sting in the tail for apparently healthy eating!
Dietary estrogens
are an excellent example of chronic food residue toxins.
According to the calculations presented here they will have
a pharmacological impact on the consumer.
It is interesting that it is the natural phytoestrogens that
are the potential problem rather than the man-made contaminants.
Their importance is now being realised by governments around
the world. The USA
has recently investigated selected dietary estrogens with a view
to taking action to reduce their levels in food.
The time is right to assess their potential impact upon New
Zealanders.
|