This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Animals and 6-Month-Old Infants Are Getting Fatter … Which Mean that It’s Something In the Environment
We’ve extensively documented that toxic chemicals in our food, water and air our causing an epidemic of obesity … even in 6 month old infants.
No matter how lazy and gluttonous adults may have become recently, 6-month-olds can’t be lazy … they can’t even walk, let alone go to the gym.
And 6-month-olds can’t “binge” … Gerber doesn’t make corn dogs or milk chocolate truffles with rum.
The same thing is being observed in animals … hardly your stereotypical couch potatoes.
Specifically, the Proceeding of the Royal Society published a scientific paper in 2010 showing that animals – as well as humans – are getting hit with more obesity:
‘Like humans, domestic animals and fish and other wildlife are exposed to contaminants in air, soil, water, and food, and they can suffer acute and chronic health effects from such exposures. Animal sentinel systems—systems in which data on animals exposed to contaminants in the environment are regularly and systematically collected and analyzed—can be used to identify potential health hazards to other animals or humans.’
National Academy of Sciences (1991, p. 1).
***
From 24 distinct populations (12 subdivided into separate male and female populations), representing eight species (see §2 for inclusion criteria), over 20 000 animals were studied. Time trends for mean per cent weight change and the odds of obesity (see the electronic supplementary material for definition) were tested for the samples from each population at an age period that corresponded roughly to early-middle adulthood (35 years) in human development (see the electronic supplementary material for calculation) because on a per cent basis, in United States adults, 30–39 years is the decade of human life in which obesity has increased at least as much as any age interval during the last several decades (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhanes/overweight.pdf).
The animals came from a variety of different settings and environments, which reduces the possibility that all of the animals were lazy or more gluttonous than normal:
Macaques—Wisconsin. Our sample consisted of 65 (23 males, 42 females) rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta—Indian origin) from the Wisconsin National Primate Research Center (WNPRC) measured between 1971 and 2006.
Macaques—Oregon. Our sample consisted of 46 (14 males, 32 females) rhesus macaques (Macaca Mulatta—Indian strain) from the Oregon National Primate Research Center (ONRPC), measured between 1981 and 1993.
Macaques—California. Our sample consisted of 77 (30 males, 47 females) rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta), primarily of Indian origin from the CNPRC (California National Primate Research Center), measured between 1979 and 1992.Chimpanzees. Our sample consisted of 46 (16 males, 30 females) chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) that had been born and lived their entire lives at the Yerkes National Primate Research Center (YNPRC). These animals were measured between the years 1985–2005.Vervets. Our sample included a total of 117 (36 males, 81 females) vervet monkeys (Chlorocebus aethiops sabaeus) living in 18 captive social groups at the UCLA-VA Vervet Research Colony, measured between the years 1990 and 2006.Marmosets. Our sample included a total of 143 (65 males, 78 females) common marmosets (Callitrichix jacchus jacchus) from the WNPRC, measured between the years 1991 and 2006.Mice and rats (laboratory). Our sample consisted of animals from 106 rat and 93 mouse studies. There was some variation in sample size between studies. For both rats and mice, the majority of studies had sample sizes of 60 males and 60 females. However, some studies had fewer (i.e. 50, 49, etc.) or more (i.e. 70) animals. In calculating our sample size, we decided to use a conservative estimate of 50 animals per study. Body weights for only untreated control mice and rats used in National Toxicology Programme (NTP) studies between the years of 1982 and 2005 were analysed.Domestic dogs and cats. Our sample of dogs included a total of 2806 (1366 males, 1440 females) animals measured between the years of 1990 and 2002. Our sample of cats included a total of 574 (265 males, 309 females) animals, measured between the years of 1989 to 2001.Feral rats. Our sample consisted of 6115 (2886 males, 3229 females) wild Norway rats (Rattus norvegicus) that were captured in the central alleys of high-density residential neighbourhoods using single-capture live traps, while rural rat populations were sampled from parklands and agricultural areas in areas surrounding the city [12,13], between the years 1948 and 2006.
The results showed across-the-board increases in obesity:
For per cent weight change, 24 out of 24 time trends were positive (i.e. increasing). The probability of all out of 24 independent trend estimates being in the same direction by chance is 1.2 × 10−7. For the odds of obesity, 23 out of 24 cases were positive (p = 3.0 × 10−6; table 1 and figure 1). When we combine males and females of each species into a single analysis, we find that in all 12 populations, per cent weight change and odds of obesity time trends were positive (p = 4.9 × 10−5, for 12 out of 12 in the same direction). Given these overwhelmingly significant results at the ensemble or meta-analytical level, we describe the results below for samples from each individual population focusing on the magnitude of the coefficients. Standard errors, confidence intervals and p-values are shown in table 1 and figure 1.
The study concluded that animals are gaining weight, even though they are not subject to the same factors normally blamed for the human obesity epidemic:
Our findings reveal that large and sustained population increases in body weights can occur in mammalian populations, just as they have occurred among human populations, even in the absence of those factors that are typically conceived of as the primary determinants of the human obesity epidemic via their influence on diet (e.g. access to vending machines) and physical activity (e.g. less physical education classes in schools). Though results were not statistically significant in every population (11 out of 24 are statistically significant for per cent increase in weight per decade, and 7 out of 24 are statistically significant for odds of obesity), viewed as an ensemble, the fact that nearly all independent time-trend coefficients were in the positive direction for both weight gain and for the odds of obesity, is overwhelmingly statistically significant.
That large population level changes in body weight distributions of mammalian populations can occur even when those populations are neither under obvious selection by predation nor are living with or among humans has been documented [15]. The particular upward trend we have observed towards obesity in multiple datasets of non-human animals has been suggested by anecdotal evidence for some time. A 2008 news report indicated that ‘trends in pet insurance are mirroring human healthcare. Obesity… is a growing problem for dogs and cats… (and 2007) saw a 19 per cent increase in claims related to obesity’ (http://www.petfirsthealthcare.com/2008/02/07/petfirst-pet-insurance-to-be-more-popular-in-2008/). According to a recent review by German [16], ‘Most investigators agree that, as in humans, the incidence of obesity in the pet population is increasing’. Despite this strong sentiment that obesity rates are increasing in pets (note that the United States Food and Drug Administration recently approved the first drug to treat obesity in dogs; Food and Drug Administration, 2007), we were unable to find previously published data actually showing this increase.
Others reported that 19 per cent of horses in a large cohort were obese, even among largely pasture-fed animals. Although a direct comparison with a similarly sampled earlier cohort was not available, the investigators remarked that the levels were higher than a 5 per cent rate observed in an earlier study [17]. Similarly, an increase in body weights was observed among rats used in carcinogenicity studies in France between 1979 and 1991, despite similar husbandry conditions [18]. The authors attributed the increase to the introduction of animals of the same substrain but raised under specific pathogen-free conditions, reinforcing the perspective that the presence of viral or other microbial pathogens [19,20] may affect body weight in populations either positively or negatively, depending on the pathogen. It is also noteworthy that the obesity epidemic has also occurred among children of six months of age and under [21], an age group for which explanations involving food marketing, less physical education is schools, and more labour-saving devices seem questionable.
The authors raise numerous possible explanations, including hormone-disrupting chemicals:
One set of putative contributors to the human obesity epidemic is the collection of endocrine-disrupting chemicals (endocrine-disruptors), widely present in the environment [24].
Exactly.
»
- advertisements -
Should be headline news huh. IF you haven't, catch the documentary "The Future of Food" (YouTube). They cover this well.
Also Lectures by Jeffrey Smith (YouTube) on GMOs and GMO "studies" Good stuff...about very bad stuff
Jeffrey Smith is the shit- author of Seeds of Deception right? Guy is on point for sure. You wont ever see that guy on the news. I remember flippin thru channels and seeing him on public access giving a lecture- i stopped and watched for 45mins and my jaw hit the floor. and i never watch public access :P
yup, also check out Arpad Pusztai - highest level dirty politics and the highest level authority on the subject
Well GW, I hope you make some progress with this.
Although this kind of data is very compelling (really amazing p values), there are powerful people who don't want this connection made. There are a whole range of outcomes of endocrine disrupters that have been systematically ignored, along with evidence that pharma and chemical companies are well aware of the "side" effects.
It's very easy (and popular, I notice) to blame overweight people for their own misfortune, but evidence like this strongly suggests the whole "personal responsibility" meme has been used very effectively to distract attention away from these kinds of correlations. This is really important, because it restricts causality to the mind of the individual person and completely discounts the environment they grew up in. This gives polluters completely free reign to add whatever they like to the food, and then they just blame the victims. It's a classic example of privatizing profits and externalizing costs. Then, after sickening people from the food, they clean up with the pharma drugs to keep folks alive. See the pattern here?
My prediction is that none of this stuff will ever be resolved through science or legislation; it will end when all this factory farming petro/drug system fails.
One curious observation: many people in the Pacific Northwest are into organic foods and have an awareness of where their food comes from and what's in it. Compared to almost any other part of the country, there are far fewer overweight people that I notice. OK, this is anecdotal, but when I go to Safeway I see an average of 30-40 lbs over what I see at the local coop. So for me, you are preaching to the choir, but I still know this will not stop people from insisting it's just a matter of calories and exercise. But you get high marks from me for beating them over the head with the hard data!
I too live in the NW and I see the trends as well. Ever stepped into a Winco? Your 30-40 becomes 60-80 xtra lbs. Peoples economic standings dont exactly force people to shop somewhere, but if people want to stretch their money they go to wallmart or winco. Food is notoriously cheap there so it tends to draw lower income brackets- but not entirely.
Choosing to eat whole foods and organic foods is a choice that some people just plain dont give a fuck about. I hate to make the generalization but lower income families tend not to give 2 shits about what they eat or what they raise their kids on as long as theres "food" in their stomach. Talk to someone on a whole foods binge and they will tell you that the best possible thing you can spend your money on is GOOD FOOD! It will save your body from maladies, surgeries and medications further down the road. It is hard to get someone to understand that coorelation. Especially when they dont like veggies ^_^.
There is a program in my town that i signed up for that once a week/every other week deliver a box of local and organic food (whatever is in season at the time) Comes with a random mix of about 20lbs of produce from fruits and veggies and shit ive never seen before. It forces you to look up how to cook them and learn new recipes in the process. DELIVERED for 35$ - people with foodstamps can apply and get it for 17$ ..... only know 1 family other than mine who uses it tho, sad
The worst part about the whole organic thing is alot of it is certified by the FDA- who as we all know is equally fucked up and corrupt as any financial institution on wall street. They have been in bed with big agro longer than i have been alive and there is no slowing. Looking out for our health and best interests.... but they wont allow food to be labeled GMO or not. Real trustworthy folk the FDA
It is insane, and criminal and cancerous and wasteful. Here we go on and on about our "honest" attempts to reduce health costs, and we don't do a damn thing about nutrition which is by far the most effective and affordable medical procedure we will ever undertake.
what we choose to eat comes back to personal responsibility, while "health costs" are leaving it up to the professionals to manage our health (and thus lives). . .
true but...given the powers that be are working very hard to (1) hide (not label) GMOs, (2) patent everything (3) control the seed marketplace, (4) hide the fact that most GMOs require MORE pesticide, (5) control the definition of "organic," simple nutrition is much more challenging than it used be.
absolutely agree - it's very difficult nowadays to source decent food, even harder to source good "health care" - I just see so many who don't want to know about alternatives to what is slopped into the supermarket troughs for them. . .
it's one thing to not be aware, it's another to decide to not be aware. . . I don't mean this as a blame - we all have our particulars, I drink more coffee than I "should" - I guess I'm just referring to the crap food in----->appt. with doctor for pharma loop that I see many people subscribe to.
and yet, none of my business! heh.
Yep. The "leave me alone and let me just have my damn fast food" crowd. Dangerous to get between them and McNugget and full-strength soda. I don't mind them so much but I do feel bad for their kids, who are growing up knowing even less about eating well than their parents and growing fatter than them at an earlier age, too.
Yeah, none of my business. Except we do help them out financially from time to time... And when they get sick, we're the first ones they call...
aye, even though it's none of my business, I do still show up for assistance with the consequences, be it in person or with "advice" shared. . .
I'm seeing a lot of people subtly surrendering lately, the old "can't afford to eat healthy" arguments are more frequent. . . it's sad, but part of the reasoning includes having medical insurance benefits that will pay for pharma, and some do choose be defined by their dis-ease, it's a shame that "gov" is in the business of enabling this behaviour with so many little, accumulative bits of "assistance" - I'm in favour of helping those who hit rough patches, or can't be a part of a "work to live" society for dis-ability reasons, but I'm seeing people getting their bills & mortgage / rent paid over time. . . ah, well, no, we've passed the point of no return(s). . ./sigh.
(and LOL on the getting between them & the McNugs & full-strength soda - perfect!)
Winco! That's the name of the store! I was trying to remember because it was my first-choice example. Yes, I went there once. That was enough :-)
You're right about the certification process and what is still permitted on large-scale organic farms. It's really an uphill battle because back in the 1920's, the FDA decided that arsenic on Washington apples was fine as long as the industry did their best to wash it off before sending them to market. Once all those early decisions got codified in regulatory law, it set a precedent that has been used over and over again, which has essentially been the same response as in the 1920's to people and their doctors complaining about arsenic poisoning: just refuse to acknowledge the health effects. Period. Full stop. That is the method, and all the agencies work together towards that aim.
Both USDA and FDA have acted more like spokespeople (or accomplices, pick your term) for large agricultural interests. It's just another example where crony capitalists have seized the power of the government to give themselves all the benefits and trying to use that power to strong-arm everyone else off the playing field. It seems to me like the same playbook devised by the Jekyll Island boys in 1913.
Dear George:
it is Walmart and its surrogates along with corpAG
bottom line is that the food supply is toxic GMOs etc
the rich folk I know have personal chefs that are focused on natural and truly orgainc ingredients
talk about the wealth divide
how about the health divide
Americans are so fcuked and they have not a clue
Air was found to have alot of calories. I'm not an Agricultural enjuneer, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
Yeah, you stayed at a Holiday Inn last night. With a $3 crack whore who obviously shared a bit more of the glass dick with you than you're willing to admit. Quite being an ass.
Naaarg! It wos the Vervets wot did it!
Bisphenol-A could certainly be part of it, in humans.
My vote goe to systemic BGH/bST/rBGH in the water supply. The date of introduction and the obesity epidemic track pretty nicely.
BTW - I'm an Agricultural Engineer.
Added
BGH/bST/rBGH are certainly in the milk proteins added to all foods/feed and used extensively throughout the ag industries.
http://www.consumerhealth.org/articles/display.cfm?ID=19991128221446
The new concern in Canada- milk solids are now allowed across the border in certain products. If you eat a 'frozen dessert' rather than ice cream you are likely now ingesting rBGH. Same with many cheeses that use milk solids in lieu of real milk.
Beyond that, Colin Campbell, author of "The China Study," the largest nutrition study ever performed , is convinced cows milk protein, in and of itself, holds tremendous risk for humans.
Thinkin' the same thing. It's well known that many animal hormones, enzymes, ect have some cross functionality in other species. Bovine Growth Hormone was the first thing to come to mind. I'd be careful though. A certain poster in here might just pull his head (and flashlight) out of his sigmoid long enough to call you a nutjob.
Not to forget "Corn Sugar"!...;-)
small documentary "King Corn"
HFCS...the Offishul State Food of Tennessee.
Grant Peeples:
http://www.grantpeeples.com/music-lyrics-2/okra-and-ecclesiastes-lyrics/...
Thanks for the data - obesity, cancer, autism, heart disease, diabetes, I am pretty sure they're all environmental. It wouldn't take more than $5 million in grant money and a couple investigators and scientists to prove it, I am confident - were it not for the fact that the data would undoubtedly point to foul play at the highest wrungs of the corporate heirarchy
I go to sleep dreaming that somehow my kids could be part of the control group in this global corporate chemical experiment.
seriously? are we that eager to excuse ourselves to not eat well? its the chemicals, sure, somewhat, and makes more sense in autism and cancer, but its also the massive amounts of refined shitty macronutrients we take in. I doubt anyone who thinks they are obese because their hormones were "disrupted" and somehow defied the laws of thermodynamics. maybe a contributing factor but how about we ask people to put down the fork and go for a walk before we start with the conspiracy theories...
I'd concede that point but would say, in addition, they all matter. The law of thermodynamics cannot apply in this case btw, there are too many variables like metabolic and resting heart rates, genetic markers, sleep patterns,muscle mass etc.
It is scientifically proven that two people can have the exact same activity levels and caloric intake and yet one gains weight at a faster rate than the other.
I would only add that thermodynamics does apply, but we cant measure all the processes involved (body temp, etc as a release of energy). Most personal trainers will tell you weight is largely calories in - calories out. Other things matter, sure, but Im skeptical of presenting one of them as THE factor in obesity, which correlates with diabetes and heart disease. Also, the more refined junk you eat, Id be willing to bet you take in more industrial chemicals and the harder to tell one's effect from the other. However, this does lead to the easy solution to the caloric and chemical questions -eat whole foods in moderation.
The problem is the control samples in any regression studies...
I got them feastin' BPA blues.....
But seriously, the whole "Better living through chemistry" is now being revealed for more short sighted bullshit....
And any attempt to address it will be stonewalled by our corporate overlords.... Think how long it took to "accept" the dangers of smoking....
I'm waiting for the smoking gun to emerge for autism and related disorders... My money is on some form of exposure to a group of aromatic synthetic hydrocarbon derived organic substance (aka plastic) in utero...
That is so true Flak! We have normal hormones which cause profound changes in our body at nanogram levels! It is beyond my comprehension how we can consume synthetic chemicals in large amounts and expect to be healthy in the long-term. Needless to say, there will be no research on it. Some more juicy tidbits.
1) There are over 100,000 different kinds of chemicals routinely produced. Only around ~200 have been throughly evaluated for human toxicity
2) A newborn baby today is born with over 300 different chemicals in his bloodstream by the time of the birth.
3) A can of soup contains over 1000 times the normally acceptable level of bisphenol-A. Nothing is done because BPA is still not a "harmful" chemical!
It is just a travesty.
Jesus Christ, you're as crazy as George is. I don't know why they publish this crap here, it's embarrasing to anyone with a functioning mind.
Troll or shill? Which are you?
Maybe I should put together a list of chemicals/materials cooked up and marketed to improve our lives but didn't quite work out as planned... however, I think the post buffer would overflow...
I'll open with Thalidomide....
I'll trade you two Thalidomides and three dental fillings for a single dose of Squalene. Talk about putting your immune system on meth.
I had to look that one up; it looks like it causes Gulf War syndrome after just a single injection. Wonderful. Well I guess we now know where Gulf Syndrome came from.
Here's a short list of widespread endocrine disruptors with links to references
Widespread Pollutants with Endocrine-disrupting Effects
seconded. thanks you
Awesome link Geekgrrl
I'll take your Thalidomide and raise you dental mercury fillings: regulated as hazardous waste outside your mouth, but perfectly harmless once submerged in saliva. /s
It's been legal here since the early 1800's. The word quack is derived from quacksilver, german for quicksilver, or mercury. Dentists who used mercury amalgams were called quacks by the physicians who were and had been using gold for fillings. Check out the smoking tooth.
Rubbish, quack is derived from the term "hawker of oitments".
Mercury was used beginning in 1497 to treat Syphilis, where we got sayings like: the cure is worse than the disease, and terms like quackery. I was wrong about the German name for mercury, it's quacksalber.
Nevertheless, the history of dental mercury amalgams shares this term "quack," and the earliest I saw it used was in the 1880s, when physicians who were using gold used the term derisively to describe the newly created profession of dentists, people who had no idea how the body worked, and who were completely ignorant of the risk involved in implanting a highly toxic heavy metal into the teeth.
This, along with all our other modern chemical pleasures are discussed in the documentary "Food Matters." (YouTube) They also have a nice discussion about the interesting side effects of common anti-depressants. If you think about all the amazing things we are now exposed to, it's kind of strange we aren't more psychotic, cancerous, violent, and ill. Given labels are a scam too, your garden is your only weapon.
highly recommend folks watch the "smoking tooth" link, particularly if you're a parent or hope to become one. . .
testing mercury amalgam fillings on sheep and monkeys, and the results. . . *shakes head*
the whole thing is yet another pay-for-life form of ill-health care, as the vid highlights towards the end.
excellent stuff geekgrrl, many thanks.
bisphenol-A. It is a product which is a major culprit in my opinion. First comment ever on ZH. Been reading the blog for 3 years now.
goldenmiddlefinger
BPA could be a root cause of Homosexuality. Where are the articles on that?
Where are the studies equating ass fucking and drug use to more disease and health problems?
Since when are fucking Monkeys wild in the US? Dogs and Cats get overfed, fins, are show dogs fatter?
Rats have access to more food, so that makes sense.
This is just more scare tactic evil food BULLSHIT!
BTW, US men have 30% less sperm on average in this decade than 3 decades ago. Explain that!
AAS, aka steroids will do it.
The explanation was first formally considered in 1958:
From John McLachlan, a colleague of Retha Newbold:
"In 1958, Dr. Roy Hertz described the “steroid cycle,” anticipating what we now call endocrine disrupter research, as follows: “. . . we have to consider that the introduction of . . . [hormones into cattle feed lots] leads to the exposure . . . of individuals who might otherwise not ever in their lives come in contact with such materials . . . . This is not a theoretical consideration because we . . . now have encountered two families, each with two children, who presented with simultaneously developing gynecomastia attributable to the accidental contamination of vitamin capsules by estrogens during manufacture. If such estrogens can, by stray handling, get into such pharmaceutical preparations, can they not very readily get where they are not wanted on the farm?
There is one additional consideration in this regard . . . . The fecal excretion of these materials . . . will be dropped on the soil and . . . over generations there will be constant replenishment of the soil surface with steroidal substances of this kind. This in turn has its effect potentially on surface water-supply contamination and also potentially on the vegetable content of steroids in crops raised on such soil . . . . I
think that we are now actually setting up a steroid cycle in our environment, and we have to give very serious consideration to its implications for our subsequent development and growth and possibly reproductive functions“ "
Full text available at Environmental Signaling: What Embryos and Evolution Teach Us About Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals