BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Premature sexual development in girls linked to shampoo

 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
21:09 / 03.04.02
From the New Scientist:

Unbeknown to many parents, a few hair products - especially some marketed to black people - contain small amounts of hormones that could cause premature sexual development in girls.

The evidence that hair products containing oestrogens cause premature puberty is largely circumstantial, and the case is still unproven. But Ella Toombs, acting director for the Office of Cosmetics and Colors at the US Food and Drug Administration, told New Scientist: "No amount [of oestrogen] is considered safe and can be included in an over-the-counter product."
 
 
grant
14:06 / 04.04.02
So it's not just the hormones in the beef and the milk....

Man, this is scary stuff. It's something I've noticed myself, actually, over the past 10 years. They're not making 12-year-old girls like they used to. It's a little weird. And lo: proof.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
14:50 / 04.04.02
Well, scrtictly speaking it's still in the realms of speculation, and as the article makes clear there are plenty of other theories as to why girls are reaching puberty earlier. However, analysis of the suspect shampoos does indicate an alarming amount of oestragen in some of them, and of couse it's been well-known for years that oestragen can enter the body through the skin.
 
 
Jack Fear
14:58 / 04.04.02
Heard a piece on NPR's Fresh Air about the cattle industry--guy wrote a cover story about it for the New York Times magazine last Sunday--and part of what was covered was the prevalence of hormones in feedlot cattle. Turns out that synthetic estrogens are released into the atmosphere from plastics, too--both petroleum- and soy-based--and from many other products.

And that doctors are seeing a worrying number of cases of boys developing breasts.

And that average sperm counts are down all over the world, leading to a very real possibility of global human extinction sooner rather than later.

But it's damnably hard to study the effects of hormones on human development, because--unlike conventional toxicology where the dosage is the single most important factor--the key factor in endocrinology is timing. An adult exposed to an equivalent dosage of a hormone may experience no effect at all, for good or ill, while a much smaller dose given to a child at a crucial juncture in its growth process can fuck the kid up for life.

Strange times in Casablanca...
 
 
grant
15:26 / 04.04.02
I'm gonna rustle up some links on early puberty.

Here's one study on the syndrome.
One quote: Precocious puberty refers to the appearance of physical and hormonal signs of pubertal development at an earlier age than is considered normal. For many years, puberty was considered precocious in girls younger than 8 years; however, a recent study and review suggest that age 7 years is a more appropriate age boundary for white girls and age 6 years for black girls. For boys, onset of puberty before age 9 years is considered precocious.
Another:
The early appearance of breasts or menses in girls and increased libido in boys can cause emotional distress for some children.


This study has rather disturbing photographs of a nine-year-old boy with breasts.


More links than you can shake a stick at.

Link to phthalates (plastics) discussed last year.
The study by the University of Puerto Rico said that island is believed to have the highest incidence of thelarche, or premature breast development, in the world, a fact that has puzzled researchers for two decades.

Myers said the study offers the first "statistically significant" link. Forty-one blood samples from girls without thelarche had no phthalates, while a majority of 28 samples from girls with the condition had "significantly high" levels of phthalates, the study said.


There's still some debate over whether puberty age is dropping, but it's definitely something people are talking about:
This point is supported by Dr Russel Viner, an endocrinologist at Great Ormond Street hospital, in London. 'The average age for the onset of puberty in girls is still between 10 and 11, when the first bodily changes start occurring, while menstruation begins at 13,' he told The Observer .

'Those ages have come down dramatically since the turn of the century, when menstruation began at around 17, and the main cause for that drop was probably improved nutrition.'

However, since the Sixties official figures have remained more or less stable, and there is not yet any solid medical evidence that more children are hitting early puberty, he added. 'However, we're hearing a lot more stories of girls starting their periods in junior school. There's certainly a rise in concern among teachers and parents.'

Such worries were given solid support in 1997 when Dr Marcia Herman-Geddes, of the University of North Carolina, published data which suggested it was now normal to see the first signs of puberty in girls as young as six. And a Children Of The Nineties study in Bristol last year found one in six eight-year-old girls were reaching puberty.



This is echoed by this article here, which says:
Reporting a finding from the April issue of the journal Pediatrics, entitled "Secondary Sexual Characteristics and Menses in Young Girls Seen in Office Practice," we learn that 48% of African-American girls and 15% of white girls had begun some pubertal development by age 8, while the mean ages of onset of menses occurred at 12.2 years in African-American girls and 12.9 years of age in white girls.

Lead author Marcia Herman-Giddens is quoted to the effect that "I was very surprised to see how many girls were developing earlier."

But earlier than what? The actual study makes clear that we are not seeing a genuine change in the age of puberty, but rather, girls are "developing pubertal characteristics at younger ages than currently used norms." As the Post story noted in paragraph seven, "the age at which girls first menstruate hasn't changed much since 1950."


It points out that "age of puberty" was actually set by a British study in the 1960s, which didn't take into account things like racial diversity. In other words, it may be that black girls develop earlier anyways. (Part of that establishmentarian blindness to non-whites.)

However, I'm prone to believe that environmental estrogens really can, like, fuck you up.
 
 
The Monkey
16:02 / 04.04.02
The last time I saw my cousin Katie she was ten...and starting puberty. Her family lives out in the Wyoming boondocks, near Yellowstone, so I don't think it was polymer-chemistry byproduct estrogen...but this might explain it.

Crazy stuff. Heard about the African-American thing about two years ago, as it pertained to sexual assault and teenage pregnancy.
 
 
netbanshee
21:07 / 04.04.02
..gets me wondering if just the presence of sexually charged concepts in the media and society in general influences people to manifest physical changes in regards to their own sexual development. I mean, there's a much larger presence of it now then just a decade ago, let alone in the sixties or prior. So...does anyone think it's feasible that just the ideas of sex (being less guarded in society nowadays) can bring it about?
 
 
grant
14:17 / 05.04.02
[monkeys] - I know I've heard about estrogen pollutants in the environment out west. They were in the rivers, making fish *change sex*.

This entry from a Wyoming mail list blames contraceptive-using-women's urine.
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
14:24 / 05.04.02
Well - I 'started puberty' (FWIW - I mean, started developing secondary sexual characteristics) at around the age of ten, and that was in the late eighties - so monkeys, it could just be that your cousin is a naturally early developer like me. There were several of us in my year at school. There were also several girls who didn't really start showing development till they were fourteen or so. I'd say the average is about thirteen at the moment, with a trend towards earlier development being the norm.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
15:57 / 05.04.02
plaid banshee: Unless there's some kind of mechanism here that I'm unaware of I don't really see how that could happen, although it's an interesting idea. Although an increasingly sexualized media might prompt youngsters to dress and act in a more sexual way, this is unlikely to manifest in the body itself, no?
 
 
Jack Fear
19:45 / 05.04.02
Meme affects matter: film at eleven...

But (semi-) seriously, the body is affected by the hormones and pheromones in the air (remember, hormones can be absorbed through the skin: therapeutic estrogen and testosterone are both distributed as transdermal patches), and theoretically, if we're more sexually open and free than we were thirty years ago, then people are gettin' some more often; and when people are aroused, they give off these hormones and pheromones. Oversexed and horny man-and-womankind, flooding the atmosphere with a steaming miasma of sex pollen... the idea has a certain appeal.

I admit, it's ludicrous on the face of it: but so's the theory that the methane in cattle farts are the primary culprit in breaking down the ozone layer, and there are still people who buy that one.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
10:04 / 06.04.02
It's certainly true that the body is affected by hormones and pheremones; it's also true that when people are sexually aroused they produce some of these substances in greater quantities than at other times. However, could the amount of oestragen "shed" into the atmosphere by sexually aroused women really reach the kind of levels required to trigger puberty? Somehow it doesn't seem terribly likely.

This is an interesting notion to play with, but I feel we're edging into some rather uncomfortable territory. I can't help thinking of Roman Catholic sex-ed manuals from the 60's, which earnestly informed the reader that girls who had "impure thoughts" developed early.
 
 
Tom Coates
14:06 / 06.04.02
I'll completely buy that sexual characteristics are developing earlier - but I think it's entirely possible to suggest that we are in parallel also way more willing to allow our youth and our teenagers to express themselves in a sexualised fashion at such early ages than people would have been even ten or twenty years ago. I'm definitely not going down the path of 'license is bad', little girls dressed up like tarts are god's punishment to serial divorcees or anything - I'm really not trying to say that this trend is negative - but I would say that perhaps we are forced to be more aware of children's sexual awareness and development than we might once have been.

So what I'm saying is 1) developing earlier, 2) it's also more OBVIOUS that they're developing earlier.

An additional question which no one has touched on is whether or not this trend towards earlier development can be matched anywhere with cultural nervousness about paedophilia. That would be a very interesting study. Perhaps you could argue that the more alarming the thoughts triggered, the more likely people would be to shunt off their own unsavoury thoughts onto bogeymen. And again - I'm not suggesting that paedophiles are not dangerous or alarming, but that perhaps the cultural excitement about them is a direct result of being exposed to younger and younger children developing sexual characteristics or displaying them through dress.

Suddenly very concerned that I sound like a bible-belt reactionary. It certainly isn't my intention if I do...
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
18:21 / 06.04.02
I'd certainly agree that the "nine-going-on-ninteen" phenomenon plays a big role in making us aware/creating the perception that girls are going through puberty earlier. However, puberty isn't just about body-shape and behaviour; when girls are regularly reaching the menarche at eight years old, there's definately something physical afoot.
 
 
Captain Zoom
19:33 / 06.04.02
Hmm, Tom, you put me in mind of "Brave New World" and the sex play of youngsters.

I wonder if there's a similar study of whether young boys are developing secondary sexual characteristics at comparable ages?

And, is this a bad thing, a good thing, or just a thing?

Zoom.
 
 
Sleeperservice
00:14 / 07.04.02
Insomniac at work...

Yes it's possible, even probable, that people are reaching puberty earlier. This could be down to any number of factors, however, but no causal effect has been proven as regards to the hormone shampoo. Makes great headlines for the media though :/ 'researchers say...' Grrrr, I hate the fact that most science stories in mainstream media are like this.

Could be that we are just healthier than we've ever been and so the body is able to start puberty earlier. I seem to remember that if resources (food) is scarce or of poor quality (lacking in nutrients) puberty can be delayed. (I'll seach tomorrow when I'm more awake)

There is also the problem of societies denial of childrens sexuality. Which is still barely addressed in all societies and so gets 'swept under the carpet' and ignored, especially around the time puberty first hits. Parents often don't like dealing with their children becoming adults. It seems to have got better in recent years but then perhaps that's why we're noticing these things now?
 
 
Thjatsi
05:40 / 07.04.02
I will back Sleeperservice up on the rate of development being directly altered by changes in calorie intake and nutrition. I think this has more to do with the fattening of the developing world than anything else. Actually, come to think of it, you could do a semi-decent job of testing out this idea by looking at parts of developed countries where food intake has not changed significantly. I'll look for more sources on this tomarrow.

As far as plastics turning into hormones goes, I'm going to want to see a hypothetical organic chemistry reaction for this before I consider it to be anything but laughable.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
12:17 / 07.04.02
Plastics don't "turn into" hormones, as such. Certain plastics contain plasticisers (such as bisphenol A and phthalates) which mimic the action of oestrogen. These substances leach out of the plastics and enter the environment.

Far from being laughable, it is generally accepted that these substances do mimic the action of oestragen when absorbed in sufficient quantities. What is in dispute is whether or not they can be blamed for the rising incidence of early puberty in girls.

Here are some useful sites on environmental oestragens.

Environmental Estrogens and Other Hormones (EEOH)gives a good overview of the problem.

This document has info on oestrogen and oestrogen mimics in the environment.

This PDF file,"What's wrong with PVC?"comes from Greenpeace and has some info on the effects of oestrogen mimics (obviously, the tenor of the piece and the conclusions it draws are heavily informed by Greenpeace's mindset.)
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
12:36 / 07.04.02
As regards the effect of nutrition on puberty: Sleeperservice is spot on. Better nutrition does tend to mean an earlier puberty, and conversely poor nutrition can delay puberty, for example if a girl develops anorexia nervosa.
 
 
wembley can change in 28 days
17:49 / 07.04.02
I don't see how nutrition should affect puberty this way. Correct me if I'm way off base, but the last time people were hitting puberty at age 8 was when they were also marrying at 13 and dying at 29. It makes far more sense to me that as we live longer, puberty should come later, to maximize the physical (and monetary) support necessary to raise a child. A girl who is anorexic (or gymnasts who have very low body fat) don't menstruate, because their bodies know that they are physically incapable of growing a baby. Or is it that the nutrition is *so* good, our bodies think we're capable of sproggin' it at 10?

I find that hard to believe, given that the average north american (and british) diet is so poor. Sure, we get our vitamins, but there's also enough sugar to kill off the continent in a few generations. You can say all you like about a can of coke a day never hurting anyone - but how can you know? We're the first generation to eat like this - sugar, processed food, McDonalds. (First and a half, if you count some parents.)
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
19:23 / 07.04.02
Well, it's partly down to all the processed crap we eat these days. One of the factors needed to trigger the onset of puberty is the amount of body fat that a person is carrying. More calories in the diet means more body fat, hence earlier puberty. (Perhaps "better nutrition" is a little misleading.)

Now, as to the relationship between undernourishment and amenorrhea (abscence of periods). Anorexia can cause a condition known as hypothalamic suppression. Now, the hypothalamus is the area of the brain that regulates hormone production in the body. When it is suppressed, hormone production decreses, and accordingly the menstrual cycle is buggered up. In the case of a girl who's already having periods, her periods may become erratic or cease altogether (secondary amenorrhea); in the case of a girl who's not started menstruating before the onset of the malnutrition, puberty may be delayed as there is not enough oestragen in her body to start the process (secondary amenorrhea).

the last time people were hitting puberty at age 8 was when they were also marrying at 13 and dying at 29.

I'm not so sure about that. In the West the average age at the menarche used to be around 14 or so, up until sometime in the 19th century when it began to decrease; I don't think there was ever a time when it was 8-year-olds were regularly hitting puberty.
 
 
wembley can change in 28 days
20:06 / 07.04.02
When it is suppressed, hormone production decreses, and accordingly the menstrual cycle is buggered up. In the case of a girl who's already having periods, her periods may become erratic or cease altogether (secondary amenorrhea) etc, etc.

I submit to the more detailed analysis, but in layman's terms, or perhaps in looking at the bigger picture, is the hypothalamus not suppressed in order to increase the girl's chance of survival, preventing her from spending energy on another kid? And also, the body "knows" that it would be impossible to sustain a pregnancy with its limited nutrition?

As for my other wild claim, I stand exaggerated.
 
 
Mazarine
03:51 / 08.04.02
My mother was telling me about a news item she read- I'll see if I can find out where she read it- that said high levels of hormones, vitamins and antibiotics have been found in reservoirs, because so much of the drugs people take aren't actually processed by the body, and come out in the urine.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
10:22 / 08.04.02
Yes indeed; "medical pollution", as it's nicknamed. There's some debate as to how true all this is but it's pretty disturbing. However, it's hard to find out if oestrogen is really getting into the water supply this way because there's no way to differentiate between natural oestrogen and the synthetic oestrogen used in the pill.
 
 
grant
15:48 / 08.04.02
Man...
Sleeperservice, Thiazi, Mazarine - I'm fairly sure some of the links I posted went into the hormones in urine theory, and the role good nutrition plays in early pubertal development. Check 'em out.

Tom: An additional question which no one has touched on is whether or not this trend towards earlier development can be matched anywhere with cultural nervousness about paedophilia. That would be a very interesting study. Perhaps you could argue that the more alarming the thoughts triggered, the more likely people would be to shunt off their own unsavoury thoughts onto bogeymen. And again - I'm not suggesting that paedophiles are not dangerous or alarming, but that perhaps the cultural excitement about them is a direct result of being exposed to younger and younger children developing sexual characteristics or displaying them through dress.

I think it's definitely a parallel development. I'm totally with you there. As society in general gets more sexualized, sexual reactions get tied to a wider range of subjects. Sometimes those things can be "safe" (like cars or designer furniture) and sometimes those things can be disturbing (like JonBenet Ramsey.)

Wasn't Freud big on that Fear/Suppressed Desire relationship? Or maybe that should go in that Head Shop thread.
 
  
Add Your Reply