Plastics, cosmetics, pesticides, food packaging or clothing contain endocrine disruptors, compounds that can alter the hormonal system
The alarm rings. You go through the shower and freshen up, as with few, with some cosmetic and personal hygiene products, between creams, soaps, deodorants – if you are a woman, the number goes up again – according to data from Cosmetics Europe. You put on a polyester shirt, fresh. You leave the house and grab a coffee to go and a container of cut fruit. You walk to work through a street with heavy traffic and a lot of noise.
It is not even morning, and you have already come into contact with dozens and dozens of chemical compounds. Most of them are probably innocent, but some belong to a family of substances that have worried scientists for decades about the harmful impact they have on human health: endocrine disruptors.
These compounds mainly originate from oil derivatives and are capable of deceiving the body, as they imitate the functioning of natural hormones, which are the molecules responsible for communication between cells, tissues and organs. They also block cellular hormone receptors and alter the functioning of the entire endocrine system.
There is solid scientific evidence linking prolonged exposure to these environmental toxins with some of the most prevalent non-communicable diseases in society, such as obesity and diabetes, as well as infertility problems. And signs are beginning to emerge that they may influence the development of certain types of hormone-dependent cancers, such as prostate or breast cancer.
“The concept of endocrine disruptor has existed for decades, but each time we identify more chemical products in daily use with this capacity,” explains Martine Vrijheid, researcher at the Institute of Global Health in Barcelona (ISGlobal). “We are exposed every day to very low doses. The question is when they actually start to be dangerous, because unfortunately it is still difficult to know what level these exposures can result in being harmful,” she notes.
Omnipresent
Trying to eradicate endocrine disruptors from our daily lives is an impossible mission, because they are everywhere: from plastics to cosmetics, through pesticides, food packaging, processed food, household cleaning products, toys, clothing, furniture. To top it all off, many are not even identified on product labels. “It is very complicated to avoid them completely,” admits the researcher.
One of the places where they are found in “very high concentrations” is on food thermal labels. “When you buy a container of fish, meat, a piece of cheese or a cucumber wrapped in plastic that has a label with the price, these labels contain compounds with disruptive hormonal activity in high quantities in the food,” warns Pablo Gago, researcher at the Institute for Environmental Diagnostics and Water Studies (IDAEA-CSIC). But this is in addition to the fact that the food is in contact with plastic, “it is not safe, because there is very clear evidence that these chemicals are transferred,” he adds.
In fact, scientific studies conducted on large population samples have shown that 95% of people have traces of these harmful chemicals in their bodies, which penetrate the body through contact with the skin, ingestion or inhalation. Not more than 1,000 have been identified so far, some of which are very persistent, such as certain pesticides that can remain in the body for up to 10 years; while others, such as parabens or bisphenols, are excreted in urine in a matter of hours.
In general, most levels of these endocrine disruptors in the products we consume are very low. This is why sales are still permitted. The problem, however, is that some accumulate. “For many years we have studied one contaminant at a time, and this is not the reality,” explains Gago, because –argues this scientist– “it is not a single chemical compound that will make you sick, but the sum of prolonged exposures to multiple factors.”
“There is a false conception that the dose makes the poison,” warns researcher Montse Marquès of IDAEA-CSIC, who points out that the fact that there is no immediate effect complicates the risk perception that society has. It must be added that being exposed does not imply that everyone will necessarily get sick, because individual sensitivity also plays an important role. “Studies in large populations show that people who are exposed for longer periods have a higher risk of developing certain diseases, but this does not mean that a specific person with a certain level of BPA will end up with diabetes,” tempers Marquès.
Experts agree that there are measures that can help reduce exposure:
- Diet: prioritize fresh, unpackaged, local and seasonal foods. Prioritize the consumption of fruits and vegetables that cannot be peeled. Rent them very well before consuming them to eliminate pesticides. Reduce ultra-processed foods to a minimum.
- Make kitchen plastics out of the kitchen: replace plastic or silicone cookware and utensils with glass or stainless steel.
- Ventilate the house twice a day. Vacuum instead of sweeping and removing dust with a damp cloth.
- Limit the use of unnecessary cosmetics, especially in children. Opt for options without endocrine disruptors. Also, household cleaning products must be reduced; washing-up vinegar or Marseille soap are economical, non-toxic options. Better options without perfumes, as they are often related to chemical substances.
- Opt for natural fibers when dressing, if possible ecological. Wash clothes in the washing machine before wearing them.
- Wash your hands frequently and especially before eating.
The first years of life, a critical window
Researchers agree that there are especially sensitive stages where the harm from these toxins is greater. Pregnancy, early childhood, and puberty are the periods when the hormonal system directs the development of organs and any interference can have lasting consequences. Also, undoubtedly women during menopause, although there is little information at that time.
“A fetus is forming all its organs at an extraordinary speed,” explains Martine Vrijheid, director of the environmental and lifelong health program at ISGlobal. In this program, they are precisely focused on studying the impact of exposures during these vulnerable periods. “If anything alters the formation and maturation process of the infant's organs and tissues, the effects can manifest themselves many years later,” she points out.
In this regard, Catalonia is leading an international project called Hypiend that aims to investigate how endocrine disruptors influence the health of pregnant women and infants. The ultimate goal is to generate knowledge to be able to make science-based recommendations to reduce the population's exposure and thus improve their health.
Paula Sol Ventura, an endocrinologist and coordinator of the Environmental Health Unit of the Germans Trias i Pujol hospitals (Badalona) and Arnau de Vilanova (Lleida), is a lead researcher in the puberty part. “The damage that these compounds cause to the hormonal system of infants can cause them early puberty,” she warns, and adds: “Early puberty has impacts on health, it has been associated with increased risk of obesity, diabetes, and even reduced height in children.” "We can prevent these future diseases –she adds– by trying to reduce exposure to these substances,” which is exactly what Hypiend is pursuing.
Another project that seeks to better understand the impact of these compounds in vulnerable stages is led by Montse Marquès of IDAEA-CSIC, who follows pregnant women and their newborns at the Joan XXIII Hospital in Tarragona. They collect different biological samples, as well as clinical and sociodemographic data, lifestyle, diet, and assess the associations between these exposures during pregnancy. “We are taking a first step to understand how these harmful chemical substances are distributed in the body and enter the placenta,” says Marquès, who recalls that there are already studies done with animal models that have shown that these toxins can cross the blood-brain barrier and enter the brains of fetuses and newborns.
“Not long ago, when a doctor was looking for the origin of a disease, they looked mainly inside the body: a genetic mutation, an infection or a metabolic alteration,” point Alba Tarrés and Angi Vilà, psychologist and environmentalist respectively, from the Social, Environmental and Health Observatory of the Girona Provincial Council. But now, they point out, “each time there is more evidence that part of the response is outside: in the air we breathe, the food we eat, the chemical products in packaging, cosmetics or clothing, the noise or even the neighborhood where we live.”
It is for this reason and with this new perspective on health that Girona has started a project, Giroestudi, driven by Dipsalut, which will follow for at least ten years some 4,000 adult people from 18 Girona municipalities to reconstruct their exposome, that is, the totality of all environmental exposures that accumulate throughout life and that, together with genetics, contribute to determining the health status of the population.
The study, pioneering in Catalonia, will collect blood, urine, feces, saliva, hair, and nail samples, which will be stored at the Biobank of the Institute of Biomedical Research of Girona (IDIBGI), while also collecting information about lifestyle, diet, air quality, home pollution or the social conditions of the participants. The objective is to have, for the first time, a precise picture of the well-being of the Girona population that allows orienting public policies and moving towards precision health.
“We base ourselves on the idea that the postal code can also determine your health,” summarize Tarrés and Vilà, drivers of the project. Giroestudi wants to find out to what extent the environment in which we live conditions the risk of developing obesity, diabetes, cancer or cardiovascular diseases. And what role endocrine disruptors play in this.
Thirty years of evidence and regulation that always comes late
But if the scientific community has been warning about the risks of some endocrine disruptors for decades, why do they still remain present in so many consumer products? For the researchers, bisphenol A is probably the best example of the distance that separates scientific knowledge from regulation. This compound, used for years to manufacture rigid and transparent plastics, interior linings of cans and other food packaging, was considered safe because it had passed classical toxicological studies. But in the late nineties, the first evidence began to appear that it could act as an endocrine disruptor.
“Since then, epidemiological studies have only confirmed those first suspicions,” explains Pablo Gago of IDAEA-CSIC. However, it was not until the end of 2024 that the European Union prohibited its use in materials in contact with food, and the industry still has a transitional period to adapt. And all this, the EU regulation established that from this month of July, packaging, wrappers and linings, such as those of food cans, containing this substance should no longer be sold in European countries. “We are talking about almost thirty years between the first evidence and the effective ban,” emphasizes Gago.
During this time, however, health authorities have also been radically reviewing the perception of risk. In 2023, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) reduced the tolerable daily intake of bisphenol A by 20,000 times. “It is a huge reduction, a folly,” exclaims this researcher from IDAEA-CSIC. “It means that what was considered safe today we know it is not, because reducing its presence by 20,000 times is almost eliminating it,” he notes.
However, the disappearance of bisphenol A does not necessarily solve the problem. Many companies have replaced it with other compounds from the same family, such as bisphenol S or bisphenol F. “Products are marketed with the label ‘BPA-free’, but this does not mean they do not contain endocrine disruptors,” warns the researcher, for whom it is a question of misleading marketing.
For Martine Vrijheid, “there is no reason to ban a chemical product every ten years while the industry immediately replaces it with another almost identical one,” she states. “If a family of compounds shares a chemical structure and mechanisms of action, regulation should be joint,” she demands.
Montse Marquès of IDAEA-CSIC emphasizes that to protect yourself, you should opt for creams that do not contain chemical filters, but mineral ones. The chemicals, she explains, have been proven to be endocrine disruptors. “It costs more to stop them, but especially for children it is important that we use those that are not absorbed,” she stresses. Clothing, she advises, is better if the young people can wear it made of organic cotton, because “synthetic fibers have many additives to give them the desired appearance. They are in contact with the skin for many hours and at temperatures of at least 36.5ºC. With sweat, these toxins migrate and enter the skin. The toxicity is chronic.”
This disparity between scientific evidence and prohibition is a consequence that, unlike medicines, which must prove their safety before reaching the market, many industrial chemical products have started to be used against the principle: they were considered safe until it was proven that they could be dangerous. “Today there are hundreds of thousands of chemical substances on the market and to evaluate them one by one is practically impossible,” Gago recalls.
It is also complicated to prove that a substance causes a specific disease, because no one develops diabetes, infertility or cancer after a single contact with a chemical compound. The effects are chronic, can take decades to manifest, and coexist with many other factors, such as diet, smoking, genetics or physical activity.
“Working with large cohorts we can approximate this effect,” considers Montse Marquès of IDAEA_CSIC. “We measure the levels of contaminants, but also many other variables, such as body mass index, socioeconomic level or lifestyle habits. With statistical tools we can isolate how much each exposure to each factor weighs,” she adds.
The debate, in courts
But the debate is no longer just scientific. It is also political, economic, and judicial. Last July, the Attorney General of New York, Letitia James, sued companies like 3M and DuPont accusing them of hiding the risks of PFAS, the so-called “forever chemicals,” for decades. The lawsuit claims that the companies continued to manufacture and market these compounds despite knowing their possible effects on health and the environment.
PFAS have been used for years because they repel water and grease. They are found in non-stick pans, food packaging, fire-retardant foams, waterproof clothing or some cosmetics. The problem is that they practically do not degrade, and they accumulate in the environment, in animals, and also in the human body. Several studies have linked them to an increased risk of cancer, metabolic alterations, infertility or developmental problems.
But then, what can be done? Researchers argue that all responsibility lies with the consumers. “People need information, but they cannot demand that every person should go interpret the labels of products to protect their health. The best way to reduce exposure is for these compounds to stop being part of consumer products,” concludes Vrijheid.
“Responsibility cannot rest exclusively on the individual – argue Gago and Marquès. When a person enters a supermarket, they should be able to assume that everything they buy is safe.”