Nicolás Olea: «The cocktail phenomenon, more than denounced by scientists, is not considered in the legislation»
Nicolas Olea (Granada, 1954) has a degree and a PhD in Medicine and Surgery from the University of Granada. Former scientific director of the Biosanitary Research Institute of Granada and researcher in charge of the group A15-Basic and Clinical Oncology from this same institute. University expert in Epidemiology, he stands out for his lines of research in Health and Environment: endocrine disruption, hormone-dependent cancer, environmental carcinogenesis, physical agents and chemical compounds, radiological and nuclear diagnosis. He has participated in more than 30 national and international research projects. He is the author of books like Get rid of toxins. Guide to avoiding endocrine disruptors (RBA, 2019).
What are endocrine disruptors and how do they affect us?
Endocrine disruptors or hormonal disruptors are chemical substances, environmental pollutants, that once inside the body modify hormones, “hack” them. Hormones are chemical messengers that communicate from one organ to another and it is easy for some of the chemical compounds on the market to interfere with that message.
The European Union has 43.000 synthetic chemical compounds on the market, many of them unparalleled in nature. Exposure to these substances is universal, occurring from childhood to maturity, in both genders and at sensitive moments in life. We are emphasizing the exposure of young women of childbearing age. Hormonal problems are more evident in women and are more critical in the development of both the embryo and the fetus.
Where are these disruptors present?
Historically we find them in DDT, Endosulfan and PCBs, now banned compounds, although they are persistent in the environment and closely linked to agriculture because they are pesticides. In the 90s, they appear in detergents, cosmetics, plastics, textiles. Today they are present in all manufactured consumer items, mainly those derived from petroleum (bisphenols, phthalates, benzophenone, parabens...).
Are they regulated?
Everything is underway, but it takes 20-30 years. Many of the compounds were banned after 40 years on the market. There is always a similar unregulated compound that is put in as a substitute without realizing that it is under-researched or even worse. And the regulatory machinery begins again, a tremendously long history that is not adequate to the need.
Since 2019, Linurón, Mancozeb and Chlorpyrifos, three endocrine disrupting pesticides, have been banned. They are taken off the market slowly and also leave disease sequelae. It seems as if, by prohibiting them, responsibility falls and no one is responsible for the damage caused. If they have been banned because they are toxic, they should help pay the bills for the psychologist for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, the gynecologist for endometriosis and infertility, breast cancer...
That is, late measures are taken and the effects of these disruptors take time to appear.
Absolutely. A very serious problem is that its exposure is associated with common diseases of the XNUMXst century: infertility, hormone-dependent breast cancer, obesity, diabetes, hypothyroidism. When I tell my fellow doctors that the fifth best-selling prescription medicine in Spain, after four pain relievers, is thyroid hormone and I explain that there are environmental causes, they don't believe it.
Maximum residue limits are established. Are they too high?
They fail in the most elementary: they do not consider the combined effect. How much waste within the limits of legality makes a toxic waste? The cocktail phenomenon, which is more than denounced by the scientific community, is not considered in the legislation.
To build this maximum limit, the toxic, lethal effects are extrapolated, until, applying some safety coefficients, they affirm that such a concentration will not be harmful. But at these apparently safe concentrations there are hormonal effects. In four years, four endocrine disruptors of the most worrying of the greats, Nonilfenbol, Linurón and Maocozeb, have fallen. The last one, banned in full Covid, Chlorpyrifos.
The same is happening with Glyphosate.
I call it paralysis by analysis. And they have prohibited it because they have been convinced of the damage, but they do not realize that the precautionary or precautionary principle should have been applied, which is to anticipate the damage by being cautious and prohibiting things when having a reasonable suspicion. The precautionary principle says: it is not the one who suffers the disease who has to prove the damage; it is the person who puts the product on the market who has to demonstrate its safety.
So what's wrong?
The principle of prevention does not apply in most cases. When the European Union applies it, it is in a very particular way. In 2011, polycarbonate baby bottles were banned to avoid exposing children to bisphenol A. On December 31, 22, they will cut this substance. They are finally going to remove it from the market for food packaging and products in contact with food. But eleven years have passed. How much damage have they dealt with their lightness?
The process, which is excessively slow and is based on the demonstration of damage, fails, when it should be based on the demonstration of harmlessness. And the decisions, which have to be made based on how much we know, but fundamentally based on what we don't know yet.
What can we do to reduce exposure?
One solution is to approach someone who shares your concerns and principles, who looks for alternatives and offers safer alternatives. People who have the knowledge and who can guide. Eating local, seasonal, unprocessed, organic and paying the right price. And disclosure.
