Eating out at restaurants and fast food chains may be convenient but a new study suggests it comes with risks, including increased exposure to a potentially harmful chemical called phthalates.

Researchers looked at data collected between 2005 and 2014 as part of the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) and discovered that subjects who had recently eaten food from a fast food restaurant had levels of phthalates 35 percent higher than those who ate at home.

In total, the scientists examined the results of 10,253 participants. Sixty-one percent of the group replied in the survey that they had eaten out within the previous 24 hours, and the majority of those respondents showed an increased level of phthalate biomarkers when their urine was tested.

The results showed a strong association between phthalate exposure and dining out for all groups regardless of age or gender, but the strongest correlation was seen in young people, according to the researchers. Young children who frequently ate at fast food restaurants reported phthalates levels 55 percent higher than those who ate at home.

The IARC urged its scientists not to publish research documents on its 2015 weedkiller glyphosate review, according to Reuters. The agency told Reuters on Tuesday that it tried to protect the study from “external interference,” as well as protect its intellectual rights, since it was “the sole owner of such materials.”

The scientists had been asked earlier to release all the documentation on the 2015 report under US freedom of information laws.

The groundbreaking review, published in March 2015 by the IARC – a semi-autonomous agency of the World Health Organization (WHO) – labeled the glyphosate herbicide as “probably carcinogenic to humans.” Glyphosate is a key ingredient of Monsanto’s flagship weedkiller well-known under the trade name ‘Roundup.’ It is one of the most heavily used herbicides in the world and is designed to go along with genetically-modified “Roundup Ready” crops, also produced by Monsanto.

The IARC’s report caused problems for both the notorious agrochemical giant and the agency itself.

The report sparked a heated debate around the use of Roundup, and caused several EU countries – including France, Sweden, and the Netherlands – to object to the renewal of the glyphosate’s EU license. The vote on prolonging the glyphosate license for 15 years failed several times in June 2016, but the license was temporarily extended for 18 months during last hours before its expiration.

The controversial report has seemingly made the IARC a target for attacks from multiple directions, and raised scientific, legal, and financial questions.

Various critics, including those in the chemical industry, said the IARC’s evaluations are fuel for “unnecessary health scares,” since the IARC allegedly studies the potentially harmful substance itself, and not a “typical human” exposure to it. It remained unclear whether the critics urged a WHO body to test the potentially carcinogenic chemical on humans.

The critics also brought up other controversial statements from the IARC, over whether such things as mobile phones, coffee, red meat, and processed meat could cause cancer.

The agency defended its methods as scientifically sound and “widely respected for their scientific rigor, standardized and transparent process and…freedom from conflicts of interest.” Numerous freedom of information requests by the Energy & Environment Legal Institute (E&E Legal), a US conservative advocacy group, have since been turned down with this reasoning.

E&E Legal told Reuters that it is pushing a legal challenge over whether the documents in question belong to the IARC or to the US federal and state institutions where some of the experts work. Basically, it’s being decided whether the IARC, as part of the WHO, is truly independent and free from “conflicts of interest.”

According to Reuters, officials from the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) will be questioned by a congressional committee about why American taxpayers fund the cancer agency, which faces much criticism over its allegedly faulty classification of carcinogens.

“IARC’s standards and determinations for classifying substances as carcinogenic, and therefore cancer-causing, appear inconsistent with other scientific research, and have generated much controversy and alarm,” a letter from US Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz to NIH director Francis Collins states, as quoted by Reuters.

The Oversight Committee demanded a full disclosure of NIH funding of the IARC, and even money spent in relation to the cancer agency’s activities.

IARC opponents from scientific circles vowed to provide their data on the matter. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), which believes glyphosate is “unlikely pose a carcinogenic hazard to humans,” promised to release its raw data on the subject as part of its “commitment to open risk assessment.” The food safety watchdog made this statement in late September, and still has to deliver the promised information.

https://www.infowars.com/who-cancer-agency-under-fire-for-withholding-carcinogenic-glyphosate-documents/

A new study has detected traces of plastic in the feces of people throughout Europe and Asia.

According to Dr. Philipp Schwabl, researcher at the Medical University of Vienna, plastic particles were discovered in the stool of the study’s 8 participants.

The volunteers, hailing from Finland, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Poland, Russia, the UK, and Austria, were told to keep track of their diet for one week in order to determine roughly how much plastic they were exposed to.

An average of 20 particles, referred to as microplastics, were found in every 3.5 ounces of stool.

Over 95 percent of the particles came from plastics utilized in the packaging and storage of food products.

As noted by Web MD, the plastics “included polypropylene used in bottle caps, polyethylene terephthalate (PET) used in drink bottles, polystyrene found in plastic utensils and cups, and polyethylene used in plastic bags and storage containers.”

Schwabl, who described the findings as “astonishing,” stated that despite plastic’s many important uses, humans should attempt to reduce its reliance on the material.

“I believe that trying to reduce plastic usage and plastic-packed food might be beneficial for nature and for us,” Schwabl said. “Certainly, plastic is a very useful material and has a lot of clever applications. But maybe we should try to rethink about the necessity of abundant plastic use, and search for and support ecological and sustainable alternatives.”

Scientists say it is still too early to accurately determine what effect the consumption of microplastics will have on human health.

The study comes just days after a report from the National Geographic stated that microplastics can also be found in 90 percent of table salt.