Another line taken by the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the Alliance for the Responsible Use of Chlorine Chemistry is that synthetic oestrogens such as dioxin that act as endocrine disrupters, are dwarfed by the phytoestrogens produced by hundreds of plants that "appear to produce endocrine disrupters...The estrogenic effects from the phytoestrogens in our diets are an estimated 40 million times greater than those from synthetic chemicals... To date, however, there is no concrete evidence that either pose a risk to human health." (Tolman 1995)

A similar line has been used in Australia by the head of the Environmental Health and Safety Unit of the Commonwealth government who has said "While most of the focus has been on man-made chemicals, it is important to recognise that endogenous oestrogens, therapeutic use, and phytoestrogens... are produced or ingested in much larger amounts than environmental pollutants." He said that there is "no definite proof for any connection between environmental exposure of humans to oestrogenic substances and increasing cancer incidences or decreasing male fertility" and that the emphasis should be on the need for further research. (Priestly 1995)

The British Plastics Federation also refers to the "presence of naturally-occurring oestrogenic chemicals in foodstuffs such as soya, peas, beans etc." And the Chlorophiles have argued that "plants give natural oestrogen mimics in our food." They suggested that we ingest so many 'natural carcinogens' in our food that we should not be concerned about a minute amounts of carcinogens caused by chlorine products.

...back to top

Priestly, B. G. 1995, 'Environmental Oestrogens - A danger to men and women - or to neither?' Paper presented at the Environmental Health Short Course, December 1.

Tolman, Jonathan 1995, 'Nature's Hormone Factory: Endocrine Disrupters in the Natural Environment', CEI Environmental Studies Program.)

...back to top