jessies_mom
Posted : 11/16/2007 4:10:24 PM
sandra_slayton
Hummmm, that is interesting. Makes me think of something my Mom use to say--the devil you know may be better than the one you don't know. Maybe these preservates taht so many are so scared of are the lesser of two evils.I know i dont worry about them--I worry more about what is being put in the air 5 miles from here that my dogs breathe 24/7.
Also has it ever been porven they are that bad? I have never actually seen any studis, reports, etc that prove. All I have actaully seen is repeats of what some nutritionist says is bad and is repeated and repeated. As once said, if anything is repeated enough folks come to believe it without actual proof.
This link lists several studies;
http://www.feingold.org/bht.html#Klein
This is a very good study to read;
http://www.mindfully.org/Plastic/Antioxidants/BHA-BHT.htm;
BHA;
Long-Term and Carcinogenicity Studies. In earlier long-term studies,
BHA was found to be without any toxic effects in rats after 22 months (59,68,69)
and in dogs after 15 months (53). However, in later studies, Ito et al. (70-72)
reported that in F344 rats, administration of BHA at a 2% level resulted in a
high incidence of papilloma in almost 100% of the treated animals and squamous
cell carcinoma of the forestomach in about 30% of the treated animals (Table
5.7). At lower dose levels of 0.5%, no neoplastic lesions were observed, but forestomach hyperplasia was
observed. Most of the changes were close to the limiting ridge between the
forestomach and the glandular stomach. Ito et al. (72) observed that in addition
to 3-BHA, two metabolites p-tert-butylphenol and
2-tert-butyl-4-methylphenol, also induced papillomas in the forestomach.
Verhagen et al. (73) observed that in rats not only the forestomach but also the
glandular stomach, small intestine, colorectal tissues, and possibly esophageal
tissues were susceptible to the proliferative effects of BHA. Hamsters were
found to be more susceptible to BHA than rats (74). In hamsters fed 1 or 2% BHA
for 24 and 104 weeks, forestomach papillomas were observed in almost all treated
animals and carcinomas in 7-10% in the 104-week group. A lower incidence of
lesions was observed in mice fed 0.5 and 1 % BHA
BHT;
Carcinogenicity studies have been conducted in various strains of mice. In a
2-year study in B6C3F1 mice, Shirai et al. (139) reported that BHT at the level
of 0.02, 0.1, 0.5% was not carcinogenic. A reduction in body weight gain was
noticed, the effect being more pronounced in males. Nonneoplastic lesions
related to BHT treatment were lymphatic infiltration of the lung in females and
of the urinary bladder in both sexes at the highest dose level. Tumors were
observed in various organs, with a high incidence in the lung, liver, and the
lymph nodes. But the incidence was not statistically significant. In another
study in the same strain at higher dose levels of 1 or 2% in the diet, a
significant dose-dependent increase in hepatocellular adenomas and foci of
alterations in the liver were observed in males but not in females (140). Clapp
et al. (141) reported an increase in the incidence of lung tumors and hepatic
cysts in BALB/c mice fed 0.75% BHT for 16 months. Brooks et al. (142) reported a
dose-related increase in both benign and malignant tumors in the lung in both
sexes of CF1 mice and benign ovarian tumors in females. In C3H mice, which are
more likely to develop spontaneous liver tumors with age, BHT fed at levels of
0.05 or 0.5% for 10 months increased the incidence of liver tumors in males, but it was not dose-related. The incidence of lung tumors was increased in males at
both dietary levels but in females only at the higher dose level.
Certainly neither one is something you'd want to consume in a large quantity on a daily basis.