It's sometimes a bit disconcerting when researchers seems to be at war. First you will come across information that suggests one thing, only to then come across information somewhere else saying the exact opposite. Which of the two (or two hundred, depending upon on the amount of research and number of different conclusions) do you believe? I wish I knew, but I don't. What I do know, however, is that I just came across yet another example of this very problem.

Cooking with nonstick pans -- cancer causing? Well, according to research that I came across a while back, it seemed clear as though it was. That study pointed to perfluorooctanoic acids (PFOAs) as being the component found in Teflon pans that has been linked to certain forms of cancer. But just yesterday I happened to read a statement from the Center for Science in the Public Interest: Studies do not show any evidence of Teflon-based PFOAs seeping into the foods we eat or the air we breath.

Okay -- I'm already unsure who to believe. And just then, I found another research contradiction --

Microwaving food in plastic wrap releases carcinogenic dioxins. I mean, that's what I read before. Is that the truth? I mean, I remember even getting an email from a friend, warning about the dangers of cooking plastic wrapped food in the microwave. But, a few days ago I found a statement made by a professor from Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health: "Dioxins are not present in plastics used for microwavable food containers or plastic wrap." And, I found information to support these findings through a number of other sources. Um, okay. So now what do I do?

The best solution -- as best I can tell, anyway -- would be to err on the side of caution and not use Teflon pans or plastic wrap when nuking food. The solution to the bigger problem, and that being the welter of conflicting academic research, will clearly be a much more difficult problem to solve.

Last year, ten people took part in an investigative study to test for the presence of toxic chemicals in their body. The Toxic-Free Legacy Coalition took hair, blood, and urine samples and tested for plasticizing chemicals known as phthalates; the flame retardants PBDEs; lead, arsenic, and mercury; perfluorinated chemicals like those used to make Teflon; and pesticides -- including the now banned PCBs and DDT. Many of these are know to increase cancer risks. The purpose of the study was two-fold -- the researchers wanted to know which chemicals are getting into our bodies, at what levels, and to better understand the potential harm posed by poor regulation of chemicals. Second, the researchers hope that by understanding the dangers we face, better solutions can be developed to eliminate the exposures to toxins from the environment. The results shocked and surprised the participants in the study. It might disturb you too, as most of us carry a similar body burden of cancer-causing chemicals.

The results of an Environmental Working Group Body Burden testing program has revealed that mothers and daughters share a common body burden of at least 35 environmental cancer-causing chemicals including phthalate plasticizers, lead, methyl mercury, brominated flame retardants, and Teflon and Scotchgard perfluorochemicals PFOA and PFOS. These pollutants appear to be passed from a mother's placenta or breast milk into her daughter's body. Some of the key findings in this testing program found:

• Daughters tested had more chemicals in common with their mothers than with a group of 16 other women who were tested. This underscores the long-lasting influence of the pollution passed from mother to daughter, and their shared exposures as the child grows up. 
• The chemical burden inherited by daughters at birth will last for decades, some for a lifetime -- and the daughters will pass this same chemical burden on to their children.
• Chemicals that persist in the body were found at higher levels in mothers than daughters, showing how chemicals can build up in the body over a lifetime.
  

According to EWG, the six biomonitoring programs -- conducted between 2000 and 2006 -- revealed a total of 455 different pollutants, pesticides, and industrial chemicals in the bodies or cord blood of 72 different people -- including ten newborn babies with an average of 200 chemicals in each child.

"EPA studies show that children from birth to age two are ten times more sensitive to cancer-causing chemicals than adults," said Jane Houlihan, EWG's vice president for research. "Scientists have found that chemicals toxic effects can be passed down for four generations, by causing permanent genetic changes that can be inherited. A stew of toxic chemicals is not the legacy mothers want to hand down to their children." To read an overview of all results from EWG's Body Burden testing program, go here.

According to a study done by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, based on data compiled from 2001 and 2002 for the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, researchers are reporting that blood levels of cancer-causing perfluorochemicals, PFCs, vary by race and ethnicity. When the researchers analyzed blood samples, they found that Caucasians had a three-time higher blood serum levels of PFCs than Hispanics, and two-times higher levels than African-Americans. Men in all three racial groups had slighter higher PFC levels than women. The differences may be due to the amount of pollutants each group is exposed to, or to diet, lifestyle and genetic factors. That does not explain the blood serum level differences between men and women of the same ethnicity and race, though, unless the increased exposures are linked to certain occupations traditionally done by men and not by women.

PFCs, and the related perfluorochemical PFOA, are global contaminants that do not break down, are cumulative, and can be found in the environment, wildlife, and bloodstream of humans. Introduced in the 1950's for its non-stick and stain-resistant properties, PFCs can be found almost everywhere. In the past, PFCs, including PFOA, were not regulated. It will be interesting if they follow up on why there are differences in the serum blood levels between ethnic and racial groups. It would be easy to conclude that lifestyle and diet may be a factor, if it were not for the differences between men and women of the same ethnicity and race.