The bisphenol A (BPA) story is not yet over. More revelations about this chemical found in plastics are coming in as scientists are stepping up on BPA research. The recent undesirable BPA effect is female infertility and this was reported by Yale University researchers at the recent meeting of the Endocrine Society.

The Yale researchers have observed that when pregnant mice were exposed to BPA, the genetic chemistry of their female offspring is irreversibly altered. The researchers have the identified the gene in question as HOXA10, which regulates the normal development of the uterus and fertility, not only in mice, but also in humans. BPA sometimes plays havoc with the gene’s switching on and off. They can conceive but their ability to carry the pregnancy to full term is compromised, leading to permanent fertility loss.

In a way, this doesn’t surprise me, considering that BPA is an endocrine disruptor and mimics the effect of estrogen, and therefore plays havoc with hormonal balance.

However, this isn’t the only bad news about BPA.

University of Cincinnati researchers reported irregular heart rhythms in female mice (but not male!) exposed to BPA.

Now, if ever health authorities claim again that current BPA exposure is too low to cause these effects, University of Missouri-Columbia experts will definitely show their new estimate that BPA exposure among Americans is much higher that the so-called maximum safe dose.

These recent findings are alarming themselves but what concerns me are the following:

• Babies in the uterus are exposed and possibly already damaged by BPA even before they are born.
• Females seem to be strongly affected by BPA, because of its capacity to mimic estrogen.

In other words, BPA is affecting our reproductive cycle and will be affecting or has already affected the next generation of mothers.

The scientists at the Endocrine Society Meeting issued a scientific statement declaring that BPA and other endocrine-disrupting chemicals in food, water and consumer products represent a “significant concern to public health.”

I really hope that the health authorities are listening.

A woman who becomes pregnant is prescribed by her obstetrician prenatal vitamin supplements. And one of the most important of these is folic acid. Folic acid is a synthetic form of folate; folate is an essential B vitamin that plays an important role in many bodily functions. Folic acid supplementation has helped prevent many birth defects over the years, especially spina bifida. What many of us may not know is that flour and grains in most developed countries, including the US, are also fortified with folic acid for more than a decade now.

Unfortunately, recent research studies are casting doubt on the benefit of folic acid fortification and supplementation. Several clinical trials have shown for example that folic acid does not reduce risks of developing chronic diseases and may even have some adverse effects. Below I summarize some of the studies on folic acid supplementation.

Folic acid and its effects on the genes of offspring

Researchers from the University of Toronto have observed in mice that folic acid supplementation during pregnancy induces changes in the genes of the offsprings. The changes may consist of either silencing or activating genes that suppress tumors. This suggests that maternal supplementation with folic acid can have an effect on the susceptibility of the offsprings to cancer.

Folic acid and heart disease

This clinical trial of Harvard’s Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston followed up 5,400 female health professionals for about 7.3 years. The results suggest that folic acid did not lower levels of the amino acid homocysteine, believed to be a biomarker for cardiovascular disease. Thus, folic acid supplemention does not reduce cardiovascular risks.

Folic acid and cancer

This study by researchers at Harvard Medical School looked at the effect of folic acid, vitamin B₆, and vitamin B₁₂ in reducing cancer risk in women. The results showed that a combination of these three vitamins did not protect women from breast cancer or total invasive cancer.

This recent research results raise the question of the benefits of folic acid fortification of food for the general population. Could it be that people in developed countries like the US are consuming too much folic acid? Could it be that long-term consumption of folic acid (as found in our food) can increase development of cancer in some people? Could folic acid supplementation during pregnancy increase cancer risk in the unborn child?

Currently, there isn’t enough evidence to change the clinical practice of taking folic acid supplementation during pregnancy. Several studies are ongoing to try to answer the aforementioned questions.

On July 11, a woman in Berlin gave birth to twins which are as unidentical as twins – or siblings for that matter – could get. One boy has fair skin while the one has dark skin. This was reported by The Local, Germany’s News in English. The mommy is from Ghana and the daddy is German.

In 2006, two girls with different skin and hair color were born in Australia to a Jamaican-English mother and a German father. In 2005, another set of fraternal twin girls with different skin tones was born in Britain.

According to BellaOnline (The Voice of Women), having twins of different skin tones is highly unusual. Usually, most mixed-race individuals carry both dark and light-skinned genes in theirs gametes (eggs or sperms). However, on rare occasions, some gametes may carry predominantly or totally genes for a certain type of skin/hair color only. For both egg and sperm to match their genes is a very rare occurrence indeed.

I am of Asian ethnicity, and my husband is German. It could have happened to us – but our twin boys are identical. To have twins that are so unlike in outward appearance would be weird – but also special.

“I imagine sitting at a playground where the other mothers will call me crazy when I tell them the boys are twins” said the mom of the African-German babies Ryan and Leo.