Are “Chemicals” ACTUALLY Making You Sick? Dr. Cohen & Dr. Love

In this episode of the Checkup Podcast, host Dr. Mike engages in a heated discussion with Dr. Ay Cohen, a rheumatologist and environmental health advocate, and Dr. Andrea Love, a microbiologist and biotech scientist, about the impact of everyday chemicals on health. Dr. Cohen argues that synthetic chemicals are a primary cause of acute and chronic health issues, advocating for precautionary avoidance of such substances. Dr. Love counters that the evidence does not support such claims, emphasizing the importance of understanding scientific risk assessments and the role of socioeconomic factors in health outcomes. The conversation highlights the complexities and controversies surrounding chemical exposure, health, and safety regulations.

• Discussion opens with concerns about chemical exposure and the importance of transparency regarding affiliations and sponsors.
• Dr. Ay Cohen highlights the potential health impact of synthetic chemicals and the necessity for immediate action without waiting for further research.

"Our guest today is Dr. Ay Cohen, rheumatologist and environmental health advocate, who says that everyday chemicals we're exposed to are the number one cause of most acute and chronic health conditions."

• Dr. Cohen emphasizes the urgency of addressing chemical exposure due to its widespread health implications.

• Dr. Ay Cohen's medical background includes rheumatology and integrative medicine with a focus on environmental health.
• She observed a rise in autoimmune disorders among younger patients, often without family history, prompting her investigation into environmental factors.

"I started to see younger people presenting with autoimmune and immune disorders at ages that you wouldn't normally expect and was also very interesting is they had no family history."

• Dr. Cohen's observations in clinical practice led her to explore the environmental and lifestyle factors influencing disease.

• Dr. Cohen discusses the interplay between genetics, environment, and lifestyle in disease development.
• Emphasizes the role of environmental control in managing health outcomes and disease risk.

"Whether you develop any kind of illness is a dance between your genetics, your environmental exposures, and your lifestyle."

• Highlights the significant influence of environmental exposures and lifestyle choices on health, suggesting they can be controlled to a large extent.

• Dr. Cohen notes the absence of environmental health education in medical training, even in specialties like rheumatology.
• She began her research into environmental health due to personal experiences and a lack of available information during her training.

"Unfortunately even today 2025 we're not getting any of this education."

• Dr. Cohen's self-directed learning in environmental health was driven by personal experiences and the need to address gaps in her medical education.

• Discussion on the impact of synthetic chemicals on health, including endocrine and immune system disruption.
• Dr. Cohen cites research on chemicals like phthalates, BPA, and PFAS, linking them to health issues.

"We know that these chemicals are playing a role, a large role. We know that they're in our body. We know that they are measurable in our urine, breast milk, blood."

• Dr. Cohen highlights the pervasive presence of harmful chemicals in the environment and their measurable impact on human health.

• Dr. Love provides a scientific overview of autoimmune disorders, emphasizing their multifactorial nature.
• She discusses the role of infections, genetic predispositions, and improved diagnostic criteria in understanding autoimmune disorders.

"There's a lot of different contributors to this. We know that there are certain viral infections that are players in this."

• Dr. Love underscores the complexity of autoimmune disorders and the various factors contributing to their development.

• Dr. Love emphasizes the importance of social determinants like access to healthcare, socioeconomic status, and lifestyle in health outcomes.
• She argues that chemicals are not the primary factor in determining health outcomes.

"When you talk about socioeconomic factors, that's probably about 30% of your contribution to your health."

• Dr. Love points out that social and lifestyle factors play a significant role in health, often outweighing the impact of chemical exposure.

• Discussion on the hygiene hypothesis, suggesting that exposure to microbes can build immune resilience.
• Dr. Cohen supports the idea that over-sanitization and antimicrobial use can negatively impact microbial diversity and resistance.

"When we're exposed to more microbes that are non-pathologic, we build our immune system, period."

• Dr. Cohen advocates for balanced microbial exposure to support immune system development and health.

• Dr. Love critiques the claims about chemical exposure and its effects, highlighting the lack of robust scientific evidence.
• She emphasizes the need for rigorous studies to substantiate claims about chemicals and health outcomes.

"These are not based in good science, these claims. They're based in cherry-picking."

• Dr. Love calls for evidence-based approaches to evaluating the health impacts of chemical exposures.

• Dr. Cohen advocates for practical, science-based approaches to reducing chemical exposure and improving health.
• Emphasizes the importance of informed choices and lifestyle changes in managing health risks.

"We can't get these chemicals necessarily out of our lives by regulation. We are living in them."

• Dr. Cohen stresses the need for individual empowerment and informed decision-making to mitigate health risks associated with chemical exposure.

• USDA organic certification regulates thousands of pesticides and fertilizers, prohibiting synthetic coloring, preservatives, and genetically modified ingredients.
• Organic foods are accessible to a broader audience and have high nutritional value due to flash freezing, which benefits gut health and immune system development.

"The USDA organic designation... is kind of a democratization... it is now accessible to everybody."

• The organic label is associated with democratizing access to healthier food options.

• There are thousands of registered pesticides, some of which are used in both organic and conventional farming.
• Differences in blood levels of pesticides can be measured, indicating exposure levels.
• Organic pesticides may still lead to health issues like autoimmune disorders through mechanisms like molecular mimicry.

"Organo phosphate pesticides can be measured... these levels can be measured in human fluids."

• The presence of pesticide levels in the body can be measured, indicating exposure but not necessarily predicting health outcomes.

• EDCs can mimic hormones at low doses, leading to significant physiological effects.
• Research has shown that low levels of EDCs can have the same effects as high doses due to non-monotonic dose response.

"They discovered that at very very very low levels... you could have the same physiologic response as high dose response."

• EDCs can affect the body even at low exposure levels due to their hormone-like behavior.

• The National Organic Program, established in 1990, has no criteria for nutrition or safety, functioning as a marketing tool.
• Organic products often cost more but do not necessarily offer nutritional or safety advantages over conventional products.

"The USDA organic certification is pretty much just a label that was lobbyed by national organic farmers associations."

• The organic label is more about marketing than actual health benefits, with organic foods costing more without proven advantages.

• Organic farming uses natural pesticides, which may require more frequent application and have broader environmental impacts.
• Synthetic pesticides can be more stable and targeted, reducing the need for repeated applications.

"A synthetic or a semisynthetic derivative... are approved to for use in conventional farming."

• Synthetic pesticides can be more effective and environmentally friendly due to their stability and specificity.

• The safety of pesticides is assessed with conservative thresholds, and most conventional produce falls below these safety limits.
• Studies on chemicals like BPA have not shown significant human health impacts at typical exposure levels.

"None of those have actually been reproduced in humans whatsoever."

• Concerns about chemicals like BPA are often based on studies that do not translate to real-world human exposure.

• Organizations like the Environmental Working Group (EWG) use language that can create unnecessary fear about pesticide residues.
• The EWG's classifications, such as the "Dirty Dozen," may not accurately reflect actual health risks.

"EWG is one of the most prolific anti-science organizations on the planet."

• The EWG's approach to classifying foods can lead to misconceptions about the safety of conventional produce.

• Safety thresholds for chemicals are determined by multiple global agencies, incorporating conservative factors to protect vulnerable populations.
• There is a need for transparency and reliance on scientific data rather than fear-based messaging.

"Those safety thresholds have a... human correction factor added to them."

• Safety assessments account for various factors to ensure that pesticide exposure remains within safe limits for all populations.

• Epidemiological studies exist that examine the impact of chemicals on health, including those from Europe.
• Chemicals such as bisphenols are linked to endocrine and immune disruptions.
• Studying humans individually for chemical exposure is challenging due to varied daily exposures.

"They show that when you're well it depends on the chemicals right so the bisphenols have been shown to do endocrine disruption. They have immune disruption capabilities."

• Bisphenols, a class of chemicals, are associated with disruptions in the endocrine and immune systems.

"The point is that human beings as individuals are exposed to many chemicals over a lifetime. So it's it's very hard to study humans individually."

• Due to diverse chemical exposures, studying individual impacts on humans is complex.

• The precautionary principle emphasizes avoiding potential harm from chemicals even without definitive proof.
• Hazard assessment considers hypothetical risks, while risk assessment evaluates actual exposure risks.
• The precautionary principle is criticized for being impractical and selectively applied.

"Precautionary principle essentially co-opts the hazard approach and it says well if there's any hypothetical situation in which this exposure to this thing could be harmful then we must try to avoid it at all costs but not only is that not realistic."

• The precautionary principle is viewed as impractical because it assumes hypothetical risks without considering realistic exposures.

"The reality is you have to take a realistic risk-based approach to your life."

• A practical approach to risk involves evaluating actual exposure and its potential impacts.

• Glyphosate is an herbicide targeting an enzyme specific to plants, not present in humans or animals.
• It is considered safer than many other herbicides, including some used in organic farming.
• Extensive studies show no significant health risks from glyphosate at exposure levels found in food.

"Glyphosate binds to this enzyme and it prevents the production of these amino acids. As a result, the plant wilts because it doesn't have these structural proteins and it dies."

• Glyphosate's mechanism involves inhibiting an enzyme unique to plants, making it effective as an herbicide.

"This is why over 20 different scientific expert agencies around the world...have all definitively stated and repeatedly definitively state that glyphosate poses no risk to human health."

• Multiple global scientific agencies have concluded that glyphosate does not pose a health risk.

• Genetic engineering allows for the development of crops with beneficial traits, such as increased resistance to pests or enhanced nutritional content.
• GMOs are often conflated with glyphosate but serve broader purposes in agriculture and medicine.
• The technology behind GMOs is used in various fields, including cancer therapies and nutritional improvements.

"When we think about genetic engineering, the same science that's used to create GE crops, it's the same science that we use to create cell therapies for cancer."

• Genetic engineering technology is applied in diverse areas, from agriculture to medical treatments.

"Golden rice would literally save millions of children's lives to now farmers being told they're not able to grow this."

• Golden Rice, a GMO developed to combat vitamin A deficiency, illustrates the potential benefits of genetic engineering.

• Exposure to synthetic chemicals is linked to various health issues, but causation is not always clear.
• The focus is on reducing overall exposure to potential harmful chemicals.
• The balance between risk and benefit is crucial in determining personal exposure levels.

"We know a lot about a lot and a little bit a lot and we need to think about just taking our lifestyle and our exposures and adding them to the picture of human health."

• Understanding the impact of lifestyle and chemical exposures is essential for improving health outcomes.

"The goal here is to lower exposure overall because if we lower overexposure and we don't have these testable chemicals in our bodies, we are less likely to see what we see in the studies that show possibly."

• Reducing chemical exposure may decrease the likelihood of adverse health effects.

• Discussion on the differences between acute and chronic chemical exposure, emphasizing the importance of evaluating both to assess potential health risks.
• Explanation of how chemicals are evaluated based on their nature, metabolic pathways, and potential for accumulation in the body.
• Highlighting the distinction between regulated chemicals and those that are not, such as organic pesticides and dietary supplements.

"Scientists are the ones that conduct scientific studies and they ask all these questions, right? That's why we look at, uh, well, toxicologists look at both chronic and acute exposures when also setting all of these safety thresholds."

• Scientists conduct studies to establish safety thresholds for chemicals, considering both acute and chronic exposures.

"A chronic exposure assumes an exposure of that level every single day for the course of a human life."

• Chronic exposure evaluations assume daily exposure over a lifetime to determine safety levels.

• Discussion on the lack of public access to complete chemical compositions due to proprietary blends, especially in pesticides and consumer products.
• Concerns about the transparency of safety data and the role of regulatory agencies in providing public access to information.

"For instance, we just had a water spill in our kitchen and we had a remediation company and they sprayed an anti-mold agent. Um, which I was not happy about...So, I looked at the MSDS report, which is basically the chemical sheet that talks about what's in this product."

• The speaker emphasizes the importance of accessing chemical information through MSDS reports, highlighting a lack of transparency in proprietary blends.

"But the thing that's interesting is that what what's the what we know about pesticides and the agricultural community is that they don't have to release all of the science to the public."

• There is a concern about the lack of obligation for the agricultural community to disclose all scientific data related to pesticides.

• Debate on whether the public should have access to detailed chemical information, considering the low levels of scientific literacy.
• Discussion on the role of regulatory agencies and the need for public trust in their evaluations and safety assurances.

"Because only 28% of Americans are scientifically literate. That is ridiculous. You're saying they're too dumb to care what goes in their body."

• The speaker argues that low scientific literacy may not justify withholding chemical information from the public.

"There has to be some level of trust that the regulatory agencies question that trust. That's what I'm saying."

• Emphasizes the need for public trust in regulatory agencies while also advocating for auditing and oversight.

• Examination of how misinformation and fear-mongering can influence public perception of chemicals.
• Discussion on the impact of public outcry on industry practices, such as the removal of parabens in response to fear rather than scientific evidence.

"Lobbyists and wellness influencers kind of pushed this rhetoric that parabens, which are actually an incredibly safe antimicrobial...this caused all this fear because people didn't know what parabens were."

• The spread of misinformation led to public fear and influenced industry decisions, despite the lack of scientific evidence against parabens.

"We have cleaner products because of it. We actually demand. We actually don't."

• The speaker argues that fear-driven decisions do not necessarily result in safer or cleaner products.

• Discussion on the importance of evaluating alternatives and being cautious with chemical exposure, focusing on informed decision-making.
• Encouragement for consumers to make thoughtful choices about the products they use and the chemicals they are exposed to.

"The idea is that you don't always have to say, 'Oh my gosh, I'm getting rid of this and I don't know what to, you know, put in its place.' We have so many options now, and they actually are affordable."

• Advocates for informed decision-making and exploring safer alternatives without succumbing to fear.

"While we're waiting for those studies to get done, which I applaud, I'm on the same page, we have to do something to at least consider what we're doing with our bodies."

• Emphasizes the need for proactive measures and thoughtful consideration of chemical exposure while awaiting further research.

• Acknowledgment of the complexity of chemical safety and the challenges in balancing public information, safety, and scientific evidence.
• Encouragement to remain informed and cautious, while advocating for better research and regulation.

"It's more about being thoughtful. Well, it's very complicated because removing red dye number three sounds like it could be a win, but it's what are you replacing it with?"

• Highlights the complexity of chemical safety decisions and the importance of considering the implications of substitutions.

"I'm simply saying, think about what we put on in and around our bodies. Be conscious. Here's some resources to look up."

• Encourages consumers to be mindful of their chemical exposure and utilize available resources to make informed choices.