Dear EarthTalk: A few years back a study found over 200 chemicals in the umbilical cords of newborns, particularly African-American, Asian and Hispanic babies. What are the causes of this phenomenon and what can be done about it?—Bettina Olsen, New York City

The study referenced found traces of some 232 synthetic chemicals in cord blood samples from 10 different babies of African American, Asian and Hispanic descent born in 2009 in different parts of the U.S. Study sponsors Environmental Working Group (EWG) and Rachel’s Network were looking to find out if the hormone-disrupting chemical Bisphenol A (BPA), a plasticizer widely used in food and drink storage containers, is present in the cord blood of minority babies in the U.S. Sadly and not surprisingly, BPA turned up in nine of the 10 cord blood samples tested. But perhaps even worse is the study’s detection of whole new raft of chemicals showing up in babies’ cord blood for the first time. Some of these newer offenders include tetrabromobisphenol A (TBBPA) from computer circuit boards, synthetic fragrances used in common cosmetics and detergents and Teflon-relative perfluorobutanoic acid.

The 2009 study was a follow-up to an earlier analysis of chemicals in cord blood in the mainstream U.S. population during 2004 births. That earlier study found some 287 different industrial chemicals and pollutants in babies’ cord blood, although BPA was not yet on EWG’s watch list at the time. The more recent study focused on minority babies because minority communities in the U.S. tend to bear a disproportionate pollution burden given their closer proximity to busy roads, industrial sites and older housing. But EWG points out that they tested for chemicals that are likely found in virtually every American household, so none of us are immune to exposure. EWG hopes that by continuing to monitor the chemicals we are born with it can hold corporate polluters’ and government regulators’ feet to the fire in regard to waste outputs and pollution mitigation.

EWG did not look for chemicals associated with smoking or alcohol consumption on the part of mothers, instead focusing on contaminants from exposures to consumer products and commercial chemicals omnipresent on supermarket shelves. To EWG, the presence of these chemicals in umbilical cord blood represents “a significant failure on the part of the Congress and government agencies” charged with protecting human health. “Our results strongly suggest that the health of all children is threatened by trace amounts of hundreds of synthetic chemicals coursing through their bodies from the earliest stages of life.”

Part of the problem is outdated laws governing the handling and use of toxic chemicals. Currently 1976’s Toxic Substances Control Act is the law of the land in regard to controlling the distribution, use and disposal of toxic chemicals nationwide. But EWG and other groups complain that hundreds of thousands of new chemical formulations are unleashed on an unwitting public every year via America’s store shelves because the federal government assumes new products and ingredients to be innocent until proven guilty. These critics would like to see the federal government take a more proactive role in approving new substances for use in consumer products, not to mention residential and workplace environments.

On the legislative front, green groups are pinning their hopes for a reformed Toxic Substances Control Act on New Jersey Democratic Senator Frank Lautenberg’s Safe Chemicals Act (S. 847), introduced last fall. The bill is currently spinning its wheels in committee hearings, but its 17 bi-partisan co-sponsors are optimistic that it will come up for a floor vote before the 112th Congress wraps up the end of this year.

CONTACT: EWG’s “Pollution in Minority Newborns,” www.ewg.org/minoritycordblood.

EarthTalk® is written and edited by Roddy Scheer and Doug Moss and is a registered trademark of E - The Environmental Magazine (www.emagazine.com). Send questions to: earthtalk@emagazine.com. Subscribe: www.emagazine.com/subscribe. Free Trial Issue: www.emagazine.com/trial.

7 Comments

1. 1. WRQ9 01:41 PM 9/1/12

   The introduction of new chemicals to the supermarkets of America should be a real concern to all of us. The problem of new regulation can also be toxic, to new businesses. The difficulty in writing new law is in keeping people from attaching themselves to the process like an island of rafts and changing the landscape for progress.
   This tendency is already present in our education system, legal environment, and in many subtle ways spread culturally. We've become a nation where it is simply necessary to pay the proper bureaucrat, and doors open that are secretly (and illegally) held closed previously. The fact that it is illegal to repress these burgeoning businesses makes it less likely the individual will find out which bureaucrat to pay even if he's willing.
   This nation seems to strive to be a collusive network of parasites, and creates predisposition for this tendency as a political gesture. A healthy environment is identifiable, not by the numbers, but the sustainability of it's constituency. Big business supports this process because they are the only ones who can deflect or absorb the initial costs. This is not happenstance, this is by design. It is an obviation of the necessity of personal brilliance and effectiveness. Bureaucracy.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. 2. hanmeng 06:48 PM 9/1/12

   How does the presence of trace amounts of synthetic chemicals threaten someone's health?

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

3. 3. Le Spaz d'Argent in reply to hanmeng 04:12 AM 9/2/12

   There are many ways even trace concentrations of chemicals can effect people,plants and animals. Arguably the most insidious group of chemicals that can potentially impact living things is the endocrine disrupting compounds. These include, but are not limited to, pesticides, particularly those containing chlorine eg DDT, plasticizers, eg phthalates and numerous industrial compounds as well as actual hormones like those found in birth control preparations. The problem in this case is that hormones act at very low concentrations in the body. The action of synthetic compounds can be either synergistic or antagonistic; that is to say they can augment or block the normal functions of the body. This action may result in birth defects, infertility issues and cancer.
   even in cases where an organism can be impacted by chronic exposure to concentrations in the low parts per trillion level.
   
   Another group of bad actors is the heavy metals, While we obviously need certain metals eg iron, zinc and copper, there is no known metabolic use for most of the rest eg mercury,lead and aluminum. Like the synthetic organic species above, metals can accumulate in the body over time to produce effects - largely of a neurological or cancerous nature.
   
   IMHO the scariest issue is that we don't know very much at all about how these these compounds interact at these low levels.
   
   It's all a big experiment and we're the Guinea pigs...
   

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

4. 4. rushil2u 07:15 AM 9/2/12

   I'm blown away by the ridiculousness of this article!
   Are these "chemicals" present in concentrations high enough to have any biological effect?
   10 is a really small sample size. How random was the selection?
   Synthetic chemicals are everywhere! Are they found in samples from non-minority people?
   
   I could go on and on and on...

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

5. 5. Gatnos 11:11 AM 9/2/12

   The "study" that this article references is the most biased, race-baiting unscientific study I've ever heard of. Talk about pre-determined results. The study focused on 10 different babies of African-American, Asian and Hispanic descent born in 2009. That is hardly a representative sampling and the omission of Caucasians from the study is down-right racist.
   
   Then there’s the underlying question, how did this study obtain the human remains samples to conduct their research upon? Are the parents of these babies aware that their tissues have been taken for this purpose? Did they provide written permission? I bet the answer in both cases is no. And I bet that EWG did not inform them of the results of the tests, either.
   
   Then there’s the complete absence of data. The article does not specify the levels of the chemicals found, nor does it compare these levels to acceptable levels and toxic levels. Given this lack of specifics, it must be assumed that the levels found were the minimum detectible and that there was a distinct possibility of contamination of the samples during handling.
   
   Given the “startling” results of the study, did EWG conduct further studies to determine the source of contamination and history of the parents of these babies? Did they attempt to specifically identify the offending industries, no, instead they shot-gunned Congress for not having more dictatorial control over industries.
   
   Totally unscientific, totally political and totally irresponsible.
   

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

6. 6. moss boss 08:17 PM 9/2/12

   I blame chemtrails.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

7. 7. cccampbell38 07:50 PM 9/7/12

   According to a number of studies there has been a significant increase in a number of syndromes and diseases that have serious, negative effects on children. These include auto-immune problems, allergies, asthma, and the asperger's-autism spectrum, to mention a few.
   
   No definitive cause has yet been identified.
   
   I just wonder...........

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this