TOXIC INHERITANCE: Babies are born with a slew of potentially dangerous chemicals.
Image: ISTOCKPHOTO/RAPIDEYE
More In This Article
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
U.S. minority infants are born carrying hundreds of chemicals in their bodies, according to a report released today by an environmental group.
The Environmental Working Group's study commissioned five laboratories to examine the umbilical cord blood of 10 babies of African-American, Hispanic and Asian heritage and found more than 200 chemicals in each newborn.
"We know the developing fetus is one of the most vulnerable populations, if not the most vulnerable, to environmental exposure," said Anila Jacobs, EWG senior scientist. "Their organ systems aren't mature and their detox methods are not in place, so cord blood gives us a good picture of exposure during this most vulnerable time of life."
Of particular concern to Jacobs: 21 newly detected contaminants, including the controversial plastics additive bisphenol A, or BPA, which mimics estrogen and has been shown to cause developmental problems and precancerous growth in animals. Last month, researchers reported that male Chinese factory workers exposed to high levels of the chemical experienced erectile dysfunction and other sexual problems.
"BPA is a really important finding because people are really aware about its potential toxicity," Jacobs told reporters. "This is the first study to find BPA in umbilical cord blood, and it correlates with national data on it."
Jacobs said the study focused on minority children to show that chemical exposure is ubiquitous, building on 2005 research on cord blood from 10 anonymous babies. That study found a similar body burden among the babies. This is the first study to look at chemicals in minority newborns.
"Minority groups may have increased exposure to certain chemicals, but here we didn't focus on those chemicals," Jacobs said. "The sample size is too small to see major differences, but we want to increase awareness about chemical exposures."
Leo Trasande, co-director of the Children's Environmental Health Center at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine, said the findings, while preliminary, show that minority communities are often disproportionately affected by chemical exposure. Trasande was not involved in the EWG study.
"Presently, minority communities suffer from a host of chronic disorders, and disproportionate chemical exposures may contribute significantly to the origins of the disparities that exist," Trasande said.
Both he and Jacobs said the findings add momentum for the call to revamp the Toxic Substances Control Act, or TSCA, the law regulating the more than 80,000 chemicals on its database. They released the report on the same day that a Senate panel is scheduled to discuss the government's strategy for managing the tens of thousands of chemicals in the marketplace with an eye toward overhauling TSCA.
TSCA does not require most chemicals to be tested for safety before they are approved for widespread use. Because of this, Trasande said, less than half of the 3,000 high-production volume chemicals on the marketplace have toxicity data, and less than one-fifth have toxicity testing data on the effects on developing organs.
See what we're tweeting about
9 Comments
Add CommentBad news for humans...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease avoid the use of the word "chemical" for "substance that is unlikely to be of biological origin". I hope umbilical cord blood actually contains tens of thousands of different chemicals, not only two hundred. Even though it can be argued that all compounds are potentially toxic, it is still a bad habit to use "chemical" and "non-natural toxic substance" as synonyms.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would love to hear from you what chemicals you found and how we can avoid getting these chemicals into the umbilical cord.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe would love to hear from you which chemical compounds you found and how we could avoid getting these compounds into the umbilical cord.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey may not all be chemicals, however that is what the researchers call them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHello ! I work for a cord blood bank and can give you the facts behind the over-promotion. See http://cordadvantage.com/cord-blood-blog/2011/5-straight-facts-about-cord-blood-viacord-viacell-and-cord-blood-registry-wont-tell-you/ to find 5 Straight Facts About Cord Blood ViaCord / ViaCell and Cord Blood Registry Won’t Tell You.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJosephVos ~ I work with Shaklee, I would love to give you information on toxins and how to avoid them. email me at mmacpetrie0@gmail.com and I can give you more information.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJosephVos ~ I work with Shaklee, I would love to give you information on toxins and how to avoid them. email me at mmacpetrie0@gmail.com and I can give you more information.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRob Hooft when they say 200 chemicals, they indeed mean toxic, non organically naturally occurring chemicals.These are man made chemicals which are known "toxins" to humans. That means that these "200 chemicals" are indeed the sort to have a known impact on human life and health.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou should google "Articles on hormone disruptors" before you get too upset about the suggested findings and while it's nice and all that the writer of this article is being "Politically Correct" in it's closing statement, "less harmful" is not enough, period. When it comes to sustainable, longterm human existence, which is highly questionable with all of today's new, man-made toxins (in the name of making money and "progress"), NON toxic, as in NOT toxic in the LEAST is the ONLY acceptible alternative. Less toxic is NOT EVER going to be okay with me, nor my future children and grandchildren, thank you.