x
  • Bookmark and ShareShare
  • Earn Points
    What's this?
232 toxic chemicals found in 10 newborns
A new study reveals BPA in nine of 10 randomly selected umbilical cord blood samples.
Wed, Dec 02 2009 at 1:15 PM
 9

Photo: ADD Photography/Flickr

It’s no surprise to most MNN readers that the vast majority of American adults have BPA (bisphenol A) and other worrisome chemicals in their bodies. That’s what happens, after all, when you grow up in a chemical world. But a new study proves that our chemical romance actually begins in the womb, before we’re even born.
 
A two-year study, commissioned by eco-nonprofit Environmental Working Group (EWG) and Rachel’s Network, studied the umbilical cord blood of 10 American babies of African-American, Asian, and Hispanic heritage born between 2007 and 2008 — to find 232 toxic chemicals. According to Alex Formuzis, EWG’s director of communications:
Among the substances newly discovered, in addition to BPA, included a toxic flame retardant chemical (tetrabromobisphenol A) designed for computer circuit boards, chemicals used in synthetic fragrances (galaxolide and tonalide) for common cosmetics and detergents, and a member of the notorious Teflon chemical family (perfluorobutanoic acid) that helps make non-stick, and grease, stain and water-resistant coatings for a number of everyday consumer products.
In fact, BPA — an estrogen-like chemical found in many products and one that’s linked to early puberty, childhood obesity, breast cancer and neurological and behavioral changes — was found in nine of the 10 babies. Concludes the study:
The chemicals found in these children are some of the most problematic compounds ever put into commerce. Their presence in fetal cord blood represents a significant failure on the part of the Congress and government agencies charged with protecting human health.
EWG is taking these findings to a full Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee and Subcommittee on Superfund, Toxics and Environmental Health joint hearing today to demand tougher oversight and regulations. Among other recommendations, EWG is asking that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention “initiate a comprehensive cord blood-testing program,” with the costs of the program borne by the industry that made these chemicals in the first place.
 
What can you do about this news? If you’re pregnant, read EWG’s 10 Healthy Pregnancy Tips to avoid the dangerous chemicals as much as possible. In addition, follow MNN’s tips for avoiding BPA.
 
Also on MNN:

The opinions expressed by MNN Bloggers and those providing comments are theirs alone, and do not reflect the opinions of MNN.com. While we have reviewed their content to make sure it complies with our Terms and Conditions, MNN is not responsible for the accuracy of any of their information.

You might also like:

Join the conversation

Comments: 9
Sign in with one of these accounts to add your comment.
anonymous
Kathy Garolsky Jan 05 2011 at 6:43 AM

Hello

Good Day to You, i just browsing the internet trying to find an inspiration or an
interesting topic and i found you blog have informative post keep up the good work
and thanks for sharing information for us browser i try to come back soon to read
more of your stuff

Thanks

Kathy
www.healthandwellnessconsultants.com

|
anonymous
aldactone Oct 28 2010 at 11:49 AM

Hyperaldosteronism is the medical term for producing too much aldosterone. It can be caused by various conditions (such as cirrhosisor kidney disease) or may happen for no apparent reason. Primary hyperaldosteronism

|
anonymous
Alan Aimer Dec 04 2009 at 8:54 AM
Multifresh Natural Deodorizer at http://www.multifreshnaturaldeodorizer.com First things first. I am the distributor for this product. That being said, it is one of the most amazing products you will ever see. It is a box (recycled) of a volcanic material called ignimbrite. One point about air fresheners, Your air freshener may be putting formaldehyde in the air. MultiFresh doesn't use chemicals. "MultiFresh is composed of one of the only known negatively charged minerals in existence. Negative ions
.... More
are nature's most powerful air-cleansing agent. There is nothing in the world more effective in eliminating allergens and odors from the air we breathe. Negative ions are created by nature, and are found at their most abundant levels where the air is most pure and healthy. These places typically include in the mountains, near waterfalls, where lightning has just struck, or by an ocean shore next to crashing waves Most floating contaminates such as odors and allergens are positively charged, and of course, negative ions are negatively charged. In environments where high densities of negative ions exist, they are able to reverse the charge of floating contaminates to a negative charge. This results in a magnetic attraction among the floating pollutants in the air, causing them to aggregate, or “neutralize” one another. Don’t pay hundreds of dollars for expensive ion generators that utilize the same technology as All-Natural MultiFresh." The website has a couple of testimonials from green bloggers. You can also see the "Where to use It" section and more info in "How It Works". Alan Aimer
|
anonymous
Antonio Dec 07 2009 at 11:24 AM

Anything that you can touch, see, or weigh consists of chemicals. The description about ions is naive and incorrect.

|
anonymous
Alan Aimer Dec 08 2009 at 10:04 PM

Rather than having a semantic debate let me forward this link. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080723134438.htm.

MultiFresh is a negatively charged mineral that does contain and emit cancer causing agents. In the USA, the manufacturers are not required to inform the consumer about these things.

|
anonymous
Riz Oct 18 2010 at 8:51 AM

agree with you dear..
http://www.health-guidence.blogspot.com

|
anonymous
Alan Aimer Dec 08 2009 at 10:09 PM

MultiFresh doesn't use chemicals to mask or cover up odors. MultiFresh is a negatively charged mineral that does NOT contain and emit cancer causing agents. In the USA, the manufacturers are not required to inform the consumer about these things.
But rather than having a semantic debate let me forward this link. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080723134438.htm.

|
anonymous
Gil Friend Dec 03 2009 at 9:55 PM

Insane, yes. But why is the sample so small? Only 10 babies - can you generalize for that? (Not clear why it took two years to test umbilical blood from 10 babies.)

I'm not naysaying -- I

|
siel
Siel Ju Dec 04 2009 at 12:37 AM
In fact, EWG is the first to say in its materials (the FAQ has a quick answer addressing this very Q) that because the sample is so small, big conclusions about the general population can't be drawn. We're really only getting a very small view into what appears to be a much bigger problem. This is the very reason that the enviro nonprofit's calling on the CDC to do a comprehensive study, funded by the chemical companies producing these worrisome toxic materials. I'm sure that you'd agree that not
.... More
only should a widescale study be conducted, but also that the cost of such a study should be born not by grassroots nonprofits, but by the polluters themselves. That is what EWG and other enviro nonprofits are using this admittedly very small study to push government agencies to do.
|

EDITORS' PICKS

tease kids in woods

line

tease stargazing

line

tease hand

Advertisement
From our sponsor

Advertisement

NEWSLETTER

Mother Nature. Delivered
Advertisement