Tests Find More Than 200 Chemicals in Newborn Umbilical Cord Blood

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Study commissioned by environmental group finds high levels of chemicals in U.S. minority infants

By Sara Goodman

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.

"These results are alarming for their implications of health impacts on children," Trasande said.

Another challenge facing chemical regulators is understanding how the different chemicals interact together, which is particularly significant given the number of chemicals found in people.

"What we're finding are complex mixtures of chemicals that sometimes have similar toxicities," Jacobs said. "There's an increased recognition that mixtures are a problem. ... It's very difficult to evaluate, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. We should also try to decrease the toxicity of individual chemicals."

Reprinted from Greenwire with permission from Environment & Energy Publishing, LLC. www.eenews.net, 202-628-6500

[Anna C. 4]

I'm pretty sure BPA will be found in most babies, unfortunately. Cans such as tomato or soda cans are lined with BPA, many opaque plastics contain BPA which especially leaches when heated (aka microwave), it's plastic code number 7. It's pretty gross.

The cheapest foods are the most processed foods full of unhealthy chemicals and are most likely packaged in BPA containers: see canned soup and soda.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I'm pretty sure BPA will be found in most babies, unfortunately. Cans such as tomato or soda cans are lined with BPA, many opaque plastics contain BPA which especially leaches when heated (aka microwave), it's plastic code number 7. It's pretty gross.

The cheapest foods are the most processed foods full of unhealthy chemicals and are most likely packaged in BPA containers: see canned soup and soda.

I believe all canned food with a liner has BPA, but soups and green beans tend to show the highest levels.

[SMR 368]

Study commissioned by environmental group finds high levels of chemicals in U.S. minority infants

By Sara Goodman

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.

"These results are alarming for their implications of health impacts on children," Trasande said.

Another challenge facing chemical regulators is understanding how the different chemicals interact together, which is particularly significant given the number of chemicals found in people.

"What we're finding are complex mixtures of chemicals that sometimes have similar toxicities," Jacobs said. "There's an increased recognition that mixtures are a problem. ... It's very difficult to evaluate, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. We should also try to decrease the toxicity of individual chemicals."

Reprinted from Greenwire with permission from Environment & Energy Publishing, LLC. www.eenews.net, 202-628-6500

I'm not an expert in the field, but this seems like a major science fail. They are trying to assert that toxin levels are higher in minorities, but didn't test any non-minority babies. Higher than what? The baseline test performed previously used 10 anonymous babies and found comparable levels. Unless all ten of the anonymous babies were minorities, that would indicate that minority toxin levels weren't any higher.

[Scott & Lai 12]

I'm not an expert in the field, but this seems like a major science fail. They are trying to assert that toxin levels are higher in minorities, but didn't test any non-minority babies. Higher than what? The baseline test performed previously used 10 anonymous babies and found comparable levels. Unless all ten of the anonymous babies were minorities, that would indicate that minority toxin levels weren't any higher.

My thoughts exactly. Any conclusions about minority children based on this study would be meaningless at best without testing non-minority children.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I'm not an expert in the field, but this seems like a major science fail. They are trying to assert that toxin levels are higher in minorities, but didn't test any non-minority babies. Higher than what? The baseline test performed previously used 10 anonymous babies and found comparable levels. Unless all ten of the anonymous babies were minorities, that would indicate that minority toxin levels weren't any higher.

Subtle but big difference between the word high and higher. Go back and read it again.

[SMR 368]

I'm not an expert in the field, but this seems like a major science fail. They are trying to assert that toxin levels are higher in minorities, but didn't test any non-minority babies. Higher than what? The baseline test performed previously used 10 anonymous babies and found comparable levels. Unless all ten of the anonymous babies were minorities, that would indicate that minority toxin levels weren't any higher.

Subtle but big difference between the word high and higher. Go back and read it again.

The article states, "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." The word disproportionate implies a comparison. But the study doesn't compare anything.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I'm not an expert in the field, but this seems like a major science fail. They are trying to assert that toxin levels are higher in minorities, but didn't test any non-minority babies. Higher than what? The baseline test performed previously used 10 anonymous babies and found comparable levels. Unless all ten of the anonymous babies were minorities, that would indicate that minority toxin levels weren't any higher.

Subtle but big difference between the word high and higher. Go back and read it again.

The article states, "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." The word disproportionate implies a comparison. But the study doesn't compare anything.

Compared to existing data from previous research. You're barking up the wrong tree. Not sure why this report bothers you other than it focused on minority babies.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

SMR - for your convenience (dated 2005)

A new study released Thursday questions the long-held belief that fetuses in the womb are largely unprotected from dangerous chemicals pregnant women are exposed to.

Laboratory tests of the umbilical cord blood of 10 newborns found that the samples contained an average of 200 chemicals that can cause cancer, brain damage, birth defects and other health ailments, according to the study sponsored by the Environmental Working Group.

"This is conclusive evidence that babies are being exposed to hundreds of industrial chemicals throughout pregnancy," said Sonya Lunder, an EWG scientist in Oakland who is five months pregnant. "The placenta isn't a magic shield."

http://health.dailynewscentral.com/content/view/1294/62

....

Right here, this indicates that earlier research has been conducted. Preliminary comparison of data is not outside the norm. I'm sure more research is underway.

Edited December 3, 2009 by Galt's gallstones

[SMR 368]

SMR - for your convenience (dated 2005)

A new study released Thursday questions the long-held belief that fetuses in the womb are largely unprotected from dangerous chemicals pregnant women are exposed to.

Laboratory tests of the umbilical cord blood of 10 newborns found that the samples contained an average of 200 chemicals that can cause cancer, brain damage, birth defects and other health ailments, according to the study sponsored by the Environmental Working Group.

"This is conclusive evidence that babies are being exposed to hundreds of industrial chemicals throughout pregnancy," said Sonya Lunder, an EWG scientist in Oakland who is five months pregnant. "The placenta isn't a magic shield."

http://health.dailynewscentral.com/content/view/1294/62

....

Right here, this indicates that earlier research has been conducted. Preliminary comparison of data is not outside the norm. I'm sure more research is underway.

You cite the same study that the original article cited. As the original article states, the levels were comparable between the original, race neutral study, and the minority targeted study. I don't have a problem with the findings if they are supported by good science. My complaint is when somewhat shaky science is used to arrive at a conclusion and then it is taken as gospel because it is politically correct.

If you have a study that shows that non-minority babies were previously tested and shown to have lower toxin levels, that would be significant. However, it's still insufficient since the obvious explanation (admittedly less politically correct) is that toxin levels are rising and we are exposed to more toxins today than we were in 2005.

Considering that on average, Asians have more income than whites in America, why would you expect them to be exposed to more toxins? All I'm saying is if you want to make a comparison between two groups of people, test both groups of people. Is that unreasonable?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

SMR - for your convenience (dated 2005)

A new study released Thursday questions the long-held belief that fetuses in the womb are largely unprotected from dangerous chemicals pregnant women are exposed to.

Laboratory tests of the umbilical cord blood of 10 newborns found that the samples contained an average of 200 chemicals that can cause cancer, brain damage, birth defects and other health ailments, according to the study sponsored by the Environmental Working Group.

"This is conclusive evidence that babies are being exposed to hundreds of industrial chemicals throughout pregnancy," said Sonya Lunder, an EWG scientist in Oakland who is five months pregnant. "The placenta isn't a magic shield."

http://health.dailynewscentral.com/content/view/1294/62

....

Right here, this indicates that earlier research has been conducted. Preliminary comparison of data is not outside the norm. I'm sure more research is underway.

You cite the same study that the original article cited. As the original article states, the levels were comparable between the original, race neutral study, and the minority targeted study. I don't have a problem with the findings if they are supported by good science. My complaint is when somewhat shaky science is used to arrive at a conclusion and then it is taken as gospel because it is politically correct.

If you have a study that shows that non-minority babies were previously tested and shown to have lower toxin levels, that would be significant. However, it's still insufficient since the obvious explanation (admittedly less politically correct) is that toxin levels are rising and we are exposed to more toxins today than we were in 2005.

Considering that on average, Asians have more income than whites in America, why would you expect them to be exposed to more toxins? All I'm saying is if you want to make a comparison between two groups of people, test both groups of people. Is that unreasonable?

That's not the same study. The study from the OP is this one:

EWG 2009 Minority Chord Blood Report

The 10 children in this study were born between December 2007 and June 2008. The other study I posted was reported in 2005.

And from the 2009 report:

Some racial and ethnic minority communities in the U.S. experience disproportionate exposures to environmental pollution (Brulle and Pellow 2006). Whether through poverty or historical patterns of discrimination, some are more likely to live near busy roads, industrial sites and older housing. These factors, combined with workplace exposures, diet and use of certain consumer products, may lead to greater contamination with chemicals. When combined with poor nutrition and health, the adverse effects of having a greater chemical body burden can be aggravated. (page 4)

[HAL 9000 96]

Study commissioned by environmental group finds high levels of chemicals in U.S. minority infants

By Sara Goodman

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.

"These results are alarming for their implications of health impacts on children," Trasande said.

Another challenge facing chemical regulators is understanding how the different chemicals interact together, which is particularly significant given the number of chemicals found in people.

"What we're finding are complex mixtures of chemicals that sometimes have similar toxicities," Jacobs said. "There's an increased recognition that mixtures are a problem. ... It's very difficult to evaluate, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. We should also try to decrease the toxicity of individual chemicals."

Reprinted from Greenwire with permission from Environment & Energy Publishing, LLC. www.eenews.net, 202-628-6500

I'm not an expert in the field, but this seems like a major science fail. They are trying to assert that toxin levels are higher in minorities, but didn't test any non-minority babies. Higher than what? The baseline test performed previously used 10 anonymous babies and found comparable levels. Unless all ten of the anonymous babies were minorities, that would indicate that minority toxin levels weren't any higher.

Maybe... just maybe... they have previous studies, in several cross-population samples and 'non-minority' babies???

Hardly much of a science fail if they can say they have something to compare to...

[HAL 9000 96]

Oh brother. It is really interesting how many scientific judges there are around these here parts.

[SMR 368]

SMR - for your convenience (dated 2005)

A new study released Thursday questions the long-held belief that fetuses in the womb are largely unprotected from dangerous chemicals pregnant women are exposed to.

Laboratory tests of the umbilical cord blood of 10 newborns found that the samples contained an average of 200 chemicals that can cause cancer, brain damage, birth defects and other health ailments, according to the study sponsored by the Environmental Working Group.

"This is conclusive evidence that babies are being exposed to hundreds of industrial chemicals throughout pregnancy," said Sonya Lunder, an EWG scientist in Oakland who is five months pregnant. "The placenta isn't a magic shield."

http://health.dailynewscentral.com/content/view/1294/62

....

Right here, this indicates that earlier research has been conducted. Preliminary comparison of data is not outside the norm. I'm sure more research is underway.

You cite the same study that the original article cited. As the original article states, the levels were comparable between the original, race neutral study, and the minority targeted study. I don't have a problem with the findings if they are supported by good science. My complaint is when somewhat shaky science is used to arrive at a conclusion and then it is taken as gospel because it is politically correct.

If you have a study that shows that non-minority babies were previously tested and shown to have lower toxin levels, that would be significant. However, it's still insufficient since the obvious explanation (admittedly less politically correct) is that toxin levels are rising and we are exposed to more toxins today than we were in 2005.

Considering that on average, Asians have more income than whites in America, why would you expect them to be exposed to more toxins? All I'm saying is if you want to make a comparison between two groups of people, test both groups of people. Is that unreasonable?

That's not the same study. The study from the OP is this one:

EWG 2009 Minority Chord Blood Report

The 10 children in this study were born between December 2007 and June 2008. The other study I posted was reported in 2005.

And from the 2009 report:

Some racial and ethnic minority communities in the U.S. experience disproportionate exposures to environmental pollution (Brulle and Pellow 2006). Whether through poverty or historical patterns of discrimination, some are more likely to live near busy roads, industrial sites and older housing. These factors, combined with workplace exposures, diet and use of certain consumer products, may lead to greater contamination with chemicals. When combined with poor nutrition and health, the adverse effects of having a greater chemical body burden can be aggravated. (page 4)

You quote something that the 2009 report inferred to explain why minority babies have greater toxin exposure. But since they fail to provide data that indicates that minorities actually have higher toxin exposure, an explanation as to why that is the case is a little out of place.

Fact of the matter is, good science would have required taking samples from all groups that you wanted to compare. Even if previous studies exist, taking new data would rule out any differences that could be caused by differing data taking methods or increasing toxicity at large.

The study took samples from hispanics, blacks, and asians yet makes no attempt to compare results between the groups. Instead it tries to compare them with a group that wasn't tested. It's like measuring water temperatures in lake A and saying that it is colder than lake B without measuring lake B. Even if you have data from the past for lake B, good science would require you to take new data for lake B, since the temperature of lake B might have changed and the people who studied lake B previously may have measured temperature differently.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Its amazing how many hal scientists there are around these parts.