Study Shows Toxic Chemicals in Newborns

Todd Zwillich, "Study Shows Toxic Chemicals in Newborns", Web MD, July
14, 2005,
Link: http://my.webmd.com/content/Article/108/109035.htm

Hundreds of toxins, including industrial chemicals, pesticides, and
other pollutants may be contaminating some U.S. newborns, according to
a small study.

In a study of newborn blood released by the Environmental Working
Group, an average of 200 industrial chemicals and pollutants were found
in umbilical cord blood from 10 babies.

The babies were born in August and September of 2004 in U.S. hospitals.
The newborns' blood was collected after the umbilical cord was cut,
according to the EWG, which may indicate that the infants were exposed
to the compounds while still in the womb.

The American Chemistry Council, which represents chemical
manufacturers, released a statement saying that the information in
Thursday's report was not new.

"Scientists have long understood that our bodies can absorb substances
present in our environment," the statement says. "The measurements by
themselves are not an indication of a health risk and should not be
cause for alarm," the group says.

Researchers randomly tested cord blood anonymously donated to the Red
Cross. They did not pinpoint where in the U.S. the exposures occurred.

Environmental activists are taking the study as evidence that hundreds
of common industrial chemicals -- some of them never before detected in
newborns -- can pass from mothers to fetuses.

"This study represents the first reported cord blood tests for 261 of
the targeted chemicals and the first reported detections in cord blood
for 209 compounds." they write in their report.

Chemicals and Public Policy

The study's release was timed to coincide with the introduction of a
bill on Capitol Hill designed to force manufacturers to test the safety
of chemicals before putting them on the market. The measure would also
require the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to determine the
safety of 300 industrial chemicals within the next five years.

"It's not a definitive measure of pollution in newborns, but we think
it should spur public health researchers and spur policy makers," says
Timothy Kropp, PhD, senior scientist with the Environmental Working
Group.

Tests uncovered an average of 200 different chemicals in each cord
blood sample, including a wide variety of pesticides, fire retardants,
and industrial coatings used in electrical insulation, carpets,
furniture, and other products.

"We don't know what safe levels are for many of them. We must know more
before chemicals end up in children," Kropp says.

Eighteen different forms of dioxin were also found in the samples,
according to the report.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer designated dioxin as a
"known human carcinogen" in 1997, though very low levels of exposure
are believed not to cause tumors in humans, according to the World
Health Organization.

A Government Accountability Office report released Wednesday concluded
that manufacturers have provided the EPA with health and safety data on
only 15% of industrial chemicals sold in the U.S. in the last three
decades.

Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) told reporters Thursday that she was one
of several who anonymously donated blood for a continuation of the
analysis. More than 270 toxic chemicals were found in her blood, said
Slaughter, who is 75 years old.

"I'm a walking chemical plant. That's hardly the picture of health I
had hoped for," she said.

This is just fear mongering. If this was really such a huge problem,
why has the rate of survival for newborns in industrialized nations
only increased every year for the past fifty years?

This is just ignorant fear-mongering. What are we supposed to do, live
in caves?

Whatever.

I think living in bubbles would be more effective.

I feel the same way, there's no way to avoid all the things we are
exposed to. Even organic crops are watered by acid rain people.
It's all a part of the world we live in, deal with it.

KR

This is just fear mongering. If this was really such a huge problem,
why has the rate of survival for newborns in industrialized nations
only increased every year for the past fifty years?

This is just ignorant fear-mongering. What are we supposed to do, live
in caves?

Whatever.




Infant Mortality Rates
The report found that in 2003 there were about seven infant deaths per
1,000 live births, compared with 6.9 per 1,000 live births in 2002, the
first time the U.S. infant mortality rate had increased in 44 years
(Scripps Howard/Detroit News, 3/1). According to the Los Angeles Times,
the 2003 infant mortality rate "implies that the 2002 finding was real and
not a statistical blip" (Los Angeles Times, 3/1).

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medi...p?newsid=20557



USA Ranks 36 for Infant Mortality, This is below Cuba and Taiwan.


http://www.geographyiq.com/ranking/r..._Rate_aall.htm


Donna