ABOUT
Smart discussion of the latest science and news on toxins in your food, water, and air, and what government agencies should be doing to protect public health. Written by EWG staff.
DONATE TO EWG TODAY
We need you to help protect your health and environment! Please donate $5 to EWG today.
GET EWG'S TIPS & ACTION ALERTS
Sign Up here to receive email updates and tips from EWG and stay informed on the issues that matter most to you.
Get EWG widgets & blog badges.
ENVIROBLOG TO YOU
ENVIROBLOG VIA EMAIL
You could (almost) eat this furniture
Is your sunscreen in EWG's Sunscreen Hall of Shame?
Fracking: Live chat with EWG & 'Gasland' director Josh Fox
Understanding Sunscreen: 4 Questions about SPF
SEARCH ENVIROBLOG
FEATURED
Why, oh why is there plastic in my aluminum water bottle?
Cell phone radiation series - Part 2: 8 Ways to reduce your exposure
Infant formula: How to choose it & use it
EWG's Tips for Parents: The Series
EWG's Tips to avoid BPA exposure
Let's talk some serious shop about TSCA reform
EWG on TV
Cutting the Pork from U.S. Farm Bill
Sunscreen safety & DC drinking water
Perchlorate in people, kids' personal care products & plastics, and sunscreen
BPA in baby formula & safe cosmetics
What can I do about fluoride in my water?
What is new carpet treated with? What can I do?
Are stainless steel water bottles safe?
Is mineral-based makeup safer?
PEOPLE TALKING TOXICS
TALK TO US
Did we miss something? Email Enviroblog.
« Needed: Your vote for EWG to win $15,000! | Main | FRAC Act Gains House Supporters »
BPA Invades the Womb
By Elaine Shannon
![mcb-thumb[1].jpg](http://www.enviroblog.org/mcb-thumb%5B1%5D.jpg)
Back in the 1960s and 1970s, the outcry over Rachel Carson's path-breaking Silent Spring and global mobilization around the first Earth Day spurred scientists to attempt to quantify how much pollution was getting into people. Early methods -- measuring contaminants in water, air and soil, constructing mathematical models, analyzing lifestyles -- were roundabout and ultimately unsatisfying.
Well, no more guesswork and no more denials. Biomonitoring techniques -- testing blood, urine and human tissue -- are producing irrefutable evidence that human bodies are awash in toxic and endocrine-disrupting chemicals.
This week, a newly published laboratory analysis of 10 umbilical cord blood samples, commissioned by Environmental Working Group and Rachel's (as in Carson) Network, an organization of grassroots advocates, offers sobering new insights on the extent to which environmental pollutants are inescapable, even in the womb.
The 10 samples, from children born between December 2007 and June 2008, in Michigan, Florida, Massachusetts, California and Wisconsin, were randomly selected from a cord blood bank. The only stipulation: all 10 are of racial or ethnic minority descent, because EWG and Rachel's Network want to make sure that minorities are considered as various biomonitoring studies construct a mosaic of the "human toxome," the pollution in people.
EWG asked five laboratories with international standing to look for 383 chemicals. They found up to 232 of them. That's a big number. It's troubling that many substances detected, like lead and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), have been banned or heavily restricted for decades.
But other chemicals are dangerous, ubiquitous and mostly unregulated, except for huge spills and on-the-job exposures. These are the targets of current debates over U.S. toxic chemicals policy:
- Bisphenol A (BPA), an integral ingredient of polycarbonate plastic and epoxy resins, also a synthetic estrogen, found in 9 of 10 samples. First reported U.S. finding of BPA in cord blood. The federal Food and Drug Administration is contemplating banning BPA in food containers. A few states have already barred BPA in baby bottles, sippy cups and a few other children's items. Many others are considering legislation, as is the U.S. Congress.
- Perchlorate, a rocket fuel component and widespread water pollutant that disrupts thyroid function key to brain development, found in 9 of 10 samples. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is weighing proposals to regulate the chemical in drinking water, effectively forcing an expensive clean-up at Cold War-era missile and rocket test sites and chemical storage facilities. Defense and aerospace contractors are lobbying against such a move.
- Tonalide and Galaoxolide, synthetic musk fragrances in cosmetics, detergents, soap and other scented household items, found in 7 of 10 samples. Health risks are unknown, but because the chemicals are widely detected in people and aquatic environments, health advocates such as the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics are urging disclosure, rigorous testing and regulation of ingredients in cosmetics and personal care products.
In all, EWG's 11 biomonitoring investigations have detected 414 industrial chemicals, pollutants and pesticides in 186 people of all ages. These findings help answer the "what's out there" question. They may also guide scientists and government officials as they decide where to focus research and regulatory efforts. Clearly, contaminants found in utero warrant urgent assessment.
Want to know more about biomonitoring? The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) biomonitoring program site offers a wealth of information. Especially interesting: an article entitled Human Biomonitoring of Environmental Chemicals, by CDC and academic scientists, that describes biomonitoring as the "gold standard for assessing people's exposure to pollution."
Thanks Ms. Shannon, for posting something about chemical safety. I think making industrial chemicals safe for everyone is something we can all get behind. Problem is: mandating more chemical testing, the kind being advocated by the Safer Chemicals coalition, will kill millions of animals, cost hundreds of millions of dollars, and give us questionable results.
Recently the New York Times gave the example: "The chemical industry cites one recent study in which BPA did not cause harm to the reproductive health of Long-Evans rats... while CD-1 mice (also used in many experiments) are more vulnerable. Are humans more like Long-Evans rats or like CD-1 mice?" This is precisely the problem.
Humans differ greatly from other animals, just as animals so similar as rats and mice do. Testing the complexities of chemical mixtures is near impossible. These tests take anywhere from months to years, and tens of thousands to millions of dollars to perform. With so many chemicals out there, using animals to test every combination is unrealistic. And the inevitable high dosages in which we give animals these chemicals doesn't serve as quality information because humans can respond to low-dose exposure.
Alternatives to animal testing exist in a powerful way and many scientists advocate them. Chemical reform should not only modernize policy, but modernize the science that supports that policy. Let's ensure that our new legislation uses all the necessary tools to truly make our children, our environment, and animals safe.
Thanks for this excellent post. Sandra Sandgraber's book, Having Faith, describes this problem in depth. This is so unfortunate for all babies and human beings. Your blog is filled with wonderful information. Thank you!
http://ecofeminism-mothering.blogspot.com/
The EWG has already demonstrated that hundreds of chemicals can be found in our blood and baby's cord blood. What I'd love to see now is a study that examines the blood/cord blood of Americans who live a traditional American lifestyle and compares it to those who have made a conscious effort to avoid the toxins in our environment (perhaps those who consume an all organic diet, or are vegan, etc.) Can lifestyle choices affect the body burden? I realize that with a sample size of 10 that it would be difficult to draw such conclusions, but perhaps the EWG could test for only 50-100 chemicals instead of 300+ to control costs and then increase the n to be able to calculate statistical significance.
Kitrino, I'd be interested in that too. I do most of my shopping at the organic coop, cook on stainless and cast iron, store food in Pyrex and pottery and use green, non-fragrance, non-additive laundry detergent. But I doubt I've covered every conceivable base. And I sure don't want to blame the victims -- all of us. We can't shop our way out of this societal problem. We need systemic reform to make sure consumer products are carefully tested, vetted in thorough and transparent way and really safe, not green-washed.
Elaine Shannon, EWG editor-in-chief.
Elaine, I completely agree that we can't shop our way out of this and that we need laws to protect us from the chemicals in our environment. However, even if certain chemicals are banned, history tells us that they often persist in the environment and our bodies for years. Besides, even if the Toxic Substances Control Act was reformed, what are the chances that all the dangerous chemicals in our environment (phthalates, BPA, PFOAs, PBDEs, pesticides, herbicies, artificial dyes, genetically modified foods, etc.) would actually be controlled? I think it is important to make good personal decisions rather than to rely on the government to protect us. I also think it's important to empower the average American with ways they can take their own health into their own hands. It's been shown that an all organic diet can reduce pesticide residues in the urine of children. I would love to know if a lifestyle avoiding chemicals can reduce the body burden. If the answer is no, then that makes systemic reform even that much more crucial.