Common Chemicals Pose Danger for Fetuses, Scientists Warn
In a strongly worded declaration, many of the world’s leading environmental scientists warned Thursday that exposure to common chemicals makes babies more likely to develop an array of health problems later in life, including diabetes, attention deficit disorders, prostate cancer, fertility problems, thyroid disorders and even obesity.
The declaration by about 200 scientists from five continents amounts to a vote of confidence in a growing body of evidence that humans are vulnerable to long-term harm from toxic exposures in the womb and during their first years. 
Convening in the Faroe Islands in the North Atlantic, toxicologists, pediatricians, epidemiologists and other experts warned that when fetuses and newborns encounter various toxic substances, growth of critical organs and functions can be skewed. In a process called “fetal programming,” the children then are susceptible to diseases later in life - and perhaps could even pass on those altered traits to their children and grandchildren.
The scientists’ statement also contained a rare international call to action. The effort was led by Dr. Philippe Grandjean of Harvard University and the University of Southern Denmark, and Dr. Pal Weihe of the Faroese Hospital System, who have spent more than 20 years studying children exposed to mercury.
Many governmental agencies and industry groups, particularly in the United States, have said there is no or little human evidence to support concerns about most toxic residue in air, water, food and consumer products. About 80,000 chemicals are registered in the United States.
Yet the scientists urged leaders not to wait for more scientific certainty and recommended that governments revise regulations and procedures to take into account subtle effects on fetal and infant development.
Chemicals with evidence of developmental effects include compounds in plastics, cosmetics and pesticides.
“Given the ubiquitous exposure to many environmental toxicants, there needs to be renewed efforts to prevent harm. Such prevention should not await detailed evidence on individual hazards,” the scientists wrote in the four-page statement.
Genetic concerns
The scientists are particularly concerned that the newest animal research suggests that chemicals can alter gene expression - turning on or off genes that predispose people to disease. Although the DNA itself would not be altered, such genetic misfires in the womb may be permanent, and all subsequent generations could be at greater risk of diseases too.
“Toxic exposures to chemical pollutants during these windows of increased susceptibility can cause disease and disability in childhood and across the entire span of human life,” the scientists concluded.
The “Barker hypothesis,” conceived by a British scientist in 1992, says human fetuses are “programmed” for diseases by their early environment. The scientists concluded that this is now well-documented for toxic exposures by a large collection of animal experiments and some human data.
“A sad aspect with many of these prenatal exposures is that they leave the mother unscathed while causing injury to her fetus,” said Dr. Philip Landrigan, a pediatrician who chairs the Mount Sinai School of Medicine’s Department of Community and Preventive Medicine. He was one of the statement’s authors.
In a more optimistic vein, the researchers said that if contaminants do play a big role in human health problems, some diseases could be prevented.
“Reducing exposure would lead to tremendous benefits,” said Dr. Bruce Lanphear, director of the Environmental Health Center at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center. “We shouldn’t wait for an epidemic to fully mature before we develop policies to protect children.”
For centuries, the basic rule of toxicology has been “the dose makes the poison.” Now, the scientists say “the timing makes the poison” - in other words, when a toxic exposure occurs is as important as the amount people are exposed to.
The fetus “is extraordinarily susceptible to perturbation of the intrauterine environment,” they wrote.
The growing brain is the most sensitive. Mothers’ exposure to mercury and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in fish and other seafood can cause slight declines in a child’s IQ and motor skills. In addition, early exposure to pesticides might trigger Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s diseases.
Also, children exposed to lead, organophosphate pesticides or cigarette smoke have greater risk of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. One of every three cases - or an estimated 560,000 children in the United States - can be attributed to lead exposure or prenatal tobacco smoke exposure, Lanphear reported in a study published in December.
The immune, reproductive and cardiovascular systems also are vulnerable to early damage. Children exposed prenatally to PCBs have a high rate of infections and weak response to vaccinations. Many chemicals also can mimic hormones, and in animal tests, they feminize newborns, lowering sperm counts and promoting prostate, testicular, uterine and breast cancers.
In the newest area of research, metabolic systems, which control how nutrients are converted into energy, have been altered by chemicals administered in animal experiments - changes that may contribute to obesity and diabetes.
Chemical danger
“These adverse effects have been linked to chemical pollutants at realistic human exposure levels similar to those occurring from environmental sources,” the scientists wrote.
Among the risky chemicals they named are bisphenol A, found in polycarbonate plastic food and water containers; the pesticides atrazine, vinclozolin and DDT; lead; mercury; phthalates used in some cosmetics and soft plastics; brominated flame retardants; arsenic, which contaminates some water supplies; and PCBs, banned but ubiquitous, particularly in fish.
Some of the chemicals have been regulated in the United States, but many have not. Moreover, the scientists said, tests for developmental effects are not routinely required, so “the potential for such effects is therefore not necessarily considered in decisions on safety levels of environmental exposures.”
There is “an incredible gap,” Landrigan said, because 80% of major chemicals in commerce have never been tested to see if they damage early development.
The conference was funded by the World Health Organization, National Institutes of Health, European Environment Agency and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Denmark’s Faroe Islands, just south of the Arctic Circle, were the venue because the region is home to the longest-running human experiment analyzing prenatal toxic exposure. Since 1986, Grandjean and Weihe have tracked Faroese children from the womb to adolescence to monitor neurological effects of mercury in seafood. Their findings prompted U.S. advisories that children and women of childbearing age avoid swordfish and other highly contaminated fish.
In addition to Landrigan, three Californians and six other U.S. scientists served on the 28-member committee that wrote the consensus: Brenda Eskenazi of UC Berkeley, Irva Hertz-Picciotto of UC Davis, Beate Ritz of UCLA, Jerry Heindel and Kimberly Gray of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Larry Needham of the CDC, Terry Huang of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, David Bellinger of Harvard University and Howard Hu of the University of Michigan.
Copyright 2007 Los Angeles Times
Additional comments on how chemicals can harm us is at:
http://www1.environmentalhealthnews.org/
Frightening!
I remember growing up with adages like “better living through chemistry,” and the presumption that science would solve all the health crises of our times. In reality, the industrialization of society, aided and abetted by science has also caused a great many maladies. Seems every human invention turns into a Pandora’s Box; yet with intellects like Nader working to offset profit to put human well-being first, society has a chance to overcome the negative effects of so-called progress. I still like the way the Indigenous made decisions, by thinking ahead to the impact their activities would have 7 generations into the future. Today, it’s mostly garnered through the prism of quaterly profits. The plethora of toxic products entering our rivers, air, soil and bodies collectively creates a climate of relative impunity as no singular source can be isolated as culprit (or cause factor) behind the latest degenerative disease. Big pharma would rather treat half these things on maintenance programs (like rent!) then educate people in the ways and means to offset the impact of these substances never intended by nature to grow into our genetic labyrinths. And then there is the military’s interest in revivifying bacterial agents as weapons… truly fun for all (not!)
Revelations about the impact of mercury on children came out a little over a year ago as documents were leaked from Simpsonwood meeting of the CDC and there was a fairly large reporting of the threat of mercury to children. Somehow, those revelations have fallen by the wayside and the media seem uninterested, though the government is not. During the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, a rider was introduced to the Bill that would have prevented lawsuits against drug companies who used thimerasol (a mercury-based preservative) in vaccines. Strangely, the CDC has followed all this with an all-clear on the use of thimerasol, which seems to have caused little panic in the country that those meant to protect us from harm might be on the side of those who cause the harm. It is interesting to wonder what the penalties might be for knowingly creating a generation (or several) of autistic children if the government could ever be prompted to action, and to compare them to the penalties being handed down to members of the Animal Liberation Front for burning down a Belgian-owned horse slaughterhouse in Redmond, Oregon (see the article “My Brother the ‘Terrorist’” also on this website). In the latter case, only a building was destroyed while, in the former, the lives of countless families were entirely destroyed.
My reason for bringing in the penalties being handed down in Redmond is that I think it is important that we consider how our system of justice works when it comes to paying the price for knowingly acting to cause harm. The Redmond incident (I will not here consider the morality or immorality of the action, but consider it stricly as an action against property) destroyed a faciilty for the slaughtering of horses so that the meat could be exported for consumption. This action is being classed as “terrorism” by the presiding judge and the penalties to the perpetrators are increasing accordingly (from approximately 1-3 years to 14 years in prison). One can consider the loss of livelihood to the owners of the slaughterhouse and to everyone along the supply chain who makes their living by the process of getting that meat to foreign markets and add that to the harm done, but compare it to the damage done by knowingly causing cases of autism in children. These children will NEVER have an income. They will be a permanent burden on finances of their families or the State (meaning we all pay for the callous disregard for life perpetrated by Big Pharma). Further, the parents will never know the kind of intimacy with their children that most of us can expect as normal. Spontaneous hugs, kisses and declarations of love are almost unheard of. The children…well, it is impossible to say what has been taken from the children. It is too terrible to express. We could, of course, go a lot further in describing the crime of Big Pharma, but I should think this is enough to make the point. 14 years for burning a slaughterhouse compared to a congressional grant of amnesty for the destruction of children. Of course, it is worse than that, because the CDC has declared thimerasol not to be a threat and so it continues to be administered. Not in wealthy populations, mind, but among the world’s poor. They are the least able to mount a successful lawsuit, of course. We could also consider that this risk is often FORCED on parents, who may not send their children to school without these vaccinations. State sponsored terrorism? We could also consider the complicity of the doctors who pressure for the administration of these vaccines while failing to acknowledge the risks involved. Failing to consider that, to each parent, their child is not a potential statistic in a population of those vaccinated, but the single most important life on the planet.
I am pleased by the article in the LA Times, but I wonder where this news will be in a week, or a year. And what will the media report when the CDC comes back and tells us that it is fine to expose fetuses to a bevy of toxic chemicals? And if the revelations do, in fact, reach a critical mass in the media, where will be the cry for a classification as terrorists of the collective executives of Big Pharma? Apparently, the difference in the crimes is that the members of ALF acted without thought of becoming rich beyond most Americans wildest dreams, whereas Big Pharma did knowing harm in the pursuit of staggering profits. Is that how we draw the line between terrorists and people worthy of pardons before the law?
The Precautionary Principle has been opposed for long years by the corporate interests of this nation and world. I find this article to be far too reticent. For excellent information on a plethora of issues go http://www.rachel.org/bulletin/index . In the US, one in 150 children is diagnosed with autism up from one in 166 several years ago. THAT is an epidemic. It’s not something in the future. It’s in the here and now. When my son was first diagnosed circa mid-seventies, it was one in 2000. Our entire family was poisoned by lead paint dust, my middle son in utero. At four, he had a 37 lead level. I run into other parents, relatives frequently. They’re everywhere. It costs the federal and state governments over $100,000 per annum to care for my severely disabled son. Start multiplying.
Urthsong & Unknown Arts I chose home birth and nursed my daughters leaving the medical establishment as much as I could. Reading Dr. Robert Mendelsohn’s books, “Confessions of a Medical Heretic” as well as “Mal(e)practice” I learned how much is hidden from the public regarding so-called cures. I begged my daughter NOT to get the immunizations (but you’re right, schools demand it, and using the Christian Science religious out doesn’t always work) but she did, and every day I pray my grandson will not have autism. The rates are astronomical. I wonder if chemical poisons in water or pesticides on food have a bearing on this. As I’ve shared in response to other postings, the climate of trespass is thick with so many offending parties, that finding any singular culpable cause/agent is nearly impossible. I do believe the immunizations have a lot to do with this epidemic. Don’t forget, they keep letting FDA OK the latest fake sugar, till the data is compiled. The population serving as the guinea pigs. Recently they had to take the menopause drugs off the market because they CAUSED the conditions they purported to prevent. Ultimately, you cannot fool Mother Nature. Responsible care of the body temple, moderate intake of food, exercise, the cleanest produce and water you can get substantiate health; and toxic habits degenerate it. Given the state of US health care, I know it’s up to me to try to retain health… I’m in the bracket of the uninsured; but either way, US health care is hardly any sterling model for the world these days. I got my teeth capped a few years ago in Mexico for about one-sixth the US going rate and they look fine.
Now HERE’s where the Right-to-Lifers who consider a fetus more precious than a woman come in handy.
Certainly now they’ll re-direct their attention, money, and organizational power to fight the poisoning of an entire generation.
Certainly the GOP would have to listen to their base and rein in the corporations creating the toxic sludge those darling fetuses (and inconsequential we) live, drink, and breathe daily.
YES!! And I’m the Queen of the May.
sigh
Peach McD in Durham NC
So, scientists are finally waking up out of their drug induced sleep, that the Du Pont slogan of american idea of progress: ‘Better living thru chemisty’ is a fraud. Will people now realise theyve been sold a bill of goods. That the science of chemisty, that bastard off spring of alchemy, threatens their very future…but will people,turn away from this wretched science?
Scientists have created another monster, while brazenly attacking their critics.
I have greater fears with regard to the progeny that will result from biotech’s unlocking the genetic keys and rewiring biological alignments fostered over millennia through Mother Nature’s laboratory. Mythology’s winged horses and two-headed creatures are some of the apparitions that come to mind… and insects that are resistant to EVERYTHING, true marching armies. A friend of mine said the best biological warfare would be dropping army ants (fire ants) en masse from planes. He WAS in the military.
And then theres the sinister new technology of nano-tech…bringing us a new brave new world:
http://www.crnano.org/dangers.htm
you have been warned…if this gets out, its hasta las vista, and will make GM contamination look like nothing.
Not to take away from the urgency of the matters presented here, but I do not understand, given my middling knowledge of genetics, how affected parents
“… perhaps could even pass on those altered traits to their children and grandchildren.” This sounds like Lamarckian rather than Darwinian theory of evolution, unless the chemicals are actually causing mutations in the DNA. Altering gene expression is not the same thing as altering the genes themselves. If any reader more familiar with genetics could enlighten me on this matter, I would appreciate it.
As for the effects of smoking on fetuses, this is a matter that is often not given enough attention in the war on smokers. Just as insidious, of course, is the fact that once smokers go home they are free to smoke in a home with infants, young children, or other minors. Parents are not allowed to physically abuse their children. Is subjecting them to constant secondhand smoke not a form of abuse?
Interesting. AND, how do these scientist expect all pregnant women to carry on with the daily activities of life? After all, in this country, the government will not support women and children without extracting a hugh price. So I ask you, how are women support to live? And what about the rest of us, or all fetuses the only beings that matter?
magpie, the chemical that damages the fetus organ development would have to remain in the body into adulthood, and then be passed to her fetus during its development. Just a guess.
Rockerbabe1, maybe switch to farmer’s market food, organic food, wild food, natural materials for food containers, and eat a lot of antioxdants - they help repair a lot of the damage, they say.
I can understand why chemicals aren’t being tested in the United States - but why is the rest of the world allowing hundreds of chemicals to go untested?
This is how our human species is driving itself to extinction, by poisonng our babies with our own chemical and biological waste. If there is time for a solution it would be to recycle 100% of everything we use, but this economic system, based on short term profits, will never cooperate. So time is running out, a threshold crossed as ecocide and self-extinction now become inevitable.
Yes, peachmcd, Queen of the May, I thought the same thing when I read the headline. If the fetal rights movement doesn’t jump on this, we’ll have our conclusive evidence of the real motives behind the desire to deep-six Roe. (As if we needed any.)
Furthermore, there is the problem of [i]combined chemicals[/i]. The little testing that has been done may suggest that a substance is not harmful, however tests have shown that it does become harmful when combined with other substances.
what does that mean to “feminize the newborn”?
rtdrury, thanks for your sensible answer. People interested in organic food and growing your own may find a great read in Barbara Kingsolver’s latest book, “Animal, Vegetable, Miracle.”
zoya - pardon my missing your point, but what are the real motives behind deep-sixing Roe vs. Wade? Men’s control of women? That’s obvious. Anything else?
And Jerry from Tijuana, I’m afraid I am missing your point as well. Please clarify.
take back the planet: feminizing the newborn means that chemicals are affecting hormones in utero, interfering with the normal expression of biological sexual identity (not to be confused with gender identitiy, a cultural/personal matter). As an extreme example, there actually are hermaphrodites from birth.
One thing no one has commented on … think of the hundreds of thousands of animals that have suffered horribly for us to reach these conclusions. So much of this “research” is unnecessary, because we know these things from observations in nature and in human populations, e.g., DDT’s effect thinning the eggshells of bald eagles to the point where the eggs just collapse. But the animal research lobby is a huge monster, with all sorts of connections between “scientists,” lab animal breeders, people who make lab equipment, etc.
This information has been available for many months at http://www.ewg.org - Why wasn’t that website listed here?
todays generation are not educated in science and this makes it more difficult to battle these revelations that certain chemicals are toxic.
The nation is foused on entertainers and sport figures and not learning facts. Gore wrote : The “Assault on Reason” and we need to get with the facts not the fictions.
Think about the implications of this: there is growing evidence that gene expression is conditioned in significant ways by the cellular and extracellular environment. We are not simply manifestations of the DNA handed down by our forebears. That is why “genetic engineering” is a misnomer. We will never be able to have the precise control implied by the word “engineering” when we manipulate the DNA code. Extreme care needs to be taken when messing with stuff on such a fundamental level
True, but do you really think scientists will use extreme care? After all, some of them don’t pretend to be God, they do lust after “having” the same power as God. Of course they focus on destructive powers.
Magpie -
I think JerryfromTijuana’s point ““Common Chemicals Pose Danger for Fetuses”. Indeed. So do abortion clinics. Should we ban them too?”
is that if we believe in advocating for a safe environment for a child in utero, why don’t we believe in advocating for its right to live.
Just in the same way that peachmcd says,
“Now HERE’s where the Right-to-Lifers who consider a fetus more precious than a woman come in handy.
Certainly now they’ll re-direct their attention, money, and organizational power to fight the poisoning of an entire generation.
Certainly the GOP would have to listen to their base and rein in the corporations creating the toxic sludge those darling fetuses (and inconsequential we) live, drink, and breathe daily.”
So if the Right-to-Lifers should feel compelled to start fighting against the poisoning of fetuses, so too should the Pro-Choice group feel compelled to defend the life of that child. It is enormously unfortunate that people on the left, a group of people who are generally the defenders of the defenseless, the needy, and the poor, have allowed themselves to become entrenched in a position that pits a mother against an unborn child. This position is a boon for the Republican Party. If we could find a way to rethink this issue and come up with some innovative ways of respecting both the rights of the mother and the rights of the child, who knows how many people we could take back from the Republican vote. Maybe this environmental poison issue will start forging some new allies.
3backatme: Oh,wow! I’m not alone is pleading for people to come together for the health and safety of our children, unborn and born!
Please, everyone, be reasonable–this “environmental poison issue” affects ALL of us. No so-called “group” of people should be singled out for saving OR ignoring. Peace to all.