News Coverage
Pollutants put fetuses at risk
Cord blood carries chemicals, study finds
Published July 13, 2005
WASHINGTON -- While an expectant mother will do almost anything to protect her unborn child, research suggests that she has little defense against a tide of industrial pollutants invading her womb.
The pollutants, including mercury, chemicals used in flame retardants and pesticides, can reach the fetus through the umbilical cord as it carries blood from mother to child.
In a study by the Environmental Working Group, a private, nonprofit research and advocacy group, umbilical cord blood samples from 10 newborns were examined by independent labs.
The labs found that the blood contained 287 commercial chemicals, including 209 that had never before been detected in cord blood.
Some of the chemicals are thought to be toxic to the brain and other organs. Others have been linked to cancer, birth defects and developmental problems.
"As the umbilical cord blood picks up nutrients and oxygen, it also picks up this unwanted cargo, these industrial pollutants," said Jane Houlihan, the group's vice president for research.
A report on the study will be released today.
Several medical experts said fetuses develop rapidly, which leaves their defense systems weak and their organs vulnerable to damage from contaminants.
The placenta, the organ attached to the uterus where nutrients and oxygen from the mother's blood are transferred to the fetal blood, provides a large measure of protection. But evidence in recent years has shown that many substances can permeate the womb.
The cord blood study "is another nail in the coffin for showing that fetuses are not protected by mothers' bodies," said Cynthia Bearer, a neonatologist at the Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine in Cleveland.
Lynn Goldman, who teaches at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, said that 10 blood samples were too few to give an "accurate snapshot" of the chemical exposure to the entire population.
But Goldman, who is also a pediatrician and a former top official at the Environmental Protection Agency, said the study underscores the exposure risks.
"These chemicals are approved with so little evaluation," she said.
The study called for tighter government regulations to shield children from chemicals that might be toxic.
The EPA has a voluntary program with the chemical industry to foster greater public understanding of the potential risks to children.
Chris Vandenheuvel, a spokesman for the American Chemistry Council, said in a prepared statement that the council had not seen the cord blood study but that government regulators take potential risks into account before approving new chemicals.
He noted that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention stated in a 2001 report: "Just because people have an environmental chemical in their blood or urine does not mean that the chemical causes disease."
The new study included a statement from 10 scientists, including experts in pediatrics, toxicology and environmental health, from children's hospitals and medical research centers around the country. The study, they said, "confirms that even before birth, a child is exposed to hundreds of chemical compounds, many of which could harm that child's health and development."
The Environmental Working Group commissioned and designed the study in conjunction with Commonweal, a nonprofit health and environmental research group. The blood samples came from newborns last August and September. Drawn immediately after delivery at hospitals, the blood was shipped to laboratories, where it was analyzed for a wide range of chemicals. Among the substances found:
Ű Chemicals used in the manufacture of commercial products such as Teflon, Scotchgard and other carpet and fabric protectors. Others used in wood preservatives, varnishes and waste incineration.
Ű Pollutants from gasoline, the burning of garbage and the byproducts of industrial bleaching.
Ű Contaminants found in flame retardants used in furniture foam, computers and televisions.
"More investigating needs to take place with respect to trying to understand what early life exposures might do," said John Osterloh, chief medical officer for the CDC's National Center for Environmental Health. "We're only just on the cusp of this, just beginning to understand those kinds of things."
