Newborns inspire toxicity research
November 11, 2009 by MARIANNE ENGLISH
Filed under News
Ken Cook stood in front of a large screen, looking at an ultrasound pulsing in the background.
“Ten people have inspired important work in the health policy realm,” said Cook, co-founder and president of Environmental Working Group.
In blood samples taken from these 10 people, scientists found 287 toxic chemicals.
“We know for sure they weren’t exposed [to the chemicals] through food consumption, air pollution, water or from where they work,” he said to a crowd in Conner Hall Tuesday.
“So, who are these 10 Americans?” Cook asked the room of 40 attendees.
The infant in the ultrasound was one.
The samples – taken in 2004 from the umbilical cord blood of 10 infants – showed fetuses are exposed to more chemicals than previously thought.
Cook spoke about the group’s efforts to educate and promote legislative reform for U.S. chemical industry standards.
“Just because someone is exposed to toxic chemicals means nothing really for their overall health – it doesn’t even mean there’s a risk,” he said. “You have to ask – are these exposures safe? Do we even know?”
One of the group’s goals is to pass the Kid-Safe Chemical Act for stricter regulations on chemicals used in products and industries. If it’s not healthy for the most vulnerable of humans, the chemical shouldn’t be on the market, Cook said.
With disease and illness rates on the rise in the country, Cook thinks chemicals may be involved.
He said the existing law, the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act, isn’t strict enough because most new chemicals are approved in less than three weeks.
“It’s been 30 years and more since we had reviewed and modernized the law,” Cook said in a telephone interview Monday. “What’s changed is what we’ve learned in these years. We should be going through a process of review to bring our laws up-to-date.”
One faculty member and a neonatologist from Athens Regional Medical Center served on a panel for Tuesday’s lecture.
“There are somewhere in the ballpark of 100,000 chemicals commercially available, but we only know a decent amount about 10,000 to 20,000 of them,” said Jeffrey Fisher, professor of toxicology and panel member.
Fisher uses models to study the ways animals and humans metabolize toxins. He expects many researchers to look at the issue differently by testing low doses of toxins in human cells rather than high doses in animal models.
“It’s a very difficult, controversial and emotional area to interpret,” Fisher said. “That’s where a lot of research tools fall short about telling us what the hazards are.”
Another panelist, Maria Faase, is familiar with how outside factors can influence the health of babies.
“I’m certainly aware of concerns people have of developing fetuses with direct exposure to toxins that we don’t know much about the effects of,” she said in an interview.
As a neonatologist, she provides medical care to babies who do not transition well outside of the womb. Though she hasn’t worked with a child with exposure to toxic chemicals, she has seen the result of pregnant smokers.
“It’s amazing how many women smoke before and during pregnancy,” she said. “Some continue even after they take the child home.”
Cook also discussed the changes people could make to reduce their exposure to chemicals – eating organic, eating low-mercury fish, filtering tap water, using stainless steel instead of non-stick pans for cooking, or choosing green products while shopping.
“We’re not used to thinking about it,” he said. “If something is sold at the store, we’re sure it’s safe by the government. This is not the case.”
When asked why EWG only used 10 samples for the project, Cook said the lab work for the samples cost $10,000 each – a lot at the time for the non-profit to pay. He said another cord blood project will be released soon.
Among the crowd and panel, people agreed that more research is
warranted to better understand the effects of chemical exposure. But
for now, people are left to decide how to do so on their own.
“I think people should be aware of their environment and what they do
can affect their profile and exposure to chemicals,” Fisher said.
“It’s a calling for federal agencies and industry to understand and
regulate.”
Faase said she thinks studying the issue more would be benefit in multiple ways.
“It’s important to be aware of what we’re doing to the environment,”
she said. “Not only for plants and animals, but our children and
future generations too.”
