This week, the Washington Toxics Coalition released a study that should raise the ire of pregnant women like me. Their findings in a nutshell: developing fetuses spend their first nine months in an environment that exposes them to a range known toxic chemicals. That environment? Their mothers’ bodies. That means my body.
The first-of-its kind study analyzed blood and urine samples from nine women in Washington, Oregon, and California during their second trimester of pregnancy, to test for 23 chemicals from five chemical groups. Their bodies were found to be contaminated with 13 of the 23 chemicals. “These chemicals can cause reproductive problems and cancer, disrupt hormonal systems such as the thyroid, and can impair brain development,” the study states.
So, why is my response ire and not panic? I guess I’m over the panic. During my pregnancy, I’ve been reading a lot about the toxics in my body and their potential effects on the fetus (and I’ll be writing a lot more about this stuff in this blog series). I realize it’s too late for panic. Contrary to popular belief, my womb is not entirely my own.
I’m with the woman from this Seattle Post Globe story, Kim Radtke, who’s just plain angry. Like me, she made all the right personal decisions about her health and her pregnancy—she eats organic foods, she’s been meticulous about the products she uses, she’s a midwife who’s very conscious about healthy choices. Naturally, she was dismayed to learn she rated worst among the West Coast women tested for a particular class of chemicals: perfluorinated compounds. They’re used to make Teflon pans, clothing, furniture, and food packaging such as pizza boxes and fast-food containers. “That really kills me as a mom,” Radtke told the Post Globe. “I took the best care I could possible, yet this was beyond my control.”
Every woman tested was found to have been exposed to bisphenol A, delivered in such things as the lining of food cans. Each woman’s body carried two to four “Teflon chemicals”– PFCs. All had detectable levels of mercury, known to harm brain development. And every woman was exposed to at least four phthalates, a class of chemicals that includes plasticizers and fragrance carriers found in ordinary items such as vinyl shower curtains and scented shampoos.
As the study points out, “the developing fetus is exquisitely vulnerable to the effects of toxic chemicals,” as it possesses “only a small proportion of the adult’s ability to detoxify foreign chemicals” while it “develops at a breakneck pace in the womb.”
The research project, by Washington Toxics Coalition staff scientist Erika Shreder, was conducted to spur legislators in Washington State and Washington, DC, to continue to rein in harmful chemicals in consumer products—and at the very least demand responsible labeling and disclosure by manufacturers. As the Post Globe reports, Washington State Rep. Mary Lou Dickerson, D-Seattle, says she will push for passage of the Safe Baby Bottle Act, which she introduced last year. (Yes, there are harmful chemicals in baby bottles—of all things!) It passed the House, but not Senate. It would prohibit Bisphenol A in baby bottles, children’s food containers and sports water bottles. (The bill doesn’t extend to the Bisphenol A in the linings of canned foods.)
These are baby steps toward wombs that aren’t tainted with chemicals—and toward healthier moms and babies. But this is exactly the kind of policy where moms and moms-to-be should direct their energy—whether it’s panic- or anger-driven…or something else.
Photo courtesy of Flickr user Mahalie under a Creative Commons license.
John Abbotts
For the record, since Anna’s article, scientific understanding of Teflon and its byproduct has expanded. As I have noticed on other toxic substances, alarms were first sounded by independent scientific researchers supported by government funding, not by the chemical industry that profited from the chemicals. Teflon and its water-resistant properties were first noticed in 1938, and thereafter its commercial applications expanded. Wikipedia contains an extensive timeline of events, at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_events_related_to_per-_and_polyfluoroalkyl_substances
Concern over Teflon’s byproducts and direct effects also expanded, from PFCs (perflourinated compounds) to the chemical family of PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). Some “lowlights” from Wikipedia’s timeline include the following:
During the 1950s, major chemical companies DuPont and Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing (3M) began producing PFAS chemicals in large scale. 3M also began disposing of PFAS chemicals at its Oakdale Minnesota facility. During the 1960s, DuPont buried drums of PFAS waste on the banks of the Ohio River near its Washington, West Virginia plants.
By 1983, US EPA and its state counterpart in Minnesota approved a cleanup plan at 3M’s Oakdale dump.
In 1998, EPA was first alerted to the health risks of PFAS as “forever chemicals,” because they “never break down and build up in human bodies.”
A 2001 article in the scientific literature reported the widespread distribution of one chemical in the PFAS class was globally distributed in the wildlife animals, and could concentrate up the food chain.
By 2006, EPA negotiated an agreement with major chemical companies to phase out the use of two chemicals that are part of the PFAS class.
In 2010, the City of Lake Elmo, MN sued 3M when the city found its drinking water contaminated with PFAS chemicals.
In 2016, Trump’s EPA blocked publication of a federal study showing major contamination in the nation’s drinking water. Instead they issued a “voluntary health advisory” on two chemicals that are part of PFAS.
In February 2019, EPA released and “Action Plan” on what they might do on PFAS. As the administration was walking out the door, they released an updated Action Plan, effective February 2020, link at https://www.epa.gov/pfas/epas-pfas-action-plan
We can expect that the Biden administration will do better, but PFAS chemicals remain widespread in human bodies and the environment.
Again, I take full responsibility for the comments here
All stay safe,
John Abbotts
Another day, another SL headline, another update, pasted under this post in case a reader searches for “forever chemicals.” Of course, I take full responsibility for the comments that follow.
The news item is that PFAS, one subset of the “forever chemicals,” generated from the use and manufacture of Teflon, have been found in Central Washington drinking water, at https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/times-watchdog/heartache-anger-in-central-washington-over-drinking-water-wells-tainted-by-forever-chemicals/
Now, WA Ecology has a program where they monitor for Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxins (PBT) including “forever chemicals” such as DDT, Polychlorinated Byphenyls (PCBs), and about a year ago they issued their plan to address PFAS through regulation, or public protection measures, at https://ecology.wa.gov/About-us/Who-we-are/News/2021/Nov-2-Ecology-announces-action-plan-for-addressing
As part of the UN Environmental Program, the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants was developed and signed as an international treaty, to address and control such “forever chemicals.” The US signed the treaty in 2001, but has never ratified it, no doubt because of petrochemical industry influence in the Senate.
In 2009, the Convention placed PFOS, one subset of PFAs, on its list for Restriction, allowing production and use for specified purposes.
In 2019, the Convention added PFOA and related substances, another subset of PFAs, with a goal of elimination, but with specified exemptions for Production and Use, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_Convention_on_Persistent_Organic_Pollutants
The problem, of course, is that because these are “forever chemicals,” they remain in the environment, an in the blood of wildlife and humans.
EPA has also developed a Strategic Roadmap through 2024, with multiple steps along with opportunities for public comment, the next one expected before the end of the year, at https://www.epa.gov/pfas/pfas-strategic-roadmap-epas-commitments-action-2021-2024
Nonetheless, each rulemaking will take time, no doubt extended by industry challenges. As I have noted before [maybe with a Chlorpyrifos post], US law, thanks to the influence of said petrochemical industry, generally treats toxic chemicals as “innocent until proven guilty.” In contrast, Canada and the European Union each incorporate the Precautionary Principle, allowing protective actions if science is uncertain that risks are NOT negligible.
In the US, challenging corporations in the courts also takes time, and numerous opportunities for delay. But a heroic corporate lawyer in Cleveland decided to represent West Virginians that his grandmother knew who had been poisoned by PFAs from a DuPont facility in that state. The courage of this lawyer, Robert Bilott, was described in a New York Times article, then later in the movie Dark Waters, an accurate story based on the NYT. Mark Ruffalo [yes, the Hulk, but an environmental activist between movies] plays Bilott, with information and a Trailer that can be found at https://www.focusfeatures.com/dark-waters
I hope this might be useful, and All stay safe
John Abbotts
Another headline, using Anna’s earlier post for an update on “Forever Chemicals,” linked to Teflon and its degradation products. Responsibility for these comments lies with myself alone.
“This week, the Air Force claimed it has no legal obligation to comply with an order from the Environmental Protection Agency in May to abate the threat of ‘forever chemicals’ to the drinking water of Tucson, Arizona. The EPA order required the Air Force to create a system designed to treat high levels of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances — synthetic chemicals known as PFAS that are linked to weakened immunity and other health risks — in drinking water, estimated to cost $25 million.” Further details at https://responsiblestatecraft.org/forever-chemicals/
The full article explains that the AF based its refusal on the Supreme Court’s overturning the “Chevron deference,” which gave deference to the expertise of federal agencies in interpreting ambiguity in the law. For the case in question, and background on Chevron, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loper_Bright_Enterprises_v._Raimondo
By overturning Chevron, SCOTUS gave to itself and other federal courts the power to decide when an applicable agency would be allowed to enforce laws under its jurisdiction. Will federal courts now hire their own experts on topics such a public health, vaccine mandates, extreme climate, and toxic chemicals? Seems unlikely, IMHO, from a SCOTUS that has been characterized as Chamber of Commerce lawyers who get their news from the Fox Network. More likely that they will rely on the arguments of corporate lawyers and their bought consultants.
All stay safe, from all scientific denials,