Study by Environmental Group Shows Toxic Chemicals End Up in Blood Samples
May 1, 2009 — Up to 48 toxic chemicals commonly used in everyday consumer products have shown up in blood and urine samples of five prominent women environmental activists, according to a study by the Environmental Working Group, a non-profit organisation devoted to protecting human health and the environment and is based in the USA.
Toxic Chemicals Study
The Environmental Working Group study, funded by Rachel’s Network, an organisation of women environmentalists, took two years to complete. Researchers sampled the activists’ blood and urine and analysed them for toxic chemicals, using four independent laboratories.
“In each of these women we found at least one controversial chemical,” says Sonya Lunder, MPH, a senior analyst with the Environmental Working Group and a co-author of the report. To be termed controversial, she says, a chemical must be one whose safety is being debated.
“In everyone we found fire retardants, Teflon chemicals, fragrances, bisphenol A or BPA, and perchlorate,” Flame retardants are found in foam furniture, televisions, and computers. Teflon is used in nonstick coatings and grease-resistant food packaging. BPA is a plastics chemical; perchlorate, a rocket fuel ingredient, can contaminate tap water and food. Fragrances have been associated with hormone disruption in animal studies.
Every woman tested positive for up to 60% of the 75 chemicals evaluated, the report found.
The women live far apart: in Green Bay, Wis.; New Orleans; Corpus Christi, Texas; and Oakland, Calif. But their toxic chemical load is similar, according to the Environmental Working Group scientists.
Each woman had at least one chemical at a high percentile –such as the 81st percentile for bisphenol A, meaning her level of chemicals was higher than all but 19% of Americans who have been tested.
Industry Response
Biomonitoring is defined by the CDC as the direct measurement of exposure to a toxic substance by examining the substances themselves or their metabolites in human blood or urine samples.
The statement from American Chemistry Council “It does not tell us where a substance came from, when the exposure to the substance occurred, or the duration and frequency of exposure. The presence of a substance detected by biomonitoring is not, on its own, an indicator if there will be any health effects.”
Related articles:
- New Data Analysis Shows Possible Link between Childhood Obesity and Allergies
- Residence Near Power Lines and Mortality From Neurodegenerative Diseases: Longitudinal Study of the Swiss Population
- Allergy Research Group Newsletters
If you found this post interesting, please share it, leave a comment or subscribe to the RSS feed and get future posts delivered to your feed reader.
Leave Comment
You can ask technical questions, be as supportive, critical or controversial as you like, but please don't get personal or offensive, and do keep it brief. Your comments will be published only after verification.
The immune system is prone to the same grave misfortunes as any defense system handling weapons: collateral damage that comes with the destruction of the enemy on one’s own territory and friendly fire due to mistaken identity. Whereas the collateral damage is the price we pay for clearance of infections, autoimmunity is a pathological process. Nevertheless, the effector mechanisms involved in both processes are the same. Whether environment can be a cause, a trigger or an amplifier of an autoimmune disease are questions that are being intensively investigated.
