babble » blogs » Strollerderby
Strollerderby
They Say: Toxins May Cause Autism
A theory previously painted as extreme is starting to take a foothold within the mainstream medical community–that exposure to toxins in the womb can increase the likelihood of autism.
An upcoming article in a widely respected medical journal, Current Opinion in Pediatrics, argues that fetuses exposed to certain chemicals in the first trimester–even the first few days–of pregnancy can potentially develop neurodevelopmental disorders like autism.
Exactly what kind of toxins are we talking about? Previous studies have shown that certain medications, such as the sedative thalidomide and misoprostol (an ulcer medicine), increase the instances of autism when taken by women in their first trimester. (In the case of valproic acid, an anticonvulsant, autism rates rose to a whopping 11%…more than 10% over the national average.)
Other studies cite phthlatates, chemicals found in fragrances, shampoos, nail polish and cosmetics as a culprit.
Dr. Philip J. Landrigan, professor of pediatrics at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York and chairman of the school’s department of preventive medicine, author of the article, spoke to the NY Times’ Nicholas Kristof:
“The crux of this is brain development,” he said. “If babies are exposed in the womb or shortly after birth to chemicals that interfere with brain development, the consequences last a lifetime.”
Legislators are paying attention to these and other chemical-related health studies and getting into the act. New Jersey Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey is championing the strengthening of the Toxic Substances Control Act.
Apparently, of the 80,000 chemicals registered in the U.S., the EPA requires safety testing of only 200. Excuse me? Only 200? Whether or not these autism theories are proven correct, why are only a fraction of the chemicals we expose ourselves and our kids to properly vetted?
Image: scarybulb
Go Back To Strollerderby
5 Comments
LolaLane commented on Feb 26 10 at 11:06 am“Apparently, of the 80,000 chemicals registered in the U.S., the EPA requires safety testing of only 200. Excuse me? Only 200? Whether or not these autism theories are proven correct, why are only a fraction of the chemicals we expose ourselves and our kids to properly vetted?”
That is appalling.
Stacy Johnson commented on Feb 26 10 at 12:14 pmIt really is frightening but I am not surprised. It is important to read the labels of all of the things you bring in your house, not just food! This is a great website to check the safety of products you already use and suggestions for safer ones! Put out by the Environmental Working Group, this is truly an invaluable resource for a more green life! http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com
Louise commented on Feb 26 10 at 12:33 pmThis is interesting…thanks for the post. I think I’d like to get a little bit of clarification, though, before I can respond intelligently. Specifically:
1.) Can you clarify the “EPA requires safety testing of only 200″ statement? Does this mean that a.) only 200 of the over 80,000 substances on the Toxic Substances Control Act Chemical Substance Inventory have been tested, or b.) the EPA requires some sort of testing for 200 of these chemicals (for example, in groundwater or soil or commercial products or…)? Your statement about only a fraction being properly vetted suggests you mean the former, but it’s not clear. For example, my response might be that the EPA has determined (rightly or wrongly) that of those 80,000, only 200 are chemicals that we can reasonable expect ourselves and our kids to be exposed to. But I’m not sure.
2.) What, to you, constitutes “properly vetted”? Proven safe, through animal and human testing? Some other criterion?
3.) What fraction of the 80,000 would be acceptable? Clearly, you think more than 200, but are you suggesting that it should be 100%? Also, I think this TSCA inventory is growing all the time as new compounds are created…should all of these compounds be tested for safety? And what defines “safety”? Safe for ingestion? Inhalation? Skin exposure?OK, that’s a lot of questions, but I would genuinely appreciate a response. Thanks!
CFagan commented on Mar 02 10 at 3:19 pmHi Louise–sorry it took so long to get back to you. The 200 out of 80,000 number comes from Sen. Lautenberg–200 out of 80K have actually been tested for safety. 79,800 have not! By properly vetted, I mean tested for safety–in ways the EPA would deem necessary. Defining safety would be determined again by the EPA. #3 is interesting– immediate answer is 100%, but I’m not a scientist and that may not be realistic. It freaked me out that such a tiny number were actually tested.
Premature Ejaculation Treatment commented on Oct 14 10 at 1:54 amulcer is a very painful disease, i hate ulcer-’,
Add your take:
Note: Babble is a supportive, diverse community. We encourage a range of opinions,
but any unduly hostile comments will be removed.
Comments are delayed up to 15 minutes
Lori Garcia 
Joslyn Gray 
Amber Doty 
Julianna Miner 
Monica Bielanko 
Sierra Black 
Meredith Carroll 
Carolyn Castiglia 
Sunny Chanel 
Madeline Holler 
Rebecca Odes 
Danielle Smith 
Danielle Sullivan 
Katherine Stone 
The Walt Disney Company supports Babble as a platform dedicated to honest, engaged, informed, intelligent and open conversation about parenting. However, the opinions expressed on this site are those of individual parents/writers and do not reflect the views of Disney. In addition, content provided on this site is for entertainment or informational purposes only and should not be construed as medical advice, diagnosis, treatment, or safety advice.
5