Chemicals Found in Newborns' Cord Blood

[mommylamb]

Did anyone else see this:
http://www.ewg.org/minoritycordblood/pressrelease

I hate this kind of thing because I feel so unable to prevent it.

[Melaine]

Oh, I didn't see that. It makes me feel so sick and also helplessly overwhelmed.

[AnnieW625]

Ugh, so sad, but why oh why didn't EWG do the right thing and test all babies cord blood, not just those whose were in the minority. If my daughter's cord blood had been saved and used in a study they most likely may have found some BPA in it because I would drink from a Nalgene BPA bottle when I was pregnant. I am white.

I think EWG has a point to let us know about harmful products, but like Melaine said "overwhelmed" is the right word. They try to scare us for all away from conventional products, but honestly sometimes that can't really be done. Also in their cosmetics, and sun care database they don't include all of the companies as an example Avon, and Mary Kay is HUGE and have both SPF and makeup products and neither is in there. EWG just rubs me the wrong way. They think they are better than everyone else, but there research seems to be limited. It makes me not trust them 100%, and this just goes to show that they didn't test all possible non minority parties. They are an advocacy group that gets funds from outside corporations and also have a lobbying firm. Just my .02 (if it even makes sense).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_Working_Group

[Fairy]

I just can't. Gotta stick my head in the sand on this one.

[o_mom]

Ugh, so sad, but why oh why didn't EWG do the right thing and test all babies cord blood, not just those whose were in the minority. If my daughter's cord blood had been saved and used in a study they most likely may have found some BPA in it because I would drink from a Nalgene BPA bottle when I was pregnant. I am white.

I think EWG has a point to let us know about harmful products, but like Melaine said "overwhelmed" is the right word. They try to scare us for all away from conventional products, but honestly sometimes that can't really be done. Also in their cosmetics, and sun care database they don't include all of the companies as an example Avon, and Mary Kay is HUGE and have both SPF and makeup products and neither is in there. EWG just rubs me the wrong way. They think they are better than everyone else, but there research seems to be limited. It makes me not trust them 100%, and this just goes to show that they didn't test all possible non minority parties. They are an advocacy group that gets funds from outside corporations and also have a lobbying firm. Just my .02 (if it even makes sense).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_Working_Group

Well, the 'right thing' is subjective. IMO, the 'right thing' would be that this research would be funded at a level that would allow true comparisions to be made so that we could make informed decisions. Yes, the EWG research is limited. When the funding is limited, the research is limited ($3.5 Million doesn't go very far in research). What I usually see from them is small studies intended to raise the awareness level of these issues to hopefully bring more funding to them and/or not allow them to be dismissed for "lack of evidence".

Their FAQ has some good explanations of the goals of this study: http://www.ewg.org/minoritycordblood/faq (http://www.ewg.org/minoritycordblood/faq)

I see 126 Mary Kay (http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/browse.php?comp_id=899) products and 677 Avon (http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/browse.php?comp_id=119) products listed in the database, BTW.

[brittone2]

While EWG isn't perfect, I certainly think they've done a great service in bringing awareness (and access to info via their Skin Deep database) to some of the issues surrounding toxins.

When faced with mega corporations and their extensive financial resources and lobbying, I think it is nice to have someone on the other side. When big corporations can influence the actions of govt agencies like the FDA, we have problems that need addressed. If the EWG is going to get involved in addressing that issue through lobbying, I'm all for it, because there needs to be another voice out there besides that of the businesses that profit from the production of these chemicals and products (and my DH is a chemist ;) ).

http://www.ewg.org/BPA/newsrelease/Deja-vu-At-FDA-With-BPA
http://www.ewg.org/node/27926

FWIW, I don't think their effort is to "scare" anyone away from anything. They provide info (which is not always perfect or all encompassing) that is otherwise difficult to find. I don't think the vast majority of people even know what EWG/Skin Deep is, so I think they do a service by at least making some information accessible to those that want it.

We gradually phased out some products we were more concerned about for ones that we felt were better choices. There have been very few things I haven't been able to find a replacement for. IMO it doesn't have to be all or nothing...you reduce the risks where you can if that is something that matters to you.

[michellerw]

Yeah, I'm confused about this one and find myself saying "correlation does not imply causation." I don't think that this has anything to do with those being minority babies and everything to do with them living in our polluted world. I'm quite sure that caucasian and northern European babies have just as much of those chemicals in their cord blood. But it seems like there was no "control" in this study.

And I hate using the word "control" because it implies normalcy.

This study makes me feel icky all over. I'm just not sure what they were trying to find.

[brittone2]

IMO, the 'right thing' would be that this research would be funded at a level that would allow true comparisions to be made so that we could make informed decisions. Yes, the EWG research is limited. When the funding is limited, the research is limited ($3.5 Million doesn't go very far in research). What I usually see from them is small studies intended to raise the awareness level of these issues to hopefully bring more funding to them and/or not allow them to be dismissed for "lack of evidence".


I couldn't agree more. EWG can't possibly be solely responsible for large scale testing of all of these potential toxins. But they can raise awareness so those who are interested can ask for more research funding, watch more closely what is going on at the FDA et al, or press for more information from companies themselves, the media, etc. about the products we use every day. Trying to fight mega corporations and their PR campaigns and the "studies" (which often involve all sorts of little tricks to bury the effects of their products) funded by those corporations is no small task on a very limited research budget.

eta: in terms of the Mary Kay and Avon products, companies are *constantly* bringing out new products, retiring old products, changing formulations of existing products, etc. I think it is virtually impossible to expect the EWG to track every single change in formulation or change in product lines. EWG is imperfect, but IMO provides valuable information, even if sometimes flawed to a degree. I'm thankful they exist.

[AnnieW625]

I see 126 Mary Kay (http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/browse.php?comp_id=899) products and 677 Avon (http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/browse.php?comp_id=119) products listed in the database, BTW.

Thanks for the update O Mom. It's been probably a year since I checked the SkinDeep site, but there are still no Avon or Mary Kay products in the Sunscreen Database. I also think its funny that something like Blue Lizard Baby gets a 3, but Blue Lizard Sensitive gets a 2 and they are the EXACT same formulation. Same with the Neutrogena Baby Free (only other drugstore readily available physical free sunblock I've found), the lotion got a 3, and the stick got a 2. Same physical ingredients.

[wellyes]

I just can't. Gotta stick my head in the sand on this one.

I'm due in July & I'm right there with you.

[o_mom]

Thanks for the update O Mom. It's been probably a year since I checked the SkinDeep site, but there are still no Avon or Mary Kay products in the Sunscreen Database. I also think its funny that something like Blue Lizard Baby gets a 3, but Blue Lizard Sensitive gets a 2 and they are the EXACT same formulation. Same with the Neutrogena Baby Free (only other drugstore readily available physical free sunblock I've found), the lotion got a 3, and the stick got a 2. Same physical ingredients.

I hear you, it is a huge undertaking to rate thousands of products and have everything come out perfect. They do say "Note that the same active ingredient combination may score differently in two different products depending on the concentration of the ingredients and the mixture of inactive ingredients". I have no idea if that applies to your examples, though.

I look at EWG as a relative guide, not an all-encompassing, perfect system. I also am unhappy that we are not getting this information from the FDA, EPA or CDC....They give us no information at all and I don't see any other sources for this kind of information, so I make do with what is there.

[Lisa at EWG]

Hi,

I work for EWG and am also a mom to 2 kids under 6. I can very much understand the feeling of being overwhelmed by news like this. We included a Healthy Pregnancy Tips list in the report to help interested moms/moms-to-be start making some changes to reduce their chemical exposures. It's here if you're interested: http://www.ewg.org/Health-Tips/10HealthyPregnancyTips.

Also, re why we chose racial and ethnic minorities, report author Dr. Anila Jacob explains it this way in response to the question "Why have you tested minority cord blood?": This is EWG’s second cord blood study. Our first cord blood study, released in 2005, involved 10 newborns whose demographic information was unknown. In this study, we focused on children from minority communities because of the dearth of bio-monitoring studies of these populations. To our knowledge, this is the first study that tests for such a large number chemicals in cord blood from infants African American, Latino, and Asian heritage. The purpose of this study was to make sure that racial and ethnic minority communities are considered as we explore the impacts of pollution in people.

And re Skin Deep and what products are/are not included, we explain how the database works here: http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/faq.php. Also, you can manually enter any product you want if you have the full ingredient list.

Re adding products to Skin Deep: "We try to update Skin Deep each year using information listed on major online retailer sources, so we encourage you to contact and update your information with the sources that market your products. (To see which online source provided the information for a product, click the "Where to Buy" link for that product.) Also, companies that join the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics partnership receive access to features in Skin Deep that would allow you to update your product formulations within our database, so we encourage you to contact the Campaign as well, and to sign the Compact for Safe Cosmetics. Please note we do not remove older formulations from Skin Deep unless the formulation was formally recalled or never sold on the market as listed. If this is the case for your product, please contact us with details using our response form."

If you have any additional questions or comments, we welcome them on our Facebook page: http://bit.ly/PberZ.

Hope this is helpful.

Best,
Lisa Frack, EWG Online Organizer