Skip to content

Category: pregnancy and childbirth

Published on Leave a comment on Check Personal Care Product Ingredient Lists During Pregnancy

More evidence linking endocrine disrupting chemicals such as butyl paraben, triclocarbon, propyl paraben. with negative health effects (here linked to effects on the pregnancy and baby). It is especially important to try to lower exposure to endocrine disruptors during pregnancy. So read labels on all personal care products and avoid all parabens, phthalates, triclocarban, bisphenol-A (BPA), and triclosan - because what you use on your body will get into your body, From Medical Xpress:

Use of personal care products during pregnancy linked to adverse effects in newborns

A study led by SUNY Downstate Medical Center's School of Public Health presents evidence linking personal care products used during pregnancy to adverse reproductive effects in newborns."The study found a link between women with higher levels of butyl paraben, which is commonly used as a preservative in cosmetics, and the following birth outcomes: shorter gestational age at birth, decreased birth weight, and increased odds of preterm birth," says Laura Geer, PhD, MHS, associate professor in the Department of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences in the School of Public Health at SUNY Downstate.

The antimicrobial compound, triclocarban, mainly added to soaps, was associated with shorter gestational age at birth. Another common chemical added to lotions and creams, propyl paraben, was associated with decreased body length at birth. The long-term consequences of this are not clear, and, Geer adds, "Findings must be reproduced in larger studies."

Dr. Geer says, "Our latest study adds to the growing body of evidence showing that endocrine-disrupting compounds can lead to developmental and reproductive problems in animals and in humans. Effects observed in previous studies mainly came from animal models only." This study presents evidence of potentially adverse impacts in humans. 

Regulations requiring removal of triclosan from various consumer care products have been in place since 2015 in the European Union, but broader regulatory action by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has not ensued.

More on this same story from Environmental Health News:  Soap, makeup additives linked to preterm births, smaller babies

Pregnant women in Brooklyn with high levels of certain compounds used in makeup and soaps were more likely to have preterm births and babies that weighed less, according to a new study. The study, published online last week in the Journal of Hazardous Materials, provides the first evidence that germ-killing and preservative chemicals used in cosmetics and soaps might impact newborns’ health. It also bolsters suspicions that chemicals in soaps and lotions disrupt people’s endocrine systems, which are crucial for reproduction and babies’ development.

From 2007 to 2009, Geer and colleagues tested 185 mothers’ third trimester urine, as well as the umbilical cord blood of 34 of them, for a suite of different parabens, used mostly in cosmetics, and triclosan and triclocarban, which are used as antimicrobials in soaps. The mothers were from the University Hospital of Brooklyn’s Prenatal Clinic.

The chemicals, especially the parabens, are common: According to the Environmental Working Group’s Skin Deep database, butylparaben is used in 2,245 personal care products, propylparaben is used in 7,212, and triclocarban is used in 21.

The results don’t prove that the chemicals are behind the birth problems. While scientists know the chemicals have some biological activity, the amount of exposure that could cause problems remains unclear.  Animals exposed to the chemicals have had some reproductive impacts. In rats, triclocarban impacted male sex organ development in a 2008 study. Paraben exposure decreased male rat sperm counts and efficiency in a 2002 study. One of the most studied endocrine disrupting chemicals, bisphenol-A or BPA, has been linked to multiple birth defects....Except for some color additives, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration does not regulate cosmetic ingredients.

Published on Leave a comment on Cut Back or Avoid High Fructose Corn Syrup During Pregnancy

Another reason to cut back on soda and highly processed foods. Research in mice and women showed that a high-fructose diet during pregnancy may cause defects in the placenta and restrict fetal growth. But the advice in the article was disturbing - rather than giving a drug (allopurinol) to pregnant women with high fructose levels (which is what the researchers suggest), why not focus on giving them nutrition advice and strongly encourage them to avoid or cut back on high fructose products? Especially foods containing high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), such as soda and highly processed desserts.

Nutrition and why it's important should be discussed extensively with pregnant women, starting with the first prenatal care visit. Good advice is to read food labels and avoid products that list fructose, high-fructose corn syrup, or corn syrup solids. One easy first step would be to stop drinking soda and sweet drinks and juices. The researchers admit: "One of the best ways to ensure healthy maternal and fetal outcomes is by eating natural foods." Natural foods and good nutrition, not drugs, should be the focus. From Science Daily:

High-fructose diet during pregnancy may harm placenta, restrict fetal growth

Consuming a high-fructose diet during pregnancy may cause defects in the placenta and restrict fetal growth, potentially increasing a baby's risk for metabolic health problems later in life, according to research in mice and people by a team at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis.

However, giving the mice allopurinol, a generic drug frequently prescribed to treat gout and kidney stones, appears to mitigate the negative maternal and fetal effects. The findings suggest it may be possible to devise a prenatal screening test and treatment plan for pregnant women with high fructose levels. The study is available online in Scientific Reports, a journal affiliated with Nature Publishing Group.

Fructose, a sugar occurring naturally in fruits and honey, has been popular for decades among food manufacturers who process it into high-fructose corn syrup used to sweeten food and beverages. In fact, researchers have reported that the refined sugar accounts for more than half of all sweeteners used in the U.S. food-supply chain. And in recent years, there's growing concern that fructose in processed foods and sugary drinks may be linked to diabetes and obesity. "Since the early 1970s, we've been eating more fructose than we should," said Kelle H. Moley, MD,.....This study shows potentially negative effects of a high-fructose diet during pregnancy." 

Fructose is processed differently than other sugars such as glucose, which the body converts into energy. Instead, fructose is broken down by liver cells that turn the sugar into a form of fat known as triglycerides while also driving high levels of uric acid, a normal waste product found in urine and stool. Too much uric acid can create metabolic mayhem resulting in obesity, type 2 diabetes and other health conditions.

Studying mice, the researchers found elevated uric acid and triglycerides in otherwise healthy mice who were fed a high-fructose diet during pregnancy. Additionally, the mice developed smaller fetuses and larger placentas than those fed standard rodent chow.

Maternal health also may suffer. Metabolic problems caused by high levels of uric acid and fat increase a woman's risk of developing pregnancy complications such as preeclampsia -- a potentially serious condition in pregnancy often marked by high blood pressure, swelling and high protein levels in the urine -- and gestational diabetes, Moley said.

To assess the relevance of the mouse data in pregnant women, the researchers examined the association between fructose and placental uric acid levels in a small controlled group of 18 women who underwent scheduled cesarean sections. The women had no disorders that would have caused elevated uric acid. "We found a correlation suggesting similar maternal and fetal effects occur in humans," Moley said.

8

Published on 8 Comments on Health Reasons to Avoid Fragrances, Air Fresheners, Dryer Sheets

Did you ever wonder about all the consumer products that have fragrances in them and whether they are safe to use? Think of all the fragrances in personal care products and perfumes, in air fresheners, scented soaps, cleaning products, scented candles, even laundry detergents, and scented dryer sheets.

Fragrances are made up of many synthetic chemicals - with the "fragrance" in a product typically being a mixture of 50 to 300 chemicals. They are considered an important source of indoor air pollution and can have negative health effects on humans, especially developing fetuses and children. Fragrances are added to products to achieve a desired scent or mask other scents in the product. Air fresheners do not clean or freshen the air, but actually add chemicals to the air to mask other odors. Manufacturers are NOT required to disclose all the ingredients or chemicals in the products, and don't have to disclose any ingredients in any chemical mixture called "fragrance".

The few studies looking at health effects have found negative health effects, including on the lungs, respiratory effects, asthma, allergies, headaches, skin irritation, sensory irritation, hormonal effects, central nervous system effects, and inflammation. But more negative health effects are possible, especially because many of the chemicals are carcinogenic (cancer causing). We inhale the chemicals or absorb them through the skin, and from there they travel throughout the body - which is why they can be measured in the blood or urine.

Reading the studies that look at the chemicals emitted from scented products that people use every day can be overwhelming. Many of the studies specifically look at VOCs (volatile organic compounds) that the products emit, because these can affect air quality and human health. A big difficulty is that humans are exposed to mixtures of chemicals daily from many products, and the effects may take years to manifest themselves (such as cancer). 

Bottom line: avoid, avoid, avoid fragranced or scented products if possible. Do not use scented detergent or dryer sheets (not necessary), do not use air fresheners (either in the home, workplace, or car), do not use incense or scented candles (post on scented candles). Read labels. Opening windows is the best way to air out a house or apartment. Studies find that fragrances labeled "organic", "natural", "green", or "with essential oils" basically emit the same toxic chemicals into the air (view such labels as marketing or "greenwashing") - therefore avoid those also.

Air fresheners are consumer products used in homes or in restrooms that typically emit fragrances,  including incense, scented candles, aerosol liquid wick and electric diffusers, and gels. Depending on which air freshener is used (and including those labeled "all natural"), they emit varying levels of allergens and toxic air pollutants (and which can also combine to produce other pollutants - "secondary pollutants"): acetone, aldehydes, benzene, toluene, formaldehyde, terpenes, styrene, esters, phthalates (which are hormone disrupting chemicals), limonene, and also ultrafine particles. None of these toxic chemicals are listed on the product labels. Typically, a fragrance is listed simply as “fragrance,” even though each fragrance can contain hundreds of individual chemicals. Only this past year has one company (Glade) started posting online (but not on the packages) some of the many chemicals used in its scented products.  ...continue reading "Health Reasons to Avoid Fragrances, Air Fresheners, Dryer Sheets"

Published on Leave a comment on Coffee, Colorectal Cancer, and Miscarriage

Coffee consumption overall seems to be beneficial to health in various ways, such as lowering the risk of colorectal cancer. But there are times one should limit how much one drinks, such as during the  preconception period for both the male and female, and also during pregnancy, to lower the risk of miscarriage.

From Science Daily: Coffee consumption linked to decreased risk of colorectal cancer

Researchers have found that coffee consumption, including decaf, instant and espresso, decreases the risk of colorectal cancer. Moreover, these benefits increase the more coffee you drink. The study examined over 5,100 men and women who had been diagnosed with colorectal cancer within the past six months, along with an additional 4,000 men and women with no history of colorectal cancer to serve as a control group. Participants reported their daily consumption of boiled (espresso), instant, decaffeinated and filtered coffee, as well as their total consumption of other liquids.....

The data showed that even moderate coffee consumption, between one to two servings a day, was associated with a 26 percent reduction in the odds of developing colorectal cancer after adjusting for known risk factors. Moreover, the risk of developing colorectal cancer continued to decrease to up to 50 percent when participants drank more than 2.5 servings of coffee each day. The indication of decreased risk was seen across all types of coffee, both caffeinated and decaffeinated.

Coffee contains many elements that contribute to overall colorectal health and may explain the preventive properties. Caffeine and polyphenol can act as antioxidants, limiting the growth of potential colon cancer cells. Melanoidins generated during the roasting process have been hypothesized to encourage colon mobility. Diterpenes may prevent cancer by enhancing the body's defense against oxidative damage. "The levels of beneficial compounds per serving of coffee vary depending on the bean, roast and brewing method," said first author Stephanie Schmit, PhD, MPH. 

Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer that is diagnosed in both men and women in the United States, with nearly five percent of men and just over four percent of women developing the disease over their lifetime. The American Cancer Society (ACS) estimates that in the United States, over 95,000 new cases of colon cancer and 39,000 new cases of rectal cancer will be diagnosed in this year alone.

Both males and females should limit coffee consumption in the preconception period to no more than 2 caffeinated drinks daily to lower the female's risk of miscarriage. From Medscape:

Even Men Need to Cut Back on Coffee Before Pregnancy

Women already know they need to cut back on coffee during pregnancy, if not sooner, to lower the risk of miscarriage. But a new study suggests the men in their lives need to limit caffeine too. Pregnant women who had more than two caffeinated drinks a day while trying to conceive had a 74% higher risk of miscarriage than their peers who drank less coffee, tea, soda and energy drinks, the study found.

When their husbands and boyfriends had more than two caffeinated drinks a day during the preconception phase, however, these pregnant women ended up with almost the same increased risk of miscarriage they would get from drinking coffee or soda themselves...."We did not find drinking one to two daily caffeinated beverages to increase the risk of miscarriage." Scientists aren't sure how caffeine contributes to miscarriage, but it's possible it affects egg or sperm production, implantation of the fertilized egg, or the ability of the embryo to grow in the uterus.

To assess how lifestyle choices may influence miscarriage risk, Louis and colleagues followed 344 couples in Texas and Michigan through the first seven weeks of pregnancy....Overall, 98 women, or 28%, experienced a miscarriage during the study, as reported March 24 in the journal Fertility and Sterility. Women 35 or older had nearly double the miscarriage risk of younger women, the study found. When women took daily multivitamins, their miscarriage risk was 55% lower than for their peers who didn't do this.

One surprise in the study is that researchers didn't find an increased miscarriage risk associated with smoking or alcohol, however. This doesn't mesh with previous research, noted Dr. Jeffrey Goldberg, a reproductive health researcher at Cleveland Clinic in Ohio who wasn't involved in the study. 

Published on

Most people know that heavy drinking of alcohol, smoking marijuana, cigarette smoking, and using methamphetamine during pregnancy should be avoided because they can have negative effects on the developing fetus. However, this study found that each of these also had a distinct negative effect on the placenta, suggesting that "different mechanisms mediate their effects on placental development". From Science Daily:

Effects of alcohol, methamphetamine, and marijuana exposure on the placenta

In the United States, prenatal alcohol exposure (PAE) is the most common preventable cause of developmental delay. Animal studies have shown some of the adverse effects of PAE on placental development, but few studies have examined these effects in humans. This is the first study to examine the effects of prenatal exposure to methamphetamine, marijuana, and cigarette smoking on human placental development.

Researchers collected placentas from 103 Cape Coloured (mixed ancestry) pregnant women recruited at their first antenatal clinic visit in Cape Town, South Africa. Of these, 66 heavy drinkers and 37 non-drinkers were interviewed about their alcohol, cigarette smoking, and drug use at three antenatal visits. A senior pathologist, blinded to exposure status, performed comprehensive pathology examinations on each placenta using a standardized protocol. In multivariable regression models, effects of prenatal exposure were examined on placental size, structure, and presence of infections and meconium.

Results show that alcohol, methamphetamine, and marijuana were associated with distinct patterns of pathology, suggesting that different mechanisms mediate their effects on placental development. Alcohol exposure was related to decreased placental weight and a smaller placenta-to-birth weight ratio. By contrast, methamphetamine was associated with larger placental weight and a larger placenta-to-birth weight ratio. Marijuana was also associated with larger placental weight. In addition, alcohol exposure was associated with an increased risk of placental hemorrhage. Finally, alcohol and cigarette smoking were associated with a decreased risk of intrauterine passing of meconium, a sign of acute fetal stress and/or hypoxia; methamphetamine, with an increased risk. These findings may be important in the long-term teratogenic effects of prenatal alcohol and drug exposure.

Published on Leave a comment on Dangers Persist With Nonstick Coatings

For years stores and manufacturers have promoted the advantages of Scotchgard and Teflon nonstick coatings for pots and pans, as stain-proofing for upholstered furniture and rugs, as a water repellent for clothing, for consumer goods such as dental floss, and for grease-proof food wrappers and containers. And yes, people have been convinced - with most cookware sold today being of the nonstick type, and the popularity of sofas and rugs coated with non-stain coatings. But once again, chemicals come with a price and health effects, and unfortunately these particular chemicals are found in all of us in varying levels.

Polyfluorinated chemicals (PFCs) are a class of chemicals that are stain, water, and grease repellent chemicals.They have been found in the blood of more than 98% of the United States population. PFCs stay in the environment and body for many years (thus labeled as "persistent"). Some PFCs: perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA, perfluorooctane sulfonate or PFOS, perfluorononanoic acid or PFNA, and perfluorohexane sulfonate or PFHxS.

PFOA was used to make DuPont's popular Teflon coating for decades. DuPont phased out its PFOA production after a settlement with federal regulators (it was linked it to birth defects and cancer in animals). But meanwhile PFOA spread worldwide, and traces of the compound have been found in most people, in polar bears in the Arctic, in some drinking water, and even in some fish. PFCs pass from mothers to their babies during pregnancy, and in breast milk after birth. They are considered hazardous even in small doses, they accumulate, and have been linked to all sorts of medical problems, from developmental delays in the fetus and child, to immune problems, kidney disease, kidney and testicular cancers, and to thyroid disease.

And once again, as some chemicals are phased out, the replacement chemicals may be just as bad. One group of replacement chemicals is perfluoroalkyl sulfonate (PFAS). Experts worry that this new group of PFASs has many of the same troubling characteristics as their predecessors, because of the chemical similarities with the original chemicals. But we won't know for years, because once again the necessary health tests have not been done.

What can you do to avoid PFCs? 1) Do not use Teflon or non-stick pots, pans, and utensils. Use stainless steel or cast iron instead. 2) Avoid Scotchgard or other stain-proofing or stain-resistant treatments on upholstered furniture or rugs. 3) Avoid jackets, rain gear, or other clothing with "water resistant" or "stain resistant" treatments. 4) Try to cut back on foods that come in "grease-proof" containers. Don't use microwave popcorn bags. 5) Don't use dental floss such as Oral-B Glide dental floss (uses PFC), and use unwaxed or natural wax floss instead (such as Toms of Maine floss). 6) Avoid personal care products that contain ingredients that include the words “fluoro” or “perfluoro.

From Medscape: Prenatal Exposure to Household Chemicals Hurts Kids' Cognition

Exposure to common household chemicals such as those found in nonstick cooking pans, upholstery, carpet pads, and electronics during pregnancy may lead to poorer cognitive and behavioral development during childhood, new research shows.

In an analysis of more than 250 mother-child pairs, maternal exposure to polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) was associated with impairments in executive function in children aged 5 and 8 years. "These findings suggest that concentrations of maternal serum PBDEs and PFASs during pregnancy may be associated with poorer executive function in school-age children," the investigators, with first author Ann Vuong, DrPH,...."Given that the persistence of PBDEs and PFASs has resulted in detectable serum concentrations worldwide, the observed deficits in executive function may have a large impact at the population level," they add.

In-unit increases in PFOS levels were associated with worse behavior regulation, poorer metacognition, and poorer global executive functioning. No link was found between PFOA levels and executive function. Dr Vuong told Medscape Medical News that although the majority of PBDEs and PFASs have been phased out of products, there is an ongoing risk of exposure."It's in the environment, and probably it's that people have already purchased products within their homes, and everyone has [PBDEs] in their bodies. So the only way to reduce the body burden or exposure is through cleaning methods," she said.

For PBDEs, it is recommended that people regularly use a high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter in their vacuum and that they wipe down surfaces and regularly wash their hands. "For PFASs, it's recommended that you try not to, or limit your use of, microwaved fast food packaging, as well as trying not to use deteriorated pans with nonstick coatings," Dr Vuong added....Although reducing exposure to substances with known neurodevelopmental and cognitive risks is important, Dr Vuong emphasized that the chemicals have been replaced by novel compounds, some of which may carry their own risks.

UPDATE: 2 new articles discussing this issue: New Teflon Toxin Causes Cancer in Lab Animals and How Dupont Concealed the Dangers of the New Teflon Toxin

Published on Leave a comment on Avoid the New Generation of Flame Retardants

Flame retardants. All around us, and in us. So, so hard to avoid because they're in electronic goods, in upholstered furniture, polyurethane foam, carpet pads, some textiles, the foam in baby items, house dust, building insulation, and on and on. And unfortunately, while a number of toxic flame retardants have been phased out, it appears that the new replacements may be just as bad and are more easily inhaled (the small particles go down the air tract and into the lung tissue).

What to do? Wash hands before eating. Try to use a vacuum cleaner with a HEPA filter. Try to avoid products that say they contain "flame retardants". Only buy upholstered furniture with tags that say they are flame retardant free. From Environmental Health News:

As Washington state decides on stronger toxics law, residents are breathing flame retardants

A new generation of chemicals added to furniture, building insulation and baby products like car seats to slow the spread of flames are escaping into air at higher levels than previously thought, according to a new study out of Washington state. The findings come as Washington lawmakers decide on bolstering flame retardant bans. The state was one of the first to ban an earlier generation of retardants, known as PBDEs.

The new research found flame retardant chemicals used to replace polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) also escape, are ubiquitous in indoor air and suggest inhalation is a major route of exposure for people. The compounds, called chlorinated organophosphate flame retardants, found in the study have been linked to cancer and reproductive problems, and some can alter hormones essential for development. “We’ve been underestimating what total exposure is,” said Erika Schreder, staff scientist at the Washington Toxics Coalition and lead author of the study published this month in the scientific journal Chemosphere.

Researchers gave 10 people from Washington state an air sampler that simulates breathing to wear during a normal day: office work, commuting, hanging out at home. They tested for a suite of the new generation of chlorinated flame retardants and found all 10 were breathing some amount of them throughout the day. Exposure to one of the most prevalent compounds was up to 30 times greater than ingesting the chemicals via dust. The distinction is important: dust exposure occurs largely through the mouth, previously thought to be the major exposure route for banned PBDEs.

Chlorinated flame retardants are used mostly in polyurethane foam, often in building insulation and everyday products such as furniture, children’s car seats and baby strollers. The compounds are substitutes for PBDEs, which were widely used as flame retardants until scientists reported they were building up in people and wildlife and various bans took hold.

While chlorinated flame retardants have been around for decades, Salamova said scientists have recently started to understand them as, at first, it was thought they weren’t harmful or able to accumulate in people and wildlife. However there is evidence the replacement are following the same path as PBDEs: chlorinated flame retardants have been found in household dust, children’s products, drinking water, and mother-toddlers pairs. Two chlorinated flame retardants have been flagged by the state of California as carcinogens, and animal research suggests they may hamper brain development as well. 

From Medical Xpress: Prenatal exposure to flame retardants linked to poorer behavioral function in children

New research from the University of Cincinnati (UC) College of Medicine suggests that prenatal exposure to flame retardants and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) commonly found in the environment may have a lasting effect on a child's cognitive and behavioral development, known as executive function...."We examined the relationship between prenatal exposure to PBDEs and PFASs and executive function in children at 5 and 8 years of age," said Ann Vuong, DrPH, a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Cincinnati in the Department of Environmental Health. "The findings suggest that maternal serum concentrations of PBDEs and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), one of the most commonly found PFASs in human blood, may be associated with poorer executive functioning in school-age children."

From Science Daily: Exposure to common flame retardants may contribute to attention problems in children

Prenatal exposure to some flame retardants that have been widely-used in consumer products is associated with attention problems in young children. A new study is the first to show the effects of prenatal exposure to polybrominated diphenyl ethers on children's development at ages 3, 4, and 7 years. Children with the highest exposure to certain PBDEs had approximately twice the number of maternally-reported attention problems compared to the other children in the study. PBDEs are found in textiles, plastics, wiring, and furniture containing polyurethane foam to reduce flammability.

Very nice and thorough report about flame retardants written in 2013 by the highly regarded center EHHI (Environment and Human Health, Inc.): FLAME RETARDANTS THE CASE FOR POLICY CHANGE

Published on Leave a comment on BPA Free and BPA Plastic Have Similar Effects

Once again, research shows that "BPA-free" plastic does not mean it is safer than BPA plastic. Both BPA and BPS (the usual replacement for BPA) leach estrogenic chemicals into the foods and beverages, which means negative health effects when ingested. Both BPA and BPS mimic the effects of estrogen, as well as the actions of thyroid hormone. Yes, this study was done on zebrafish, but think of them as "the canaries in the mine" - if it affects them, it could affect humans also, especially developing fetuses and young children.

BPA  and BPS can leach into food, particularly under heat, from the lining of cans and from consumer products such as water bottles, baby bottles, food-storage containers, sippy cups, and plastic tableware. BPA can also be found in contact lenses, eyeglass lenses, compact discs, water-supply pipes, some cash register and ATM receipts, as well as in some dental sealants. A good way to minimize exposure to BPA , BPS, and other estrogenic chemicals is to try to avoid food and beverages in plastic containers and cans, but instead try to buy and store food in glass containers, jars, and bottles. From Science Daily:

'BPA-free' plastic accelerates embryonic development, disrupts reproductive system

Companies advertise "BPA-free" as a safer version of plastic products ranging from water bottles to sippy cups to toys. Many manufacturers stopped used Bisphenol A to strengthen plastic after animal studies linked it to early puberty and a rise in breast and prostate cancers.Yet new UCLA research demonstrates that BPS (Bisphenol S), a common replacement for BPA, speeds up embryonic development and disrupts the reproductive system.

Using a zebrafish model, Wayne and her colleagues found that exposure to low levels of BPA and BPS -- equivalent to the traces found in polluted river waters -- altered the animals' physiology at the embryonic stage in as quickly as 25 hours. "Egg hatching time accelerated, leading to the fish equivalent of premature birth," said Wayne, who is also UCLA's associate vice chancellor for research. "The embryos developed much faster than normal in the presence of BPA or BPS."

The UCLA team, which included first author Wenhui Qiu, a visiting graduate student from Shanghai University, chose to conduct the study in zebrafish because their transparent embryos make it possible to "watch" cell growth as it occurs.... In a second finding, the team discovered that the number of endocrine neurons increased up to 40 percent, suggesting that BPA overstimulates the reproductive system.... "We saw many of these same effects with BPS found in BPA-free products. BPS is not harmless."

After uncovering her first finding about BPA in 2008, Wayne immediately discarded all of the plastic food containers in her home and replaced them with glass. She and her family purchase food and drinks packaged in glass whenever possible. "Our findings are frightening and important," emphasized Wayne. "Consider it the aquatic version of the canary in the coal mine."

Finally, the researchers were surprised to find that both BPA and BPS acted partly through an estrogen system and partly through a thyroid hormone system to exert their effects. "Most people think of BPA as mimicking the effects of estrogen. But our work shows that it also mimics the actions of thyroid hormone," said Wayne. "Because of thyroid hormone's important influence on brain development during gestation, our work holds important implications for general embryonic and fetal development, including in humans."

Researchers have proposed that endocrine-disrupting chemicals may be contributing to the U.S.' rise in premature human births and early onset of puberty over the past couple of decades. "Our data support that hypothesis," said Wayne. "If BPA is impacting a wide variety of animal species, then it's likely to be affecting human health. Our study is the latest to help show this with BPA and now with BPS."

Published on Leave a comment on Microbes Partially Restored To C-Section Babies

I posted about this amazing research while it was still ongoing (Jan. 16, 2015), but now a study has been published. The small well-done pilot study looked at the microbiome (microbial communities) and microbial differences between different groups of infants during the first 30 days of life. They found significant differences in the bacteria of C-section infants (not exposed to their mother's vaginal fluid in the birth canal) compared to C-section infants who were swabbed with a gauze pad right after birth with their mother's vaginal fluids. They found that the microbiota (community of microbes) is partially restored in the swabbed C-section infants and more similar to that of vaginally delivered infants (who were exposed to the maternal bacteria naturally in the birth canal). They found that the procedure restored some bacteria, such as Lactobacillus and Bacteroides, which were nearly absent in the skin and anal samples of non-swabbed C-section babies.

In the C-section group, four mothers who were free of infections that might harm the babies, incubated a sterile gauze in their vaginas for one hour before the operation (C-section). Then, within two minutes of birth, the babies were swabbed with the gauze first over their mouths, then their faces, and then the rest of their bodies. These results are important because it is thought that microbiome differences (depending on method of birth) are long-lasting (with higher incidence of some health problems later in life with C-sections), and because the baby's early microbiome helps educate the baby's developing immune system.

Rob Knight (a leading microbiologist and one of the researchers) pointed out that the study "provides the proof-of-concept that microbiome modification early in life is possible." Now we need to see if these microbial differences persist over time and if it makes a health difference. From Science Daily:

Vaginal microbes can be partially restored to c-section babies

In a small pilot study, researchers at University of California, San Diego School of Medicine and Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai determined that a simple swab to transfer vaginal microbes from a mother to her C-section-delivered newborn can alter the baby's microbial makeup (microbiome) in a way that more closely resembles the microbiome of a vaginally delivered baby. 

Babies delivered by C-section differ from babies delivered vaginally in the makeup of the microbes that live in and on their bodies. These early microbiomes help educate the baby's developing immune system. Previous research suggests a link between C-section delivery and increased subsequent risk of obesity, asthma, allergies, atopic disease and other immune deficiencies. Many of these diseases have also been linked to the microbiome, though the role a newborn's microbiome plays in current or long-term health is not yet well-understood....Other research suggests that microbiome differences between vaginal and C-section babies can persist for years."

In the study, the researchers collected samples from 18 infants and their mothers, including seven born vaginally and 11 delivered by scheduled C-section. Of the C-section-delivered babies, four were exposed to their mothers' vaginal fluids at birth as part of this study. To do this, sterile gauze was incubated in the mothers' vaginas for one hour before the C-section. Within two minutes of their birth, the babies delivered by C-section were swabbed with the gauze starting with the mouth, then the face and the rest of the body.

Six times over the first month after birth, the researchers collected a total of 1,519 anal, oral and skin samples from the mothers and infants. Knight's team then used a gene sequencing technique to map the types and relative quantities of bacterial species present at each body site.

Here's what they found: the microbiomes of the four C-section-delivered infants exposed to vaginal fluids more closely resembled those of vaginally delivered infants than unexposed C-section-delivered infants, though the difference was more distinct in their oral and skin samples than in their anal samples. This partial microbial restoration could be due to the fact that the infants received only one surface application of maternal vaginal fluids, Knight said.

Yet the oral and skin microbiome differences between C-section-delivered infants who received the microbial transfer and those who did not was still noticeable one month after birth. The results were not due to diet differences, as all of the infants received breast milk either exclusively or supplemented with formula during the first month of life. In addition, consistent with previous studies, the babies' microbiome profiles did not correlate with the amount of breast milk they received.

"The present work is a pilot study -- we need substantially more children and a longer follow-up period to connect the procedure to health effects," said Knight...."This study points the way to how we would do that, and provides the proof-of-concept that microbiome modification early in life is possible. In fact, we already have more than 10,000 additional samples collected as part of this study that still await analysis."

Published on Leave a comment on Oral Contraceptives, Pregnancy, and Birth Defects

This is an issue that a lot of women I've known over the years have wondered about: if a woman gets pregnant while on birth control pills (oral contraceptives) - and many women do - does it mean higher rates of birth defects? This study says NO to higher rates of major birth defects which is very reassuring, but it doesn't answer the issue of more subtle effects (e.g., behavioral effects) from the hormones in the contraceptives. From Medical Xpress:

Oral contraceptive use not associated with increased birth defects risk

Oral contraceptives taken just before or during pregnancy do not increase the risk of birth defects, according to a new study by researchers from Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and the Statens Serum Institut in Denmark. They found that the prevalence of major birth defects was consistent (about 25 per 1,000 live births) across all pregnant women in the study population regardless of contraceptive use.

Even though oral contraceptives are more than 99% effective with perfect use, almost 10% of women become pregnant within their first year of use. Many more women will stop using oral contraceptives when planning a pregnancy and conceive within a few months. Little is known about the potential health effects to children from in utero exposure to the hormones in oral contraceptives.

....Charlton and colleagues were able to tap into a wealth of data collected from multiple Danish health registries between 1997 and 2011 and linked by the unique personal identification number assigned to all Denmark residents. The researchers looked at 880,694 live-born infants, and the health of these children at one-year follow-up. Oral contraceptive use was estimated based on the date of the mother's most recently filled prescription.  Among the women in the study population, a fifth had never used oral contraceptives before becoming pregnant, and more than two-thirds had stopped using oral contraceptives at least three months before becoming pregnant. Eight percent had discontinued use within three months of becoming pregnant, and 1%, or well over 10,000 women, had used oral contraceptives after becoming pregnant.

The prevalence of birth defects was consistent across each category of oral contraceptive use, and remained so when the researchers added in pregnancies that ended as stillbirths or induced abortions.