Birth Defect Lawyer Blog

Although not necessarily related to birth defects, a new study should be of concern to new parents. A study produced by the Washington Toxics Coalition and Safer States finds that toxins in certain common products may be harmful to young children. Despite this, stores still carry these items, and parents buy them without being informed of their content.

The report, "Chemicals Revealed," focuses specifically on products in the state of Washington, but would likely be relevant elsewhere. It identified over 5,000 products that include toxins and carcinogens that affect development and reproduction. These products include car seats, footwear, toys, bedding, and even arts and crafts products. The toxins found within them include toxic metals like mercury and cadmium, as well as phthalates, which are known to be endocrine disrupters.

Washington has required retailers to report whether they carry chemicals potentially harmful to children since 2008. The retailers who reported include well-known retailers like Wal-Mart and the Gap. However, the retailers only need to report categories, not actual products containing the toxins, which makes it difficult for those concerned about health risks to identify the individual products at issue within stores.

According to the report, store products generally linked with toxins include Graco car seats, which contain a flame retardant known as tetrabromobisphenol A, and Wal-Mart dolls, which contain bisphenol A (BPA), another known endocrine disrupter.

As with the case of triclosan mentioned in the last post, one reason these toxins have been able to permeate common products is because chemical regulations are lagging behind in relation to products that have already been released in the marketplace. The last major federal update of toxin regulations was in 1976, the Toxic Substances Control Act. While several states have moved to fill in the gaps left by the federal legislation, many holes still remain, and exposure to toxic chemicals can get through.

Continue reading "New Report in Washington State Finds That Multiple Toys and Common Products Contain Toxins Harmful to Children" »

In both troubling and welcome news, the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is going to issue a determination of whether a popular antibacterial soap, used for more than 40 years, is safe for humans.

The review, expected later this year, will look at the safety and effectiveness of triclosan, which is found in approximately 75% of antibacterial soaps and body washes in the United States, as well as toothpaste, mouthwash, and even toys. The antibacterial industry earns over 1 billion dollars per year.

Yet studies using animals have found that that triclosan can disrupt the normal hormonal process, causing the early onset of puberty and even infertility. A 2009 study by the Environmental Protection Agency found that triclosan decreased the level of testosterone and sperm production in rats. A 2010 University of Florida study found that triclosan interfered with the transfer of estrogen in pregnant sheep, affecting the fetus. While some caution that animal results are not necessarily duplicated in humans, animals results for other drugs and toxins have prompted changes in designation, such as changing Depakote from a pregnancy Category C drug for birth defects to a Category D, a more severe classification.

The FDA's belated review highlights an apparent disconnect between the marketplace and the chemical regulation system in the United States, with many chemicals found in everyday products never having been formally approved as healthy and safe. The most recent piece of major federal legislation to address chemical safety was the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act (the "Act"), which lacks many safeguards for assessing and controlling today's chemicals. Meanwhile, the update to the Act, the Safe Chemicals Act, continues to languish in Congress.

The FDA began its review of triclosan four decades ago, but the process was stalled until the Natural Resources Defense Council filed a lawsuit in federal court compelling the agency to complete the review. Ironically, triclosan was first approved as being safer than an alternative then on the market. Recent studies have shown that soap with triclosan is no better at killing germs than soap without it.

Continue reading "After 40 Years, FDA Prepares to Issue Review On Safety of Antibacterial Ingredient Triclosan" »

A new study of babies in Mumbai, India could be instructive to families in the United States. The study of over 1,000 babies at a Mumbai hospital showed the growing presence of genital abnormalities thought to be caused by endocrine disrupters such as phthalates and bisphenol-A (BPA).

The study was conducted by the European Society for Pediatric Urology and focused on male babies born at the Navi Mumbai hospital. This entailed checking 1,154 babies on the first and second days after their births. What researchers found was an increase by almost 200% of the incidence of undescended testes -- from 1.6% in 1972 to 5%. If milder forms of undescended testes were included, researchers thought that the incidents might be as high as 8% or 9%. The testicles are the location where testosterone is produced.

Researchers believe that exposure to endocrine disrupting chemicals in the womb could be the cause, especially exposure that takes place during the first 8 to 12 weeks of fetal development. Endocrine disrupters like phthalates and BPA come from a variety of plastic products commonly used in households, including plastic bottles, cosmetics, food wrappers, and toys. Pesticide chemicals, cigarette smoke, and painkillers can also act as endocrine disrupters.

Although in 70% of undescended testes cases, the testes descend within the first few months, 30% need correction. Without treatment, fertility problems could form over time, and the risk of cancer increases.

Researchers caution that the results are not conclusive, and further studies would need to be conducted to ensure that the results can be linked to endocrine disrupting chemicals in plastic products. One possibility is that the exposure rate has not changed, but that the rate of detection is better.

Continue reading "New Study: Increased Exposure to BPA and Phthalates May Cause More Birth Defects Among Babies in India" »

Not long ago, this blog mentioned that California was one of the first states to ban bisphenol A (BPA), a chemical used to soften plastic bottles and other food containers. There is evidence that BPA is an endocrine disruptor, capable of causing harm to normal biological processes, which can lead to health problems as well as an increased risk of birth defects. The chemical industry sued the California Environmental Protection Agency, and a Sacramento Superior Court judge recently responded by issuing a preliminary injunction that temporarily prevents BPA from being added to the state's list of reproductive toxicants.

BPA had been added to what is known as Proposition 65, or the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act, which the people of California passed in 1986 out of growing concerns about their exposure to toxic chemicals. Proposition 65 requires that California publish a list of chemicals presumed to cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive problems. The list must be published once a year and businesses are required to notify Californians about significant amounts of chemicals in their products, their workplaces, and their homes. The idea is to ensure that Californians are reasonably informed, so that they can take actions to protect themselves if they so choose.

The American Chemistry Council claims that there is not enough evidence to support the claim that BPA causes reproductive harm, noting that the federal Food and Drug Administration found that BPA was safe at the very low levels typically found in food. However, consumer activists claim that there is growing evidence of the harm that BPA poses as an endocrine disruptor. It is unknown when this dispute will be resolved.

As this situation demonstrates, one way to stop an action from being taken that you believe to be harmful is to file a lawsuit and seek an injunction. An injunction is issued by order of a judge. For those who go this route, the ultimate goal is often a permanent injunction -- an assurance that the harmful activity will never take place, or will never take place again. Before a permanent injunction can be issued, both parties must first litigate a case on the merits. However, these cases can last months. If the party seeking the injunction is afraid of suffering harm in the meantime, it can seek a preliminary injunction. A preliminary injunction places a halt on the activity until its merits are fully considered.

Preliminary injunctions are not just issued because someone asks for them. The seeker of an injunction must establish that it is substantially likely to succeed on the merits, that it will face the threat of irreparable harm unless the preliminary injunction is issued, that the balance of harms weighs in the seeker's favor, and that the injunction would be in the public's interest. Just as the American Chemistry Council sought a preliminary injunction to protect its interests, you could also seek an injunction to protect you from harm. If you are pregnant and fear that regular chemical dumpings nearby could harm your fetus, you might file a lawsuit and seek an injunction to stop the activity.

Continue reading "California Judge Issues an Injunction to Stop BPA From Being Placed On a State List of Reproductive Toxicants" »

This blog has frequently discussed the problems with the practice of mountaintop removal mining, particularly the way toxic minerals exposed by the practice increase the risk of birth defects. In order to reach coal or precious minerals, mining companies will strip the top soil off of mountains, exposing other elements in the soil -- such as mercury -- to the air and water. Now a new study provides greater detail about the hazardous effects of mountaintop removal mining on everything from climate to public health.

The study, written by scientists from West Virginia University, Rider University, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the federal Geological Survey, focused on the Appalachian areas where mountaintop removal mining typically occurred. The scientists found 640 "distinct" areas of mountaintop removal and 285 valley-fill areas where mountains were lowered by roughly 110 feet and valleys raised by 175 feet. These significant topographic changes have the potential to create changes in the climate, as well as the removal of mature forests. By removing the forests, coal companies have also unleashed more carbon dioxide into the air, which contributes to global warming.

Mountaintop removal mining also harms the habitats of animals such as raptors and songbirds, and additionally, has a negative effect on human health, though the study's authors did not elaborate on that point. However, it is already known that the mountaintop removal mining practice releases toxins into the air and water, which in turn can cause health problems for local communities. And while the extent of mountaintop mining's effects have yet to be fully understood, there is evidence linking the practice to an increased risk of birth defects.

If your child was born with a birth defect that you believe was the result of your exposure to toxins from a mountaintop mine, you may have the option of filing a toxic tort lawsuit against the mining company responsible. Depending on your circumstances, you may be able to argue that the mining company had a duty to the local community to act responsibly according to state and federal regulations. The mining company may have breached that duty by acting unreasonably, ignoring regulations and undertaking destructive removal practices. As a result of the breach, you may be able to argue that you were exposed to toxins unleashed by the mining practices while you were pregnant, and as a result of that, your child was born with a birth defect. Even if the mining company did not violate existing law per se, evidence that it caused you harm could be enough for you to have a potentially successful case.

Continue reading "New Study Highlights Environmental Threat Posed By Mountaintop Removal Mining" »

With so much grim news about birth defects and their causes, it is nice to have some reason for optimism: a recent report from the National Center for Health Statistics has found that after years with no change, infant mortality rates in the United States are finally beginning to decline.

From 2005 to 2011, infant mortality rates dropped 12%, going from 6.87 deaths per 1,000 live births in 2005 to 6.05 deaths per live births six years later. While no official reasons have been stated in the report, the study's author cites several potential causes. First, there has been a reduction in the number of "elective" deliveries, which carry the risk of babies being born too early and suffering from health problems as a result. Second, a 20% reduction in the rate of babies dying from SIDS from 2005 to 2011 is likely due to a public awareness campaign to lie babies down on their backs. Third, a 6% reduction in the number of babies born with congenital heart defects could have been due to better techniques for detecting health problems before birth. This is also likely the reason for the reduction of infant mortality rates caused by premature delivery or complications within the womb by 9% and 7%, respectively. Other important factors are the improvement of both prenatal care and the care babies receive shortly after birth.

Many pediatricians predict that with the improvements above, infant mortality will continue to decrease. They cite prenatal care and diagnoses in the womb as especially important, since that helps determine which babies will need more critical care even before they are born.

Such numbers are encouraging to any parent, as it is always heartbreaking to lose a child that was very much wanted. At the same time, despite the advances in medical techniques, infant mortality will always exist, though hopefully it will be reduced as much as possible. Birth defects may be caused by genetics, or by the parent's lifestyle choices, such as when the mother smokes and/or drinks while pregnant. However, birth defects can also be traced to outside causes, such as herbicides used on a nearby grass area or on nearby crops, mercury exposure in the air or water from nearby coal-burning power plants, or even to the effects of common household products.

If your child has a birth defect that you believe could be due to one of the above causes, you have the option of filing a toxic tort lawsuit against the offender. First, you would need to determine that the specific source was, in fact, the cause of your child's birth defect, as opposed to other possible sources. That might be accomplished by looking at reports on the toxins coming from the source, medical reports on the effect of that toxin on fetal development, and even whether other people in your area have recently given birth to other babies with similar birth defects. If you have good evidence of the cause, you may be able to argue that you were directly (or proximately) affected by the offender's unreasonable behavior, and as a result, your child was born with a birth defect.

Continue reading "New Report Finds That Infant Mortality Rate in the United States Is Declining For the First Time in Years" »

Related to the post about China's pollution, it is not simply pollution wafting in from other countries that Americans must worry about, but also pollution in our own backyards. In the city of Wichita, Kansas, city officials are looking ahead to summertime pollution and are considering ways to combat it. Air pollution has not only been linked to greenhouse gases, but also to serious health problems and birth defects.

As part of their efforts to reduce air pollution in Wichita, officials will ask residents to reduce traveling and other activities that increase emissions if ozone levels rise above Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards. High ozone levels can cause certain children or elderly to experience breathing problems.

Thus, residents will be asked to carpool to work instead of driving separately, to work from home, to mow the lawn later in the evening, and to add fuel to their vehicles either in the early morning or late evening. They will also be urged to take measures to save electricity, including unplugging unused appliances and turning up the thermostat to 78 degrees.

These actions have economic as well as health benefits. Officials warn that if ozone levels continue to exceed EPA limits, gas prices could rise, businesses could face more regulation, and road funding could be in jeopardy. In 2012, the city's ozone levels exceeded federal standards on several different days. Some of the reasons included natural causes, such as summer wildfires and a heat wave. The EPA typically looks at ozone levels on a three-year average, and then takes the fourth-highest readings on a daily basis to create a rolling average. While the EPA excused Wichita's violations in light of the weather, it may not be as accommodating in 2013.

It is encouraging to see city officials actively try to change residents' habits, even if their fears stem from losing federal funds or gaining more unwanted regulations. Too often, those charged with ensuring that cities, counties, or even states comply with clean air laws fail to perform their duty. Thus, too many people end up having health problems as a result of dirty air and water. Since often the source of the pollution is diffuse -- such as thousands of cars, as opposed to one power plant -- citizens would have trouble targeting one source, and instead look to regulatory officials to protect them. When these officials fail to do so, citizens are within their rights to file a lawsuit against the regulatory agency or agencies. They would argue that as a result of these officials failing to do the duty imposed on them by law, they were exposed to harmful levels of toxins. Pregnant women so exposed then had children born with birth defects.

Continue reading "Officials in Wichita, Kansas Try to Encourage Residents to Take Actions That Are Less Polluting" »

China's growing problems with pollution have drawn attention, but few have considered the global implications -- that Chinese pollution could be blown into other countries. Yet that was exactly what worried California's governor, Jerry Brown, when he made a recent trip to Beijing. Governor Brown urged the Chinese to increase efforts to reduce its emissions, which create greenhouse gases and have been linked to serious health problems.

Although Governor Brown was in China to promote trade with his state, he used the time to promote an environmental message as well. Air pollution in cities like Beijing is at its worst levels, while California is frequently regarded as an environmental model, both in terms of its emissions standards and its renewable energy policies. Yet particulate pollution from China has been documented to be blowing through the skies over California. Many Chinese officials regarded Governor Brown's visit with interest and noted that the country is slowly starting to focus more on the air pollution problem. Yet five years after government officials ordered vehicles off of the road and shut factories to clean the air for the 2008 Olympics, the factories are running again and vehicle emission standards have been relaxed. Some days, residents are literally required to stay indoors when the smog is too heavy.

Governor Brown told Chinese officials that significant progress could be made toward cleaning up the air if just $40 to $50 billion were spent over a few years. Yet Governor Brown has had difficulties advancing a cleaner agenda even in the more-receptive California atmosphere. Many green energy groups complain of difficulty getting their projects funded, while many existing business interests complain that the current environmental laws are too burdensome.

At the same time, even China has made strides toward environmental clean-up that Governor Brown praised. He singled out advances in wind and battery technology, noting that China's improvements in battery technology could lead to one million electric cars on California roadways within a decade.

While greenhouse gases have not necessarily been linked to birth defects, pollution in general -- including heavy smog caused by traffic -- has been shown to sometimes play a part. The air pollution does not need to have blown in from China to be a problem in your community. If your child has a birth defect that you believe was due to your exposure to harmful toxins in the air while you were pregnant, you have the option of filing a toxic tort lawsuit. The greatest challenge would be determining the source of the toxins. If there is an obvious source, such as a nearby power plant, you could file the suit against the company that owns the plant. If the source is less obvious, such as thousands of cars and trucks on a freeway, you might instead file a suit against the regulatory agencies responsible for monitoring traffic pollution, arguing that they failed to perform their duty. However, in both cases, you would need evidence showing that there was a connection between the source and your child's birth defect. You could not just claim, for instance, that a power plant was responsible just because it seemed to be the most likely source. You would probably need records and studies to aid you in making your arguments.

Continue reading "California's Governor Advises Chinese On Ways to Reduce Harmful Air Pollution" »

Spina bifida is a serious cognitive birth defect that has been traced to a variety of causes, from lack of folic acid during pregnancy to mercury emissions from mining practices. While it often leads to a reduced quality of life, that does not always have to be the case; some people with the condition still manage to do the things that they love. One such person is Rebecca Shumaker of Texas, who has not let spina bifida keep her from raising bulls for rodeo riding.

At present, Shumaker is unable to dress herself or to get into a vehicle without help -- but she has helped raise 30 bulls, cows, and calves for the past 10 years. Shumaker got the inspiration from watching the professional riding events on television when she was seven years old. There was ample space for raising cattle on her parents' ranch, which holds 200 beef cattle in addition to Shumaker's animals. Until recently, Shumaker took it upon herself to feed her cattle every day, and some are almost big enough to weigh one ton. Her bulls have competed in rodeo events across the country, with a few even making it to the Professional Bull Riders event -- a major achievement. Nonetheless, Shumaker does not believe that she can make a living off of her passion. The 17-year old has instead set her sights on a career in the medical field, with perhaps a bull-raising business on the side.

It is encouraging to hear stories about people who can follow their passions despite health conditions that would hold them back. Spina bifida has been known to cause a wide range of serious health problems, including leg paralysis, bladder and bowel control problems, and cognitive problems that can lead to learning disabilities. Yet while some living with the condition are fortunate to have the help of friends, family, and community, others must struggle alone, often incurring large medical bills in the process.

If your child has spina bifida and you believe that the cause was not due to your lifestyle while pregnant -- such as smoking or not taking folic acid -- but due to an external source, you might want to consider filing a lawsuit against the offender. If you believe that the offender is, for instance, a coal-burning power plant, you could file a toxic tort lawsuit against it. You would have to ensure that there was strong evidence linking the offender to your child's birth defect, or the other party might argue that it was not responsible. Some factors to consider would be the location of the power plant, how frequently you were exposed to its emissions and for how long, and whether others in your area are also giving birth to babies with birth defects. You could also obtain expert testimony that would establish a link between the two.

Continue reading "Teenage Girl With Spina Bifida Follows Her Passion of Raising Bulls for Rodeo Riding" »

Recently, several environmental groups have launched a concerted effort to convince major retailers such as Wal-Mart, Target, and Costco to pull toxic brands from their shelves. They note that there are over 100 toxic chemicals in possibly thousands of products, including shampoos, food packaging, wrinkle guard, flooring, and even sofa cushions. Toxins in these products may not only threaten human health, but they also may increase the risk of birth defects.

Leading the way is Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, a coalition that aims to lessen the use of toxic chemicals in all facets of life. Because the current federal regulations against toxins are so outdated, Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families sees its mission as doing what the federal government has been unable to do. An updated Act passed out of Senate Committee eight months ago, but there has been little action since. Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, the mover behind the Safe Chemicals Act, has reintroduced it for 2013.

Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, along with four dozen other groups, sent a letter to 10 major retailers asking them to develop a plan within the year to phase out use of toxic chemicals. Its members note that retailers can make a significant difference in this area, and that many have already taken the lead by phasing out harmful chemicals. For instance, in 2007, Target, Sears, and Kmart announced that they would be following Wal-Mart in phasing out polyvinyl chloride -- which releases the toxin dioxide -- of its products. From 2011 onward, retailers like Wal-Mart and Kroger have phased out polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), used for flame retardants, and bisphenol A (BPA) in cash register receipts. However, the task for creating safe products is still largely unmet. Until the federal government assumes greater authority, the task will still fall on the shoulders of retailers and groups like Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families.

It is a very difficult situation, and one who thinks that chemicals are affecting them could easily feel frustrated and overwhelmed. If you have a baby with a birth defect that you believe is due to household chemical exposure, what are your options? You could always file a product liability suit against the manufacturer of the product(s). Before doing so, you would need to find strong evidence that the product(s) was responsible, as opposed to other potential sources. One thing to keep in mind is that even though a product may contain a harmful chemical, it may not be at a high enough concentration to cause health problems. If you feel that there is sufficient evidence that a specific product is causing harm, you can go ahead and file a lawsuit. On the other hand, if you feel that a product is responsible, but are not sure which one, you might have more success filing a lawsuit against the agency charged with limiting toxic exposure, with the claim that the agency breached its duty to the public.

Continue reading "Environmental Groups Aim to Convince Major Retailers to Phase Harmful Chemicals Out of Their Products" »

Recently, the United Nations World Health Organization disclosed that the dangers to human health caused by air pollution were much greater than once thought. As a result, the World Health Organization is seeking rapid global action in reducing the causes of air pollution.

At a United Nations Environmental Programme Climate and Clean Air Coalition meeting, the World Health Organization informed participants that 3.5 million premature deaths each year could be traced to indoor air pollution. The worst sufferers were those in South Asia, followed by those in Eastern, Central, and Western Sub-Saharan Africa, and then Southeast Asia. Another 3.3 million deaths could be traced to outdoor pollution. Of that number, ground-level ozone alone accounts for 200,000 premature deaths.

According to the Climate and Clean Air Coalition, some of the most dangerous culprits are "short-lived climate pollutants", which include emissions released from diesel engine exhaust, smoke and soot from outdated cook stoves, leakage from oil and natural gas production, and emissions from solid waste disposal. Even one outdated cook stove can emit more than one hundred times the recommended amount of carbon monoxide. The United Nations Environmental Programme notes that fast action to reduce short-lived climate pollutants could lead to a steep reduction in the number of annual deaths. The Climate and Clean Air Coalition has already sought to update the technology in brick production so that it leads to lower black carbon emissions, as well as to distribute cleaner cook stoves in countries such as Bangladesh.

While the focus appears to be primarily on locations in Asia and Africa, the United States should not take too much comfort. Studies -- such as the recent one on traffic-related smog -- have shown that even pollution here can cause greater health problems and birth defects. Significant health problems are also a concern in areas affected by mountaintop removal mining, coal-burning power plant emissions, or agriculture that relies on heavy use of pesticides. Indoor pollution is also a problem here as well: even sitting on the furniture, for instance, can lead to flame retardants in our bloodstream.

What can be done about it? If your child has a birth defect that you believe was caused by one of the above sources of pollution, you have the option of filing a toxic tort lawsuit against the offender. Of course, before you file such a lawsuit, you will want to be certain that the source is the cause. While you may never be able to find 100% conclusive proof, you will at least want to find evidence that strongly supports your position. That may come from official environmental reports, medical reports, or even statements from other people in your area who also have children with birth defects. Once you feel that you can make your case, you would argue that the offender had a duty to the community to operate reasonably according to laws and regulations. The offender breached that duty, and as a result, you were exposed to toxins while pregnant that led to your child being born with a birth defect.

Continue reading "United Nations World Health Organization Claims That Air Pollution Is Far More Damaging to Human Health Than Previously Thought" »

The federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved for use a morning sickness drug that was originally pulled from the market 30 years ago over concerns about birth defects. Bendectin was first sold in the United States in 1956 and removed from the market in 1983. After recent studies found that it did not cause birth defects, it will return to the market as Diclegis.

Diclegis consists of a combination of vitamin B6 and doxylamine, an antihistamine. For years, doctors have reportedly prescribed this combination to pregnant women with morning sickness, but the difference with Diclegis is that it includes a delay-release coating so that women can take the medication before their nausea sets in. Researchers from the University of Texas gave 260 American women with morning sickness either a Diclegis pill or a dummy pill for two weeks straight. The result was that Diclegis users missed one-and-a-half fewer days of work than users of the dummy pill. However, the study did not include information on what percentage of Diclegis users went on to have normal babies compared to users of the dummy pill.

As for why Bendectin/Diclegis was pulled from the market, it was determined that the women who filed lawsuits may have simply been victims of the statistic that one in 33 babies is born with a birth defect regardless of what medication the mother takes. Even though appeals courts sided with Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Bendectin's manufacturer, the company decided that the cost of defending litigation was too great and pulled the medication from the market. However, now even the March of Dimes notes that no better product for reducing early-pregnancy-related nausea has come along in the 30 years since the product was removed. Furthermore, in 2004, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists issued guidelines calling the same combination of B6 and doxylamine that is found in the drug a first-line therapy.

It is certainly important for pregnant women to have safe options for relief from morning sickness, which usually occurs in the first trimester of pregnancy, but may sometimes last throughout the entire pregnancy. Morning sickness can be debilitating to many who experience it. While it is good that more recent tests have shown that Bendectin/Diclegis does not pose an undue risk, it should never escape scrutiny. Nor should any other serious medication taken during pregnancy. One thing this case illustrates, however, is if your child has a birth defect that you believe was caused by your anti-nausea medication, you need to have strong evidence that this was actually the case. Birth defects can be caused by numerous sources, including outside pollutants, genetics, and daily lifestyle.

Continue reading "FDA Approves For Use a Morning Sickness Drug Pulled 30 Years Ago Due to Claims of Birth Defects" »

Like the three environmental groups who recently filed lawsuits against coal mining companies in West Virginia and Kentucky, the Sierra Club and its allies are set to take action against coal companies in the state of Washington. Specifically, they recently sent a 60-day notice of intent to sue to these companies, as well as Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway, for violating the federal Clean Water Act.

The environmental group claims that these coal companies, with the help of Burlington Northern, are leaking coal into waterways across the state. Burlington Northern is one of the largest railroad companies in the United States, as well as one of the biggest transporters of coal. In Washington alone, Burlington Northern runs up to 480 open-top rail cars.

Burlington Northern has admitted previously that each rail car loses, on average, 500 pounds of coal dust for each trip. Given that coal transporting trains have 120 to 125 cars, that means 30 tons of coal are lost on every single trip. Local residents have also expressed concern about new coal export terminals being planned, including Kinder Morgan's and Ambre Energy's Port Morrow. The exported coal would come from the Powder River Basin in Montana and Wyoming, which crumbles easily, unleashing toxic metals such as mercury and arsenic.

While Burlington Northern vows that it takes environmental concerns seriously, the Sierra Club and other environmental groups are not convinced. Now Burlington Northern and the coal companies will have 60 days to respond to the notice of intent to sue. If an agreement cannot be reached, the Sierra Club and its allies will move forward with a lawsuit.

As noted, coal dust can be extremely harmful to human health and can cause birth defects. Once mercury is released into the soil and water, it can interact with other organisms to become methylmercury, which pregnant women may ingest via contaminated seafood. Methylmercury is very toxic to fetuses in particular, affecting their cognitive development and permanently impacting memory, language, fine motor, and visual spatial skills.

Continue reading "Environmental Groups Prepare to Sue Coal Companies and Rail Company in Washington For Coal Contamination" »

A movement has long been underway to convince dentists to stop using amalgam fillings. That is because more than half of the amalgam material is comprised of mercury, which has been shown to be very harmful to human health, even in small doses, and also increases the risk of birth defects.

Recently, over 140 countries agreed to a United Nations treaty that called for decreasing the use of dental amalgam. One leading dental school in the United States has also announced that it will place less emphasis on teaching students how to place silver fillings, although phasing it out altogether would be even more helpful. Several countries have banned the material entirely, including Finland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and Japan. Other counties like Canada recommend keeping amalgam fillings out of the mouth of pregnant women and children.

Yet in the United States, both the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the American Dental Association (which represents 150,000 dentists) insist that silver filings should always remain an option. Not only are amalgam filings safe and effective, but they also frequently last longer than other dental materials. While the American Dental Association acknowledged that mercury was a concern, it also noted that since 2010, dentists have been filtering out more waste mercury with the help of inexpensive equipment. Furthermore, although the federal government has yet to come up with a comprehensive approach for phasing out amalgam filings, 12 states have already instituted phase-out programs.

It is estimated that nearly half of the mercury entering municipal wastewater treatment plants comes from amalgam filings. Up to 40% of the mercury found in the New York-New Jersey watershed is believed to have come from dental amalgam. While the mercury vapor released by dental amalgam is absorbed by the human body, it is believed to be in too small a dose to cause health problems. Still, any mercury exposure, especially lingering traces in municipal water supplies, is a concern.

If your child has a birth defect that you believe can be traced to dental amalgam, you may want to consider filing a lawsuit against the offender. If you believe that the cause was the amalgam used on your own teeth, your best option would be to file a product liability lawsuit. You would argue that the manufacturer produced an unreasonably dangerous product, and your exposure resulted in your child being born with a birth defect. You might also file a lawsuit against the dentist if he or she did not warn you of the potential dangers. However, if you believe the source of the birth defect was exposure to mercury in your drinking water, you should file a lawsuit against your municipal water agency, either seeking "damages" (a money award) based on their failure to properly clean the water, or equitable relief that would force the agency to take action to fix the problem.

Continue reading "Worldwide Movement Seeks to Phase Out Use of Mercury-Filled Amalgam for Dental Filings" »

Yet another study is out, providing evidence of the dangers of exposure to traffic smog. The new study, which focuses on the San Joaquin Valley in central California, found that women exposed to traffic emissions early in pregnancy are more likely to give birth to babies with birth defects.

Researchers from Stanford University School of Medicine looked at the effects of pregnant women being exposed to traffic-related carbon monoxide pollution in their first eight weeks of pregnancy. The study included 806 women whose babies had birth defects and 849 women whose babies developed normally, between the years 1997 and 2006. What they found was that women exposed to the highest levels of traffic-related carbon monoxide in early pregnancy were nearly two times as likely to give birth to a baby with a neural tube defect, such as spina bifida or anencephaly, as women who were exposed to very low levels of carbon monoxide. In addition, women who had the greatest exposure to traffic-related nitrogen oxide during the early weeks were almost three times more likely to have a baby develop anencephaly in the womb than were women with the lowest exposure. This remained the case even after researchers accounted for mitigating factors, such as the women's race, ethnicity, education levels, and health habits.

Researchers cautioned that just because there was an association between traffic-related air pollution and birth defects did not mean that traffic was definitely the cause. The associations still need to be confirmed, and researchers are hopeful that studies like this one can be used to determine treatment to reduce birth defect risk.

If you live in an area with heavy pollution caused by traffic and believe that it is the cause of your child's neural tube defect, you may have the option to file a lawsuit for relief. While it would probably be impossible to sue individual drivers -- unless much of the traffic came from drivers for an identifiable company -- you might succeed in filing a lawsuit against agencies responsible for monitoring and preventing unhealthy levels of pollution. Such agencies include the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the state environmental agency. In filing a lawsuit, you could argue that these agencies had a legal duty to prevent unhealthy levels of pollution, yet breached that duty by failing to pay attention to, and crack down upon, traffic-related pollution. As a result, you were exposed to the pollution throughout your pregnancy and your child was born with a neural tube defect. You could either seek "damages," a money award that would pay for your child's medical bills, as well as pain and suffering, or you could seek equitable relief, such as an injunction. An injunction in this case would compel the agencies to take action to prevent more traffic pollution.

Continue reading "New Study Finds That Women Exposed to Traffic-Related Smog Early in Pregnancy More Likely to Have Babies With Birth Defects" »