Birth Defect Lawyer Blog

This blog has posted previously on the topic of toxic seafood as it related to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. A recent study from an environmental watchdog group has found that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) continues to underestimate the risk that pregnant women and children face from carcinogens that collect in seafood as a result of oil spills.

The study claims that because of assessment methods that are out of date, the FDA's standard for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) is off by 10,000 times. The FDA's assessment is based on estimates of how much seafood typical Gulf resident may consume over five years. A typical adult is presumed to weigh 176 pounds, while oil contaminates are assumed to disappear after five years. Researchers assert that the FDA's methods fail to consider the greater vulnerability of a developing fetus or child, fail to use more appropriate consumption rates, fail to include all relevant health end points, and fail to incorporate estimates of exposure duration and acceptable risk.

Researchers also claim that the methods for assessing risk should be updated so that they better reflect current risk assessment methods. Otherwise, pregnant women and children will continue to be at risk. The FDA disagrees with researchers' assessments, insisting that they have a comprehensive program for sampling seafood and that the seafood in the Gulf of Mexico is perfectly safe.

Even so, this new study and previous studies raise doubts. If you live near the Gulf of Mexico and your child has a birth defect, it is possible that toxins in seafood could be the cause. If you wanted relief to pay for medical bills and other expenses resulting from the birth defect, you might consider filing a toxic tort lawsuit against those responsible for contaminating the seafood. To be successful in a toxic tort lawsuit, you would need more than just a general "feeling" that an oil company, for example, was responsible. You would need actual evidence that that specific company caused an oil spill that contaminated the seafood you ate. You would also need evidence linking the contaminated seafood to your child's birth defect. It should be easier to find this evidence if you are a Gulf state resident than it would be if you lived farther away. Someone who lived in another part of the United States, and ate seafood that originated in the Gulf, might have a more difficult time proving a causal connection -- especially if that person did not eat seafood regularly. If you believe that contaminated seafood is responsible, however, and have the evidence to back it up, you could argue that the oil company had a duty to behave responsibly, breached that duty through carelessness, the breach led to your "injury" (your exposure to harmful contaminants), and the damage was your child's birth defect.

Continue reading "New Study Suggests That the FDA is Underestimating the Risks of Contaminated Seafood to Pregnant Women and Children" »

A new study published in the online British Medical Journal has found that pregnant women with hypertension, as opposed to women with high blood pressure taking medication, were more likely to give birth to babies with birth defects. Previously there was a concern that women who took angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors during their first trimester had a greater risk. Instead, the study found that the medication was safe to take during the first trimester. It was the underlying hypertension that increased the risk of birth defects.

Researchers reached this conclusion after studying data of 466,000 mothers and children living in northern California between 1995 and 2008. They found that it did not matter which medication the women were prescribed: whether they were prescribed ACE inhibitors or a different blood pressure medication, or no medication at all, their risk remained the same. Researchers were encouraged to find that no link existed between the medication and birth defects, but cautioned that too little remains understood about the full health effects of hypertension to form a strong conclusion.

Many people are genetically predisposed to having high blood pressure. However, there may be other factors involved, such as age, lifestyle choices, diet, workplace tension, and even environmental pollution. If you have high blood pressure and believe that it caused your child's birth defect, can you sue? You can always try to file a lawsuit, but the greater challenge is winning. Anyone who tries to sue without being able to identify the defendant, and without having evidence to back up the claims, is bound to see their case dismissed by the judge at an early stage of the litigation.

If you believe that your high blood pressure (which led to your child's birth defect) was caused by an outside factor, you need to be able to distinguish which one it was. If environmental pollution was the main cause, which was the source of the pollution? Pesticides, a factory, a power plant, or a nearby toxic waste center? Or was the source something that is more difficult to pin down, such as air pollution caused by car exhaust from a nearby highway. Along with identifying the source, you also need to determine whom to hold accountable. If the pollution was from a specific offender, it is simple enough to sue that offender. On the other hand, if the source was more diffuse, you may have more success suing the one responsible for upholding environmental regulations.

Keep in mind that even if you are able to pinpoint a specific offender, you might have a difficult time proving a causal link between the offender's activities and your child's birth defect. That's because your child's birth defect could also be caused by many different sources, with environmental pollution being just one of them.

Continue reading "Hypertension in Pregnant Mothers Linked to a Greater Likelihood for Birth Defects" »

A recent study in Pediatrics found that girls who were exposed to the chemical bisphenol-A while in utero could have behavioral problems by the time they are three years old. Bisphenol-A is found in certain plastic drink bottles and food can linings.

Researchers measured the amounts of bisphenol-A (BPA) in 244 mothers from the Cincinnati area. They tested the mothers' urine twice during pregnancy and at childbirth. Later, the women were asked to evaluate their children's behavior through a behavioral questionnaire. While each of the women were typical of Americans as a whole, in that they had measurable amounts of BPA in their system, women with high levels of BPA in their urine were more likely to have girls with greater behavioral problems. For each 10-fold increase in a mother's BPA level, the daughter scored at least six points lower on the behavioral questionnaire. These problems were still within a normal range of behavior, but were worse compared to other girls. Boys, by contrast, seemed unaffected by BPA levels. One reason may be because BPA is believed to mimic the effects of estrogen.

The researchers state that it shows even small shifts can have a dramatic impact on people. Recently, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) expressed concern about the potential effects of BPA on the brain in fetuses, babies, and young children. The FDA will continue to observe the effects of BPA exposure and support any effort to limit exposure in food and drink containers.

If your daughter suffers from behavioral problems and you believe that it may be due to BPA exposure during your pregnancy, could you sue? While you could sue, the important question is whether you could win. That is very difficult to answer because even though there is evidence linking BPA to certain manufactured bottles and cans, it is not yet conventional wisdom. Many other sources, including other pollutants, have been linked to intelligence and behavioral problems in children. Furthermore, you would need to be able to point out which containers from which manufacturers had the highest levels of BPA. You would need a clear memory of drink bottles and containers that you used while pregnant. If BPA is widespread among different products, finding the culprit that affected you may not be so easy. If, however, you think that several manufacturers are responsible, you could sue them jointly and severally in a products liability suit. Jointly and severally means that if they are found guilty, any one of them could be held responsible for paying you a monetary award. You would argue that the products had a manufacturing defect, a design defect, or an improper warning label that failed to warn you of the products' dangers. That defect led to your injury and your child's behavioral problems. Proving your case may be a challenge, but if you believe that the evidence is on your side, don't hesitate to hire an attorney and proceed.

Continue reading "Researchers Find That Mothers With High Levels of BPA in Their System More Likely to Have Daughters With Behavioral Problems" »

The pharmaceutical company Vivus resubmitted an application for its new obesity drug, Qnexa, with a limitation that it not be used by any woman under the age of 55 years old. The reason is fear that women of childbearing age could use the drug and end up having children with birth defects. Vivus was able to get approval of an early reapplication after making a deal with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Qnexa is made up of topiramate and phentermine. While phentermine is used for a limited period of time to speed weight loss, topiramate is the generic name for drugs such as Topamax or Topiragen, which are used to treat and prevent epileptic seizures. Antiepileptic drugs have been linked to certain birth defects, particularly when taken during the first trimester of pregnancy. Even phentermine can cause health problems if intermixed with certain anti-depressants such as Paxil (paroxetine) and Zoloft (sertraline), or monoamine oxidase inhibitors. The FDA originally expressed concerns about Qnexa's use of topiramate and rejected the previous application on October 28, 2010.

Now Qnexa will be for those over 55 who register as obese on the BMI scale, or those who are overweight with a BMI of 27. It is unknown whether older woman could suffer health problems as a result of taking the drug, though so far clinical studies have shown that it does not contribute to heart disease or elevate the heart rate.

Even though women of childbearing age won't have access to Qnexa, many antiepileptic drugs with topiramate still exist and are frequently prescribed by physicians. Earlier this year, the FDA reclassified topiramate as Pregnancy Category D because of the drug's potential to cause birth defects such as cleft lip or palette. If you take a medication with topiramate and have a baby with birth defects, you may be able to sue your physician and/or the manufacturer to obtain relief. If you took topiramate during your first trimester, not knowing that it could lead to birth defects, you could sue your physician for medical malpractice. You could argue that your physician had a duty to be reasonably informed of new medical information and to warn you, the patient, of potential dangers. Your physician failed to warn you, and thus breached this duty. This breach led to your injury, and the damage was your child's birth defect. You would need to provide solid evidence that topiramate, not another source such as genetics, was the cause of the birth defect. Given that multiple studies have implicated antiepileptic drugs, that should not be too difficult.

If you want to file a products liability lawsuit against the manufacturer, you would argue that the manufacturer had a duty to create as safe a drug as possible, breached that duty by creating a drug with a design defect that made it unreasonably dangerous, that breach caused your injury, and the damage was your child's birth defect.

Continue reading "Obesity Drug Manufacturer Plans to Make Drug Available Only to Women Over 55 Years Old" »

This blog has previously discussed mountaintop mining and the real likelihood that it could lead to birth defects. With mountaintop mining, the top of the mountain is stripped for coal mining, causing toxins such as mercury to leak into the air and waterways. Mountaintop mining is primarily conducted in Appalachian states, including West Virginia, Kentucky, and Tennessee. Since studies of the link between mountaintop mining and birth defects became public, opposition to the practice has grown. Most recently in West Virginia, a citizens group challenged an Alpha Natural Resources mining permit. The group cited studies about birth defects as the reason for their concern.

Attorneys for Ohio Valley Environmental Group and other groups requested that District Court Judge Robert Chambers block the permit for the Reylas Surface Mine. The attorneys claimed that the Army Corps of Engineers never considered the mine's impact on water quality, did not seek public opinion on aspects of the permit, and failed to consider scientific evidence of the bad health effects caused by mountaintop removal. Although the Environmental Protection Agency disapproved of the permit, it did not prevent its approval.

While the new mine is expected to create up to 100 jobs, it would also bury more than two miles of streams beneath a valley fill and runoff control structures. Attorneys filed with the court three recent studies co-authored by a public health researcher from West Virginia University School of Medicine. These studies found both higher rates of cancer and birth defects for those living near mountaintop mining operations.

If you have concerns about mountaintop mining causing birth defects, one option you have is to file for an injunction, as did the attorneys here. An injunction can either force the offending party to perform an act or (more commonly) force the offender to stop whatever action is causing the harm. If mountaintop mining is being planned for your area, you could seek a temporary injunction to prevent the permit from being enforced until a greater review could be done to determine the impact. If there already is mountaintop mining in your area and you believe it is responsible for your child's birth defect, you could file a toxic tort lawsuit against the offender. You would argue that the offender owed a duty of care to members of the community to operate as safely as possible according to the reasonable standards of the industry. The offender breached that duty by permitting harmful levels of pollutants to enter the air and water -- when it was possible to accomplish the same goals without polluting. The breach caused you injury, and the resulting damage was your child's birth defect. Under these circumstances, you would likely receive damages (a money amount) for medical bills, general pain and suffering, and more.

Continue reading "Citizens Groups in West Virginia Try to Block Permit for Mine That Could Lead to More Birth Defects" »

Just as there seemed to be reason to doubt the benefits of folic acid in a woman's diet, a new study has come out showing that women who take folic acid while pregnant are more likely to have toddlers with better vocabularies.

The study was conducted in Norway, where researchers focused on 40,000 women a few months into their pregnancies. Researchers gave each woman a survey that included questions such as the type of supplements they were taking over 12 weeks -- four before conception and eight weeks after. The researchers then checked back with the women when their children were around three years of age. They asked each woman how many words they could string together to form a sentence. Toddlers who could only say one word at a time were thought to have severe language delay. They represented just one in 200 toddlers. Of the toddlers included in the study, just four in 1,000 had severe language delays when their mothers took folic acid supplements, compared with nine in 1,000 born to mothers who took no supplements. Even after taking other factors into account, researchers agreed that folic acid may have played a role in reducing the number of children with delays. Folic acid has been shown to affect the growth of neurons necessary for mental development.

Whether to take folic acid (or eat foods fortified with folic acid, or "folate") is a personal decision for every woman thinking of getting pregnant. If a woman makes the choice to not take folic acid, knowing that the result could be a greater likelihood her child could be born with a birth defect, she could not successfully sue someone else over her decision. However, even women who take the recommended amount of folic acid might have a baby with birth defects. Birth defects or developmental delays could be caused by environmental pollution, common household products, or medical error. If you believe that your child's birth defect was caused by medical error during the birth, you should consider filing a medical malpractice suit against the physician responsible.

You would argue that the physician had a duty to you as a patient to use reasonable care according to the standards of the profession. The physician breached that duty by committing medical errors that were preventable. The breach led to an injury such as your child being deprived of oxygen in the birth canal, and the result is your child's birth defect. If multiple people were responsible for the injury, you could try suing them jointly and severally for malpractice. Jointly and severally means that if you prevail, any one of the responsible parties could be forced to pay the amount awarded by the jury, regardless of who was most at fault.

Continue reading "Researchers in Norway Find That Toddlers Whose Mothers Took Folic Acid Have Better Speaking Skills " »

It has long been conventional wisdom that women with a diet rich in folic acid will have healthy babies. Folic acid is believed to significantly reduce the likelihood of neural tube birth defects such as spina bifida, where the embryonic neural tube fails to close properly. Yet a new study in the journal Human Molecular Genetics challenges this assumption.

Researchers from Howard Hughes Medical Institute and the University of Colorado School of Medicine conducted a study using mice with certain genetic defects. What they found is that mice with these genetic mutations not only did not have a positive response to folic acid, but actually had adverse reactions.

The researchers determined that there were 800 to 1,000 genes involved in proper neural tube closure and focused the study on five that are required for proper development. Two of these key genes, called Grhl2 and Shroom3, affect the closure of the tube and the shape of neural cells. Mice with mutations in these genes were far more likely to have offspring with neural tube disorders. Researchers fed these mice either a controlled diet or a diet high in folic acid and then bred them. While they expected mice with mutated genes to not respond positively to the folic acid, they were surprised that some actually reacted negatively. Mice with mutations in L3P and Grhl2 reacted by producing more offspring with neural tube defects. Those with mutations in L3P and Shroom3 experienced greater embryonic losses, meaning that embryos died and were reabsorbed before the neural tube was formed. The researchers concluded that these events are significant because it showed that a lower incidence of birth defects among humans might be because some embryos with a genetic defect didn't survive, not just because folic acid helped close the neural tube. Researchers hastened to add that folic acid was still beneficial as a whole; but it was worth studying folic acid-resistant genes to find out why they are resistant.

Whether or not you take folic acid is a personal choice. If you choose to not take folic acid before and during your pregnancy, and as a result have a child with a neural tube defect, you would not succeed in a lawsuit against someone else. But what if your child's birth defect had nothing to do with whether you took folic acid? Neural tube defects have been traced to environmental pollution, such as toxins released by mountaintop mining. If you believe that environmental toxins caused your child's birth defect, you could file a toxic tort lawsuit against the offender -- provided you found evidence that this particular power plant, factory, or toxic waste dump was the cause.

If folic acid intake was the issue, you might succeed in filing a medical malpractice suit against your physician if it turned out that your physician knew of the risks and did not inform you, and you had no way of learning the information otherwise. As with a toxic tort, you would argue that your physician was negligent, that the negligence caused your injury, and the resulting damage was your child's neural tube defect.

Continue reading "Study Finds That Mice With Certain Genetic Mutations More Likely to Produce Offspring With Birth Defects After Taking Folic Acid" »

There is already evidence that women who take certain selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors (SSRIs) during their first trimester of pregnancy are more likely to have babies with birth defects. Now the FDA has issued a warning to women who take the antidepressant Celexa based on a new study. Not only could Celexa potentially cause birth defects, but women who take the maximum 60 milligrams per day could also experience abnormal changes in the electrical activity of the heart. These changes could result in potentially fatal abnormal heart rhythms. As a result of the study's findings, the FDA has lowered the approved maximum dosage to 40 milligrams per day.

SSRIs are frequently prescribed to treat depression, anxiety disorders, eating disorders, chronic pain, and post-traumatic stress disorder. Their use has been linked to several serious birth defects, including persistent pulmonary hypertension of the newborn (PPHN), heart defects, and higher rates of autism. The FDA cautions that those on Celexa with congestive heart failure, or a genetic predisposition to low potassium or magnesium, are especially susceptible to health problems and should be careful when taking the medication.

If your child was born with a birth defect that you believe may be traced to your usage of Celexa, you have the option of filing a products liability lawsuit against Forest Laboratories, Inc., the maker of Celexa, and/or a medical malpractice suit against your physician. In both cases, it is important that you have strong evidence linking the birth defect to Celexa. That is because certain birth defects could come from many different sources, including environmental pollutants, genetics, and personal health habits. If you are certain that no other factor is the predominant cause of your child's birth defect, you would likely argue that the manufacturer was strictly liable and your physician negligent.

With the manufacturer, you would argue that whether or not negligence was involved, it was strictly liable because Celexa had a design defect that caused health problems, when it could have been made safer, without losing its effectiveness, for roughly the same cost. The design defect caused you injury, and you suffered damage in the form of your child's birth defect. With your physician, you would argue that he or she had a duty to warn you about the health effects of Celexa, but failed to do so, even though your physician knew or should have known about the risks. As a result, you took the 60 milligram dosage and suffered injury, with damage in the form of your child's birth defect (and your health problems as well). In both cases, the most common form of relief is damages, or a money award, for medical bills, pain and suffering, and more.

Continue reading "FDA Warns Users of Celexa That Maximum Dosage Could Lead to Health Problems " »

A new study published in the journal Environmental Health has found a link between living near heavily trafficked areas and higher rates of premature birth. Researchers in Southern California studied the effects of traffic pollution in Los Angeles and reached the conclusion that pollution from traffic makes a significant difference in whether a baby is born prematurely.

Researchers monitored pregnant women who gave birth between June 2004 and March 2006. Each woman lived within five miles of a location already being evaluated to measure and monitor traffic-generated environmental toxins. The researchers then studied the women's exposure to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and other chemicals throughout all three trimesters of pregnancy. Factors such as weather and traffic patterns were taken into account. What they found was that these women experienced a higher than normal risk of preterm delivery between 6% and 21%. The explanation may be that when pregnant women inhale toxins, they trigger inflammation in the lungs, which in turn may cause other immune system reactions.

By conducting this study, researchers hope to spread information about the problems certain populations groups have with environmental pollution. They believe that community activists and legislators should use the information to come up with strategies to control and reduce air pollution caused by traffic.

Babies born prematurely (before 37 weeks of pregnancy) often suffer from many health problems and may require weeks of hospitalization. The cost of premature birth often places a huge burden on the family and society as a whole. If your baby was born prematurely and you believe that the cause was environmental pollution, you should consider filing a toxic tort lawsuit. In a situation where the pollution is caused by traffic, finding the "offender" isn't always easy. No one car is responsible for the pollution, and it would be impossible to sue all of the drivers on the street or freeway. One option you might have is one that environmental groups used not too long ago: file a lawsuit against an agency charged with monitoring and limiting pollution. Usually groups who use this option are looking for injunctive relief -- that is, to force the agency to do its job if evidence shows that it isn't -- rather than a monetary award. Suing a city, state, or federal agency could be complex and expensive. If you choose this option, you would be better off finding a nonprofit accustomed to representing people in your situation to help. Otherwise, if it turns out that the cause of the pollution is more specific, then you could sue the offender for injunctive relief, to get the offender to stop functioning until it reduces its pollution, or a monetary award.

Continue reading "New Study Finds That Pregnant Women Who Live in Areas With Heavy Traffic More Likely to Give Birth Prematurely" »

Birth defects may stem from many causes, but few would think that tattoos would be one of them. Yet health care professionals are warning women with tattoos that the ink carries traces of toxic metals, putting their health at risk and increasing the chance that their children could be born with birth defects.

The red inks used to create permanent tattoos may contain mercury, cadmium, or iron oxide. While these metals help give a tattoo its permanence, they have also caused allergic reactions and scarring that make tattoo wearers more sensitive to other sources of mercury, such as dental fillings or seafood with mercury traces. Red ink is not the only problem; other colors used for tattoo ink come from heavy metals such as lead and arsenic. So many people have suffered from health problems that in 2007, the American Environmental Safety Institute brought a lawsuit against two of the largest tattoo ink manufacturers. The lawsuit was successful, and today, these manufacturers must provide labels that warn of the dangers posed by certain inks. The only color that is truly safe to wear may be black. Black ink comes from carbon black and is rarely associated with sensitivity.

In addition to health risks posed by heavy metals in inks, tattoos may also result in hepatitis B or C, syphilis, HIV, and other serious illnesses. That is because many tattoo parlors don't properly sterilize their needles, leaving the next client to get infected.

Getting a tattoo is a personal choice. If you chose to get a tattoo, fully informed of the health risks, and later have a child with a birth defect, you would not succeed in suing the tattoo parlor for negligence -- unless it could be proven that the parlor used poorly sterilized equipment and the birth defects were traced to that. On the other hand, if you got a tattoo not knowing the health risks and had no reasonable way to learn, you might succeed in suing the tattoo parlor if it knew of the risks, but failed to warn you. Tattoo artists are not medical doctors and do not have a "duty to warn" clients of health risks, or even to inform themselves. However, you might argue that the tattoo artist had a duty of reasonable care toward you, which meant using all safety precautions when giving you a tattoo. That includes properly sterilized equipment and safe (as possible) inks.

You would then need to show that the toxic metals in your tattoo, as opposed to another source, resulted in your child's birth defect. This could be difficult if you got your tattoo years beforehand, although you might be able to point to a history of declining health before you got pregnant. Still, before filing a lawsuit, check the statute of limitations in your state to see whether it is too late for you to sue. If not, you would argue that the tattoo artist did not act reasonably, that the unreasonable behavior was the direct or proximate cause of your injury, and that you suffered damage in the form of declining health and/or your child's birth defect.

Continue reading "Heavy Metals Used in Tattoo Ink May Be a Source of Birth Defects" »

Last month, this blog mentioned studies out of Malaysia and the Netherlands linking older fathers to mental health disorders in children. Now a new study published in the online edition of the Journal of Medical Genetics adds fuel to the fire. The study examined 3,400 people with disabilities and concluded that older fathers were more likely to produce children with lower intelligence.

Specifically, researchers looked at genetic abnormalities that fathers might pass onto their offspring. Known as "copy number variations," the abnormalities include DNA sequences that are misplaced, missing, repeated, or inverted. Of the 3,400 people studied, 227 had new copy number variations that were not inherited. These variations are passed on more frequently by the father than by the mother. A narrower focus on 118 of the 227 people revealed that 90 had received the copy variations from their fathers. Three-fourths of the variations consisted of missing DNA sequences. Children with these genetic abnormalities frequently had IQs no higher than 70.

One culprit appears to be age: even two years older could mean the difference between having a child with normal intellect and a child with low intellect. The larger the age gap, the greater the risk of passing on genetic mutations. One scientist, Dr. Stephanie Sacharow, claimed that the reason was because "[o]ver time, men are more likely to have new mutations." However, she stressed that we cannot predict whether the child will have normal intellect based on the father's age, because most older fathers will have normal children. Nonetheless, older age creates a higher risk of having a child with lower intellect.

If your child has a lower IQ than is normal for a person his age, you naturally want to find the cause. An older parent is obviously one, as are certain genetic factors and personal health habits. But what if you and your spouse are young, have a clean genetic history, and have a healthy lifestyle? Then you may want to consider whether your child's lower IQ could be the result of outside factors. Studies have linked lower intellect to sources such as heavy use of pesticides on produce. If you believe that your child's IQ level could be linked to environmental toxins, you might want to consider filing a toxic tort lawsuit against the offender. First, you would need to identify who the offender is. It could be a power plant, or a factory, or a coal mining company. It could even be a local farm. You need strong evidence identifying at least one offender to have any hope of winning your case. If you believe that multiple offenders are responsible, you could sue them jointly and severally for a money award. This means that if they are all found to be at fault, any one of them could be responsible for paying you the entire money amount awarded by the jury. Once you have identified your offender, you would argue that the offender had a duty to act reasonably, breached that duty through careless behavior, the breach caused you injury, and you suffered damage in the form of your child's lower IQ.

Continue reading "Older Fathers More Likely to Pass On Genetic Abnormalities Linked to Lower IQs, Study Shows" »

Studies have shown that diets low on folic acid and high in fat can result in more birth defects and stillborns. Now a new study confirms that if you want to have a healthy child, you should eat healthier.

The study examined data from the National Birth Defects Prevention Study to compare 3,400 women whose babies were born with a cleft lip or palate, or a neural tube defect, and 6,100 women whose babies had no birth defects. Researchers conducted telephone interviews with the women, asking how frequently they had eaten certain foods before becoming pregnant. Researchers then determined how closely their diets followed the Mediterranean diet -- high on beans and low on dairy or fat -- and the Department of Agriculture Food Guide Pyramid, which is high in grains and low on fat and sweets. They concluded that women who followed either type of diet were far less likely to have babies with birth defects. Specifically, women whose diet closely fit the Food Guide Pyramid were half as likely to have a baby with anencephaly, 34% less likely to have a baby with cleft lip, and 26% less likely to have a baby with cleft palate.

Researchers hope that the results will compel more women to adopt a healthy diet, to the extent that they are able to do so. Others caution that women should not use this study to abandon folic acid, which has also proven to be a major preventative of birth defects.

If your child was born with one of the above birth defects, you should definitely consider whether diet or other personal habits were a factor, so that you can adjust accordingly if you decide to have more children later. However, you may also want to determine whether the birth defects could have an outside cause. Communities near toxic waste sites, or communities with high levels of mercury in the air and water, have higher rates of birth defects. If you conclude that your diet and personal habits are not the cause, you might consider filing a toxic tort lawsuit against the offender. You would argue that the offender owed you a duty of care to behave reasonably according to the standards of the industry. So if the offender is a power plant, the offender had a responsibility to follow applicable safety regulations. The offender breached that duty by failing behave reasonably (such as failing to follow safety standards). The breach caused you injury, and you suffered damage in the form of your child's birth defect. If you decide to sue for toxic tort, you can either seek damages (a money award for pain and suffering, medical bills, and more) or an injunction to prevent the offender from doing business until it has corrected its ways.

Continue reading "Pregnant Women Who Eat a Healthy Diet Are Less Likely to Have Children With Birth Defects" »

This blog has discussed some of the environmental challenges China faces as it grows more industrial. Now, a study has come out showing that the number of birth defects has jumped more than 70% between 1996 and 2010, due partially to increasing pollution resulting from industrialization.

In 1996, China reported a birth defect rate of 87.7 per 10,000 births in 1996. By 2010, the number of babies born with birth defects was 149.9 per 10,000 births. Hospital data shows that nearly half of these -- 49.1% -- consisted of neural tube defects, congenital heart disease, cleft lip with or without cleft palate, and other related defects. The result is that 1.2 million babies out of 20 million are born with birth defects and learning disabilities every year.

Some of the birth defects are thought to be caused by environmental factors, such as increasing industrial pollution. Others may be due to customs such as women delivering their babies at home instead of in the hospital. Currently, one-third of women, not including women in the most deprived rural areas, give birth at home, resulting in 9.3 deaths out of 1,000 live births. Many that don't die may suffer from developmental delays and other problems.

Babies born in the United States, by contrast, are less likely to be stillborn or suffer from birth defects. However, there are still far too many health risks at least partially due to our own industry. Power plants create pollution that can cause birth defects, as can strip mining for coal. Large industrial farms may cause birth defects through liberal use of pesticides.

If you believe that your child's birth defect may be due to in utero exposure to environmental toxins, you have the option of filing a toxic tort lawsuit against the offender. You would first need to isolate the source of the pollution, then argue that the offender owed you a duty of reasonable care according to the standards of the industry, that the offender breached the duty by behaving unreasonably, that the breach led to your injury, and that as a result, there was damage in the form of your child's birth defect.

Continue reading "China Reports a Substantial Increase in Birth Defects Over a 15-Year Period " »