Birth Defect Lawyer Blog

A new study has found that children's school supplies contain toxins known for causing health problems and birth defects. Of the supplies that were lab tested, 80% had elevated levels of phthalates, including products from some of the most popular brands, like Disney. The products, purchased in New York during a back-to-school time period, included vinyl lunchboxes, backpacks, 3-ring binders, and raincoats. The amount of phthalates found was seven times greater than the acceptable limit.

Phthalates are frequently used to soften plastic. They are also hormone disrupters that are hazardous even at low levels. Besides birth defects, pthalates have been linked to early puberty, infertility, asthma, obesity, diabetes, and cancer. Phthalates are capable of migrating from their original source. That means that due to phthalates' widespread use, they have been found in the air and dust in both home and school environments, and have even been found in breast milk. Children are the age group most widely exposed.

For the study, researchers examined 20 products total for evidence of six phthalates and four heavy metals. All products came from well-known stores, including Kmart and Payless. The product testing occurred at Paradigm Environmental Services in Rochester, New York. Researchers there found that of the products containing phthalates, 75% contained enough that the supplies would be banned if they were toys. More than half of the supplies tested (55%) contained multiple phthalates. Nowhere on the product label were phthalates listed. In addition to phthalates, 40% of school supplies contained heavy metals.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has expressed concern about phthalates' effect on children. The EPA has already determined that there is an association between phthalate exposure and human health. Furthermore, the EPA found that phthalate exposure during fetal development has resulted in certain male animal fetuses developing birth defects. Yet it is unclear what the long-term effects of phthalate exposure will yield. If your child uses school supplies filled with phthalates that can migrate to other surfaces, potentially everyone could get exposed to high levels of phthalates.

Yet if you were pregnant during this exposure, and later had another child with a birth defect, could you successfully sue the supplies' manufacturers? Possibly not. The only way you would be successful is if you established a strong correlation between your exposure to the supplies and your child's birth defect. Yet it is not clear how much exposure needs to take place, or when, in order for the effects to be felt. You would also need to establish that it was the school supplies -- and not one of countless other sources of phthalates to which you were exposed over the years -- that were the problem. If you are able to establish such a correlation, then you would have some strong evidence to back up your case. However, the unfortunate truth is that these days, phthalates are everywhere and could come from just about every product we use.

Continue reading "Study Finds That Toxins in Certain School Supplies Are at Dangerously High Levels" »

Back in July, this blog discussed research findings that showed pregnant women who received a vaccine for the H1N1 virus -- also known as "swine flu" -- were not more likely to have babies with birth defects than those who did not receive the vaccine. Now a new study has come out that finds pregnant women who receive regular seasonal flu vaccines are not at a greater risk of having babies with birth defects.

The study, conducted by researchers at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, examined 9,000 pregnant women who received a flu shot, and found that just 2% reported having a baby with a birth defect, such as a heart defect or a cleft lip or palate. The rate was the same as the one for pregnant women who did not have a flu shot.

Furthermore, researchers claim that getting a flu shot may actually help prevent stillbirth. That is because pregnant women are among the groups most vulnerable to becoming seriously ill from the flu, and to developing complications such as pneumonia. Such a condition can cause stress to the fetus and lead to an early delivery. Just .3% of women suffered a stillbirth after getting vaccinated, versus .6% of women who did not get a flu vaccine.

Despite the possible benefits of flu shots, many pregnant women continue to avoid them, especially during the first trimester. Yet when researchers examined the rate of birth defects in babies born to women who got flu shots in the first trimester, researchers found no increase of risk. While researchers cannot say with complete certainty that flu shots lead to less frequent incidents of miscarriage, the findings at least demonstrate that they do not pose an increased danger.

It is encouraging to hear that there is one less potential source of birth defects, and that by making a decision to protect their health, women aren't putting their future children in any danger. However, if your child has a birth defect and you believe that the cause was your flu shot, you still have the option to sue. The challenge would be proving causation, that the flu shot actually did cause your child's birth defect. To make a strong case for causation, you would need to provide credible evidence that flu shots actually did result in birth defects. Credible evidence would include peer-reviewed studies or witness testimony from experts in the field. Obviously studies such as this one would complicate your case. You would also have the complication of having to show that the flu shot, and not one of many other sources of birth defects, such as toxins, was the cause. If you presented a successful case, a jury could award you money in the form of both general and special damages.

Continue reading "New Study Finds Pregnant Women Who Receive Standard Flu Shots Are Not More Likely to Have Babies With Birth Defects" »

Researchers from the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute have found a "switch" that alters a gene that is essential for normal heart development. This "switch could explain why birth defects may vary for children born with DiGeorge syndrome.

DiGeorge syndrome is found in roughly one in 4,000 babies. Those born with DiGeorge syndrome typically have a DNA mutation on chromosome 22, but their defects may vary greatly. Birth defects can range from mild to severe, and include everything from congenital heart disease and cleft lip and palate, to learning disabilities and mild differences in facial features. Researchers noted that even identical twins with the same gene sequence could have markedly different results. They theorized that the reason for the difference could be due to environmental factors influencing the genetic material known as chromatin. Chromatin consists of DNA and other proteins combined in the cell nucleus. Researchers found that chemical marks sitting on the chromatin modified it to instruct when to switch genes "on" or "off."

A protein known as MOZ is responsible for operating the modifying "switch," and offers an explanation for the variety of defects observed in an animal model of DiGeorge syndrome. Researchers were able to demonstrate that MOZ regulates a significant gene known as Tbx1, in the 22q11, which is responsible for development of the heart and aortic arch. The amount of MOZ activity might determine the severity of defects found in children with DiGeorge syndrome. Sometimes the effects of MOZ levels in fetuses can be worsened by outside factors, such as the mother's diet. Reduced MOZ activity, along with excessive retinoic acid (a type of vitamin A), was shown to substantially increase the frequency and severity of DiGeorge syndrome.

It is not clear whether, apart from the mother's diet, there are any other external situations that contribute to DiGeorge syndrome. While there is some evidence that certain environmental toxins may cause mutations in the DNA, there is nothing conclusive to suggest that they are responsible for causing MOZ to "switch" genes on or off. However, there is more evidence that environmental toxins can cause other health problems. For instance, both BPA and phthalates are known endocrine disrupters still found in a wide variety of products. Exposure to these toxins may lead to cancer and other health problems in developing or fully grown humans, or cause birth defects in developing fetuses. If your child has a birth defect that you believe may be due to your exposure to BPA or phthalates while pregnant, you could file a toxic tort or product liability lawsuit. The challenge would be proving that one source is responsible, since the toxins are so widespread, and it is unclear how much exposure is needed -- over how many months or years -- to result in birth defects.

Continue reading "Researchers Locate the Gene "Switch" That Accounts for Variations in Birth Defects for Those With DiGeorge Syndrome" »

As part of the United States' efforts to continually improve relations with Vietnam, the government has announced a major cleanup effort of the chemical Agent Orange, which American war planes spread liberally throughout the Vietnam War. In addition to causing serious health problems, Agent Orange -- otherwise known as Dioxin -- has been linked to birth defects.

Over the course of a decade, the U.S. sprayed millions of gallons of Agent Orange over the jungles of Vietnam in order to destroy enemy cover. The new cleanup project is expected to cost an estimated $43 million and targets a 47-acre contaminated site. In order to eliminate the chemical from the site, workers are expected to dig more than 6.5 feet and then heat the soil at 635 degrees Fahrenheit in special containers. The Agent Orange would then break down into components that would pose no threat, such as oxygen and carbon dioxide. It is not clear whether the U.S. will use this treatment for other Agent Orange "hotspots" in Vietnam.

Limited exposure to Agent Orange has proven to be extremely harmful to one's health. The chemical has been linked to serious illnesses such as soft-tissue sarcoma, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, and multiple myeloma, as well as Parkinson's disease, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and several health disorders. Agent Orange can also change living genetic structures, resulting in birth defects such as cleft palate, club foot, and neural tube defects. While an estimated 150,000 million Vietnamese people have been born with severe birth defects, the chemical has also impacted Americans' health. As many as three million American servicemen were exposed, as well as numerous civilians, which means that many Americans born with birth defects might be able to trace them back to Agent Orange.

If you were born with a birth defect, or your child was born with a birth defect, that you believe was caused by Agent Orange exposure, you might consider filing a toxic tort lawsuit against the manufacturer. The greatest challenge would be proving causation -- that Agent Orange, as opposed to numerous other sources, was the cause of your birth defect. If you were born near an Agent Orange hotspot, making your case would not be so difficult. However, the further removed from Vietnam -- and from the Vietnam time period -- your birth, the more difficult your case becomes. You might need to provide case studies showing that your birth defect was the same as those of other people whose parents served in Vietnam.

You would also need to investigate whether there was a statute of limitations barring you from being able to file a lawsuit. A statute of limitations -- or a time limit -- may run either from the time of the injury or from the time you were first aware of the injury, depending upon the type of injury. No statute of limitations appears to exist for veterans who suffer from the ill effects of Agent Orange, and it is likely that no statute of limitations applies to their offspring, provided the parent can prove causation.

Continue reading "United States Embarks On $43 Million Effort to Clean Up Contamination from Agent Orange" »

In a new study, researchers determined that antiepileptics were the drugs most commonly prescribed to those newly diagnosed with bipolar disorder, as one of three lines of therapy. While their findings are promising in that they show how antiepileptics bring relief to bipolar patients, they are also cause for concern. Other studies have shown that certain antiepileptics increase the risk of birth defects if taken by a woman while pregnant, especially during the first trimester.

Researchers from the healthcare advisory firm Decision Resources examined the claims of more than 95,000 diagnosed, drug-treated bipolar disorder patients. They found that antiepileptics such as lamotrigine (also known by its brand name Lamictal) are popular first-line options for treating bipolar symptoms, and can be more tolerable than lithium, while valproic acid (also known by its brand name Depakote) can be effective for treating patients who experience acute manic episodes.

Physicians have also prescribed "atypical antipsychotics," or second-generation antipsychotic tranquilizing drugs, to treat bipolar disorder. The most common atypical antipsychotics prescribed were quetiapine (also known by its brand name Seroquel) and aripiprazole (also known by its brand name Abilify).

Both Abilify and Seroquel have been classified by the Food and Drug Administration as Pregnancy Category C, which means that studies conducted on animals have found evidence of harm to the fetus, but no controlled studies have yet been conducted on humans. Therefore, the benefit of the drug might outweigh the risk. However, Depakote has been classified as Pregnancy Category D, which means that there has been positive evidence of human fetal risk based on adverse reaction data from studies or investigations. A Category D drug could still have benefits in spite of the risks. This blog has discussed possible links between Depakote and birth defects.

If you were prescribed Depakote or one of the atypical antipsychotics while pregnant, and your child was born with a birth defect, you could file a lawsuit. You could file both a medical malpractice suit against your physician and a product liability suit against the manufacturer. For the medical malpractice suit, you would claim that your physician had a duty to inform you, the patient, of the possible problems associated with your course of treatment so that you could make an informed decision as to whether or not to proceed. By not informing you, your physician breached this duty. Because of the breach, you were injured through exposure to the harmful effects of the medication, and the result was your child's birth defect.

Continue reading "Study Finds That Antiepileptic Drugs Are Frequently Prescribed to Treat Bipolar Disorder" »

In a move that could prevent birth defects, cancer, and other health problems, Johnson & Johnson has announced that it will remove all traces of harsh chemicals from its adult articles and cosmetic products within 3.5 years.

Johnson & Johnson's announcement followed a period of sustained criticism from a collective of health and environmental groups. In 2009, the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics began pressuring the company to remove toxic chemicals from its products in order to protect both workers and consumers. The coalition would ultimately include more than 175 nonprofit groups representing 1.7 million people. These groups included such organizations as the Environmental Working Group and Physicians for Social Responsibility. Initially, Johnson & Johnson responded by pledging to remove toxins only from its baby products. The company recently stated that it was on track to reformulate these products by 2013. The adult products are on track to be reformulated by 2015.

Johnson & Johnson also created a website to provide consumers with information about what steps the company took to ensure that its products were safe. The information included questions asked to the manufacturers and suppliers about the composition of their ingredients.

The 2015 chemical phase out will include the chemicals 1,4 dioxane and formaldehyde, both of which are potential human carcinogens. Johnson & Johnson will also target other "problem" chemicals, such as triclosan, parabens, and phthalates, as well as fragrance ingredients not listed on labels. At the same time, the company states that it will permit chemicals that release formaldehyde when no safe alternative is available.

Johnson & Johnson's phase out of harmful chemicals is much needed and should, at the very least, be the standard for other manufacturers of similar products. Studies have shown that repeated exposure to harmful chemicals, whether you are working in a salon or just cleaning your home, is linked to health problems and -- if you are pregnant -- to birth defects.

If your child has a birth defect that you believe could be due to your repeated exposure to harmful chemicals while pregnant, you might consider filing product liability lawsuit. You would argue that the manufacturer was strictly liable for designing an unreasonably dangerous product. As a result of your exposure to the product while pregnant, you had a child with a birth defect. When suing for strict liability, you do not need to prove that the manufacturer was negligent -- only that the manufacturer created something unreasonably dangerous or did not provide a sufficient warning label. You might also sue the manufacturer -- and anyone in the chain of distribution -- for negligence, but you do not need to do so in order to have a successful case. Your greatest challenge would be proving causation -- that that specific product or products caused your child's birth defect. In order to make your case, you would likely be required to produce records, studies, and expert testimony.

Continue reading "Johnson & Johnson Agrees to Remove Harmful Toxins From Products By 2015" »

In what could be good news for expectant parents in the United States, a new study out of Europe has found that fewer babies are being born with heart defects. The numbers changed from seven in every 1,000 births in 2004 to six in 1,000 births in 2007, which represents a change of roughly 4% each year. Unfortunately, it is not clear to the team of European Union researchers why this change occurred.

The team reached its conclusions after studying data on the birth defects that was collected in 16 European countries between 1990 and 2007. Of the 47,000 cases of heart defects among the seven million births, the most severe defects did not decrease, while the milder heart defects did. Cases of hypoplastic left heart syndrome, where the left side of the heart fails to fully develop, remained steady at five per 10,000 births. However, less severe problems like "hole in the heart" syndrome experienced a decrease from 50 cases per 10,000 births in 2004 to 40 cases per 10,000 births in 2007. While the reduction is seemingly small, for a country with close to a million births each year, it is still a significant number.

One possible explanation for the improvement is that European women are beginning to incorporate more folic acid into their diet. Previous studies -- such as a recent one in Quebec, Canada -- have shown that countries that add folic acid directly to staple foods experience a decrease in the number of babies born with heart defects. While governments in the United States and Canada require folic acid to be added to foods such as cereals and breads, the European Union does not have such requirements. If the reduction in heart defects can be linked to an increase in folic acid consumption, that would mean U.S. families are already reaping the benefits due to our country's requirements for folic acid fortification.

At the same time, even if the rate of babies born with heart defects has been reduced, it is still too high. For an individual family, it means painful procedures and high medical costs throughout the child's life. While some birth defects can be traced to a lack of folic acid, others can be linked to genetics or environmental factors. Babies born with heart defects have been linked to unhealthy amounts of mercury in the air and water, such as from coal-burning power plants or mountaintop removal mining.

If your child was born with a heart defect, and you believe it was due to your exposure to dangerous toxins like mercury during your pregnancy, you have the option of filing a toxic tort lawsuit against the suspected offender. You would argue that the defendant -- for instance, a power plant -- had a duty to all people who could foreseeably be affected to take reasonable measures to follow health and safety regulations. The offender breached that duty by violating health and safety regulations. You were injured by the breach through exposure to the toxins that resulted, and the damage was your child's birth defect.

Continue reading "European Study Finds That Number of Babies Born With Heart Defects Decreased" »

In the past, this blog has discussed how toxic levels of air pollution can not only adversely affect health, but can also lead to birth defects. It is the responsibility of manufacturers and plant owners to take reasonable steps to ensure that their businesses emit as few harmful toxins as possible. Presently, the owners of a Chevron refinery in Richmond, California have come under scrutiny for failing to take those measures.

Recently, the refinery was the source of a massive fire, which polluted the air and sent hundreds of local residents to the hospital. The toxins emitted from the fire just drew attention to the refinery's spotty health and safety record. Ranking among California's top 10 emitters of toxic chemicals, the refinery has been cited by regulators for violating air regulations 93 times in the past five years. Even more of a concern, the violations have increased nearly every year, from 15 violations in 2007 to 23 in 2010 and 2011.

Richmond's residents are no strangers to emergency situations like the refinery fire. They have experienced shelter-in-place orders -- which involve staying in their homes and keeping doors and windows closed -- before. The latest emergency only served to increase their distrust of the Chevron refinery. What is more, Jason Corburn, a public health professor at the University of California, noted that residents believed that the daily air quality problems caused by the refinery did not show up on Contra Costa County air monitors. A recent attempt by Chevron to expand its facility was blocked in court after community groups protested.

If your child has a birth defect that you believe was due to your breathing toxic air while pregnant, you have the option for suing for relief. You could either seek an injunction -- as it appears the Richmond residents did in order to prevent Chevron's expansion -- or you could sue for damages, or a money award. An injunction is an equitable remedy, which means that it is issued by a judge rather than a jury. Many people seeking an injunction might first seek a temporary restraining order and then a preliminary injunction before the court would consider imposing a permanent injunction. Injunctions often serve to block harmful activity, or at least activity that is potentially harmful. An injunction against a refinery like Chevron's might prevent expansion, or it might prevent Chevron from operating altogether, depending upon the goal of the party seeking injunction.

By contrast, damages awards are issued by a jury. In both cases, you would need to provide a clear link between the source's damaging practices and your child's birth defect. If you seek damages in your lawsuit, a jury might award you both general and special damages. General damages are those that are frequently difficult to calculate, while special damages are for specific items such as medical bills. If the source's behavior is grossly negligent or worse, a jury might also award punitive damages.

Continue reading "Chevron Oil Refinery Fire Sheds Light on History of Health and Safety Violations" »

Recently, this blog discussed the slow advancement of the Safe Chemicals Act, which passed a Senate committee and is now headed for the full Senate floor for a vote. Yet while people await the outcome of this Act, which would be the biggest update of the Toxic Substances Control Act in 36 years, it is easy to forget that actions toward stricter chemical regulation are also happening at the state level. Specifically, California is considering its own Safer Consumer Products Act.

California's efforts began in 2008 with what was known as the Green Chemistry Initiative, where the State Department of Toxic Substances Control invited chemical companies, manufacturers, activists, and any other parties to discuss better ways of thinking about chemicals on a systematic level. The current proposed law would require manufacturers of certain products sold in the state to identify safer alternatives to roughly 3,000 chemicals known to be harmful to both the public health and to the environment. The state's effort has generated the support of several corporations and large-scale health care providers like Kaiser Permanente.

Even so, some have complained about the slow pace of the Safer Consumer Products Act, and about the unfulfilled promises of the Green Chemistry Initiative. While some policy initiatives are moving forward, four of them -- such as accelerating the quest for safer products and conducting more chemical and manufacturing industry education -- have yet to be implemented in any way. Nonetheless, given the friendlier attitudes in California toward chemical regulations, it is likely that the Safer Consumer Products Act will receive a full hearing and be passed in some form. Then millions of Californians will have less to fear from unregulated chemicals causing health problems and birth defects.

Until the Act's passage becomes a reality, those living in California (as well as anywhere else in the U.S. without strong chemical regulations) have the option of filing a lawsuit if they believe that unregulated toxic chemicals caused their health problems or their child's birth defect. Depending upon the source, you could either file a product liability lawsuit or a toxic tort lawsuit. Both are lawsuits in tort, and require nearly the same elements of proof: a duty, a breach of duty, an injury caused by the breach, and damage resulting from the injury. The only difference is that in a product liability lawsuit, the offender could be found liable even if the breach was not due to negligence. Product liability lawsuits are for when the source of the breach is a specific product you have purchased, such as a type of household cleanser. Toxic tort lawsuits are for when an exterior source -- such as a chemical plant -- is the cause of your toxic exposure.

Continue reading "California Is Seeking to Pass Its Own Safer Chemicals Act" »

For those who believe that mountaintop removal mining might be causing their health problems or birth defects, a new study could give their claims a boost. The study from Duke and Baylor universities found that mountaintop removal harmed the water quality even for people who lived far downstream from the mine. This is especially significant in light of the fact that a federal district court judge recently struck down the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) water quality guidelines for mining in Appalachia.

For the study, the scientists created maps in order to examine the scope of mining and the degree of water quality impairment in a 7,500 square area covering the coalfields of Southern West Virginia. Researchers found that 22% of the streams in region drain areas were vulnerable to being polluted through mining. Furthermore, even though nearby valley fills had buried 480 miles of streams within the examined area, the actual pollution runoff from mountaintop removal stretched four to six times that far. Researchers noted that this suggested that the individual mines were contributing to the overall pollution and that officials needed to pay more attention to the cumulative impacts of surface coal mining.

Meanwhile, Judge Reggie B. Walton of the District Court of District Columbia issued a July 31, 2012 ruling striking down the EPA's water quality guidelines for mountaintop removal mining. Judge Walton claimed that the legality of the EPA's Final Guidance was at issue, and that the EPA overstepped its statutory authority, as well as infringed upon state regulators' authority. The EPA's Final Guidance, issued July 21, 2011, proposed to ensure adequate effluent characterization, conduct adequate reasonable potential analyses, and set water quality-based effluent limits, among other things. The National Mining Association, representing the mining industry, cheered Judge Walton's ruling, while the EPA promised to review his decision.

If you live within a few miles of a mountaintop mine, and have a child with a birth defect, Judge Walton's ruling should concern you. Despite studies showing how damaging mercury and other toxic metals from the mines can be to human health, the judge still struck down the EPA's guidelines as excessive. If the EPA is unable to perform its duties, at least the bright side is that the new study could help you establish that your health problems or your child's birth defects were caused by mountaintop removal mining. Before, while someone who lived within a mile of a mine could have made a very strong case, someone who lived farther away might have had more difficulty proving that he or she was directly or proximately affected by the mountaintop removal. Now, you could use this study as evidence that mountaintop removal causes problems far and wide. That could make it easier for you to make the case that you were injured by exposure to the mine's toxic metals while pregnant, and that the damage was your child's birth defect.

Continue reading "New Study Finds That Toxins From Mountaintop Mining Affect Water Quality Even Far Downstream" »

The American Heart Association (AHA) has issued new recommendations for children born with heart defects. The AHA recommends that children with these defects will need earlier screenings for developmental disorders. New research shows that children born with certain types of heart defects have more difficulty with school, behavioral issues, and speech and language problems due to development issues affecting the brain.

The research, performed by the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, looked at data from 1966 to 2011. Researchers found that those born with more serious birth defects, requiring heart surgery soon after birth, or making the baby appear bluish as a result of poor circulation, were the most likely to have longer-term problems. This was especially true if the heart disease was accompanied by premature birth, seizures, developmental delays as a baby, or a suspected genetic abnormality.

Researchers urged parents of children with these conditions to have their physicians conduct evaluations for neurodevelopmental, psychosocial, and behavioral and emotional issues. While a cardiologist could continue to handle the heart aspects, other professionals were needed to help the child with the other developmental issues. Children should be reevaluated between the ages of 12 months and 24 months, 3 to 5 years of age, and 11 to 12 years of age. As time goes on, the child might require special education, speech therapy, and occupational therapy.

These interventions, while likely to have a positive impact on your child's development, are also likely to be expensive. Many families find themselves unable to afford the necessary level of care without going into deep debt or having to sacrifice something else important, such as food or the electric bills.

If you believe that your child's heart ailments are the result of an external source -- such as your taking prescription medications or being exposed to toxic pollutants while pregnant -- you could file a lawsuit against the offender. In the case of the prescription drugs, the offenders could include both the drug's manufacturer, and the physician who prescribed it. You would sue the drug manufacturer under the theory of product liability, arguing that the pharmaceutical company should be strictly liable for designing an unreasonably dangerous drug that caused your child's heart defect and other developmental problems. You would sue your physician for medical malpractice, claiming that he or she had a duty to inform you of the drug's harmful effects, yet failed to do so, even though the information was reasonably within his or her reach.

If the offender is a source known for its pollution, such as a power plant or a mountaintop mine, you would file a toxic tort lawsuit. You would argue that the owner acted negligently by allowing such high levels of toxic emissions, and the result was that your child was born with a birth defect. As usual, the greatest challenge is finding sufficient proof to make your case. However, if you succeed, a jury might grant you a monetary award large enough to suit your child's needs.

Continue reading "American Heart Association Warns That Babies With Heart Defects Need Earlier Screening For Developmental Disorders" »

In its long road to becoming law, the Safe Chemicals Act has cleared its first hurdle, passing out of the Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee on a party-line vote. If the Safe Chemicals Act passes the full Senate and a version is signed into law by President Obama, it would be the first time in 36 years that federal law on toxic substances had received a major update.

As this blog has discussed in the past, supporters of the Safe Chemicals Act are concerned that the current Toxic Substances Control Act -- passed in 1976 -- does not do enough to regulate the chemicals that we are exposed to every day. They point out that even common household cleaners contain dangerous levels of toxins that current law fails to regulate. These toxins have been linked to cancer, birth defects, and other health problems.

The Safe Chemicals Act would provide several new safeguards against toxins. It would require the chemical industry to develop and provide information about a chemical's health and safety to the public in order to remain on the market. If the industry failed to do so, the chemical would be prohibited from use. The Act would also require the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to use the best available science in order to make its recommendations. Another significant part of the Act would be the requirement that the EPA identify "toxic hot spots," where local communities are under significant stress from toxins, and carry out plans designed to reduce the toxin levels.

If the Act becomes law, it will likely have undergone several changes along the way. However, it is hoped that the core of the Act, with its stricter requirements for chemical manufacturers, will remain intact. The Act has the potential for widespread benefits, as even people who do not live in toxic hot spots might still have high levels of harmful chemicals in their bloodstream.

While the Safe Chemicals Act might not become law for several months, you can still take action if you were adversely affected by a chemical manufacturer. If your child was born with a birth defect that you believe is linked to the chemicals in your household and around you, you could file a product liability suit or a toxic tort suit against the offender. For the chemicals in your household, you would file a product liability suit against the manufacturer, stating that it was strictly liable for designing chemicals that were unreasonably dangerous and that caused damage to your child. If you wish to sue an external source that emits chemicals, you would file a toxic tort lawsuit, claiming that the source was negligent and failed to follow reasonable safety regulations. As always, the challenge is proving that the specific chemicals in your household, or the outside entity, were the cause, rather than another source.

Continue reading "The Safe Chemicals Act Passes Out of Senate Committee, Heads to the Senate Floor" »