Birth Defect Lawyer Blog

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is set to provide millions in federal funds to the San Joaquin Valley in California for the purpose of cleaning up the air and improving public health. The San Joaquin Valley is located in the central part of the state, extending from south of Sacramento to the Tehachapi Mountains in Los Angeles County and includes several inland cities like Stockton and Bakersfield. It is home to both agriculture and the petroleum industry, and over the years, has been plagued by rising levels of air pollution caused by diesel- and gasoline-fueled vehicles and agricultural activities.

Approximately $5 million of the funds will pay for cleaner trains throughout the San Joaquin Valley, including a train operating between the Port of Stockton and Lodi. Another $16 million will be provided to slash diesel emissions and improve air quality not just in the San Joaquin Valley, but also throughout the state of California. Residents of the San Joaquin Valley suffer from one of the nation's highest rates of asthma. Overall, it is estimated that 9,000 Californians die prematurely each year due to exposure to fine particle pollution like diesel exhaust. The federal government is working with state and local officials to develop new clean air technologies that could make a significant dent in the problem.

EPA officials believe that as a result of these grants, especially the $16 million one, 210 tons of particulate matter will be removed -- the equivalent of 1,000 trucks from the road -- as well as 4,500 tons of nitrogen oxides and 130,000 tons of carbon dioxide emissions.

This is a promising development for any resident of the San Joaquin Valley in California. Hopefully the EPA is taking similar steps in other problem areas throughout the country. In the meantime, the health risks for people living in the San Joaquin Valley remain significant. Certain vehicle emissions have been linked to birth defects, such as carbon monoxide. A pregnant mother's repeated exposure to carbon monoxide may increase the risk that her baby could be born with brain damage, congenital heart defects, reduced birth weight, or that it could be stillborn.

If your child has a birth defect that you believe is due to air pollution in your area, you have some options for relief. One would be to file a lawsuit against the entity responsible for ensuring that proper air quality standards are met, such as the EPA or a similar state agency. That option would be best if the cause of pollution is so diffuse (such as thousands of cars traveling the freeway each morning) you cannot sue an individual offender. However, if you can identify the source of the pollution, such as a factory or a power plant, you could file a toxic tort lawsuit directly against the offender, claiming that the offender acted negligently in allowing harmful levels of toxins to pollute the air.

Continue reading "EPA Provides $21 Million to San Joaquin Valley to Help Clean Up Polluted Air" »

A new study out may assure pregnant mothers with asthma: if they take regular asthma medication, their risk of having a baby with birth defects increases only slightly.

The study, published in an upcoming edition of Pediatrics, examined 9,600 infants born to mothers with asthma. Of the total, 2,900 were born with birth defects and 6,700 were developmentally normal. The mothers of these infants were then asked to recall the types of medications that they took one month before and during the pregnancy. Two types of asthma medications are typically used: bronchodilators and anti-inflammatories. Anti-inflammatory drugs include inhaled and oral steroids and are meant to keep asthma symptoms under control.

While for most of the birth defects, researchers found no connection between them and use of medication, researchers did find a slight uptick in very rare birth defects. These include esophageal atresia (incomplete development of the esophagus), anorectal atresia (missing or blocked opening of the anus), and omphalocele (intestines or other organs protruding through the belly button. The risk of esophageal atresia more than doubled for pregnant women who used bronchodilators. Likewise, the risk of anorectal atresia more than doubled for those who used anti-inflammatory medications. Risk of omphalocele quadrupled regardless of the medication used.

However, researchers emphasize that the medications might not be responsible for the birth defects so much as the mother's type of asthma. They urge pregnant women to continue taking asthma medication, since asthma can sometimes get worse during pregnancy. If the mother does not get enough oxygen, that affects the fetus. The asthma rate for expectant mothers is between 4 and 7%.

If your child has a birth defect that you believe may be the result of the asthma medication you take, could you sue the pharmaceutical company for relief? The answer is yes -- but to be successful, you would need to show that the medication was not only unreasonably dangerous, but also that it was possible to create a safer alternative without substantially changing the price or effectiveness. You would also need to show that the birth defect was directly connected to the medication. If your child has one of the very rare birth defects described above, you should be able to make a pretty good case that the medication was the cause. You could then file a product liability lawsuit against the pharmaceutical company, arguing that the company was strictly liable for your child's birth defect because (1) the company had a duty to produce safe medication; (2) the company breached its duty by creating unsafe medication; (3) the breach led to your injury (exposure to unsafe medication) and the damage was your child's birth defect.

Continue reading "Pregnant Women Who Use Asthma Medication Not Substantially More Likely to Have a Child Born With Birth Defects" »

A new study has found that women who drink even small amounts of alcohol during pregnancy risk having a baby with birth defects or other growth issues.

The study, published in the journal Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research, was conducted by researchers from University of California, San Diego. Researchers used a sample of 992 women with an average age of 31 years old. Their goal was to get accurate information about the women's alcohol history and the physical features of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. To do so, the researchers observed the women's patterns of drinking, such as how many drinks they had per week, whether they binge drank, and how many drinks they had total.

What researchers found was that while women who drank higher doses of alcohol had a higher risk of having a baby with fetal alcohol syndrome, high dosage was not the only determiner. Rather, the most significant link between alcohol and Fetal Alcohol Syndrome was during the second half of the first trimester: with every drink, there was an increased risk of the fetus having Fetal Alcohol Syndrome features that ranged from 12% to 25%. Such features include reduced birth length, reduced birth weight, microcephaly (the circumference of the head is too small, leading to poor brain development), thin vermillion border (thin upper lip), and a smooth philtrum (as opposed to a normal one, which has a small depression). Researchers stated that as a precaution, pregnant women should avoid alcohol completely. They warned that several medicines, such as cough syrup, contain alcohol.

As noted above, Fetal Alcohol Syndrome is brought on by parental habit rather than something beyond our control, such as environmental toxins or prescription drugs with unknown side effects. Therefore, if your child were born with the features described above and you filed a lawsuit, you would most likely be unsuccessful. However, there are other causes of low birth weight and growth issues, and many are environmentally related. If you believe that your child's problems are external, you might be able to successfully sue the offender, be it a factory, a power plant, or a coal mine. To do so, you would need to provide strong evidence that the offender was the cause, as opposed to another source. If you are able to do so, you could argue that the offender owed a duty to you and the general community, breached that duty by failing to follow health and safety regulations, the breach injured you, and the damage was your child's birth defect. There are several things that we can do to prevent birth defects, including eating right, not smoking, and avoiding alcohol. However, when birth defects are caused by things beyond our control, that is the time to find an experienced attorney to help us get relief.

Continue reading "New Study Claims That Even Slight Amounts of Alcohol During Pregnancy Could Result in Birth Defects" »

January 8th through the 14th was Folic Acid Awareness Week, designed to help expectant and would-be mothers understand the benefits of folic acid for their child's development in utero. Folic acid is a B-vitamin that helps with cell growth. Doctors and other promoters of Folic Acid Awareness Week emphasize that when a mother takes folic acid during the first trimester of her pregnancy, the baby's risk of being born with neural tube birth defects, such as spina bifida, is dramatically reduced.

These days, many foods have been fortified with folic acid, such as pastas or breakfast cereals. Many women take a multivitamin in addition to eating fortified foods, though studies have suggested that this may not be necessary because the fortified foods provide enough folic acid for the baby's developmental needs. Since the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) began requiring foods to be fortified, the number of babies born with neural tube defects in the United States was reduced by 36%. Nonetheless, many women, especially in minority communities, remain unaware of the benefits of taking folic acid. The Folic Acid Awareness campaign was meant to help these women understand not just the benefits of taking folic acid, but that having a healthy diet during the first weeks of pregnancy is critical.

If your child has a birth defect that you believe may be due to a lack of folic acid during your pregnancy, can you sue for relief? You could, but your success would depend upon several factors.

First, did your physician inform you of the need to take folic acid to prevent birth defects? Physicians have a duty to inform patients about any substantial risks that might cause a patient to reconsider a procedure or course of treatment, but it is not clear whether this duty extends to informing patients of the benefits of folic acid. If you felt that you could make a good case, you would argue that your physician committed medical malpractice by not informing you. You would argue that your physician was negligent because (1) the doctor had a duty to inform you of the benefits of folic acid; (2) the doctor failed to inform you, thus breaching the duty; (3) the breach resulted in your injury (not taking folic acid and your child not getting enough for his or her development); and (4) the damage was your child's birth defect.

Second, you might have to prove that you did not know, nor should have reasonably known, about the benefits of folic acid on your own, despite a widespread media campaign or other conditions.

Finally, you would need to provide evidence that the birth defect was not primarily the result of another factor, such as genetics, lifestyle, or environmental toxins. If you can do this, your lawsuit would have a high chance for success.

Continue reading "Folic Acid Awareness Week Meant to Help More Mothers Understand Benefits of a Good Diet During Early Pregnancy" »

This blog has previously discussed the environmental hazards of a particular type of coal mining known as mountaintop mining. Mountaintop mining results in stripping mountains of a significant part of their summit or ridge in order to obtain coal or other minerals. In the process, harmful elements such as mercury are released into the air and water -- resulting in health problems and birth defects in the local communities. While regular coal mines may not have that effect, they still have enough health issues associated with them to be a concern to the local community.

The state of Indiana is about to open the Bear Run coal mine in the southwestern part of the state. Bear Run will be the largest coal mine in the eastern United States, with the potential to produce 8-12 million tons of coal each year.

However, many are concerned that Bear Run would be the least-regulated coal mine in the nation. While the 27 largest coal mines in the United States must have an individual permit, Indiana simply requires Bear Run to follow the guidelines of a general permit. An individual permit would have required Bear Run's owner to conduct a study of the mine's waste water and of nearby waterways. Then, based upon the information, the state would have issued a permit requiring certain limits on toxins and periodic water testing. Instead, while Bear Run's owner might reap the benefits of not having to comply with stricter standards, the local community and water life might be at risk.

Without a waste water analysis, the Environmental Protection Agency claims that it would be difficult to know which pollutants are coming out of the mine or how they would affect aquatic life in nearby rivers and streams. General permit rules do not require monitoring of several toxic elements, including mercury, arsenic, sulfate, and lead.

Toxic minerals such as mercury are responsible for causing several different birth defects. If you live near a poorly regulated coal mine and believe that mine is responsible for your child's birth defect, you might consider filing a toxic tort lawsuit. One question is what role your state's environmental regulations play in your situation. If your state has very few regulations for coal mines, and the local coal mine followed those regulations, does that mean the coal mine is off the hook even if federal environmental regulations are much stricter? Not necessarily.

Although federal and state governments each have their own laws, under the Constitution's Supremacy Clause, federal law trumps in cases where both sets of laws conflict. If the federal law leaves no room for individual states to provide their own interpretation, then federal law trumps. If federal law leaves some wiggle room for the states (such as "This Act does not prohibit stricter regulations"), then state laws might be permitted to depart a little from federal law. If it seems as though the federal purpose might be frustrated by state law, federal law triumphs.

So if you believe that your state's regulations are in direct conflict with federal law, you might argue this in your lawsuit, stating that federal law would not have permitted the environmental toxins that led to your child's birth defect.

Continue reading "New Indiana Coal Mine May Not Be Regulated Well Enough to Prevent Health Problems, Birth Defects" »

People might have second thoughts about having orange juice with breakfast after learning that some imported orange juice contains carbendazim, a fungicide known for causing birth defects and reproductive problems. While carbendazim is still used in other countries, it has been banned in the United States. At the same time, one medical expert claims that the amount of carbendazim is not enough to be harmful.

The fungicide came to the attention of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) by way of a report from Coca Cola (producer of Minute Maid and Simply Orange juices) stating that carbendazim had been found in that company's orange juice and also that of PepsiCo (which owns Tropicana). How the carbendazim came to be in the juices has not been explained. Since a quarter of the U.S. orange juice is imported from Brazil and Mexico, federal government inspectors have gone to ports in California and Florida to conduct tests.

One expert, Dr. Richard Besser, states that even if you drank large quantities of orange juice, there is not enough carbendazim to impact your health. Nonetheless, he finds it concerning that the carbendazim slipped past inspectors.

Even if your orange juice did not contain carbendazim, there is always the chance that it could contain another harmful chemical. Alissa Hamilton, author of the book "Squeezed: What You Don't Know About Orange Juice," claims that so-called "fresh" orange juice could be even worse than concentrate. It is "heavily produced" and kept in storage for a year. After the juice has been stripped of volatile flavor-providing chemicals, orange juice companies hire flavor companies to create "flavor packs" to make the orange juice taste fresh. And that is just orange juice. Grape juice, much of which is imported from China, often contains arsenic.

If your child has a birth defect, could you successfully sue the orange juice manufacturer, claiming that carbendazim and other chemicals were the cause? You might succeed, but to do so, you would need to provide evidence that -- despite experts' claims -- the level of carbendazim was enough to be truly harmful. Or you could argue that carbendazim, when combined with chemicals added for flavor, harmed your child while he or she was in utero.

In order to make a successful case, you would also need to provide evidence that there were no other causes of your child's birth defect, such as genetics, lifestyle, or even other commonly used products, such as household cleaners. Once you have effectively ruled out these other causes, you can make the case that the manufacturer was either negligent (thus allowing carbendazim-tainted orange juice to slip into production), or that it created an unnecessarily dangerous product (a combination of both carbendazim and other chemicals in the orange juice), or both.

Continue reading "Imported Orange Juice Found to Contain Chemical Known for Causing Birth Defects" »

Doctors in Iraq are claiming that as a result of American chemical weapons, babies born in Fallujah are being born with "catastrophic" levels of birth defects and abnormalities. Fallujah was the scene of heavy gunfire during a U.S. siege in 2004, one year after the start of the Iraq War. Among the weapons used during the siege and counter-insurgency were snipers and cluster bombs, resulting in 6,000 people dead in the immediate aftermath.

Now doctors claim that the chemicals in the bombs, such as depleted uranium and white phosphorus, have led to new generation of victims. The birth defects range from congenital heart disease to severe physical abnormalities. One pediatric specialist at the Fallujah General Hospital reported nearly 700 babies born with birth defects since October 2009. Several of the conditions were so unusual that doctors could not even describe them. They usually resulted in the babies dying within 20 to 30 minutes of birth.

Doctors gathered scientific proof of the chemical contamination by collecting hair samples from 25 parents of babies born with birth defects. The resulting report found that enriched uranium exposure from contaminated air, soil, and water was the primary or related cause of the birth defects. In addition to birth defects, the rate of childhood cancer increased "12-fold" between 2004 and 2010.

While in the United States, we have never experienced warfare like that in Fallujah, it is possible that American soldiers involved in the siege were also affected by contaminated air and water, though to a lesser extent. The result could be an increase of birth defects at home. Even if that were not the case, several areas in the United States have been contaminated by toxic waste or harmful leaks that have resulted in higher rates of birth defects.

If you were on active duty in Fallujah and later had a child with a birth defect, could you sue the makers of U.S. chemical weapons? You could, though your path might be difficult. First, you would need to establish that exposure to these weapons was the cause, as opposed to a different cause, such as genetics or lifestyle. You would also need to consider whether a statute of limitations could bar you from suing the chemical manufacturer. Every state has a statute of limitations -- the amount of time from the date of the injury for when you can file a claim. If you wait too long, you will no longer be able to bring a claim. However, what is the statute of limitations, if any, on an injury that happened overseas?

Continue reading "Doctors in Iraq Claim That U.S. Chemical Weapons Responsible for Birth Defects in Fallujah" »

A new study has found that industrial contaminants in "pockets" of soil throughout upstate New York are responsible for birth defects such as congenital heart defects, low birth weight, and other abnormalities. State Department of Health researchers found that babies born to women who lived in a 70-block area of Endicott, New York, near a former IBM manufacturing plant, had greater health problems than babies in the rest of the state.

The chemical contaminants responsible were trichloroethylene and tetrachloroethylene, both solvents widely used for industrial purposes. These contaminants have been linked to health problems such as neurological disorders and cancer. While previous studies have focused on contaminants passed via well water, this one recognized that the source could be soil vapor. The contaminants were the result of a 1979 chemical spill at the IBM plant. Soil vapor contaminants were detected as early as the late 1990s, and by 2002, IBM began routinely testing the air for contaminants.

The current study acknowledged that the link between soil vapor contaminants and birth defects was not clear cut. Only this past September did scientific groups successfully push the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish risk values of inhalation exposure to trichloroethylene. Furthermore, soil vapor problems are often difficult because scientists have problems determining the level of exposure, or what other things the person was exposed to. Still, scientists think that this study on contaminants in oil vapor might finally provide an answer for why Endicott's babies were twice as likely to have a heart defect and 20% more likely to be underweight than other New York babies.

This blog recently discussed a situation where a New York City teacher sued the school board for not disclosing that the school environment was contaminated. As with the situation here, the contaminant was trichloroethylene and the school was on a former industrial site. If you find yourself in a similar situation, you may want to file a lawsuit yourself. You could file a lawsuit against someone in a position to warn, as the New York teacher did, or you could file a toxic tort lawsuit directly against the wrongdoer, as many people living in Endicott have done from 2008 onward. Endicott residents argue that contamination has caused illnesses and deaths, damaged property values, and hurt business.

In your situation, you could make similar arguments, depending upon the evidence. Your biggest challenge would be making the link between the contaminants and birth defects, especially if the contaminants were in soil vapor. Otherwise, you would argue that the wrongdoer, the one responsible for the contamination, acted without reasonable care, resulting in your injury (exposure to contaminated soil) and damage (your health problems and/or your child's birth defect). Since contaminants frequently cover a wide area, affecting large numbers of people who live and work there, you might succeed in forming a class action lawsuit. In a class action suit, instead of several individuals filing lawsuits, they are all merged into one large suit with a class "rep" who acts as the lead plaintiff.

Continue reading "Soil Vapors in Upstate New York Believed Responsible for Rise in Birth Defects" »

Last year, the San Francisco Bay Area experienced record levels of rainfall. More was expected this year, but instead, November through January have been bone dry. While the dry spell may end soon, the conditions have led to high levels of air pollution that could cause health problems and a greater likelihood of birth defects.

The dry weather has persisted due to a high-pressure system that has been refusing to let storms settle in the Bay Area. As a result, car exhaust and smoke from factories and chimneys have not been cleared away as usual, but instead the particle pollution has accumulated in the atmosphere. Already, the Bay Area has experienced 12 "Spare the Air" Days -- days where the pollution levels exceed federal standards.

The result of particle pollution being trapped in the atmosphere is a higher level of asthma attacks and other respiratory problems. Also, studies have shown that breathing particle pollution increases the likelihood of developing lung cancer, cardiovascular problems, birth defects, and a shortened lifespan.

Nonetheless, many homes in Bay Area violated and continue to violate clean air laws. Homes are prohibited from burning wood or other fuel for fire on Spare the Air Days. Because one of those days was Christmas, countless people deliberately violated the Spare the Air rules and built a fire in their fireplaces. While several homes will receive $400 citations, the vast majority will get a warning if it is their first time.

If your child has a birth defect, and you live in an area with high levels of particle pollution in the air, could you file a lawsuit and get relief? You could always file a lawsuit, but whether you would be successful depends on many factors. First, the nature of the pollution is significant: is air pollution that violates federal standards typical of your area, or is it not typical? Is the air pollution caused by one source or several sources? If it is caused by one source, is that source's contribution to air quality significant enough that you could make a strong case that it damaged your health and the health of your baby while in utero?

Continue reading "Unusual Dry Weather in SF Bay Area Leads to Greater Air Pollution, Health Problems, and Birth Defects" »

Researchers are closer to understanding why women with diabetes are more likely to have babies with birth defects. A researching group from Joslin Diabetes Center has discovered the way in which a specific protein, Pax3, stops the activity of cell-death protein p53. Pax3, a protein that regulates neural tube closure and cardiac neural crest development by blocking p53's activity, is produced less frequently in the embryos of pregnant women with diabetes.

When Pax3 fails to prevent p53 from acting, the result is an increase in neural tube defects, as well as defects to blood vessels of the heart. Originally, researchers believed that Pax3 attached to DNA and was responsible for turning on and off certain genes. Instead, what researchers at Josline Diabetes Center found was that Pax3 interacted with Mdm2, a negative regulator of the p53 protein. Pax3 would stimulate Mdm2, causing it to modify p53 for degradation. Although the process consisted of structures that could attach to DNA, Pax3 instead attached to p53 and Mdm2. While the study did not shed light on any possible medications that could produce more Pax3, understanding the process will likely make it easier for scientists to develop new medications in the future to cut down the number of birth defects.

In this situation, the cause of birth defects is genetic. The reduction in Pax3 has not been linked to an environmental cause or a type of prescription drug. Therefore, if you have diabetes and gave birth to a child with a birth defect, it would do you no good to file a lawsuit against a power plant or a prescription drug manufacturer because you could not prove that the power plant was the cause. However, prescription drugs and environmental toxins have been linked to other defects that can cause birth defects. For example, whether or not a woman has diabetes, women who take certain antidepressants during the first trimester are more likely to give birth to babies with birth defects. Likewise, women who live in areas with high levels of mercury pollution in the air and water are more likely to suffer physical damage and have babies with birth defects.

If you find yourself in one of those two situations, you may want to consider filing a toxic tort or a product liability lawsuit. If you filed a toxic tort lawsuit against a polluter, you would argue that the polluter owed a duty to you and the community to follow environmental regulations as much as reasonably possible. The polluter violated that duty by poisoning the air and water with mercury. The breach caused your injury (your child's exposure to the toxins while in utero), and the damage suffered was your child's birth defect. If you filed a product liability lawsuit against the manufacturer of a prescription drug, the factors would mostly be the same, except that it would not matter whether the manufacturer acted negligent or not -- just the fact that the drug was unreasonably dangerous would be enough for the manufacturer to be in breach.

Continue reading "Researchers Uncover Reason Why Women With Diabetes More Likely to Have Children With Birth Defects" »

A New York City teacher who lost her baby to a severe birth defect now intends to sue the Bronx school district where she taught. Nancy Tomassi, who taught fifth graders at Public School 51, claims that toxins in the school environment led her baby to develop anencephaly, a neural tube condition where large portions of the brain and skull are missing. Babies with anencephaly generally do not survive birth.

Tests performed around the school in January 2011 found large amounts of carcinogen trichloroethylene, a toxin that has been linked to birth defects. However, the Department of Education failed to warn both teachers and students until July. Tomassi believes that if the Department of Education had acted promptly to warn people, she would not have needed to terminate her pregnancy in the fifth month.

While it is not entirely clear what causes the condition of anencephaly, environmentalists note that trichloroethylene has been linked to problems with fetal development. Watchdog groups such as the Center for Public Environmental Oversight criticize the city for not acting sooner to test the school site. The school was set in industrial buildings, increasing the risk that toxic chemicals could be found there. Today, Public School 51 has been shuttered.

With increasing frequency, studies are emerging that provide a link between environmental toxins and health problems, including birth defects. Whether the toxins are in the air and soil around where you live and work, or whether the toxins are in common household products, they can harm you all the same. If you have a child with a birth defect that you believe was caused by environmental toxins, you might consider filing a toxic tort lawsuit. You could file it against the one you believe to be responsible -- such as a nearby power company -- and/or you could file it against the ones you believe should have informed and protected you of the environmental toxins. In several different situations, people in positions of responsibility have a "duty to inform." If they fail to inform those whose care they are entrusted with, they are guilty of committing negligence.

The question is whether in the case of Nancy Tomassi, the Department of Education had a duty to inform. It most likely did, and the Department of Education might counter by claiming that the information was "inconclusive" or that it was not reasonably possible to relocate students, teachers, and staff upon learning the news. If these claims prove to be correct, the jury might find that the Department of Education was not guilty of negligence. However, if it turns out that there were no mitigating circumstances, the Department of Education might be found guilty due to failure to warn.

Continue reading "New York Teacher Sues Over Toxic Exposure After Learning Baby Suffers From Severe Birth Defect" »

The federal Department of Agriculture (USDA) has announced approval for a "drought tolerant" strain of genetically engineered corn. Critics worry that it could open the door to widespread health problems and a higher rate of birth defects down the road.

The genetically engineered corn is also reportedly more resistant to 2,4-D, a chlorophenoxy herbicide. 2,4-D was meant to replace RoundUp, the most commonly used herbicide in the country, also known for its toxicity. Critics argue that the genetically engineered corn would just make farmers more likely to use the toxic chemical, with false confidence that crops would not be harmed. Instead, the same outcome is likely to occur as when crops were genetically modified to resist RoundUp: it will create a group of "super weeds," which in turn would create a greater incentive for more herbicides. RoundUp was once considered a "safer" alternative to 2,4-D, yet studies have shown that exposure results in higher rates of birth defects and cancer. 2,4-D is even more toxic, associated with increased cancer risks, especially for soft tissue sarcoma and malignant lymphoma.

Studies have shown that babies born in counties with a high use of 2,4-D on crops were far more likely to be born with birth defects to the respiratory, circulatory, and musculoskeletal systems. Birth defects such as clubfoot were 60% to 90% more likely to occur in counties with a higher use of 2,4-D.

Critics have also expressed concern that genetically engineered corn could infect the corn of organic farmers through pollen drift. The USDA has conceded that some pollen drift is likely to occur. Yet despite a number of valid concerns, the USDA has not only approved genetically engineered corn, but is also poised to approve other genetically engineered foods, such as soybeans with higher levels of omega-3 fatty acids.

If your child has a birth defect that you believe was the result of genetically modified foods and excessive use of pesticide, you should consider filing a toxic tort and/or product liability lawsuit. The product liability suit could be aimed at the manufacturer and/or distributor of the crops. You could argue that the manufacturer had a duty to produce crops that were as safe to consume as possible, but breached that duty. The breach led to your injury (exposure to herbicides and genetic distortions), and the result was your child's birth defect. The challenge is if the manufacturer argued that the crops were not responsible for the birth defect, but the herbicide used on the crops, which the manufacturer had no control over. You might also consider filing a product liability suit against the manufacturer of the herbicide, claiming that it is unreasonably dangerous.

Continue reading "USDA-Approved Genetically Engineered Crops May Result in More Birth Defects " »

Babies born prematurely, or "preemies," inevitably face a greater struggle than babies carried to term. However, few babies have struggled more than one born weighing less than one pound. In 1989, Madeline Mann was born weighing 9.9 pounds, while Rumaisa Rahman was born in 2004 weighing 9.2 pounds. They were born at 27 and 26 weeks respectively, although their birth weights were equal to that of an 18-week old fetus. Despite the difficult beginning, both are doing well today.

A report found that Mann was leading a fairly normal existence as a college senior. "I'm the pretty normal, tough cookie, nice kinda girl," she stated in an email. She does not spend much time thinking about the circumstances of her birth, instead choosing to think ahead. Rahman also appears to have a normal existence. The only thing suggesting a link to their premature births is their size: Mann is 4 feet 8 inches and has asthma, while Rahman was 3.5 feet tall at five years of age. Both of their mothers suffered from pre-eclampsia, where women develop severe hypertension as a result of their pregnancies. The condition is believed to be caused by the immune system's adverse reaction. While Mann and Rahman's mothers took steroids to develop their babies' lungs, both Mann and Rahman spent two months on breathing machines after birth. That both are doing well suggests that even though children born prematurely may have more struggles, premature birth does not necessarily condemn them to a poor-quality life.

Premature births have been traced to a number of factors, including genetics, parental habits, and environmental factors. Studies have shown that women who live in more polluted environments are more likely to give birth prematurely than women who don't. Children born prematurely are more likely to suffer from health and development problems. If your child was born prematurely and is suffering from related problems, and if you believe that the environment was a factor, you may want to consider filing a toxic tort lawsuit. You would first need to locate the offender responsible for causing your child's premature birth. Was it emissions from a power plant, or something less specific, such as emissions from thousands of vehicles passing through the area on the freeway? In order for a lawsuit to succeed, you must sue specific persons or entities. A lawsuit will always be dismissed if the plaintiff cannot identify the offender.

If a power plant were responsible, you would most likely receive a monetary award if you succeeded with your suit, which could pay for medical expenses and therapy, among other things. If the culprit were harder to pin down, however, such as thousands of cars on a freeway, your best option might be to seek an injunction: you could use it to force the entity responsible for regulating pollutants to take action. Past groups have sued the EPA in an effort to get it to enforce environmental laws.

Continue reading "Report Finds That Two Girls Who Were Born Weighing Less Than a Pound Are Now Thriving" »

This blog has frequently monitored the progress of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) planned rule to curb toxic emissions from coal-burning power plants. Research has shown that these toxins, especially mercury, have contributed to a greater risk of birth defects and health problems in general. Now, after two decades of inaction and many attempts by foes to delay or thwart the new rule, it is at last official.

The new rule is expected to reduce mercury and other toxic emissions by 90%. It will do so by imposing tougher standards on coal-burning power plants. While critics complain that the new rules will lead to higher utility rates, supporters of the new rule point out that the technology for reducing emissions is already well developed. Many power plants have already voluntarily implemented the technology without trouble. Supporters also point out that the small increase in utility prices, $10 billion overall, is far outweighed by the $90 billion in benefits.

Mercury emissions have been linked to nervous system damage and learning disabilities in young children. Once mercury enters the water, microbes can turn it into methylmercury, which can build up in fish and harm those who consume it. Children born to pregnant women believed to have consumed toxic fish have been shown to have lower IQs than children whose parents were not exposed.

The new rule is vulnerable to restriction by future administrations. However, for now, people across the United States can breathe a little easier.

Now that the new rule is official, anyone harmed by toxins from a power plant should have a much easier time succeeding with a toxic tort lawsuit. You could simply argue that emissions from the power plant exceeded the rule put in place by the EPA. This would also be the case if you got pregnant after the rule was implemented and later had a child with a birth defect. You could use evidence that the power plant violated the rule to make your case that the power plant was negligent. However, it would be more difficult if you were pregnant before the rule went into effect. You could not claim that the power plant violated a rule that was never there. At the same time, you might be able to refer to the rule if your argument is that the power plant continues to pollute and cause damage to your health.

Continue reading "New EPA Mercury Rule Will Curb Pollution, Lower the Rate of Birth Defects" »

The City of Boston is looking into curbing pollution from diesel exhaust, which has often resulted in a "dark halo of soot" over construction projects. Environmental groups have targeted diesel fumes from bulldozers and other construction equipment for higher rates of asthma and other ailments. They pointed to data from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revealing that Suffolk County had 300 times the amount of diesel pollution considered acceptable under federal standards, and more than 99% of counties across the nation. More than one third is emitted from construction equipment, while the rest comes from other sources.

With the federal government reducing grants for the purpose of lowering diesel emissions, environmentalists are turning to local governments to act. They have urged Boston to require that those who do business with the city buy filtration devices that would dispose of substantial amounts of the toxic pollutants emitted. City officials will review any possible ordinance, but many fear that requiring filtration devices -- which can be quite expensive -- would harm smaller contractors. They also note that federal aid has already resulted in all of their diesel-fueled buses, and most other diesel-fueled vehicles, being retrofitted. Nonetheless, with one in 10 children suffering from asthma, environmental groups are unlikely to take the pressure off of city officials until some sort of restriction is in place.

Boston has such high levels of diesel pollution due to being one of the nation's most densely populated cities and a center of commerce. Emissions from diesel engines have been linked to stronger asthma attacks, lung damage, heart attacks, and even premature death. While there is no clear link between diesel pollution and birth defects, air pollution linked to vehicle exhaust in general has been known to cause a higher rate of birth defects and premature births. If you live in an area known for high levels of vehicle exhaust and believe it to be the cause of your child's birth defect, you may want to consider filing a toxic tort lawsuit. Since the "offender" is thousands of different cars, you would not succeed in suing one, or even a handful, of drivers since you would not be able to prove that those cars' exhaust was directly responsible for the birth defect. Instead, you might want to seek an injunction against the entity responsible for enforcing air quality rules. An injunction is equitable relief, which is meant to achieve a specific objective, as opposed to "damages," which simply provide money for expenses, pain and suffering, and more. An injunction can be used to stop an activity or compel someone to act. In this case, you could seek an injunction compelling the regulating entity to enforce air quality rules.

Continue reading "City of Boston Considering An Ordinance That Would Curb Diesel Pollution" »