Birth Defect Lawyer Blog

Over the past several months, this blog has discussed numerous possible causes of birth defects. However, there is one cause that was never considered: sin. Yet according to one former candidate for lieutenant governor of Virginia, that is the main reason birth defects exist. E.W. Jackson was recently quoted as stating that "the whole cosmos has been made imperfect -- wounded -- by sin." He claimed that birth defects are one example of the wounding, along with "other destructive natural occurrences."

If only it were so simple. If birth defects had one specific cause, it would be much easier to solve the problem, no matter what it was. Unfortunately, birth defects have a variety of causes, several of which are still unknowable to us. Countless studies have been conducted to determine the true causes and -- hopefully -- cures.

Birth defects may have a genetic cause that is completely removed from the parents' behavior or environment. The birth defect could be caused by a spontaneous mutation, or from genetic damage over several generations.

Or else the birth defect could be the result of either parent's behavior -- for instance, a pregnant woman who drinks alcohol and smokes increases the risk of giving birth to a baby with birth defects. A pregnant woman may also be at increased risk of having a child with a birth defect if she takes certain prescription antidepressant or antiepileptic medications during the first trimester of her pregnancy. Even the parents' choice to have a baby at a later age may affect whether the baby has a birth defect or develops normally.

Then, there are environmental factors that may impact a fetus's development regardless of the parents' behavior. For instance, fetal development may be impacted by toxins emitted from a nearby coal-burning power plant. Power plants are one of the greatest emitters of mercury, which can have a harmful impact on human health even in small doses. Fetal development can also be impacted by toxic herbicides used on nearby crops, emissions from heavy freeway traffic, and even toxins in common household products and furniture.

Continue reading "Former Candidate for Virginia Lieutenant Governor Claimed That Birth Defects Were Caused By Sin" »

Just recently, one of the biggest supporters of the Safe Chemicals Act, Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, died at the age of 89. The senator's death calls into question what the Act's ultimate fate will be in the Senate without his guidance. This past April, Senator Lautenberg had reintroduced the legislation to the Senate Environment and Public Words Committee. He had first introduced identical legislation in 2011, and although it passed out of the committee on a party-line vote, it did not go any further.

The Safe Chemicals Act is intended to be the first major update of the Toxic Substances Control Act since 1976. The Toxic Substances Control Act has several holes in identification and enforcement that the Safe Chemicals Act is intended to fill. For example, the Safe Chemicals Act would establish a risk-based chemical management system based on sound science; focus on priority chemicals; create secure access to data involving health and safety; protect Americans from harmful chemicals; and promote innovation.

In addition to the above, the Act would significantly update the Toxic Substances Control Act's inventory of existing chemicals, with the goal of getting the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to focus more on "priority chemicals." After the inventory was updated, the EPA would review groups of chemicals over a five-year period and identify which ones were of very high concern, requiring expedited risk management. Such risk management would include taking measures to restrict exposure or providing stricter labeling.

While the Safe Chemicals Act may pass out of committee with the support of Senate Democrats, Senate Republicans are seeking to introduce their own bill, which has the support of the chemical industry. Needless to say, it will not place as great a priority on monitoring and restricting chemicals as the Safe Chemicals Act. While the Act has other strong supporters, it remains to be seen if any are as devoted as Senator Lautenberg.

In the meantime, consumers who are affected by harmful toxins have the option of filing a toxic tort or product liability lawsuit against the offender. If your child was born with a birth defect that you believe could be due to toxic exposure, an experienced attorney can help you make the case that if you had not been exposed to certain toxins while you were pregnant, your child would have developed normally. To make this case, you would need strong evidence that these toxins were the source of the birth defect, as opposed to your lifestyle or genetics. That may be difficult if you believe the birth defects were caused by phthalate exposure, which is widespread, but maybe not if you believe the toxins came from a nearby power plant.

Continue reading "Senator's Recent Death Puts Safe Chemical Act's Future in Doubt" »

Tornadoes, such as the recent one that blew through Oklahoma, cause enough distress to the people in their path. Now it turns out these people have another reason to worry: there is some evidence that the tornado may have released toxins into the air that could harm health and even increase the risk of birth defects.

A recent report noted that the Oklahoma storm's immediate aftermath could prove risky to residents, first responders, and cleanup volunteers. The storm tore apart buildings that were old and new alike, including buildings constructed before the 1970s that contain building materials with asbestos. Asbestos or other toxins, such as lead, lie exposed among the debris, making it highly possible that someone could come into contact with them. Even more concerning, as the clean up progresses, bad weather such as strong winds could shift the debris around, causing tiny particles of the toxins to contaminate the air and water. Exposure to toxins such as asbestos can prove to be deadly in the long run, causing the rare cancer known as pleural mesothelioma, and the average person has no ready means of identifying what it looks like.

Currently, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) have been attempting to safely remove the toxic material so that it does not harm any others. For those among the debris, it is recommended that they wear protective equipment such as rubber gloves and respirators, to avoid touching or inhaling dust or glass shards.

While asbestos has no obvious connection to birth defects, other toxins, such as lead, do have a connection. A woman exposed to lead while pregnant has a greater risk of giving birth to a child with neurological damage, developmental delays, low birth weight, or undescended male testicles. Lead exposure has also been linked to a lower sperm count in men.

If your child has a birth defect that you believe is due to exposure to toxins like lead while pregnant, you have the option of hiring an experienced attorney and filing a lawsuit against the offender. The most important thing is to determine the source of the lead. If you were exposed to lead that was released due to a catastrophe like a tornado or an earthquake, you may not have a case if the lead came from older building materials. Lead in such materials might have been legal at the time it was built, and might have otherwise been safely concealed if not for the catastrophe. However, if the lead was released due to irresponsible practices, such as those by a mountaintop removal mining company or those maintaining a power plant or a toxic waste site, you could have a case.

Continue reading "Report Notes That Toxic Exposure Is a Concern Following Oklahoma Tornado" »

Phthalates have come under increasing scrutiny over the years. As chemicals used to soften plastic, they were once considered benign until studies suggested that they mixed with the food that was packaged and acted as endocrine disrupters, adversely affecting the body's natural hormonal process to an unknown effect. Some studies have linked phthalate exposure to a higher risk of birth defects, and it is also thought to be harmful to those exposed during childhood.

Now a new study has found that phthalates may also affect cells related to heart development, causing a hardening of children's arteries. The study, conducted by researchers at medical centers from NYU, University of Washington, and Penn State University, looked at 3,000 children and teens from across the nation. The data covered six years, and the researchers took into account other contributing factors such as race, socioeconomic status, and body mass index. They found a connection between exposure to a common class of phthalate, DEHP (di-2-ethyhexylphthalate), used in food production and elevated systolic blood pressure. For every three-fold increase in the level of breakdown products of DEHP in the child's urine, there was a one-millimeter mercury increase in the child's blood pressure.

The researchers noted that while the increase may seem minimal, it substantially raises the number of children with elevated blood pressure. High blood pressure and hypertension (systolic blood-pressure readings above 140 mm Hg) are typically more associated with people over 50 years of age than children. However, the number of children with these conditions has been rising. Researchers emphasized that their findings demonstrated the need for policy initiatives that limit exposure to harmful chemicals like phthalates. That may be difficult, as the Safe Chemicals Act, the national attempt to update chemical exposure requirements, has been languishing in the Senate.

If your child has a birth defect that you believe is due to your exposure to phthalates while pregnant, you have the option of hiring an experienced attorney and filing a product liability or toxic tort lawsuit. The biggest challenge will likely be determining which product or products was responsible for the exposure. Phthalates can be found in a variety of products, from plastic cups to plastic wrap to flooring. You would need to determine not just which products are responsible, but when the exposure began, and you would also need to determine whether there were any other likely causes, such as genetics. If you feel reasonably certain of both the products and the timeline, you may be able to argue that the manufacturer breached a duty to customers by creating an unreasonably dangerous product. As a result of the manufacturer's breach, you were injured through exposure to the product's harmful chemicals. Because of your injury, your child was born with a birth defect.

The birth defect attorneys at Oshman & Mirisola, LLP have successfully represented clients in products liability and birth defect lawsuits for more than 35 years. If your child suffers from a birth defect that you believe could be due to your being exposed to harmful toxins like phthalates while pregnant, please contact us today by calling (800) 400-8182, or submit our online Contact Us form.

A recent study has found that certain lipsticks and glosses contain worrisome amounts of toxins. Researchers from the University of California at Berkeley's School of Public Health found that common lip products contained significant amounts of aluminum, chromium, cadmium, and other harmful toxins.

Researchers studied eight types of lipstick and 24 types of lip gloss bought at various drug stores and chain specialty stores. What they found was that the metals in those products provided twice the daily intake of what was considered "acceptable" exposure. Researchers were especially concerned about chronic exposure to low levels of cadmium, which has been known to cause problems with kidney functioning.

While the researchers did not suggest that people should abandon lip products altogether, they did state that the findings were a cause for concern and merited further investigation. The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, which reviewed the study, endorsed this view. A previous study released by the organization found that 33 brands of lipsticks contained worrisome levels of lead, though the Food and Drug Administration found that the levels were too low to pose a safety risk.

Meanwhile, the current study and previous findings have come under the criticism of the Personal Care Products Council, a trade association for the cosmetics industry. A spokesman argued that the new report does not contain any "meaningful" information, given that trace levels of metals are found in everything people consumed, given that they exist naturally in the air, water, and soil. Proponents for the study counter that depending upon the metal, even trace amounts are too dangerous for human consumption.

The information about which cosmetic products are safe remains frustratingly vague. Many women work in professions where wearing cosmetics, including lipstick or lip gloss, is practically required. A pregnant woman who wears lipstick should not need to worry about whether she could be endangering her own health or that of her fetus.

Continue reading "New Study Finds That Lip Products May Contain Harmful Amounts of Metal" »

Two recent studies have provided more evidence that toxic waste sites are not only harmful to the health of fully grown humans, but can also cause birth defects. In this case, the studies did not focus solely on toxic waste sites in the United States, but rather on sites in countries such as India, the Philippines, and Indonesia.

One study conducted by the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City examined 373 sites in the above-named countries and found that the damage to the health of those who lived near toxic waste sites, caused by elevated levels of lead, chromium, and various other chemicals, was comparable to the problems with malaria in all three countries combined. To reach their conclusions, the researchers studied toxin levels in the soil or drinking water, such as the levels of lead. They noted that from the 8.6 million people living near the toxic waste sites, the equivalent of 828,722 years of healthy life were lost. Significantly, two-thirds of those living in the area were women of childbearing age and children.

The second study analyzed lead exposure in the soil and water at sites considered toxic in 31 low-income and middle-income countries. The researchers considered what exposure would do to the health of infants and toddlers in the area. They used population estimates, including for children in the U.S., and determined that in 2010, 800,000 children less than four years old were exposed to lead, with levels in their bloodstream that would be considered unsafe by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control. Lead in dangerously high levels causes a loss of five to eight IQ points, and approximately six in 1,000 people raised in this atmosphere have mild retardation.

While both studies are incomplete, they raise serious questions about what long-term exposure to toxins can do to health and development. They join other studies, such as one conducted in Kettleman City, that suggest exposure to toxic sites leads to a higher risk of birth defects.

If you have a child with a birth defect that you believe was due to your exposure to a toxic waste site, you have the option of filing a toxic tort lawsuit. First you would need to establish when the exposure occurred, and where you lived in relation to the toxic waste site. An experienced attorney could then help you make the argument that the site owner had a duty to the surrounding community to operate as safely as possible. The owner breached that duty by acting unreasonably, allowing toxins from the site to seep into the atmosphere. As a result of the breach, you were "injured" through exposure while pregnant, and as a result of the injury, your child was born with a birth defect.

Continue reading "Two Recent Studies Highlight the Dangers of Toxic Waste Exposure to Early Development" »

Not long ago, scientists discovered that Minnesota lakes contain a mixture of man-made toxins, including cocaine, antidepressants, synthetic estrogen, antibiotics, bisphenol A (BPA), and DEET, an insect repellant. The study encompassed 50 different lakes across the state, which were tested for the presence of 127 types of toxins.

Results of the study were released by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. In particular, scientists discovered that DEET was present in 76% of the lakes, and that cocaine was present in nearly a third of the lakes. As with a similar study conducted in Europe not long ago, scientists aimed to find out how these toxins impacted aquatic life... as well as human health. Previous studies have found that exposure to chemicals has quite possibly altered the genetics of the aquatic life that encountered it.

One study involving Canadian lakes found that two years after synthetic estrogen was introduced to one lake, in a five parts per trillion concentration (or the equivalent of five drops in 15 to 20 swimming pools), the population of fathead minnows declined drastically, and the trout population declined as well. Another Minnesota study from 2008 found that pharmaceutical products and other chemicals were present at a very low concentration in 11 lakes. Since some of these chemicals were found in lakes with little development nearby, the question is where they originated. One theory is that they come from septic systems that pollute groundwater, while another is that some of it comes via air -- such as when particles of cocaine are blown into the air during use.

As studies on the subject of water contamination multiply, scientists hope to reach a consensus of how to deal with it. One possible option would be to use reverse osmosis water technology, although such an approach can be very expensive.

The chemicals found in the study, including BPA and DEET, have been linked to birth defects. That these chemicals can be found in water, including ordinary drinking water, should be of concern to everyone. If your child has a birth defect that you believe could be due to contaminants in your drinking water, you have the option of filing a toxic tort lawsuit against the party who you perceive as the offender. The most important thing is having strong evidence to support your argument that one group, or groups, caused the contamination. An experienced attorney could help you provide evidence that a specific offender contaminated the water. This could involve taking water samples, having expert witnesses testify, and/or finding records of chemical disposal. Once you have the evidence, you would argue that the offender breached a duty to the community, that you were injured by the offender's breach, and that your child's birth defect resulted from the injury.

The birth defect attorneys at Oshman & Mirisola, LLP have successfully represented clients in products liability and birth defect lawsuits for more than 35 years. If your child suffers from a birth defect that you believe could be due to your being exposed to harmful toxins such as DEET or BPA while pregnant, please contact us today by calling (800) 400-8182, or submit our online Contact Us form.

Yet another new study has confirmed that Roundup, a popular herbicide used in the United States and elsewhere, is linked to human health problems. When mixed with other toxins in the environment, it can cause diseases ranging from Parkinson's to cancer to autism. Roundup has also previously been linked to birth defects.

The study, published in the journal Entropy and conducted by researchers from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, focused on glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup. It noted that glyphosate's inhibition of cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes plays a role in making it toxic to animals. Since CYP enzymes are meant to detoxify xenobiotics (chemicals found in organisms that are not expected to be present), glyphosate enhances the damage caused by other chemical residue found in the foods we consume and the environment.

Meanwhile, Monsanto, the developer of both Roundup and genetically altered crops, claims that glyphosate is perfectly safe. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is in the process of conducting a review to determine whether the use of glyphosate should be limited. A final report is expected in 2015, and studies like the current one will play a part in its results. In 2007 alone, American farmers used an estimated 185 million pounds of glyphosate on their crops.

The study's author calls for more independent research to be done to "validate the ideas presented here." If the study's results are confirmed, the author calls for a drastic reduction in the use of glyphosate in agriculture. He describes glyphosate as potentially "the most biologically destructive chemical in our environment." Meanwhile, many environmental activists are increasing pressure to limit the toxin, and organizing marches such as "March Against Monsanto" on May 25.

If your child has a birth defect that you believe could be due to your exposure to glyphosate -- or another environmental toxin -- you have the option of filing a lawsuit against the one who manufactured the toxin and/or the one who used the toxin. An experienced attorney would therefore file either a product liability lawsuit or a toxic tort lawsuit. Both have the same components: they each involve a duty owed by one party, a breach of that duty, the other party being injured by the breach, and resulting damage. The main difference is that with a toxic tort lawsuit, it is unreasonable behavior that causes the breach, whereas with a product liability lawsuit, a party can still act reasonably and be strictly liable if the product is unreasonably dangerous. In both cases, the injured party typically sues for "damages," a money award for tangibles like medical bills, or for intangibles like pain and suffering.

Continue reading "New Study Produces More Evidence That Roundup Herbicide Is Harmful to Human Health" »

Not long after taking a trip to China to promote cleaner practices, Governor Jerry Brown of California is attempting to rewrite the state's law regulating toxins, claiming that it enables "unscrupulous lawyers" to take advantage.

The law at issue is the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act, or Proposition 65, which was enacted in 1986. The Act requires property owners, manufacturers, and retailers to post signs warning that the product or premises contains chemicals linked to cancer or birth defects. The Act also empowers the state attorney general, district attorneys, and private attorneys to sue for enforcement.

Under the revisions proposed by Governor Brown, attorney's fees would be limited, plaintiffs would be required to present more information in support of their claims, the level of cancer-causing chemicals would need to be reconsidered in light of their danger to humans, and the public would receive more information about the specific chemicals to which they are exposed and how to avoid them. These rewrites face a tough challenge in the California legislature, which requires a two-thirds vote in each house to overturn a proposition approved by voters.

Environmentalists have used the Act to compel the removal of toxins from commonly used products, such as candy, lunch boxes, and costume jewelry worn by children. They are wary now of any efforts to loosen the Act's restrictions, noting that business lobbyists would try to force some significant loopholes. Yet even some environmentalists agreed that frivolous lawsuits ought to be curtailed and that the notification requirements ought to reflect current science.

With regard to changes affecting attorneys, they would affect the way "private attorneys general," or private attorneys, could file a lawsuit for failure to post adequate warning signs. Right now, a lawsuit can be enacted if, 60 days after the property owner was notified, the violation has still not been corrected.

Continue reading "California's Governor Aims to Rewrite Law Governing Toxins and Drinking Water" »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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