Birth Defect Lawyer Blog

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

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

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

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

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

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

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" »

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

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

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

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

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

A report sponsored by the United Nations recently determined that the rise in cancer and birth defect rates around the world has been at least partially due to our exposure to man-made chemicals in everyday products. U.N. researchers believe that these chemicals could also be linked to a decline in the production of male sperm and female fertility.

While other studies have shown these findings, the new report gives them increased credibility. The latest findings were determined by an international collection of academic experts working with the United Nation's Environmental Programme (UNEP) and the World Health Organization (WHO). In the report, these experts cited endocrine disrupters, such as phthalates and bisphenol A (BPA), which are used to soften or harden plastic, as among the most harmful. They noted that both humans and animals alike were being exposed to these chemicals that had been little studied and whose effects were little understood. The chemicals pose "a global threat" in need of a resolution.

Certain countries, such as the United States, Canada, and some European countries, have already banned these chemicals in specific products. In some states, like California, BPA has been declared toxic and a reproductive hazard. However, there are still "hundreds of thousands" of chemicals used around the world, of which only a small amount have been assessed for their effect on human and animal hormonal systems. One reason is because manufacturers frequently do not list all of the chemicals used in their products.

The U.N. experts' findings ought to be of concern to everyone, whether or not you have children. Yet if you do have a child with a birth defect that you believe was due to your exposure to BPA or phthalates while pregnant, what are your options? You would likely not be able to sue the manufacturer or the products you used, because there would be so many, it would be almost impossible to narrow them down. You would need to establish that you used certain products during certain periods of time, and that the chemicals in those products were the cause of your child's birth defects. You could file such a lawsuit, but your chance of success would be small.

Your best option for any kind of relief might be to sue the regulatory agency responsible for enforcing the levels of environmental toxins. You could argue that it breached its duty to the community by failing to penalize manufacturers for their inability to make reasonably safe products. However, one challenge would be determining which agency you target -- some toxins are under the jurisdiction of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), while others are under the jurisdiction of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Each has different standards and processes for assessing the safety of a toxin.

Continue reading "New U.N. Report Finds That Increase in Cancer, Birth Defects May Be Linked to Rise in BPA, Phthalates" »

Although not specifically about birth defects, the issue of young children's exposure to toxins is a significant one. Recent reports have underscored the importance of limiting a child's exposure for the sake of improving the child's health and mental capabilities.

One such report from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has found that the median concentration of lead in the blood of those between the ages of one and five years old was 92% lower in 2009 and 2010 than it was in 1976 through 1980. The median level of cotinine (a sign of exposure to tobacco smoke) also declined by 88% in 2009 and 2010 for children between the ages of three and 17, compared to the levels in 1988 through 1991. Finally, the number of children living in areas where pollution was greater than one measure of the national standard decreased from 75% to 59% between 1999 and 2009. At the same time, the number of children with asthma increased from 8.7% in 2001 to 9.6% in 2010. The report also showed that certain air pollutants could trigger reactions in children with asthma.

Meanwhile, another report issued by the non-profit Health Child Healthy World noted that over the past 30 years, child leukemia has risen 60%, brain cancer in children is up 40%, obesity has doubled, asthma and autism are increasing, and birth defects have risen 200%. The organization lists the probable causes of these health issues, including dioxane, a chemical found in shampoo; benzene, used in paints and plastics; and bisphenol A (BPA). All of these are considered to be human carcinogens and extremely harmful.

While these reports mainly focus on the toxins' health effects on children already born, as the Health Child report notes, the toxins can also result in a higher rate of birth defects. If your child has a birth defect that you believe is due to your exposure to environmental toxins while pregnant, you have the option of filing a toxic tort or product liability lawsuit. You would file a toxic tort lawsuit if the potential offender were a power plant, or another entity responsible for releasing toxins into the air and water. A product liability lawsuit, on the other hand, would be more appropriate if you believed that the offender was the manufacturer of a product, such as cleaning products or a food product with BPA packaging. In both cases, the most difficult part of your case would be providing enough evidence that that specific offender, and not some other source, was the cause of your child's birth defect. In some cases, it may be all but impossible to sue the specific source of the birth defect, such as if the "source" were really countless cars along the nearby freeway. If so, you might consider suing the entity responsible for regulating emissions from those sources, such as a state or federal environmental agency.

Continue reading "New Reports Find That Children's Health Risks Have Risen in the Past 30 Years Due to Toxin Exposure" »

There has been plenty of bad news about bisphenol A (BPA), and recent studies suggest that it may be even worse than feared. BPA is a common chemical used for softening plastic in water bottles and is also found in cans and other food packaging. It is also considered to be an endocrine disrupter that can throw hormones out of balance.

In Canada, BPA has been labeled a toxic substance, and Canada, the United States, and the European Union have all banned BPA usage in baby sippy cups and bottles. Individual states in the U.S. have the authority to list BPA as harmful -- California recently became the latest state to do so. However, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has yet to ban BPA usage on a widespread basis. That is unfortunate, because BPA has been linked to lower sperm counts, damage to the uterus, obesity, and birth defects.

Researchers at Washington State University recently found that rats exposed to BPA developed both reproductive disease and obesity. Even more worrisome, the third generation of rats born to those exposed to BPA had greater increases in pubertal abnormalities, ovarian disease, testis disease, and obesity. In other words, rats with no exposure to BPA still suffered from rats that were exposed two generations before.

At the same time, efforts to avoid BPA in products have sometimes led to results that are no better. Another recent study found that a substitute chemical, bisphenol S, has ended up altering hormones in a very similar way to BPA.

While it is difficult to determine to what extent BPA has affected humans, one study out of Spain has found that between 2001 and 2011, sperm counts dropped 28% and the quality of sperm dropped 38%.

Continue reading "New Studies Find That BPA May Be Even More Dangerous to Human Health Than Previously Thought" »

An article citing several different reports raises concerns about the healthiness of bottled water compared to water from the tap. The article notes that while tap water must meet certain environmental standards, bottled water is not bound by those standards, and thus contains more chemicals. Certain chemicals in bottled water have been linked to health problems and birth defects.

According to the article, water utilities in the United States spend millions of dollars each year on methods for keeping tap water safe. For instance, 900 water utilities finance the Colorado-based Water Research Foundation for $25 million each year. The Water Research Foundation is the world's largest nonprofit, and its research into drinking water is used by both the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Health Canada. The EPA also requires tap water testing by certified labs, which are required to give timely reports of violations. These reports must also be given to customers.

By contrast, bottled water is regulated not by the EPA, but by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The FDA cannot require bottled water companies to disclose where the water came from or what chemicals it contains. While both tap and bottled water may contain cancer-causing chemicals, bottled water appears to be significantly worse. The Washington-based Environmental Working Group conducted a two-year study and found that within the 10 biggest brands of bottled water, 38 chemicals were detected, with an average of eight chemicals apiece per bottle. These chemicals included fertilizer, solvents, chlorine, plastic-forming chemicals, and strontium (a radioactive element).

In particular, bisphenol A (BPA), the plastic softener, is a concern. Some studies have found that BPA from plastic bottles can seep into the water. BPA is an endocrine disrupter that can cause damage to a person's DNA. That means that a pregnant woman exposed to BPA is at a higher risk of giving birth to a child with a birth defect.

If your child has a birth defect that you believe is due to harmful chemicals in the bottled water you consume, you might consider filing a product liability suit against the manufacturer. You would argue that the manufacturer had a duty to consumers to make the bottled water as safe as possible, but breached that duty by not conducting tests, or refining the water well enough. As a result, the water was unreasonably dangerous, you were injured through exposure, and your child was born with a birth defect. The key is to provide strong evidence that the chemicals came only from the bottled water, as opposed to another source, and also to connect that dates during which you consumed the water to your child's birth. If you consumed the water five years beforehand, for instance, it might be difficult to make the connection.

Continue reading "Bottled Water May Contain More Harmful Chemicals Than Tap Water" »

As this blog has discussed time and again, environmental factors can have a great impact on both human health and whether a child is born with a birth defect. A woman who is pregnant may be exposed to innumerable toxins over the course of her pregnancy, depending upon where she lives and her occupation. For instance, a pregnant woman living in a state where coal mining is prevalent might have to worry about exposure to mercury and other toxins unearthed by mountaintop removal mining. A pregnant woman living near agricultural land might have to worry about pesticides in the air and water. And women everywhere might have to worry about toxins in their cleaning products or toxins in the food they consume.

Yet although knowing about environmental toxins is the only way to curb their effects, too few physicians bother to warn women about them. A recent study found the most American obstetricians and gynecologists do not warn their patients to avoid chemicals found in food or in household products. The survey of 2,600 physicians conducted by the University of California at San Francisco found that only 19% of physicians mentioned pesticides, 12% mentioned air pollution, and 11% mentioned the volatile organic compounds emitted by gasoline, paints, and solvents. Around 44% mentioned mercury as a separate issue. That compares to 86% who discussed workplace hazards, 68% who warned about second-hand smoke, and virtually all physicians who discussed lifestyle habits such as smoking, alcohol consumption, and diet.

That is a problem for countless women and their future offspring. Every woman has a certain amount of toxins in her body -- including bisphenol A, flame retardants, and phthalates -- that pose a serious health and developmental risk to the fetus. A woman who is pregnant or may become pregnant deserves to know the risks, and how to avoid increasing the risks, if possible. Exposure to toxins such as mercury have been linked to lower IQs and slower cognitive development.

Physicians who did not inform their female patients of environmental toxins gave reasons that ranged from their wanting to focus on more "immediate" problems to their lack of confidence in discussing environmental concerns. Yet it was discovered that the physicians of more affluent women were more likely to discuss environmental toxins because the women were more likely to ask.

If your child has a birth defect that you believe was due to your exposure to environmental toxins, you may be able to sue your physician for medical malpractice if he/she withheld information that could have changed the outcome. You would argue that a reasonable physician would have provided important information about chemicals in food or the air so that you could have avoided them. Your physician's failure to do so amounted to improper treatment. As a result, you were injured because you continued to be exposed to the toxins, and your child was born with a birth defect.

Continue reading "New Study Finds That Physicians Rarely Inform Pregnant Women of Environmental Toxin Dangers" »

A new study has found that 10% of children born with birth defects of the kidneys may have a certain genome linked to brain development delays and mental illness. Currently congenital kidney defects occur in one of every 200 births.

For the study, researchers at Columbia University Medical Center collaborated with other medical centers in the United States, Poland, Italy, Croatia, and the Czech Republic. They discovered a mutation known as "copy number variations," or extra copies or deletions of DNA large enough to contain several genes. When copy number variations are present, the amount of the genes impacted is either higher or lower than usual, which could result in health disorders. Conventional wisdom used to be that copy number variations caused only a small number of health problems, but since then, they have been discovered in a far wider range of disorders, from autism to Parkinson's disease.

In the study, researchers scanned the genomes of 522 people with deformed kidneys from the U.S. and Europe to see if copy number variations were present. They found that 17% carried copy number variations that appeared to account for the kidney disorder, while 10% carried variations that were linked to mental disorders. Researchers do not understand why there is a link between deformed kidneys and mental disorders, except that the same genes might have been responsible for both. Researchers hope that eventually, testing for genomic alternations will become a routine part of a clinical workup.

It is not clear what causes genome abnormalities, whether it is simply genetics or whether lifestyle or environmental factors could be a cause. However, some evidence suggests that DNA can be altered by outside factors, such as repeated exposure to certain environmental toxins. For instance, bisphenol A (BPA) a chemical used for polycarbonate plastics, has been found to cause genetic damage in tests involving animals. Although many stores have removed containers with BPA, it is still used to line certain food containers.

If your child has a birth defect like deformed kidneys that you believe was the result of your exposure to toxins like BPA while pregnant, you might consider filing a toxic tort or product liability lawsuit against the offender. The problem with this is that toxins such as BPA are so prevalent. For years, they were in a wide variety of products, and no one knows exactly how much exposure is necessary to cause changes to DNA and impact the fetus. If you were to try to sue a manufacturer that used BPA in its product, you might have trouble determining exactly which manufacturer was responsible for your child's birth defect. If you do have clear evidence that one or more specific manufacturers were responsible, you could try to make the case that they should be held liable. However, in all likelihood, you will probably never know for certain.

Continue reading "New Study Finds Connection Between Genome That Causes Birth Defects in Kidneys and Mental Illness" »

The first center in Europe devoted to studying birth defects has just opened at University College London. Funded by a 6.5 million pound donation from the Great Ormond Street Hospital Children's Charity, the Newlife Birth Defects Research Centre will be devoted to figuring out how birth defects arise and finding new ways to treat them.

Birth defects affect roughly 2% of pregnancies across Europe. In the United Kingdom, that amounts to one out of every 45 live births. Several of these birth defects are severe and require medical intervention within the first few weeks -- if not hours -- of the child's life. The Centre's website notes that those born with birth defects are 15 times more likely to die within their first year, and that those who manage to survive past that point face a lifetime of continued medical intervention.

The Centre is expected to house three different teams of specialists in state-of-the-art laboratories. Centre specialists hope to determine the causes of birth defects such as spina bifida, heart defects, and cleft palate. The teams would research, among other things: (1) the genetic origins of birth defects, (2) how the brain and spinal cord grow, (3) new pathways to stimulate the growth and repair of heart issues, (4) ways to improve diagnosis of epilepsy and brain tumors sooner, and (5) ways to introduce stem cells into the eye to regenerate cells for those born blind.

The creation of the Newlife Birth Defects Research Centre should not only be of benefit to Europeans, but also to families all over the world. Being able to prevent birth defects would not only save families heartache and worry, but also the enormous medical bills that come with them, especially in the United States. Until that becomes a reality, frequently the only means of recourse families have is to sue for relief if the birth defect has an outside cause.

In many cases, the cause of birth defects is genetic or may be due to the parents' lifestyle habits. However, other times, birth defects may be traceable to environmental toxins or prescriptions drugs. For instance, there is evidence that mercury, in particular, can cause birth defects. Mercury emissions are frequently tied to coal mining and coal burning facilities, such as power plants. Not only can mercury be inhaled, but it can also pollute the water, which includes contaminating fish that is later consumed. Another potential cause of birth defects is a toxin known as bisphenol A (BPA), which until recently was widely used in plastic bottles and is still in the lining of certain cans of food.

Continue reading "New Center For Studying Birth Defects the First to Open in Europe" »

A new study out of Denmark has found that pregnant mothers who eat organic are not less likely to have babies born with at least one type of birth defect. The study found that organic foods did not decrease the likelihood that baby boys could be born with a condition known as "hypospadias," or a birth defect of the penis, where the opening of the urethra is on the underside instead of on the tip. Hypospadias affects roughly one in 200 male newborns.

Hypospadias is believed to be a genetic condition, although past research has found that the risk is greater if the mother is over 35 years of age or is obese. The Denmark study aimed to see whether food intake could also play a role, since organic foods have less pesticide residue -- and therefore fewer endocrine-disrupting chemicals -- than regular foods. Researchers conducted their study by interviewing 306 mothers whose sons were born with hypospadias, and 306 mothers whose sons had no birth defect. The women were asked about their eating habits, including how often they ate certain foods and how often they chose organic alternatives. What the researchers found was that women who ate organic foods were no less likely to have sons with hypospadias than women who did not. The only exception was among those who stated that they ate both butter and cheese at least once a day, while rarely eating anything organic. They were two times more likely to have a baby with hypospadias than women who ate organic while rarely eating butter and cheese. Researchers stated that this suggested that there could be pesticide contaminants in certain dairy foods.

The study's findings should be viewed with some caution, given the small sample size and the emphasis on interviews that recall past actions, which can be unreliable. However, even if the study's findings are accurate, there is still evidence out there that certain foods are linked to a higher risk of birth defects or cancer. Many foods are still sold in containers that contain bisphenol A, or BPA, an endocrine disrupter. Those who eat the food absorb the BPA into their systems. If your child has a birth defect that you believe was due to exposure to foods laced with endocrine-disrupting chemicals, you might want to file a product liability lawsuit against the manufacturer. You would argue that the manufacturer had a duty to consumers to produce a safe product, but the manufacturer breached that duty by creating a product that was unreasonably dangerous. As a result, you were injured by exposure to the product, and the resulting damage was your child's birth defect.

Continue reading "New Study Finds That Pregnant Mothers Who Eat Organic Are Not Less Likely to Have Sons With Hypospadias" »

This blog has already discussed studies that provide evidence of a link between bisphenol A (BPA) and birth defects. BPA is a low-level estrogen used to soften plastic that was, until fairly recently, ubiquitous in plastic bottles. It can still be found in the lining of aluminum cans. Now a new study adds to the evidence against BPA, claiming that the toxin may negatively affect women's reproductive health and cause birth defects and miscarriages.

The study, conducted by the University of California at Davis and Washington State University, found that rhesus monkeys, when exposed to BPA levels that are similar to that of humans, suffered from reproductive abnormalities, which increased their risk of giving birth to babies with Down syndrome or other birth defects, or of having a miscarriage. Previous studies involving worms and rats showed similar problems, but these results were especially significant because rhesus monkeys are much more like humans.

When pregnant monkeys received either a single dose of BPA per day, or small doses given on a continuous basis, the result was changes in the cells of eggs that would become the developing fetus. The egg cells were unable to divide properly, which meant that the egg cells had the wrong number of chromosomes. This would ultimately lead to birth defects or miscarriage. Monkeys exposed to continuous low levels of BPA developed fewer eggs overall, which meant that their reproductive life spans were likely to be shorter. What concerned scientists especially was that the changes were felt over several generations: a mother might be exposed to the BPA and still give birth to a seemingly normal child, but then that daughter would be unable to ovulate normal eggs.

These results are unmistakably grim, but it should be noted that none of the studies involving BPA have actually involved humans. Nonetheless, given that the results have been consistent across species, it is likely that similar damaging effects could be found in humans. That is a problem when BPA exposure is "nearly ubiquitous" among Americans, with 92.6 percent of people over the age of six years old having detectable levels of BPA in their urine.

If your child has a birth defect that you believe may be the result of prolonged BPA exposure, could you successfully sue for relief? That depends on your circumstances. Since BPA has been so ubiquitous for so many years, it may be very difficult to pinpoint the specific source of BPA responsible. Even if you were able to locate the exact source, you would then need to provide evidence that this source, and not one of many other sources, was the cause of your child's birth defect. That will likely be a difficult challenge, though not necessarily impossible.

Continue reading "New Study Provides More Evidence of BPA's Link to 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" »

A recent study out of Britain highlights recently discovered clues as to what causes people to develop osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis is a joint disorder where the cartilage between our bones breaks down and bones rub together, causing pain, swelling, and stiffness. It is associated with aging and is one of the more common conditions, although not everyone develops it. Osteoarthritis is thought to be caused by a mixture of environmental and genetic factors.

The study, considered to be the largest genome study in the world, compared the genetic differences between 7,400 people with severe osteoarthritis and 11,000 people without the condition. The findings highlighted eight genetic regions that contribute to development of osteoarthritis, whereas only three had been identified before. These genetic regions included the gene associated with regulating body weight and genes associated with regulating how joints are made and maintained, including a gene involved in the production and maintenance of healthy cartilage. In two cases, specific genes linked to osteoarthritis, CHST11 and PTHLH, are already being explored for possible treatments of osteoarthritis.

Scientists state that the next step is figuring out which changes in DNA occur to cause the condition, and how these changes impact the joints on our body. They acknowledge that there are many more genes involved with producing osteoarthritis than previously thought, which means that they cannot yet predict who is more likely to develop the condition. At present, osteoarthritis has no cure, and too many of those afflicted must have their joints replaced surgically.

While it is possible that the genetic factors for osteoarthritis could be completely unconnected to environment factors, more studies are showing that the environment can impact DNA and alter genes, even when you are still in the womb. What seems like a disease developed late in life may, in fact, be a type of birth defect. Toxins like BPA, an industrial chemical commonly found in packaged foods, are endocrine disruptors that affect hormones and produce changes in the body. If you are pregnant while exposed to BPA, your fetus's development may be adversely affected. Scientists have also discovered evidence that a grandparent's exposure to toxins affects genetics in a way that is felt over the next several generations. Some studies have even found that cell phone radiation can alter DNA.

If you suffer from osteoarthritis, can you file a lawsuit against a manufacturer or toxic offender for impacting either your or your children's development while still in the womb, or later life? You could certainly try, although you would encounter several difficulties. While there is evidence that environmental factors can alter hormones and DNA, there is still a lot of uncertainty as to their exact effect. Even though a group of people might be exposed to the same toxins, not everyone develops an illness as a result. The defendant in your case would likely argue that there is an insufficient link between your condition and the defendant's toxins, and might point to other factors that could be equally responsible, such as lifestyle. You would need to establish a fairly strong link between your condition and the toxins in order to refute these claims. That could involve finding people who were exposed like you and affected by the same condition, or employing expert testimony about the toxin's effects.

Continue reading "Scientists Locate Multiple Genes Responsible for Osteoarthritis" »