Not ME: Where were the SMC? Pregnancy safety advice prompts criticism

[Firestormm]

One must surely ask, where were the vaunted Science Media Centre when this debacle hit the airwaves?

5 June 2013 Last updated at 00:11
Pregnancy safety advice prompts criticism

By Michelle Roberts Health editor, BBC News online

The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has been criticised for saying pregnant women may want to "play it safe" and avoid chemicals found in many common household products.

It says there is not enough information about the chemical risks to foetuses from cosmetics and food packaging.

Items which it suggests should be avoided include tinned food, ready meals, shower gel and even new cars.

Critics say the advice is unhelpful, unrealistic and alarmist.

The RCOG says its paper on the issue is informing women and filling a void - until now, there has been no official advice for pregnant and breastfeeding women to turn to.

...

Among other warnings:

• Cosmetic products and toiletries such as moisturisers, shower gel and sunscreen could, theoretically, also pose a chemical risk
• Cleaning products, air fresheners and non-stick frying pans can be added to the hazard list
• Pregnant women might also want to avoid decorating the new baby's room with fresh paint as breathing the fumes may be harmful

...

Tracey Brown, of Sense About Science, said:

"Pregnancy is a time when people spend a lot of time and money trying to work out which advice to follow, and which products to buy or avoid. The simple question parents want answered during pregnancy is: 'Should we be worried?'

"What we need is help in navigating these debates about chemicals and pregnancy. Disappointingly, the RCOG report has ducked this."

...

I am sure that the Science Media Centre - if asked - would respond that it didn't fall within their remit or something, but it made me wonder. When this was discussed this morning on BBC Radio 4, it was with an air of absolute disbelief over the stupidity of this 'advice' or rather 'non-advice'.

n.b. Tracey Brown was on the Radio this morning also. Don't recall her saying much more than is said or implied above; namely what is needed is evidence not spurious and alarmist warnings.

I feel sorry for the pregnant woman who reads/hears the unabridged version of this 'news'. Jees...

 

[Valentijn]

And until there is proper research, a great many women are going to prefer to play it safe.

 

[Shell]

There are studies linking air fresheners with cancer already, so this advice isn't completely off base. Having seen the standard of so-called science over pregnancy, birth, breastfeeding and co-sleeping I'd rather play it safe. Too many vested interests wrapped up with too many eejits is a toxic combination.

 

[alex3619]

The argument that myriad untested chemicals in one's environment should be considered safe is patently nonsense. Further, there is the horrible issue that these chemicals can react with other things, inducing chemicals that have never even been isolated for testing. How does your shower gel go in combination with your lawn fertilizer, cleaning spray, or air freshener? The shower gel and air freshener might have been tested together, but how about combinations involving lawn fertizer? What company is going to even test that? None that I know of.

What they can say is that no adverse effects are proven for chemical A, B or C. If applied properly thats a totally different message. It doesn't say they are safe, its says we don't know they are toxic. So they cannot refute advice that says some people need to follow precautions. It means that without further evidence a company cannot be sued, but it also means that people who avoid these chemicals are cautious, not crazy.

MCS and the like are a whole other issue, one I do not want to go into right now, but it changes the situation yet again.

 

[biophile]

A Time magazine article from 2011. I have not yet looked at the main study mentioned.

http://healthland.time.com/2011/01/14/pregnant-women-awash-in-chemicals-is-that-bad-for-baby

Pregnant Women Awash in Chemicals. Is That Bad for Baby?

By Bonnie Rochman

Jan. 14, 2011

In addition to big bellies, pregnant women are toting around dozens of chemicals, including some that have been banned for decades and others used in flame retardants, sunscreens and non-stick cookware.

“We looked at data on 163 chemicals and found that many of them are present in virtually all pregnant women,” says Tracey Woodruff, director of the Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment at the University of California-San Francisco (UCSF).

Woodruff counted the number of chemicals that pregnant women are exposed to and discovered that 43 of the 163 chemicals tracked were found in more than 99% of pregnant women.

Those chemicals included polysyllabic tongue-twisters such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), organochlorine pesticides, perfluorinated compounds (PFCs), phenols, polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), phthalates, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and perchlorate. Also found was benzophenone-3, an ingredient in sunscreen.

Some of the chemicals were found in concentrations that have been linked to problems with brain development in childhood and fertility concerns potential, according to Woodruff’s research, which is being published today in Environmental Health Perspectives.

Woodruff crunched data on 268 pregnant women from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which collected blood and urine samples from participants in its National Health and Nutritional Examination Survey (NHANES) 2003-2004.

Bisphenol A (BPA), the controversial plastic-hardening chemical that baby bottle manufacturers have phased out in the wake of consumer protests — was found in 96% of the pregnant women. BPA, which is still used as a liner inside metal food and beverage cans, has been associated with hormonal disruption and adverse brain development.

“We should be concerned about the number of chemicals pregnant women have in their bodies and we should we taking steps to find out what the implications are for exposure to multiple chemicals,” says Woodruff, who is also an associate professor in the UCSF Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences.

The U.S. Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 hasn’t been updated since its creation, says Woodruff, which is reason enough to demand an overhaul. The law allows chemicals to be distributed in products without first being declared safe.

“If you go into a drugstore and buy shampoo, it can have chemicals in it that could be harmful,” says Woodruff. “We need to be re-examining the laws because chemicals are not being sufficiently tested and regulated.”

Until then, pregnant women can take some precautions to try to reduce their chemical exposure:

Eat a healthy diet low in fats. “Some of these chemicals like to hang out in fat,” says Woodruff.

Wash your hands throughout the day as dust can harbor chemicals.

Choose personal-care products wisely, opting for those with fewer, less toxic ingredients.