A major study published in Human Reproduction (January 2009), a European reproductive medicine journal, has found that pregnant women and women of child-bearing age in the United States are at greater risk than previously thought for infertility and reproductive problems as a result of exposure to the toxic Teflon chemical PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid).
We do not strictly control Google ad content. If you believe any Google ad is inappropriate, please email us directly here.
“These findings are quite alarming, but not completely unexpected given the complete lack of health protections from chemicals like PFOA,” said Environmental Working Group (EWG) Senior Scientist Olga Naidenko, Ph.D. “Until we reform the nation’s chemical laws, we should expect to discover more and more links between chemical exposures and serious health conditions like infertility, childhood cancer, learning disabilities and asthma.”
“The UCLA team’s findings provide important new evidence that drastic declines in fertility rates in both the U.S. and Europe in recent decades may be linked to exposure to toxic chemicals, including PFOA, ” Naidenko said. “These alarming findings reinforce the need for strict regulation of PFOA and related chemicals, as well as other industrial chemicals whose impact on humans and the environment may be subtle but ultimately devastating.”
The chemical PFOA is a member of a class of industrial chemicals known as perfluorochemicals (PFCs). Chemicals in the PFC class are found in a wide range of consumer products, including water, stain and grease repellants, cookware, food wrap, carpeting, furniture and clothing. Products containing PFCs are marketed under such trade names as Teflon, Scotchguard, Stainmaster and Goretex.
A June 2008 study by the Environmental Working Group entitled Credibility Gap: Toxic Chemicals in Food Packaging and DuPont's Greenwashing: EWG’s Guide to PFCs contains a downloadable consumer guide to consumer products that contain PFCs and other advice on how to avoid products containing the chemical.
Studies by EWG and other scientists have demonstrated that PFOA exposure begins in the womb. EWG’s benchmark study, Body Burden: The Pollution in Newborns, an analysis of umbilical cord blood, found 287 industrial chemicals and pollutants in 10 newborns, among them PFOA and other PFCs.
EWG’s studies dovetail with U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention investigations that detected PFOA in the bodies of nearly all Americans over 12, with average levels of 3.9 ppb. The chemical has contaminated drinking water, food, and surface and ground water in at least 11 states.
In the human body, PFOA is extraordinarily persistent, accumulating 100-fold and detectable for years, with the potential to act through a broad range of toxic mechanisms to pose potential harm to numerous organs. Research has shown that PFOA can disrupt fetal development, hormonal function and the immune system and increase the risk of heart disease and cancer. Contamination of the food and water supply has the potential to damage the reproductive systems of a large number of women of child-bearing age nationwide.
EWG's work has resulted in an international effort to phase out use of PFOA and legal victories against major manufacturers of the chemical.
Yet more comprehensive protections are critical to protect the public from industrial pollutants. Harmful human exposures to industrial toxins such as PFOA and PFCs are a consequence of weak legal safeguards, particularly the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act, which grandfathered 62,000 chemicals and allowed industry to bring 20,000 more chemicals into the marketplace with little or no data to support their safety. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has lacked the legal power and funding to test the vast majority of man-made chemicals that, like PFOA, may turn out to be reproductive toxicants or trigger other serious diseases and conditions.
EWG is urging Congress to overhaul and modernize U.S. policy on man-made toxins by adopting policy principles similar to those included in the Kid-Safe Chemicals Act championed by Sen. Frank Lautenberg, Sen. Barbara Boxer, and Rep. Henry Waxman. The Kid-Safe bill would place the burden on chemical companies to prove that their products are safe before they enter the marketplace.
In the waning days of the Bush administration, EPA made plans to issue an emergency health advisory for tap water polluted with PFOA. The advisory, if adopted without change by EPA, would set a non-binding standard of .4 micrograms per liter for PFOA. According to an EWG analysis, such a standard would effectively allow a significant level of pollution and discourage cleanup of PFOA contamination in tap water in at least 9 states.
(Note: The views expressed in this article are those of the author, and do not necessarily represent those of The Healthy House Institute, LLC.)
HHI Error Correction Policy
HHI is committed to accuracy of content and correcting information that is incomplete or inaccurate. With our broad scope of coverage of healthful indoor environments, and desire to rapidly publish info to benefit the community, mistakes are inevitable. HHI has established an error correction policy to welcome corrections or enhancements to our information. Please help us improve the quality of our content by contacting allen@healthyhouseinstitute.com with corrections or suggestions for improvement. Each contact will receive a respectful reply.
The Healthy House Institute (HHI), a for-profit educational LLC, provides the information on HealthyHouseInstitute.com as a free service to the public. The intent is to disseminate accurate, verified and science-based information on creating healthy home environments.
While an effort is made to ensure the quality of the content and credibility of sources listed on this site, HHI provides no warranty - expressed or implied - and assumes no legal liability for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, product or process disclosed on or in conjunction with the site. The views and opinions of the authors or originators expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of HHI: its principals, executives, Board members, advisors or affiliates.
