Bug spray link to birth defect
December 2, 2009.
PREGNANT women and those planning to conceive should think twice before using insect repellent after research showed it increased the risk of a common urinary tract defect in baby boys, an Australian expert says.
A European study of nearly 1000 mothers found those who used insect repellent during the first trimester of pregnancy were 81 per cent more likely to have a baby with hypospadias - a condition which means the urethra ends at the underside of the penis instead of at the tip.
The condition affects about one in 300 Australian boys and usually requires surgery to repair it. Previous studies have linked it to maternal age, smoking, folate supplements and hair spray use.
Researchers from Imperial College London and the Centre for Research in Environmental Epidemiology in Spain questioned 961 mothers, about half of whom had babies with the condition, about their exposure to insect repellent and other potentially toxic chemicals while they were pregnant.
Of all the chemicals assessed, they found a link only between insect repellent and hypospadias, but they warned more research was required before they would warn women not to use the product.
''Further work should be conducted on the possible reproductive effects of insect repellents, with consideration of the type, content and mechanisms of action of specific formulations,'' the researchers said in the journal Occupational and Environmental Medicine.
Chris Winder, professor of toxicology and occupational health at the University of NSW, said Australian women should refrain from using insect repellent if they lived in an environment where they were unlikely to be bitten by poisonous insects.
He said women in the tropical north should continue to protect themselves from insect bites, but those living in other parts should balance the risk of being bitten with the risk of hypospadias.
''I would avoid exposure as much as possible and when you can't avoid exposure, use as little [repellent] as possible,'' he said.
Bisphenol A could be outlawed in USA
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) could not make a decision on the safety of Bisphenol A (BPA) which is a chemical common in food packaging, therefore it is not clear how this issue will be dealt with in 2010.
An overwhelming majority of Americans are found with BPA and a recent research has found the chemical in the cord blood of a majority of infants. BPA is linked to disruptions in the endocrine system which can further cause problems in the reproductive, neurological and behavioral system.
Jean Halloran, director of food policy initiatives at Consumers Union, said, “We believe that FDA has had enough data for a long time to restrict the use of BPA--indeed to ban it in food contact substances--and we are concerned that they have not yet taken action.”
Canadian public health officials announced that BPA is hazardous to humans and banned its use in food packaging intended for children. Many other states have also formed regulations to limit BPA exposure to infants and children.
April 9, 2009
"greeney2" wrote: Hard to believe Austrailia is just figuring out, prenant women shouldn't be exposed to bug sprays and pesticides? Not to mention anything like cleaners and other chemicals, it doesn;t seem like this is a new concept!
Um ....... Australian's have know about it for as long as everyone else ...... The artical is about how they have proven yet another link from toxins to ill health in humans.
The article also talks about how the usa is looking at banning the chemicals & poisions as they have not done so like 90% of the world who baned the toxic poisions decads ago.
USA & Australia are about the only ones who have not baned them despite all the knowlage they are harmful.
The Anti-vaccine crowed should be imbarised with themselves.
(( vaccines are harmfull )) .......... Petrochemicals ........ (( what are they ))
April 9, 2009
April 9, 2009
"Lucifer" wrote: There's mercury everywhere ... water, food, clothing, swine flu shot ... heater thermostat ... if we were gonna die from mercury poisoning than it would have happened along time ago 👿
in my water or food or my flu shot ... it makes no difference to me 😈
I agree as that was my point aswell.
They are all .......... ((( ACCUMALITIVE )))
Vaccines get to much attention as there are far worse products out there then vaccines.
Its all the same in the end so get the vaccines & stop being a breader of new diseases and infections.
(( get vaccinated ))
People smoke .... eat an drink the chemicals in food .... use products like plastics, made from petrochemicals, but they wont get a vaccine because it not good for them.
🙄 🙄 🙄
Like i said .......
"rath" wrote: The Anti-vaccine crowed should be imbarised with themselves.
imbarised ... (Embarrassed)
"greeney2" wrote: Glad to hear you arn;t that far behind.
True that ........... the only nation whos even further behind Australia is the USA.
( See article )
Most Users Ever Online: 288
Currently Browsing this Page:
Guest Posters: 2
Newest Members:laundryroom, kesan, Paul Thomas, Tony Lowe, ieltstips11, kath, Mike Maccini, The Royal Dissident, nan, KRISTIE Perkins
Administrators: John Greenewald: 557, blackvault: 1776