E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSRachael Rettner, MyHealthNewsDaily
A group of compounds used in a variety of products, including nonstick cookware, may influence a baby's growth in the womb and after birth, a new study suggests.
In the study, pregnant women who were exposed to high levels of polyfluoroalkyl compounds, or PFCs, had babies that were smaller at birth and larger at age 20 months compared with those born to women exposed to lower levels of the compounds.
The results held even after the researchers adjusted for factors that could influence the babies' weights, including the mother's smoking habits and weight before pregnancy.
The findings agree with previous studies on the effect of PFC exposure during in-utero development. A recent study in Denmark found that girls exposed to PFCs in the womb were more likely to be overweight at age 20, said study researcher Michele Marcus, a professor of epidemiology at Emory University's Rollins School of Public Health.
It's important to note the new study only found an association, and not a cause-effect link.
It's not clear how PFCs might influence growth rates, but it's possible they have an effect on fat metabolism, Marcus said.
Exposure in pregnancy
PFCs have thousands of uses in manufacturing, and most people have the compounds in their bodies. They are slow to break down, and persist for many years in the environment. They are commonly found in coatings of packaging products, as well as water-resistant clothing.
In the new study, Marcus and colleagues analyzed information from about 450 women living in England who were pregnant between 1991 and 1992, and gave birth to daughters.
Blood samples taken during pregnancy from the mothers were tested for the concentration of PFCs. Information about their children's weight and length were collected at birth, and again when they were 20 months old.
All of the mothers in the study had some PFCs in their blood. Girls born to mothers with the highest levels weighed about 5 ounces (140 grams) less on average at birth than girls born to mothers with the lowest levels.
By age 20 months, girls born to mothers with the highest blood levels of PCFs weighed 1.3 pounds (580 grams) more, on average, than girls born to mothers with the lowest levels.
The researchers were not able to examine the children's exposure to PFCs after birth, which may have affected the results, they said.
Because the women in the study had their blood collected about two decades ago, when PFC levels in the environment were higher, the findings do not tell us what the risks of exposure are to women who become pregnant now, said Dr. Magaly Diaz-Barbosa, medical director of neonatal services at Miami Children's Hospital, who was not involved in the study.
"While it would be reasonble for today's pregnant women to try to avoid exposure to these compounds, studies need to be conducted using more recent data before we can draw conclusions about the risks," Diaz-Barbosa said.
How to avoid PFCs
Pregnant women should avoid exposure to chemicals that could interfere with hormone signals, Marcus said.
To do this, Marcus recommended avoiding use of nonstick cookware (use iron or stainless steel instead), and not heating microwave food in its packaging.
"Cardboard food packaging is often coated with PFCs to prevent the food from sticking to the cardboard," Marcussaid.
Marcus also recommended not to heat food in plastic containers in the microwave.
The study was published online Aug. 30 in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives.
Related content:
Leave a Comment:
Cast Iron is the best non-stick surface out there and the only way to cook :)
The sample size is too small to accurately state anything with this correlational type of study. The are SO many other factors that could weigh in on this proposed outcome, even if you tried to control/adjust for them it would be almost impossible.
A perfect example is that fluoride is linked with increased violence in children because children living in cities with fluoridated water are more likely to exhibit violence and aggression than those who live in areas without fluoride in the water. If you did a blood test you'd even find great levels of fluoride in their blood. However, such a relationship has other variables that are much greater factors than the water consumed.
The same band wagons jumped on vaccinations causing autism which has now led to a resurgence in many childhood diseases that were all but eliminated in the US.
Not to mention the increased immigration from third world countries bringing childhood diseases with them and bed bugs, just saying.
I believe it was a High School girl doing a science fair project, that made this discovery (esp. re. Microwave wrappers).
I'm kind of annoyed with all these articles saying this and that are linked to obesity. Flu shots and immunization. Non-stick pan coating. Blah blah blah. How much do these "minor" factors contribute to obesity compared to the "major" factors of overeating and and inactivity?
LOL!! I totally agree with you Sarah I only have myself and age to blame, not that I am that overweight (6'1" & 210lbs), but I don't use non-stick pans or get flu shots etc... etc... I eat healthy and don't eat excessively I just sit behind a computer way too much at work and home and don't get enough exercise like I used too.
Sarah - shush your mouth!!!
that kind of talking is dangerous, people might actually take responsibility for their actions.
horrors, I can even imagine the slippery slope THAT leads to!
Why is it always "the consumer" who is responsible for avoiding toxic chemicals -- when they're not labelled, not identified, and not tested? Manufacturers should have to demonstrate that new chemicals (and even the old ones) are safe, before they can add them to food products, food packaging, household goods, cleaning supplies, lawn care products, and utensils or mugs or baby bottles.
Eventually I suspect we'll discover that the "obesity epidemic" isn't primarily a failure of will-power. It's a consequence of all the toxic substances the chemical industry has been selling us for the past 60+ years in our food, beverages, cosmetics, cleaning supplies, and household items.
You CANNOT demonstrate that something is safe. You can only show that by the current existing tests, it does not appear to cause harm.
Also, as in this study, you may only become aware of issues over long periods of a material being in use. I expect that you want to wait what, 20 years for a new material to make it out to the public. With the associated cost and time, you will see very few new materials enter the marketplace.
Oh that's right, and you want all 'old' chemicals tested too. Remembering that everything is a chemical, that means that we have to test everything. Hmm, so what do we model our lives on until then? I'm thinking "The Flintstones".
If you blame the consumer "victim" you eliminate your exposure to liability. The Industry, FDA, CDC, etc. use terms like GRAS (generally regarded as safe) which means what? It has been used forever and no one got sick? It has been used in one area, so it will be safe over here? In the scientific world there is a lot of data that is used to justify something totally unrelated as folllowing the same pattern. When this is allowed and used as data, the door is open for too many problems. Everyone is befuddled by the obesity problem, and some one or something is eventually going to take the blame for it. Until then, it is CYA, in a major way!
How can it come as a surprise to anyone that the chemicals in our environment are responsible for health problems?
I'm so sick of hearing people whine about how it's all just about eating less and exercising more when there's so much evidence suggesting it's a lot more complicated than that. I guess simple minds can't think beyond simple solutions to complex problems.
I smoke too much, drink too much, eat too much and am overweight.........but it's those goddamn pans that are really bringing me down
if the chemicals from your fryin pan are showin up in higher than normal levels in your body you might be cooking and eating too much which could cause obesity
Wow, statistical analysis on 20 year old data. How exciting! Now if we can just solve that nasty Dihydrogen Oxide problem.
I know! Di-hydrogen monoxide is responsible for tens of thousands of deaths annually and no one cares about it. It's deadly when concentrated in the respiratory system, we're breathing it in constantly, most of our liquid consumer products contain it and solids are often manufactured with it. Our atmosphere, lakes, oceans, and forests are terribly polluted with it. We're using it as a power source. The solid form can cause "burns" and an unpleasant tingling with skin contact... And kill you with extended exposure over a large body surface area. The gas can scald skin and obscure vision. Downright horrible.
When is this country just going to face the REAL facts of obesity? Too much food and too little exercise. Plain and simple. Good Lord. I wonder how many people are buying this article?