By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A recent study links two common plasticizing chemicals, DEHP and DiNP, to nearly 2 million premature births and 74,000 newborn deaths globally in 2018. These phthalates, known endocrine disruptors, interfere with hormone production and are associated with numerous developmental and health problems. Despite industry claims of safety for DiNP, the widespread use of these “everywhere” chemicals in consumer products raises significant public health concerns, particularly as prematurity rates rise internationally.
Read the original article here
It’s becoming increasingly clear that the ubiquitous presence of plastic in our lives is far from benign, with new concerns emerging that paint a troubling picture for maternal and infant health. The chemical compounds found in many everyday plastic products have been linked to a significant number of preterm births and, tragically, thousands of infant deaths. This isn’t just a theoretical concern; it’s a tangible threat to the health of future generations, stemming from substances we encounter daily.
The chemical industry, through groups like the American Chemistry Council’s High Phthalates Panel, asserts that certain chemicals, such as DiNP, do not pose an “unreasonable risk of injury to human health.” However, this statement, particularly the phrasing around “unreasonable risk,” feels like a convenient deflection. For an industry group representing manufacturers of these chemicals, it’s understandable they would aim to downplay potential dangers. Yet, the growing body of evidence suggests that the risks, even if not deemed “unreasonable” by regulatory bodies influenced by industry, are very real and have devastating consequences.
It’s disheartening to realize how deeply ingrained plastics are in our society, often with unforeseen and harmful consequences. The insidious nature of these chemicals means that even seemingly innocuous items, like non-stick cookware, can pose a hidden danger, especially when scratched and worn. This constant unveiling of new risks makes one wonder about the long-term effects of our modern conveniences, and how generations before us, who might have been exposed to different but equally harmful substances like lead, might view our current situation.
For many women, the journey to conception and carrying a pregnancy to term has become fraught with anxiety, and environmental factors are increasingly recognized as significant contributors. The widespread use of plastics, which are derived from crude oil, is a prime suspect in this growing crisis. Many individuals who are proactively trying to conceive or maintain healthy pregnancies are making conscious efforts to reduce their exposure to these chemicals.
These efforts often involve a comprehensive overhaul of daily habits and product choices. This can include switching from non-stick cookware to stainless steel or cast iron, eliminating plastic cups in favor of glass, and storing food in glass containers instead of plastic. Even everyday items like ceramic plates and bowls, or carefully washing fruits and vegetables, are becoming part of a more mindful approach. The conscious selection of “clean” versions of cosmetics, shower gels, and cleaning products, along with a reduction in perfume use, further illustrates the extent to which people are trying to create a healthier environment. Choosing frozen foods over canned goods and even taking the initiative to make homemade yogurt in glass containers are all steps taken to minimize contact with potentially harmful chemicals.
The preparation for a new baby often involves an even more heightened level of scrutiny. This can mean opting for organic formula, using glass bottles exclusively, and seeking out “clean” versions of diapers and cleaning products. While complete avoidance of plastic is nearly impossible, with many parents still relying on plastic containers for food storage and plastic toys for their children due to convenience and cost, the hope is that limiting exposure in key areas can make a difference.
The personal testimonies are particularly poignant. For some, the experience of being born prematurely and facing lifelong vision problems, like needing glasses from a young age, is directly linked to these environmental exposures. This brings to light how deeply personal these issues are and how they can impact individuals from their earliest moments of life. It also validates the decisions of those who choose not to have children, feeling that the risks associated with raising a family in our current chemical-laden environment are simply too great.
The discussion around fragrances highlights another area of concern, where the exact chemical composition can vary widely, with more expensive options potentially using better, less harmful ingredients. It’s also eye-opening to learn that some countries, like Canada, took proactive steps years ago to restrict the use of certain plastics in children’s toys, suggesting a recognition of these dangers that has not been universally adopted.
The sentiment that plastic might eventually be recognized as even more harmful than substances like lead is a stark warning, reflecting a historical pattern of underestimating the dangers of certain materials. The “Plastic makes it possible” propaganda of the past now seems tragically ironic, given what we are learning. The concerns are not limited to specific regions; people living in areas with significant industrial presence, like Delaware, worry about increased cancer risks due to proximity to chemical companies.
It’s crucial to clarify that this issue isn’t solely about “forever chemicals” like PFAS, but also about the widespread use of plastics in everyday items like milk jugs, baby bottles, and Ziploc bags. While some individuals, perhaps due to genetic factors or a less chemically intensive upbringing, may have no trouble conceiving, the rise in infertility and pregnancy complications cannot be ignored. Plastic exposure is a significant environmental factor that likely contributes to this complex issue, even if it isn’t the sole cause.
The personal stories of getting pregnant easily, sometimes unexpectedly, even with an IUD in place, highlight the variability of fertility. However, this doesn’t negate the potential impact of environmental factors. The fact that many of these individuals grew up in areas with less stringent environmental regulations and heavy reliance on plastic further underscores the connection. The observation that some people seem to have an innate fertility, while others struggle, points to a spectrum of vulnerability, where environmental stressors can play a significant role.
The concept of “unreasonable risk” is indeed a point of contention. When industry representatives state that a chemical doesn’t pose an unreasonable risk, it often feels like a way to avoid responsibility. The comparison to CFCs, where the damage was an unforeseen consequence of an interaction with the environment, is relevant. Unlike lead, mercury, or asbestos, whose harmful effects were more readily apparent, the long-term ramifications of widespread plastic use have taken time to unfold.
The question then becomes about societal willingness to address these issues. Will governments step in with regulations, and will industries be held accountable for the cleanup and health consequences? Consumers also face the dilemma of whether they are willing to pay more and sacrifice convenience for sustainability. The convenience of plastic is deeply embedded in our lives, particularly in food packaging, leading to a reliance on materials that are difficult to avoid.
There’s a growing demand for systemic change, including laws that mandate the use of glass, paper, and metal whenever possible, and a return to practices like butcher paper and refillable containers. The microplastics entering our bodies through food packaging and synthetic clothing are a major concern, prompting a re-evaluation of our consumption habits. The irony of “stone paper” being made of plastic, or the widespread use of BPA in receipt paper, further illustrates the pervasive nature of plastic.
The frustration is palpable when individual efforts to be environmentally conscious seem overshadowed by larger-scale pollution. The current system of recycling is often questioned, and the burden placed on consumers to manage waste while industries continue to produce vast amounts of plastic is a source of despair. The hope for regulations that create meaningful change is strong, as many feel individual actions alone are insufficient.
The frustration is amplified when regulations seem to fall short or create unintended consequences, like paper straws containing PFAS. The debate over CO2 taxes, with exemptions for private jets, and the promotion of electric vehicles while politicians use gasoline-powered bulletproof cars, highlights a disconnect between policy and reality. While individual responsibility is important, the feeling of being continuously disadvantaged can lead to cynicism and a loss of hope.
Despite the complexities and the often frustrating pace of change, research on the impact of chemicals like BPA on human health is growing. Studies showing higher levels of BPA in individuals with jobs involving regular contact with receipt paper, like cashiers, underscore the need for critical thinking about widespread chemical exposure and its potential cumulative effects. The challenges are immense, but acknowledging the link between plastic chemicals, preterm births, and infant deaths is a crucial first step towards finding solutions and protecting the health of our children.