Study: Home Births Safe for Low-Risk Moms

Only about one percent of North American babies are born at home. But a study in the British Medical Journal reports home births can be a safe alternative for low risk women. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Karen Kelly reports:

Transcript

Only about one percent of North American babies are born at home. But a study
in the British Medical Journal reports home births can be a safe alternative
for low risk women. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Karen Kelly reports:


Researchers followed more than 5,400 pregnant women in the U.S. and Canada who were
planning a home birth with a professional certified midwife.


They looked at the death rate of newborns, the number of mothers who ended up in the hospital,
as well as the number of medical interventions used during labor.


They found low risk women who planned to give birth at home had the same likelihood of their
child dying as low risk women who went to the hospital. That’s fewer than two deaths out of
every 1,000 births.


Kenneth Johnson is an epidemiologist with the Canadian government.


“The participants experienced substantially lower rates of epidurals, episiotomies, forceps
deliveries, vacuum extractions, and cesareans.”


Home birth remains controversial in North America. While several Canadian medical societies
endorse home births, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists remains opposed
to them.


For the GLRC, I’m Karen Kelly.

Related Links

Phthalate Concerns Cause Company Makeovers

  • Women marching on behalf of a campaign to remove phthalates and other chemicals from cosmetics. (Photo courtesy of the Breast Cancer Fund)

There are new concerns that products we use every day to keep us clean and make us beautiful may contain toxic chemicals. The targets are things like shampoos, deodorants, hair dyes and cosmetics. Some companies are taking these concerns seriously and giving themselves a makeover. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Julie Halpert has this story:

Transcript

There are new concerns that products we use every day to keep us clean and make us beautiful may contain toxic chemicals. The targets are things like shampoos, deodorants, hair dyes and cosmetics. Some companies are taking these concerns seriously and giving themselves a makeover. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Julie Halpert has this story:


(Sound of woman and child talking)


Teri Olle is playing dress-up with her two-year-old daughter, Natalie, in the family’s bathroom. Teri is applying lotions to her daughter’s chubby cheeks, while Natalie puts lipstick on her mother.


Little girls like Natalie have been playing dress-up for generations. But Natalie’s game is slightly different. She’s using nail polish, lipsticks and creams made without man-made chemicals.


That’s because her mother is an environmental activist who lobbies against toxic chemical use. With cosmetics, her biggest fear is a group of chemicals called phthalates. Phthalates increase the flexibility of plastic and keep nail polish from chipping.


“Phthalates are testosterone-suppressing synthetic hormones, essentially. And they’ve been linked with all sorts of developmental problems, including, most dramatically, a set of male genital defects that show themselves as birth defects in infant boys.”


Last month, scientists released the first study on male babies. They found a strong link between high levels of phthalates exposure in pregnant women and damage to their sons’ reproductive tract. Studies like this, and others on lab animals showing possible links to reproductive problems, prompted the European Union this past March to ban two types of phthalates from all products sold in Europe. The states of California, New York and Massachusetts are also considering similar plans.


Olle is five months pregnant with her second child. She doesn’t know if she’s carrying a boy, but she says chemicals in cosmetics could be risky for any fetus. So she’s not taking any chances.


“For me, as a person, if someone said to me, ‘You can either use this product that may cause a genital defect in your baby boy or not’, I would think most people would go, ‘Really, we probably shouldn’t be using these products.'”


And it’s not just phthalates that could be a problem. Environmentalists say that the ingredients in cosmetics haven’t been evaluated for health or safety effects. The Food and Drug Administration doesn’t do that kind of testing. And in 60 years, it’s banned only nine ingredients. So there are other chemicals, like coal tars used in hair dyes and formaldehyde used in nail polish, that might cause health problems as they’re absorbed by the skin into the bloodstream.


Because of these concerns, a group of environmentalists called the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics has convinced 136 natural cosmetics companies to sign a pledge to check for potentially toxic chemicals and eliminate them.


One of those companies is Avalon Organics. Over the past year, Avalon’s spent two and a half million dollars to reformulate their products and switch to more natural alternatives. Gil Pritchard is the company’s President and CEO. He says the jury’s out on whether these chemicals definitely cause harm. Even so, he didn’t hesitate to make the investment.


“It’s convincing enough for me and our company to exercise what we call a precautionary principle – to adopt it and say look, we may not have direct scientific evidence, but there’s enough evidence here to say whoa, I can feel the heat from the stove. I don’t need to put my finger on and burn myself to know that that’s one of the likely outcomes.”


But not all companies feel this way. Procter & Gamble, in Cincinnati, Ohio, has not signed the pledge. Nor have any other major cosmetic companies. Tim Long is a company spokesman. He says environmentalists are blowing this issue way out of proportion.


“The amounts of most of these ingredients that the activists have concerns about are, in fact, extremely small and at the doses used in our products, there’s no scientific evidence to support that they’re resulting in any harm to consumers.”


Long says Procter & Gamble complied with the EU directive and took the banned phthalates out of all of its products both in Europe and the U.S. But he says that wasn’t necessary, since phthalates, along with all other cosmetic ingredients, simply aren’t dangerous. He says his company wouldn’t be using them if they were. And the FDA says that these cosmetics are safe.


Environmentalists say that more research needs to be done to better understand the effect of chemicals used in cosmetics on the body. But Teri Olle says that with so many natural alternatives available, it makes sense to be careful.


“When I became pregnant, I definitely became more conscious of what I was putting on my body. I mean, if you’re supposed to avoid soft cheeses and cake batter, it certainly can’t be good for you to be spraying petrochemicals on your body. That definitely can’t be good for the baby.”


So when the baby’s born this September, instead of using products with man-made chemicals, Teri Olle will be spreading diaper rash ointment with beeswax and apricot oil on her newborn baby.


For the GLRC, I’m Julie Halpert.

Related Links

Risks of Prenatal Exposure to Air Pollution

  • A new study suggests that air pollution has a significant effect on developing babies. (Photo by Lester Graham)

A recent study indicates expectant mothers who are exposed to air pollution see damage to the genetic make up of their newborns. That might increase the babies’ risk of contracting cancer later in life. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:

Transcript

A recent study indicates expectant mothers who are exposed to
air pollution see damage to the genetic make up of their newborns.
That might increase the babies’ risk of contracting cancer later in
life. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:


The expectant mothers were asked to carry air monitors in backpacks to see how much they were exposed to air pollutants. The Columbia University researchers chose 60 mothers in low-income neighborhoods. Dr. Frederica Perera is chief author of the study.


“All of our mothers in the study were non-smokers. So, the primary source of these pollutants in air would be things like motor vehicles, emissions from residential heating units, burning fossil fuel and also from power plants located even fairly far away.”


It’s the fist study to make a connection between air pollutants causing genetic changes in the womb that could increase cancer risk. Earlier studies by the researchers already revealed greater prenatal exposure to air pollution caused lower birth weights and smaller heads in newborns.


For the GLRC, this is Lester Graham.

Related Links