The got the info from checking cord blood at birth, so these babies haven't eaten anything from breast or bottle yet. They've just been sharing nutrients and toxins with their mothers via the placenta.
It's bad enough news, why did they feel it necessary to throw in the race card. I was expecting the article would give some reason or justification. With only ten samples I'm actually surprised that they dare publish. Why pick BPA, what were the other 231 chemicals they were looking for?
On the other hand... I've been concerned for years that we are subtly damaging humans with chemicals we don't really realize are in our environment.
BPA is the most recently publicized and most actively researched "baddie" and has had a lot of public attention in the last few years. THAT is why it is in the headline, and not the other toxins.
no subject
Date: 2010-09-22 06:28 pm (UTC)Is it from bottle feeding? Maybe from older bottles?
no subject
Date: 2010-09-22 06:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-09-22 06:56 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-09-22 06:47 pm (UTC)On the other hand... I've been concerned for years that we are subtly damaging humans with chemicals we don't really realize are in our environment.
no subject
Date: 2010-09-23 05:15 am (UTC)