KUOW - Study finds dangerous chemicals in the breast milk of Seattle moms 41%

By Eilís O'Neill0%

7/8/2026, 3:20:01 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 31 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Hasty Generalization, and Negativity Bias, with Post Hoc (False Cause) as the most egregious example at 23.1% saturation with 194 hits. Analysis detected 1,732 faulty-reasoning hits from 841 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 38.1% and a BS Rank of 41% (18,089 of 30,584 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 59.10% of the article peer group.

Study finds dangerous chemicals in the breast milk of Seattle moms 
Johanna Goldhammer, 6 months, sits on the lap of her mother, Camie Goldhammer, chairman of the Native American Breastfeeding Coalition, as they listen as others testify about breastfeeding before the Seattle City Council Monday, April 9, 2012, in Seattle. 
(AP Photo/Elaine Thompson) 
Breast milk samples from moms in the Seattle area contained chemicals linked to health problems, new research has found . 
The chemicals are often used in beverage can liners, receipt paper, and other products, and they’ve been linked to reproductive problems, cancer, and immune problems like asthma. 
Ryan Babadi is the science director at the nonprofit Toxic Free Future, which co-authored the research. 
He said breast milk is still the best food for most babies. 
“The problem is not breast milk,” he said. 
“The problem is that we have chemical policies that are allowing these contaminants to end up in women and breastmilk and result in exposure to infants during a very sensitive time period of development.” 
Researchers collected breast milk from 50 women and tested it for various chemicals. 
They found that the majority of the samples contained BPA and the related chemical BPS, triclosan, and melamine. 
All three of these chemical groups are known as “endocrine disruptors” because they can mimic, block, or alter human hormones and thus affect a large number of systems. 
BPA, for example, has been linked to diabetes, the early onset of puberty, and a number of cancers. 
Triclosan interferes with thyroid function and could increase cancer risk. 
And melamine has been linked to kidney problems . 
“This isn’t a problem that mothers or people in general can shop their way out of,” Babadi said. 
“We need government decision-makers and policymakers as well as the corporate environment to come up with policy solutions that protect us.” 
RELATED : Trump administration actions contradict MAHA rhetoric on toxic chemicals 
Breast milk for the study was collected in 2019. 
In the years since, Washington state has started regulating some of the chemicals the researchers found. 
For example, as of last year, beverage cans in Washington aren’t allowed to contain BPA and related chemicals. 
And as of January, those chemicals aren’t allowed in receipt paper in the state. 
That’s because, under a state law passed in 2019 , the ecology department prioritizes harmful chemicals, identifies consumer products that contain those chemicals, and writes new regulations to ban or restrict them. 
So far, the state has regulated not only BPA and related chemicals, but also phthalates in personal care products and vinyl flooring, triclosan in cosmetics, and PFAS chemicals in carpets, rugs, and furniture. 
Those last are known as “forever” chemicals because they do not degrade over time. 
RELATED : 5 ways to reduce everyday exposure to 'forever chemicals' 
The state is now looking at chemicals in cosmetics, jewelry, cookware, paint, and artificial turf, among other products, for possible future regulation. 
The state has not looked at banning or restricting melamine, one of the chemicals the researchers found in breast milk. 
Babadi said in an email that Washington’s law is the nation's strongest for regulating toxic chemicals, but he said it needed to be improved “to be able to enact bans in urgent scenarios when, for example, we observe harmful chemicals in breast milk.” 
The process for restricting new chemicals currently takes at least five years. 
Marissa Smith is a toxicologist and the former technical lead for the Safer Products for Washington program. 
She now works on chemical policies across the ecology department. 
She said the state’s current process of chemical regulation helps build compliance by giving manufacturers and industries plenty of lead time and compliance assistance. 
“We generally do see compliance with state laws,” she added. 
“Most manufacturers want to sell products that are compliant.” 
RELATED : Trump cuts demolish agency focused on toxic chemicals and workplace hazards 
Smith emphasized that state-level chemical regulations like those in Washington and California can have an effect across the country, as manufacturers switch over to safer alternatives for their entire supply chain. 
And Smith sees other reasons for hope. 
 Products are getting safer over time,” she said. 
 There were some toxic flame retardants that were used in kids' pajamas and other products, and we banned those, and we actually saw concentrations in our bodies and in our environment go down.” 
For another example, Smith pointed to the dramatic decline in how much lead was in children’s blood after the U.S. banned leaded gasoline in 1996. 
 There's just a lot of examples where we have actually regulated products and we've seen reductions in people's exposure,” Smith said. 
Why you can trust KUOW 
Eilís is a reporter covering health. 
She focuses on health inequities, substance use and addiction, infectious diseases, mental health, and reproductive and maternal health. 
More stories from Eilís O'Neill >> 
Health sleuths are watching for disease threats during the World Cup 
Washington seniors face denied, delayed care under AI Medicare review program 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 5.2%Eilís O'Neill: 12.3%KUOW: 2.6%Confirmation Bias5.2%This article: 0.0%Eilís O'Neill: 1.3%KUOW: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 11.1%Eilís O'Neill: 7.2%KUOW: 3.4%Availability Heuristic11.1%This article: 2.6%Eilís O'Neill: 0.3%KUOW: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic2.6%This article: 4.9%Eilís O'Neill: 2.1%KUOW: 0.7%Hindsight Bias4.9%This article: 7.0%Eilís O'Neill: 1.7%KUOW: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias7.0%This article: 7.6%Eilís O'Neill: 7.3%KUOW: 7.3%Framing Effect7.6%This article: 2.1%Eilís O'Neill: 0.2%KUOW: 1.0%Loss Aversion2.1%This article: 7.5%Eilís O'Neill: 3.0%KUOW: 1.0%Status Quo Bias7.5%This article: 0.0%Eilís O'Neill: 0.0%KUOW: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 6.2%Eilís O'Neill: 3.9%KUOW: 3.7%Optimism Bias6.2%This article: 10.3%Eilís O'Neill: 2.0%KUOW: 1.8%Pessimism Bias10.3%This article: 14.5%Eilís O'Neill: 22.1%KUOW: 8.0%Negativity Bias14.5%This article: 0.0%Eilís O'Neill: 1.9%KUOW: 2.0%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 4.0%Eilís O'Neill: 2.8%KUOW: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error4.0%This article: 0.0%Eilís O'Neill: 0.2%KUOW: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eilís O'Neill: 4.6%KUOW: 1.9%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eilís O'Neill: 1.6%KUOW: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eilís O'Neill: 0.0%KUOW: 2.7%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Eilís O'Neill: 1.8%KUOW: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Eilís O'Neill: 0.0%KUOW: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 3.0%Eilís O'Neill: 3.1%KUOW: 1.1%Recency Bias3.0%This article: 0.0%Eilís O'Neill: 0.0%KUOW: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Eilís O'Neill: 0.0%KUOW: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eilís O'Neill: 0.0%KUOW: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Eilís O'Neill: 0.3%KUOW: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 17.4%Eilís O'Neill: 4.8%KUOW: 4.2%Appeal to Authority17.4%This article: 2.1%Eilís O'Neill: 2.0%KUOW: 1.4%False Dilemma2.1%This article: 3.7%Eilís O'Neill: 1.8%KUOW: 0.9%Slippery Slope3.7%This article: 1.1%Eilís O'Neill: 0.1%KUOW: 0.1%Circular Reasoning1.1%This article: 14.6%Eilís O'Neill: 11.8%KUOW: 4.1%Hasty Generalization14.6%This article: 4.9%Eilís O'Neill: 2.8%KUOW: 0.3%Red Herring4.9%This article: 1.3%Eilís O'Neill: 1.3%KUOW: 0.8%Bandwagon1.3%This article: 5.4%Eilís O'Neill: 8.7%KUOW: 6.1%Appeal to Emotion5.4%This article: 4.0%Eilís O'Neill: 1.4%KUOW: 0.8%Begging the Question4.0%This article: 23.1%Eilís O'Neill: 6.1%KUOW: 2.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)23.1%This article: 0.0%Eilís O'Neill: 0.0%KUOW: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Eilís O'Neill: 0.5%KUOW: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Eilís O'Neill: 0.0%KUOW: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 3.8%Eilís O'Neill: 0.4%KUOW: 0.2%Composition/Division3.8%This article: 7.0%Eilís O'Neill: 14.1%KUOW: 3.3%Anecdotal7.0%This article: 1.4%Eilís O'Neill: 0.2%KUOW: 0.1%No True Scotsman1.4%This article: 10.9%Eilís O'Neill: 1.6%KUOW: 1.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)10.9%This article: 0.0%Eilís O'Neill: 0.0%KUOW: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Eilís O'Neill: 0.0%KUOW: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Eilís O'Neill: 0.3%KUOW: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Eilís O'Neill: 0.1%KUOW: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Eilís O'Neill: 0.5%KUOW: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Eilís O'Neill: 1.5%KUOW: 1.0%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Eilís O'Neill: 0.0%KUOW: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 9.2%Eilís O'Neill: 1.7%KUOW: 3.2%Biased Writer Voice9.2%This article: 2.5%Eilís O'Neill: 0.8%KUOW: 1.5%Indoctrination2.5%This article: 0.0%Eilís O'Neill: 3.8%KUOW: 1.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 2.9%Eilís O'Neill: 0.3%KUOW: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias2.9%This article: 4.6%Eilís O'Neill: 0.5%KUOW: 1.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…4.6%

841 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers41%attributed speech498writer words
Selected voice

Ryan Babadi

100%flagged-word coverage
152 attributed words44% of attributed speech75% writer coverage
0%27.5%55.0%Biased Writer Voice+50.7 ptsWriter: 0.0%Ryan Babadi: 50.7%50.7%Indoctrination+13.8 ptsWriter: 0.0%Ryan Babadi: 13.8%13.8%Attempt to Sell a Product -7.8 ptsWriter: 7.8%Ryan Babadi: 0.0%0.0%Politically Right Leaning -4.8 ptsWriter: 4.8%Ryan Babadi: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.