Environmental scientists say there is no credible evidence that mifepristone (Mifeprex) or fetal tissue is contaminating U.S. water supplies at levels that would harm humans, animals, or the environment, despite claims from advocacy groups linking at-home abortions to water pollution.
The debate was revived after the release of the latest "Make America Healthy Again" (MAHA) report overseen by HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., which raises broad concerns about pharmaceutical pollution but makes no mention of mifepristone, abortion, or fetal tissue.
The Florida-based advocacy group Liberty Counsel sought to tie its long-running allegations of so-called "abortion contaminants" in water to the MAHA report, but environmental scientists described that connection as more politically motivated than scientifically grounded.
"Most scientists would agree that there is no evidence that mifepristone pollution harms people, animals, or ecosystems," Jack Vanden Heuvel, PhD, a professor of molecular toxicology at Pennsylvania State University in State College, told MedPage Today.
Tracey Woodruff, PhD, MPH, of the University of California San Francisco, who has studied estrogenic compounds and birth control hormones in water, also dismissed the claims. She called attempts to frame mifepristone contamination under the National Environmental Policy Act as "a very clever use of legal language."
"But I don't think it holds a lot of water," she told MedPage Today.
Mifepristone tends to bind to solid waste and is effectively removed by most modern wastewater treatment plants, Vanden Heuvel said, adding that advanced processes such as ozonation can further degrade steroidal drugs and make the likelihood of meaningful exposure through drinking water extremely low. The FDA's original 1996 assessment of mifepristone concluded the drug has no significant environmental impact.
"Overall, the likelihood of appreciable mifepristone reaching surface or recycled water is considered low compared with many other pharmaceuticals," Vanden Heuvel noted. He said concerns about pharmaceuticals in the environment are valid, but more pressing for other drugs -- particularly antibiotics that contribute to antimicrobial resistance.
Woodruff agreed, saying it "probably is [a] pretty small risk compared to the other types of pharmaceuticals that are found in drinking water."
The issue resurfaced this summer when lawmakers in several states introduced bills restricting abortion medications, citing unproven contamination risks. At the federal level, congressional Republicans proposed legislation to ban the disposal of fetal remains in public water systems on similar grounds.
Liberty Counsel published a document in June calling for research into "whether and how chemical abortion pills and related byproducts (developing skulls, placentas, other fetal remains, etc.) are impacting the environment." The group recirculated that report in its Sept. 11 statement that referenced the MAHA report, which itself pushes for the study of "levels of pharmaceuticals in our water supply" and the role of "chemical exposure" in chronic childhood illnesses.
Liberty Counsel sought to link the MAHA document to its own publication, repeating its claim that "about 30-40 tons of hazardous medical waste, including human remains, are being flushed into the water systems." It attributed the figure to a website operated by the anti-abortion group Students for Life of America, which cites an even higher number -- "50+ tons" -- but offers no supporting evidence. The claim fails to specify the time period for which the estimate applies.
MedPage Today reached out to Liberty Counsel for comment but did not immediately receive a response.
Vanden Heuvel said he found no credible evidence to support the tonnage figures, adding that while the amount of medical and hazardous waste generated is large, the fraction flushed into wastewater is likely small.
"Most medical waste is handled, incinerated, autoclaved, or otherwise managed, not flushed," he said. "Even for the portion that could be flushed (e.g., liquid wastes, medicines, bodily fluids), many wastewater treatment plants have solid-liquid separation, sedimentation, filtration, ozonation, which reduce the load. Without details on the source, timeframe, or definition of 'medical waste' in that claim, it is misleading to treat it as established fact."
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.