A newly published study has concluded that exposure to the toxin DDT is linked to an increased breast cancer risk in the granddaughters of exposed women.

A new article published in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, a journal of the American Association for Cancer Research, shows that the higher levels of DDT a grandmother has in her blood while pregnant, the higher the probability that her granddaughter will likely be overweight. The research also showed the granddaughter would likely have an earlier onset menstruation.

The study, organized by Public Health Institute’s Child Health and Development Studies (CHDS) and the University of California at Davis, concluded:

“Ancestral exposure to environmental chemicals, banned decades ago, may influence the development of earlier menarche and obesity, which are established risk factors for breast cancer and cardiometabolic diseases.”

Obesity and early menstruation are commonly seen as risk factors for developing breast cancer, as well as diabetes and high blood pressure.

The study began in 1959 by collecting blood samples from 20,000 pregnant mothers in the San Francisco area. The researchers collected samples throughout the 1960’s when DDT use was heavy and far reaching. The researchers recently contacted the children of the women and their daughters.

The goal was to “examine associations of environmental chemical levels with health outcomes in 3 generations: founding generation of women exposed during pregnancy, the offspring generation exposed in utero during development, and the grandchild generation exposed in the egg.”

The results showed the granddaughters were two to three times more likely to be obese and two times as likely to menstruate before 11. The researchers believe this means that DDT exposure while pregnant reaches the fetus and the ovarian follicles inside the fetus. These follicles later become eggs and eventually, the granddaughters who suffer from the consequences of their grandmothers exposure to DDT.

Barbara Cohn, director of CHDS and senior author of the study, told Courthouse News that, “Now our study shows for the first time in people that environmental chemicals like DDT may also pose health threats to our grandchildren.”

Additionally, Sue Fenton, a researcher with the U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, one of the funders of the study, told U.S. News that the study highlights the persistence of “organic pollutants”. Fenton says the United States has an obesity crisis and understanding whether chemicals like DDT are contributing is important.

A History of Toxins

DDT, or Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, was developed in the 1940’s to fight malaria and typhus. Monsanto was one of the few companies manufacturing DDT (as well Agent Orange). By October 1945, DDT was available for public consumption in the U.S. The chemical was promoted by the U.S. government and industry for at home and agricultural pesticide use.

Although concerns around DDT’s effect on public health existed since the early days of its use, it wasn’t until the 1962 publication of the book Silent Spring that Americans began paying attention to the dangers of the toxin. The book asked why the public’s health was being gambled on a potentially dangerous chemical with little research on the environmental and health impacts. The pushback against DDT that followed the book’s release eventually lead to the 1972 ban on DDT’s agricultural use in the U.S.

We now know that DDT is an “endocrine disruptor,” meaning it has the potential to interfere with hormone activity in the body. The latest research is showing that the impacts of this disruption can also effect weight and menstrual cycles three generations later.

It is this reality – the detrimental impacts of DDT, as well as the secret spraying of St. Louis residents, the Tuskegee experiments, and so many others – which has caused many educated, informed people to mistrust the proclamations of the U.S. government and health regulatory agencies. Whether right or wrong, the fact is that much of the public is skeptical of a government which has not only given approval to harmful chemicals in the past, but has actively hid experimentation on the American people.

Indeed, the U.S. government’s Environmental Protection Agency continues to say that glyphosate – a favorite of Monsanto, now owned by Bayer – poses no risk to human health, despite international agencies and independent research identifying cancer risks. In fact, the EPA’s own data has revealed the agency is well aware of the dangers posed by glyphosate.

One need not share these same fears to understand how a rational mind might practice a healthy amount of skepticism towards institutions with such a poor track record. I would argue this is the case for the public’s “hesitancy” to trust the medical “experts” when it comes to the COVID-19 vaccines. Can we really blame the individual who researches the history of these corporations, medical institutions, and agencies and comes away with little confidence? 

This is not to say that every individual within every organization associated with these atrocious experiments is a malicious actor. However, to ignore these facts – and the lack of accountability – is to willingly gamble with one’s own health and life.