MS and Autism Among Brain Health Risks From Common Household Chemicals

Chemicals found in common household items could be damaging our brains, scientists have warned, with potential links to a range of neurological conditions including multiple sclerosis and autism.

On a daily basis, we are exposed to hundreds of different chemicals, the health effects of which are mostly unknown. To explore these effects, a team of researchers from Case Western Reserve University's School of Medicine analyzed over 1,800 household chemicals found in common household cleaners, beauty products and flame retardants.

Most previous studies on the effects of these chemicals on brain health have focused on neuronal cells in the brain, which basically act like the brain's wiring. But much less is known about the effects of these chemicals on the brain's supporting cells. Thus, the team decided to focus it efforts on the cells that wrap around our neurons and improve their ability to transmit information. Called oligodendrocytes, they form the brain's white matte and function like the colorful cable insulation we see around copper wires.

Using oligodendrocytes isolated from mice and cultured human cells, the team found that 292 of the chemicals tested were deadly to these insulating brain cells, with a further 47 inhibiting oligodendrocyte generation. Their results were published in the journal Nature Neuroscience.

"We were indeed surprised by our research findings, which revealed that certain common household chemicals can be harmful to brain cells," principal investigator Paul Tesar told Newsweek. He is a professor of genetics and genome sciences and director of the Institute for Glial Sciences at Case Western Reserve's School of Medicine.

"Children, particularly during their developmental stages, and individuals with certain preexisting health conditions such as multiple sclerosis are likely the most vulnerable to the harmful effects of these chemicals," Tesar continued. "The developing brain is more susceptible to damage from chemical exposure because it is still forming critical connections and structures.

"Additionally, for those with underlying health issues or genetic factors that make them prone to diseases, these chemicals might worsen symptoms or even trigger new health problems," he said.

The researchers found that children between the ages of 3 and 11 who were exposed to a chemical found in flame retardants are more likely to develop movement disorders and need special education, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.

So does this mean we need to stop using products that contain these chemicals?

"Not necessarily," Tesar said. "We need to undertake future studies to identify more clear links between exposure to these chemicals and brain health. Some of these chemicals have useful roles in our homes, but we need to consider how they're being used and what level of exposure might be considered safe."

He continued: "The results of our study provide a starting point to understand what exposure levels to these chemicals might be putting ourselves or kids at risk for toxicity."

Oliver Jones, a professor of chemistry at Australia's Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology who was not involved in the study, said studies like this one provided useful insights into the potential effects of these chemicals on human health, But, he added, it is important to remember that laboratory findings such as these do not necessarily directly translate to health risks in the real world.

"When we're evaluating the risks of a chemical, we need to consider things like the dose (how much of the compound we are exposed to), the route (how we are exposed) and the duration (how long we are exposed)," Jones said in a statement. "It is not a question of if something is toxic or not but if it is toxic under the conditions to which we are likely to be exposed.

He continued: "In this case, the authors have exposed cells in a Petri dish to a relatively high amount of these compounds, which is not the same dose route or duration of exposure that humans would normally encounter. Many of the experiments were carried out on mouse, rather than human, cells and mice are not mini humans. So, although the work reveals some potentially interesting and useful data, it should be treated as preliminary."

Tesar also highlighted this limitation, emphasizing the need for more research.

"We want to be clear that our intention is not to cause unnecessary alarm or suggest a complete elimination of these chemicals from our homes," he said. "It's crucial to recognize that while these substances can pose risks, our aim is to better understand these potential effects to ensure safety and well-being."

He went on: "The path forward involves comprehensive research to identify who is most at risk, the timing and duration of exposures, and how these factors contribute to health outcomes. By deepening our understanding, we hope to establish clearer connections between chemical exposure and health impacts, ultimately guiding safer practices and policies.

"Our commitment is to safeguard health without compromising the quality of life," he added. "And we believe that with continued research, we can achieve a balance that benefits everyone."

Is there a health problem that's worrying you? Do you have a question about brain health? Let us know via health@newsweek.com. We can ask experts for advice, and your story could be featured in Newsweek.