Kids and ChemicalsKids and Chemicals

Many chemicals, little testingMany chemicals, little testing

More than 75,000 chemicals used in U.S.; More than 75,000 chemicals used in U.S.; 3,000 in high production.3,000 in high production.

Most not tested for effect upon children’s Most not tested for effect upon children’s health; none are tested for their synergistic health; none are tested for their synergistic health effects (chemical combinations).health effects (chemical combinations).

Scientists trying to learn about this.Scientists trying to learn about this.

Thallon, Nevada: Kids getting Thallon, Nevada: Kids getting leukemialeukemia

4 kids got it, triggering investigation by Nevada 4 kids got it, triggering investigation by Nevada Dept. of Public Health.Dept. of Public Health.

In 20 years In 20 years 1 case. 1 case. Then in one year Then in one year 15 cases, same area. 15 cases, same area. Is this a cluster?Is this a cluster? Possible causes/links:Possible causes/links:

PesticidesPesticides Natural arsenic in waterNatural arsenic in water Radiation from nuclear testing, falloutRadiation from nuclear testing, fallout Benzene from airbaseBenzene from airbase

Richard Jackson, CDC Challenge in understanding disease clusters,

like in Thallon, Nevada: “Clusters are the bane of the existence of health officers.”

“Environmental epidemiology, doing investigations of epidemic things in the environment, has been held back by good measures of what’s in people. It is much more difficult than infectious disease epidemiology. Environmental exposures are often much lower, much more long term. It’s a different kind of investigation.”

Environment health is complicated: there are often several, even many, interacting causal factors.

CDC researchCDC research

Center for Environmental Health Center for Environmental Health research on body burden of chemicals in research on body burden of chemicals in kids, adultskids, adults

Looking for chemicals in biological Looking for chemicals in biological samples.samples.

National Children’s Study: National Children’s Study: examines impact of examines impact of chemicals and other factors on sample of children, ages 0-18. $50 chemicals and other factors on sample of children, ages 0-18. $50 million/year in funding. Implemented in 2007.million/year in funding. Implemented in 2007.

Phillip Landrigan, Mt. Sinai HospitalPhillip Landrigan, Mt. Sinai Hospital

50-60 years ago in U.S., the primary diseases 50-60 years ago in U.S., the primary diseases affecting children were the infectious diseases. affecting children were the infectious diseases. Now Now they are the chronic (non-communicable diseases).they are the chronic (non-communicable diseases).

After injuries, cancer is leading cause of death in After injuries, cancer is leading cause of death in children.children.

Before 1996 Food Quality Protection Act passed, Before 1996 Food Quality Protection Act passed, little testing required.little testing required.

Now, focus is on kids.Now, focus is on kids. Kids are:Kids are:

More heavily exposed, pound for pound.More heavily exposed, pound for pound. More time on ground, hands in mouths.More time on ground, hands in mouths. Exposed to pesticides.Exposed to pesticides.

Phillip Landrigan, Mt. Sinai HospitalPhillip Landrigan, Mt. Sinai Hospital

Pesticides made for outdoor usePesticides made for outdoor use Indoors they don’t degrade quickly, like in Indoors they don’t degrade quickly, like in

carpets.carpets. They lingerThey linger

Organophosphates developed as nerve Organophosphates developed as nerve poisonspoisons They kill insects that way They kill insects that way same impact on same impact on

humans.humans.

Low Levels of Multiple Exposures: Low Levels of Multiple Exposures: Dr. Perera, Columbia Univ.Dr. Perera, Columbia Univ.

NYC pregnant women wearing backpacks.NYC pregnant women wearing backpacks. NYC is urban soup of pollutants.NYC is urban soup of pollutants. NYC never in compliance with air quality NYC never in compliance with air quality

standardsstandards Harlem has among highest asthma ratesHarlem has among highest asthma rates Involuntary exposures.Involuntary exposures. Exposures to carcinogens, pesticides, Exposures to carcinogens, pesticides,

allergens.allergens.

Low Levels of Multiple Exposures: Low Levels of Multiple Exposures: Dr. Pereira, Columbia Univ.Dr. Pereira, Columbia Univ.

Fetus is susceptible, chemicals cross Fetus is susceptible, chemicals cross placentaplacenta

Exposure affects health if:Exposure affects health if: It has right intensityIt has right intensity It occurs at critical developmental point It occurs at critical developmental point

(timing)(timing) Example: ThalidomideExample: Thalidomide

Sandra SteingraberSandra Steingraber

Windows of vulnerability for fetusWindows of vulnerability for fetus DNA analysis of fetuses and babiesDNA analysis of fetuses and babies Benzopyrenes (byproduct of burning fossil Benzopyrenes (byproduct of burning fossil

fuel): 6 of 10 babies had adducts. fuel): 6 of 10 babies had adducts. Is this is a link to disease?Is this is a link to disease? Mild, severe developmental delays.Mild, severe developmental delays.

Peggy Shepherd, West Harlem Peggy Shepherd, West Harlem Environmental Action CommitteeEnvironmental Action Committee

Lead from lead paint, gasoline.Lead from lead paint, gasoline. Lead is #1 environmental threat to childrenLead is #1 environmental threat to children Community organization take scientific Community organization take scientific

data and try to change public policy.data and try to change public policy. Dr. Pereira: “It will take hard work and Dr. Pereira: “It will take hard work and

struggles” to improve the health of struggles” to improve the health of children.children.

Herbert NeedlemanHerbert Needleman Low doses of lead are dangerous to kidsLow doses of lead are dangerous to kids Study of lead in kids (in teeth) in Somerville, Study of lead in kids (in teeth) in Somerville,

Newton, late 1970s.Newton, late 1970s. Lead is the # 1 environmental threat to children’s Lead is the # 1 environmental threat to children’s

health.health. Needleman’s research question: Needleman’s research question: We know that high We know that high

lead exposure can have serious developmental effects in children. lead exposure can have serious developmental effects in children. “Will a little lead make you dumb?” “Will a little lead make you dumb?”

Needleman’s findings: Needleman’s findings: low levels of lead (the first 3 low levels of lead (the first 3 micrograms/deciliter in blood) can do harm micrograms/deciliter in blood) can do harm there is no safe there is no safe level of exposure.level of exposure.

The battle over LeadThe battle over Lead Industry blocked the ban on lead in gasoline for a Industry blocked the ban on lead in gasoline for a

long timelong time Europe banned lead in paint in 1920s.Europe banned lead in paint in 1920s. U.S. ignored the science, promoted lead in paint U.S. ignored the science, promoted lead in paint

for 40 years.for 40 years. Lead put in gas in 1920s, against scientists’ Lead put in gas in 1920s, against scientists’

objections that it would lead to lead poisoning objections that it would lead to lead poisoning epidemic.epidemic.

EPA phase-out of lead in gasoline, 1973-1996. EPA phase-out of lead in gasoline, 1973-1996. Average blood lead levels in kids dropped from 16 (1970s) Average blood lead levels in kids dropped from 16 (1970s) to 2 micrograms per deciliter since lead taken out of gas.to 2 micrograms per deciliter since lead taken out of gas.

The battle over Lead (cont.)The battle over Lead (cont.) Lead industry attacked Needleman’s Lead industry attacked Needleman’s

research research called it junk science, scientific called it junk science, scientific misconduct. misconduct. They said only high levels would do They said only high levels would do harm. Propaganda worked for a while.harm. Propaganda worked for a while.

Industry shown later to be wrong. Industry shown later to be wrong. They paid They paid their “independent” scientists who had challenged their “independent” scientists who had challenged Needleman Needleman industry science. industry science.

““Science is not an always polite intellectual Science is not an always polite intellectual activity. Environmental science is warfare.” activity. Environmental science is warfare.” (Needleman)(Needleman)

Heruclanium, MO smelterHeruclanium, MO smelter

Industry and government lied, doctors said Industry and government lied, doctors said nothing to parents.nothing to parents.

Community included workers Community included workers hard to hard to speak out.speak out.

People can’t sell homes. Why?People can’t sell homes. Why? Company didn’t understand why lead Company didn’t understand why lead

contamination became an issue. Why?contamination became an issue. Why? Community demanded answers, help from Community demanded answers, help from

government, and cleanup of contamination.government, and cleanup of contamination.

Heruclanium, MO smelterHeruclanium, MO smelter Community leader. Community leader. Leslie Warden, town Leslie Warden, town

alderwoman, organized the community to demand that alderwoman, organized the community to demand that industry and government take action. industry and government take action.

Doe Run Company representative: Doe Run Company representative: “People “People become more aware or tolerate less risk than 10 years become more aware or tolerate less risk than 10 years ago.”ago.”

Company escaped regulation for years. Company escaped regulation for years. Government allowed high levels of pollution as long as Government allowed high levels of pollution as long as company was improving. company was improving.

Finally, Federal government action. Finally, Federal government action. Congressman Gephardt demanded Heruclanium be put Congressman Gephardt demanded Heruclanium be put on Superfund priorities list for hazardous waste cleanup. on Superfund priorities list for hazardous waste cleanup.

Lessons of “Kids and Lessons of “Kids and Chemicals”Chemicals”

Children and fetuses are extremely vulnerable to Children and fetuses are extremely vulnerable to environmental contamination.environmental contamination.

Even low levels of pollution can be toxic. Low Even low levels of pollution can be toxic. Low levels of lead are especially harmful.levels of lead are especially harmful.

Active environmental health research is vital for Active environmental health research is vital for protecting communities and public health. protecting communities and public health.

Community leadership is vital in challenging Community leadership is vital in challenging corporations and government to protect the corporations and government to protect the health of residents.health of residents.

Lessons of “Kids and Lessons of “Kids and Chemicals”Chemicals”

Corporations have a long record of avoiding Corporations have a long record of avoiding responsibility to the public. They use their vast responsibility to the public. They use their vast resources to fight environmental regulation, to resources to fight environmental regulation, to fight public health research findings, and to fight fight public health research findings, and to fight compensating communities for the harm they compensating communities for the harm they have caused. have caused.

Acceptable Risk vs. PrecautionAcceptable Risk vs. Precaution Most of Occupational Health and Most of Occupational Health and

Environmental standards and regulations Environmental standards and regulations based on acceptable risk. based on acceptable risk. Permissible Exposure Limits, legal Permissible Exposure Limits, legal

environmental limits (in parts per million), etc.environmental limits (in parts per million), etc. Illness, death rates regarded as “allowable.”Illness, death rates regarded as “allowable.”

Alternative is Precautionary approachAlternative is Precautionary approach “ “First do no harm” or “better safe than sorry”: First do no harm” or “better safe than sorry”:

seek safest alternative technologies, seek safest alternative technologies, substances.substances.

Based on scientific indications of harm, not Based on scientific indications of harm, not proof of safe levels. No need for “conclusive proof of safe levels. No need for “conclusive evidence.”evidence.”

Making decisions based on “risk Making decisions based on “risk assessment”assessment”

Tells us the likelihood and amount of harm from Tells us the likelihood and amount of harm from an activity. an activity.

Enforce limits to prevent harm from going beyond Enforce limits to prevent harm from going beyond “acceptable levels.” How much harm is “acceptable levels.” How much harm is acceptable?acceptable?

Assumes that people and corporations have right Assumes that people and corporations have right to do anything they choose (if legal) until a third to do anything they choose (if legal) until a third party proves harm is done.party proves harm is done.

Burden of proof is placed on those being harmed.Burden of proof is placed on those being harmed.

Making decisions based on Making decisions based on precautionary approachprecautionary approach

How much harm can we avoid?How much harm can we avoid? Three elements: 1) If we have reasonable Three elements: 1) If we have reasonable

suspicion of harm; 2) and there is scientific suspicion of harm; 2) and there is scientific uncertainty; 3) then, we have duty to take action uncertainty; 3) then, we have duty to take action to prevent harm.to prevent harm.

Consensus developed to take action:Consensus developed to take action:** Set goals.** Set goals.** Examine all reasonable alternatives.** Examine all reasonable alternatives.** Shift burden of proof to proponents of ** Shift burden of proof to proponents of activities.activities.** those affected by decision should help make ** those affected by decision should help make the decision.the decision.

Making decisions based on Making decisions based on precautionary approachprecautionary approach

Risk based approach has not protected us.Risk based approach has not protected us. Goal of precaution is not zero risk but less risk. Goal of precaution is not zero risk but less risk. Precautionary principle is not anti-science; it Precautionary principle is not anti-science; it

uses all available science.uses all available science. Precautionary approach doesn’t hinder Precautionary approach doesn’t hinder

progress; it examines all available alternatives.progress; it examines all available alternatives. Precautionary approach stimulates technical Precautionary approach stimulates technical

innovation (e.g. green chemistry, green design)innovation (e.g. green chemistry, green design)