Pesticides and Children's Health

Toxic Free Kids | Toxic Free Child Care | Toxic Free Schools

Every day, new science shows us that children are not just small adults, and that the outdated methods we use to protect them from toxic pollutants like pesticides are not as effective as we thought.

Children can be much more vulnerable to harmful health effects from exposure to pollutants and pesticides. That's because their bodies are still developing, they take in so much more food and water relative to their body size than adults do, and they spend so much more time exploring the ground and objects where contaminants settle.

In light of these considerations, physicians and children’s advocates urge a precautionary approach to protect the developing fetus, infants and children from environmental toxicants.

The polluters, on the other hand, want to precisely quantify pollutants’ effects on children before taking any meaningful steps to reduce exposures. The resulting political squabble leaves parents and local communities on their own to decide how to handle toxic hazards to their children.

Find out more:

• Local Policies for Reducing Pesticide Exposure
• Children's Health Research Sources
• Chemical Industry's Tactics

Local Policies

Local efforts to reduce children’s exposures to toxic contaminants include innovative approaches and alternatives to toxics, such as:

• Eliminating pesticide hazards in schools and child care centers by using Integrated Pest Management (IPM).
  
  
• Eliminating pesticides from parks and other public areas used by children. Cities and towns across the US and Canada, including Carrboro, NC, Seattle, WA and Toronto, Canada use Integrated Pest Management instead of spraying parks and playing fields.
  
  
• Local implementation of the Precautionary Principle in making environmental decisions, as in San Francisco.
  
  
• Farm-to-school programs that encourage fresh, organic and local produce in school cafeterias. Check out Toxic Free NC’s resource page on community-supported food projects.

(top)

Children’s Health Research

Researchers are also looking at the ways children can be affected by toxics in the environment.

• The National Institutes of Health are conducting a long-term study of 100,000 US children that will examine the effects of environmental contaminants on a broad range of health topics, including obesity, asthma & allergies, and child growth & development. Children from several North Carolina counties are part of the study population.
  
  
• The US Centers for Disease Control are conducting an ongoing study of pervasive pollution in the human body in their National Reports on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals. This “body burden” study has found that children have much higher levels of many pesticides in their bodies than adults. Additional contaminants are added to the monitoring data in each report.  The Fourth National Report was published in late 2009 included data on 75 new chemicals, including brominated flame retardants.
  
  
• Excellent resources are available to help you follow research on children’s environmental health, including the journal Environmental Health Perspectives (Children’s health edition) and Environmental Health News.

(top)

Chemical Industry’s Tactics

The chemical industry wants quantified, undeniable proof of the specific harms caused to children by environmental contaminants before governments take action to protect children.

To that end, the industry is sponsoring both research and public relations campaigns to both promote a “green” image and weaken restrictions on their products, or prevent new restrictions being enacted.

• Sowing doubt. The chemical industry spends many millions of dollars annually on research and “product defense” consultants whose job is to cast doubt on scientific evidence that brings the safety of their products into question.
  
  These tactics were developed largely in the era of Big Tobacco, and are now being widely used by companies who lobby federal regulators and agencies such as the Food & Drug Administration, US Environmental Protection Agency, Centers for Disease Control, and of course Congress.
  
  The Obama administration has responded by announcing steps to restore the “integrity of science” to government processes; however the influence of science-for-hire on public perception and politics remains widespread and extremely well-funded.

• Greenwashing.  Heightened consumer awareness has led many product manufacturers to place “eco-friendly” labels on their products, but recent investigations show that such labels are usually vague, meaningless or unverifiable. 
  
  For example, TerraChoice’s 2009 report on Greenwashing for the Canadian government’s EcoLogo program found that 98% of eco-labeled products committed at least one greenwashing sin, such as lack of proof, intentionally-vague language or "hidden trade-offs" – the practice of emphasizing a product's green aspects while concealing others that are environmentally damaging.

(top)