Congresswoman Schroeder, a member of this committee, raised this with respect to the National Institutes and women. And the involvement not only of women in the research, but recognizing again the research has got to make considerations about physiological differences in the subjects.

And this hearing is about developing that, recognizing that if there are carcinogens in the carpets, they may not affect the parents to the extent to which they affect the children, who are rugrunners, run around on those carpets all day long. And that there are these gradients that exist in our environments that may, in fact, pose greater danger to children, simply by virtue of the fact that they are children.

And I think it is a distinction that the Congress can no longer ignore. So very often, whether it is the health environment, or the economic environment, or what, we find that children are reduced in their abilities to take advantage of opportunities in this society simply by virtue of their environment. And in this instance, that is not something that we can tolerate.

So I want to thank you very much for helping us break this out a little bit. This is, as I pointed out earlier, a beginning of a series of issues around children and their environment, and risks that are posed to them.

The record of this hearing will remain open for a period of two weeks. And we would welcome the views and the comments of individuals in the audience, or others that would like to do so, to have that made part of this record. So when we get down to the point of writing a report, we are fully informed.

Thank you very much for your time, and your willingness to come forward and to testify to the committee. I appreciate it very much.

Thank you, Pete, for joining us, and Congresswoman Boxer. And again, to Children's Hospital, Oakland, for all of their support activities that they have provided to the committee.

With that, the committee will stand adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 12:16 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GWEN HARDY, MEMBER, PEOPLE UNITED FOR A BETTER OAKLAND, OAKLAND, CA

To the Select Committee on Children, Youth, and Family:

As a concerned resident of Oakland and member of People United for a Better Oakland, I recently attended the Select Committee's Public Hearing at Children's Hospital on Thursday, September 6, 1990. I was deeply disappointed that public participation was not allowed. People United has been making demands around the issue of lead poisoning for over a year and a half. We are a multi-issue, multi-ethnic grassroots organization located in Oakland, California. We are fighting for better and more accessible healthcare, education, and childcare, as well as opportunities for our youth. Since our beginnings nearly two years ago, we have been concerned with the problem of lead, among other healthcare issues. We have successfully fought for more translators at our county hospitals, multi-lingual helath information and outreach, and free measles vaccinations for thousands of low-income children. However, we must now focus on lead poisoning. We are the people who are most affected by it. While the information that the doctors, scientists and researchers passed on is important, the committee needs to hear from those who are most affected by lead poisoning- the community. I am taking this written opportunity, since it was denied to us during the hearings, to let you know how we feel.

Two years ago, the State of California released a study showing that the Oakland community is heavily contaminated with lead. However, nothing, to this date, has been done by the state, county or city to reduce or eliminate lead poisoning here. Our community does not need to continue to serve as lab rats. Enough research and studying has been done. We know the effects that lead poisoning has on humans, from the undeveloped fetus to grown adults. We know what needs to be done to eliminate the problem. Our community and the medical community must be educated. The business community, property owners (including the state), large corporations and factories must be educated, monitored and held accountable around lead. Politicians, who are often swayed by the interests of the previously mentioned, must not fall prey to them. Instead,

you must take an active stance against those interests and work for the people's health.

It is a mistake to look at lead poisoning as a poor person's disease. Anyone can suffer from it, as Millie the White House dog proved. I would hate to think that

our politicians have not acted on this issue because it disproportionately affects low-income people and people of color. We suffer more because we don't have access to quality health care, not because we don't keep our homes clean or don't care. Millie was quickly taken to a veterinarian, tested, treated, and taken on vacation to recuperate. Most children who suffer from lead poisoning are not even tested. Low-income or uninsured kids can't get the treatment that Millie was able to receive.

I would like to stress that we are not looking for charity or another program that will sweep poor people under the carpet. We are concerned about the health of everyone. As normal citizens, business people, and politicians, we always say that the children are our future. Well, they are our present also and if we don't deal with lead poisoning in the present, we won't have that future. If they are contaminated now, they will be denied a healthy and fulfilling future. There are several ways that you can help alleviate the problem of lead poisoning now.

⚫Urge the Center for Disease Control to alter their policy on lead poisoning immediately. The CDC has said that they now consider any exposure to lead harmful and are considering lowering the medical intervention standard to 10 micrograms per deciliter. State, county and city health departments look to the CDC for these guidelines before they change their own policies. Demand that the CDC lower the intervention rate now and include an active testing and treatment plan.

Make the Early and Periodic Screening Diagnosis and Treatment Plan (EPSDT, locally known as the Childhood Health and Disability Prevention Program, CHDP) accountable around lead testing and treatment. These programs provide money for the testing and treatment of lowincome and uninsured kids. However, the majority of kids eligible for this

program are not even getting tested. The money is already there. Let's put it to work!

•Recognizing that solutions at the federal level take time, we ask that you contact members of the Oakland City Council and urge them to pass the lead ordinance authored by People United that is currently tied up at the Public Works Department. This ordinance addresses the issues of screening, treatment, education, abatement, and prevention. This ordinance will be introduced to the Council in October of 1990.

Please take action soon. We cannot afford to let our children suffer through one more day of lead exposure. I hope that the Committee will fulfill its mission in improving the situations of children nationwide. I thank you for your time and consideration.

cc. David Kears, Director, Alameda County Health Care Services Agency Lionel Wilson, Mayor of Oakland

Dr. John Rosen, Chairman, Lead Panel, Centers for Disease Control

Jane Perkins, National Health Law Program

Kenneth Kizer, Director, California State Department of Health

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BRUCE N. AMES, DIRECTOR, N.I.E.H.S. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY, CA

PESTICIDES AND CANCER

Synthetic pesticide residues do not present a significant risk to either children or adults. In general, fear of pesticides is based on a misinterpretation of animal cancer tests.

1) Animal cancer tests are conducted with enormous doses of the test chemical: the maximally tolerated dose that does not kill the animals outright. New evidence suggests that effects triggered by these very high doses--chronic cell killing and cell division-- are risk factors for cancer. In other words, it is the high dose itself that causes cancer. Thus, a high percentage of all chemicals might be expected to be carcinogenic at maximally tolerated doses. This is exactly what is found. About half of all chemicals tested in chronic studies at these massive doses are rodent carcinogens.

2) of the chemicals that have been subject to testing for carcinogenicity in rats and mice 82% are synthetic, despite the fact that almost all chemicals in the human diet are natural. Therefore, it is important to determine whether a high proportion of natural chemicals is also cancer-causing at high doses. My colleagues and I have analyzed pesticides in detail, and we calculate that 99.99% (by weight) of the pesticides in the human diet are naturally-occurring chemicals that plants produce to defend themselves. Only 52 natural pesticides have been subject to cancer testing, and again about half (27) are rodent carcinogens; these natural pesticides are present in most common foods. Adults eat about 1500 milligrams of thousands