Chairman MILLER. Thank you. I also want to thank and recognize Supervisor Don Prado who came by earlier, who has been involved with both trying to secure funding, and efforts to deal with the lead problem. Just a side note: I can remember standing on the side of a freeway in Los Angeles at an elementary school in 1971 with George Mosconi, when we felt we were able to attack the lead problem, and draw attention to what was happening to children in schools, near freeways, and in other environments with heavy lead concentrations. And this was both a state effort and national effort. It is kind of tragic that in 1990 we find that almost the same numbers of children are being exposed with some of the same problems. It just shows the diligence that is needed when we speak about the health of our children. With that, let's welcome the first panel, which will be made up of Dana Hughes, who is a consultant for Children NOW, based here in Oakland. She will be accompanied by Jim Steyer, who is the President of Children NOW. If you would come forward. Welcome to the committee. Your written statements will be placed in the record in their entirety. And you proceed in the manner in which you are most comfortable. We will ask you to summarize so there will be time for questions by the Members of the committee. Jim, welcome; and Dana, welcome to you. PREPARED STATEMENT OF FORTNEY H. (PETE) Stark, a ReprESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL TOXINS AND CHILDREN: EXPLORING THE RISKS Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend and thank you for holding this hearing which calls attention to a very important problem in our state and in the Bay Area which we represent. The state of California and its people have been leaders in the recognition of environmental hazards which are detrimental to health and safety. It is especially important to identify the risks to our children and to protect them from preventable diseases. An article last week in the Washington Post indicated that there are at least 2500 California children under age 17 who have potentially toxic levels of lead in their blood because they live near factories that use lead or in homes with lead-based paint. Many other children are affected by parents who carry lead home on contaminated clothing from work in such places as battery manufacturing plants, radiator repair shops and ceramic plants. Unfortunately, unborn babies are thought to be particularly susceptible to lead poisoning when their mothers are exposed to lead fumes at work. The sad part of this story is that we have known about lead poisoning and how to prevent it for many years. These children are being needlessly exposed and suffering a preventable disease. Why does lead remain such a problem, particularly here in California where people have been environmentally sensitive? One reason is because lead is now recognized to cause problems at levels much lower than were previously thought dangerous. Although the OSHA standard has been very successful, we now know that it must be set lower to meet our new level of knowledge. A second reason is the lack of environmental and biological monitoring in businesses where we know a hazard exists. Only 1.4 percent of lead using industries in California have biological monitoring programs for their lead-exposed workers! And finally, the standard has been inadequately enforced, with many exceptions and variances given to industry. There are many obvious remedies to some of these problems. New standards can be set, more monitoring can be required, more control technology and respirators can be used and people can be better educated. However, I would like to propose that non-essential uses for lead be identified and eliminated. It may be advanta geous to impose an excise fee on lead produced in primary smelters and on all imported lead. Again, let me thank Congressman Miller for holding these hearings, and be assured that I stand ready to take the necessary steps to prevent these needless hazards to our children. STATEMENT OF JAMES STEYER, J.D., PRESIDENT OF CHILDREN NOW, OAKLAND, CA Mr. STEYER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee. Children NOW is a California-based policy and advocacy organization for kids. We act as a strong and independent voice for children in the Legislature, in the media, in the community. We are delighted to have the opportunity to present testimony on environmental toxins and children. Before I turn it over to the author of our report that we are releasing in conjunction with the hearing today, I would like to tell you briefly the reasons why Children NOW undertook this report. First is that, at a time when there is growing concern here in California and around the country about environmental issues, we wanted to put the spotlight on the tremendous implications for children as children when we are talking about environmental problems. Far fewer people today understand that our actions have critical and immediate consequences to the health and safety of our planet's most vulnerable and least culpable inhabitants, and that is children. We hope our report will help point some light on that. Second, we pay particular attention to the needs of children who are poor, or at risk, and children of color. We feel that there is a tremendous need to place greater emphasis on the consequences of environmental hazards on children in low-income neighborhoods. And finally, we hope that we can begin a growing collaboration between children's organizations such as Children NOW and environmental organizations, to see the ways in which we can work together in two fields that have tended to be separate, to focus growing attention on this problem. We have done that both through our Board member, Dennis Hayes, who was the Chairperson of Earth Day, 1990. And also in the work of my colleague, Dana Hughes, who worked with environmental groups around the Bay area, and the country, to help put together our report which is entitled, "What's Gotten Into Our Children?" And with that, I would like to turn it over to Dana Hughes, who is the principal author of the report. Chairman MILLER. Thank you. STATEMENT OF DANA HUGHES, M.P.H., M.S., CONSULTANT, Ms. HUGHES. I would like to spend my time presenting the highlights of this report for you. But I should preface it by saying that this was a report designed for the lay public and for policymakers. And it is a non-technical report, and we relied very heavily on the work of other people who have done the primary research. And we are grateful to their work. It has long been understood that there are health consequences of environmental hazards. A growing body of evidence also indicates that children are at elevated or special risk from environmental toxins. But the full extent to which children are at risk is not fully known at the moment, for a number of reasons. One reason is that many of the health problems that children suffer related to environmental exposures are subtle, or invisible, at least initially, and may not be detectable for many, many years. As a result, it can be difficult to actually trace exposure to a later health problem. The second problem as you pointed out, Mr. Chairman, is that not nearly enough research has been conducted on the relationship between children and the environment in children's health problems. The bulk of the research that has been conducted thus far has primarily looked at the implications of environmental toxins on adults, a group which face facing very, very different threats than children. Despite these limitations to our current knowledge, we do know a number of things about special risk to children. There are at least four reasons why children are at particularly grave risk. Children are vulnerable for physiological and physical reasons. Because children's bodies are still developing, they are more sensitive to substances that can interfere with the developmental process. Fetuses and newborns are particularly sensitive to chemicals and other toxins. Additionally, since children are smaller than adults, the same amount of exposure to a toxin can lead to a higher concentration in their smaller bodies. And those two factors can exaggerate for children the implications of an exposure. Secondly children's curiosity and other unique behaviors can place them at risk. It is natural, and important for children to play outdoors, to run and jump, and to explore. And yet, those very activities can place them at risk for environmental problems. For example, because children spend a great deal of their time outdoors playing, they can breathe more air per body weight than an adult does. And that behavior itself can place them at greater risk from air pollution. Playing outdoors can also place children at greater risk from the harmful effects of sun exposure, which can have implications for eyes and skin. The third factor is lack of judgment that children display. Children, particularly younger children and babies, simply do not have the judgment to avoid danger. They cannot comprehend the notion of danger. For example, children are unable to understand a potential harm that can result from placing objects in their mouth. And yet young children, toddlers and babies, commonly will put paint chips in their mouth, laden with lead, which is one of the major ways in which children can be exposed to lead. Finally, children have many more years ahead of them than adults do. So if a child is exposed to a toxic substance with a delayed effect, such as a cancer-causing material, the child can have as long as 70 or 80 years to develop a disease in response to the exposure. And yet, an adult exposed to the same substance might have died of other causes before that toxic substance could take effect. I want to emphasize that while all children are at risk for these problems because of the peculiar characteristics of children, it is poor children who are at greatest risk. And there are a number of reasons for this. Poor children are more likely to be exposed to toxins because they are more likely to live in neighborhoods, and attend schools, where hazards are present. Poor families simply lack the financial resources to avoid hazards that might exist, either by removing them or by buying alternative products like organic vegetables and fruits. Third, when a poor child is affected by an environmental hazard and develops a health problem, they are less likely to have the problem detected and treated due to poor children's greater likelihood of being uninsured. Finally, poor children face greater risk because their families simply lack the political influence to insist that toxins in their neighborhoods be eliminated. For the purpose of our report, we categorized the risks to children in terms of the context in which they are exposed to them. Because we are short on time, I will refer you to the report for the details of the kinds of exposures. You will have a chance later on to hear from persons much more expert than myself about what those are. In general, children's exposure can be described in terms of what they eat, where children live, where children learn, and where children play. I would like to conclude by just emphasizing that the health threat that environmental toxins present to children, while extremely serious, are not insurmountable. The general public can play an important role by removing hazards in our immediate surroundings: in our homes, in our backyards, in our garages. As individuals, we can have influence through the choices we make in the products we buy, and whether or not we take public transportation. Those are important steps. And yet, we also must remember that individual action alone is not going to eliminate the health threat to children from environmental exposures. To achieve lasting and far-reaching solutions, we must place responsibility on institutions, both public and private, that make decisions which affect us all and insist that they make the needs of children a priority. Among the immediate challenges at hand that we would like to stress is, one, the need to acknowledge that children face an additional risk, and to begin to take steps to remove those hazards. Secondly, we have to ensure that all children receive needed health care to ensure that children who are exposed to environmental toxins have the opportunity to have their problems detected and treated. Third, we have to ensure that we no longer pollute the environment and expose children to new environmental threats. |