"Environmental Toxins and Children: Exploring the Risks"

A FACT SHEET

MILLIONS OF CHILDREN VULNERABLE TO ENVIRONMENTAL TOXINS

More than seven million of the nation's children under age 18 suffer from one or more mental disorders. Exposure to toxic substances before or after birth is one of several risk factors that appear to make certain children vulnerable to these disorders. (Office of Technology Assessment, 1990)

The World Health Organization cites the following factors which may influence the vulnerability of children as compared with adults when exposed to chemicals: larger body surface area in relation to weight; higher metabolic rate and oxygen consumption per unit body weight; different body composition; greater energy and fluid requirements per unit body weight; special dietary needs; rapid growth during which chemicals may affect growth or become incorporated into tissues; and functionally immature organs and body systems. (World Health Organization, 1986)

MORE CHILDREN LEAD POISONED THAN PREVIOUSLY BELIEVED

• One child in six in the U.S. has dangerously elevated blood lead levels (above 10 ug/dL), including more than half of all AfricanAmerican children in poverty; 400,000 newborns are delivered with toxic levels each year. (Needleman, 1990)

• Children who had elevated lead levels in their teeth at ages 6 and 7 were seven times more likely than young children with low dentin lead levels to have dropped out of school and six times more likely to have a reading disability that persisted into adolescence. (Needleman, 1990)

• Prenatal exposure to lead has been linked to delayed mental development as late as 24 months of age. At age 5, the effects of postnatal, rather than prenatal, lead exposure become pronounced. Lead exposure is associated with a range of effects from severe retardation to lower IQ, speech and language impairments, learning disabilities, and poor attention skills. (Needleman, 1990)

CHILDREN SUFFER FROM PASSIVE SMOKING

• Children of smoking parents have from 20% to 80% more respiratory problems such as wheezing, coughing, and sputum production than do children of non-smokers, as well as increased rates of chronic middle ear effusions and infections which can lead to hearing loss and consequent speech pathology. (National Academy of Sciences, 1986)

Lung function of school-age children with smoking parents is as much as 10% lower than that of children with non-smoking parents. (Wu-Williams, 1990; Samet, 1987)

• Infants of parents who smoke have significantly more pneumonia and bronchitis than do infants of non-smokers. Studies show children of smoking parents are hospitalized for respiratory infections 20% to 70% more often than children of non-smoking parents. An estimated 8.7 to 12.4 million children are exposed to cigarette smoke in their homes. (Surgeon General, 1986; American Academy of Pediatrics, 1986)

• Studies have shown that children of smoking parents have reduced growth and development. (National Academy of Sciences, 1986)

CHILD PESTICIDE EXPOSURE MAY AFFECT LIFETIME CANCER RISK/NEUROLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT

• The average child receives four times more exposure than an adult to eight widely used cancer-causing pesticides found in food. Because of their exposure to pesticides alone, as many as 6,200 children may develop cancer sometime in their lives. More than 50% of the lifetime cancer risk from carcinogenic pesticides used on fruit is estimated to occur during a child's preschool years. (Natural Resources Defense Council, 1989)

• From 17% to 58% of the country's 18 million children ages 1 to 5 are being exposed to neurotoxic organophosphate pesticides at levels above what the federal government considers safe. (Natural Resources Defense Council, 1989)

• Toxic substances, such as lead and organochlorine pesticides like DDT, are known to be present in breast milk and are transferred to the nursing child. The amount of toxic substances in a breastfeeding child can surpass levels in the mother's body. (Wolff, 1990)

HOME PESTICIDE USE PLACES CHILDREN AT RISK OF ILLNESS

• In Dallas, Texas, a review of 37 hospitalized pesticide poisonings among infants and children at the Children's Medical Center revealed five cases were due to pesticide exposure from playing on carpets and floors of homes following spraying or fogging inside residences. (Zwiener, 1988)

• Six of 21 children admitted to Arkansas Children's Hospital for organophosphate poisoning were judged to have been exposed following insecticide spraying inside the home. (Fenske, 1990)

● Parental use of pesticides both in the home and in the garden may increase the risk of childhood leukemia as much as seven-fold. (Lowengart, 1987)

CALIFORNIA CHILD

CHILD CANCER CLUSTERS/BIRTH DEFECTS

RAISE CONCERN

California

In the agricultural community of McFarland, (population 6,400), ten cases of cancer in children under 20 were observed from 1975 to 1985 when three cases would have been expected. From 1982 to 1985, when one case would have been expected, eight were observed. (Kern County Health Department, 1986)

• In Earlimart, California (population 4,414), five cases of childhood cancer were observed from 1986 to 1989 when only 0.4 cases would have been expected based on the National Cancer Institute SEER (Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results) data for Hispanics. All of the parents of these children are farmworkers and the mothers of four of the children worked in the grape vineyards during their pregnancy. (Moses, 1989)

Children born in areas with high pesticide use are twice as likely to be born with limb reduction defects than children born in areas of minimal pesticide use. (Schwartz, 1988)

Chairman MILLER. And Barbara, I recognize you for any statement that you may have.

STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I have just a couple of remarks to make.

First of all, I am so proud to be on your committee. And as you know, for the last couple of years, I chaired the Task Force on Health for the Budget Committee. We have had the opportunity to work together many times.

And I just want to say for the sake of the people who are here who do not know that much about the workings of Congress, that this committee-the Select Committee on Children, Youth, and Families-was founded only because of the gentleman sitting here, Mr. George Miller, who felt that children needed a voice in the Congress of the United States. And I want you to know that this committee is essentially committed to making sure that the problems of families and children are heard, all the time. That is their only focus, and their only purpose.

And being able to work with people like Pete Stark on Ways and Means, Mr. Miller has built coalitions in the Congress. And we have seen attention paid, for the first time, really, in the past few years, to the horrible trends we have seen in our society, such as children in poverty, children with AIDS, children of divorced parents, children with drug problems, the WIC program, the Head Start program. And given all the budget problems we have had, many children's initiatives have gone through the Congress, really in large part because of this committee and the leadership of George Miller.

So whenever I have a chance, I like to tell people about this committee, and the person who founded it. Because without it, we would not have a voice for children. I think that today's hearing is especially important because if we do not have healthy children, we do not have a future. And we are beginning to find out some horrible things.

I mean, this news that you alluded to, Mr. Chairman, on the second-hand smoke and the impact on kids. If parents do not immediately stop smoking in front of their children, they are harming them. And we need to get this message out. The purpose of this hearing is very important.

I will have a constituent coming forward very briefly at some point to talk about an issue we are facing in Marin County. But I really want to thank you for the privilege of being on this committee, and being with you today.

Chairman MILLER. Barbara, thank you. Pete?

STATEMENT OF HON. PETE STARK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. STARK. Thank you, George. Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend you and your select committee for holding these hearings. And thank you for letting me participate. Because the people of the Bay area that we represent are suffering from-right now—

from all of the problems that I know your hearing today is going to illustrate to us in great detail.

I think it is important to remember that this is a political problem. Those of you, most of you in the audience, are professionals, and understand the technical aspects of what is happening. And I will look forward to your explaining that to me. And I am inclined to believe you.

But unfortunately, I do not understand most of the technical jargon that you will use. But I do understand a little bit about politics. And there are two problems.

Less than two out of every hundred industries in California have any kind of monitoring system. That means 98 businesses using, doing nothing. Two may-1.4 is the figure.

Why? Two reasons. Business will not do the right thing unless you make them. All these Boards of Directors give a hoot about is profit.

Now, that is not so bad. That is why you elect them, those of you who are stockholders. But that means that Government has to make them do the right thing. We need laws. And that brings us to the second problem.

The Republicans have spent the last 12 years dismantling regulations, processes, and turning their back on the poor, and children, and helpless, and workers who have no control over their environment.

So one, we have got to control business. Two, we have got to get rid of the Republicans. And it was illustrated this morning so grandly by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. You could have heard him on, certainly on the networks and perhaps on national public radio where I heard him, telling me that the way to get better health by the end of this century, in effect, is to exercise? Stop smoking? Be careful with sex? And that ought to turn the country's health procedures around in the next decade.

I do not believe that, Dr. Sullivan. I really believe that the Federal Government has a stronger role than just preaching the litany of Jesse Helms and Charles Atlas. We really have to go to work. And it is under the leadership of people like Barbara and Chairman Miller that we will very specifically, and unfortunately dramatically and sadly, illustrate the need for Government to do something.

For example, I would like to go back next week and put a huge excise tax on all lead. Now, I know what is going to happen. The battery manufacturers and the film manufacturers, and whoever else uses lead, are going to say, "Oh, my goodness, our business will close."

We will say, "Okay, there will be a huge tax on lead. But if you monitor, and have a safe workplace, we will give you a rebate." And I will bet you we are going to find people, more than just two out of every hundred industries will start to do the right thing.

So I need your help. I am happy to be here today, to hear where the problems are. And then in a kind of heavy-handed and crude way that often I have been accused of, I am going to go back and see if, with George and Barbara's leadership, we can make these people-business and the Republicans-do the right thing. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.