In a recent report published by the US EPA, the agency noted
that when measuring benchmarks for hazardous pollutants the
“benchmarks generally reflect expected effects in adults,
rather than potential risks to children or risks in adulthood
stemming from childhood exposure. Benchmarks are not available
to reflect these concerns.”3
Since there are no benchmarks for children, studies must
be conducted to determine what pollutant levels are safe for
children. Acceptable levels may be lower than those of adults
and we need to determine at what level a certain toxin impacts
a child. We do know children are being exposed to these toxins.
Most recently the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC) reported in their Third National Report on Human Exposure
to Environmental Chemicals that “advances in analytical
models allow us to measure lower levels of environmental chemicals
in people, but separate studies of varying exposure levels
and health effects are needed to determine which levels result
in disease”.4
The discovery of toxins in children has resulted in organizations
cautioning parents to minimize or restrict contact with materials
containing these toxins to protect against exposure. However,
there is no scientific consensus as to the validity of these
findings. As upsetting as this information may be to parents
there are many things that experts do agree that can be done
to protect the health of your child. This site contains some
of these suggestions. Without further testing the issue will
remain unclear and controversial. The first step to protecting
our children is accepting that they are not little adults.
Are improved testing methods needed?
The majority of chemicals used today are tested to determine
if they are safe for a healthy adult male. But children are
not little adults. Thus, what has occurred is that modern
science has learned more about the human body than we are
applying in practice. What we know about the development of
the body is vastly improved from fifty years ago and we need
to incorporate what we know with how it is applied in real
life.
Government and industry should work together to better protect
our children. Some of the steps they could take include the
following:
• Improve understanding of the many different ways
children of different ages (from conception to the early twenties)
are exposed to potentially hazardous substances.
• Move beyond the belief that a chemical is safe if
it does not harm an adult and encourage safety standards that
are consistent with the advances in medicine and science.
• Learn more about which chemicals can be passed from
a mother to her unborn child or through a mother’s breast
milk to her nursing infant.
• Understand how chemicals interact with each other
inside a child’s growing body after he or she has been
exposed to them.
• Learn at which point growing children are most vulnerable
to different chemicals. A chemical that might not harm a toddler,
for example, might be harmful to a seventh grader as he or
she enters puberty.
• State and Federal agencies should consider children
when determining acceptable levels of pollution from a facility
and set these levels on the impact they might have on the
most sensitive population (children) and not the healthiest
(adults). Currently Pennsylvania sets pollutant levels on
the impact they will have on a healthy adult. When considering
these decisions we should ask the following: Do small children
live near a facility or live down wind? Will children be exposed
to a lower dosage over a longer period of time because they
live near the facility than someone who works at the facility
and only works 40 hours a week? Are there groups, often called
sensitive receptors, near the facility or down wind that include
day care facilities, schools, hospitals, etc.?
