








|
|

Bizarre Government Animal Tests to Set "Safe"
Doses for Children
© 2000, PHOTODISC
In April 1997, President Clinton issued an Executive Order to protect
children from harmful substances in air, food, or water. By the end of 1999, however, Vice
President Gore had effectively scuttled that initiative in a deal cut with the agency that
was to carry it out. As a result, according to PCRM doctors and other public health
advocates, a nursing baby is as likely as ever to encounter dioxins or DDT in breast milk,
and a child venturing under the sink will find the same insecticide and cleaning fluid
bottles that were there when the Clinton/Gore team took office.
Clinton's Executive Order 13045 directed federal agencies to identify
"environmental health risks and safety risks that may disproportionately affect
children." They were to find out what harmful substances are in food, water, air, or
breast milk, pinpoint their sources, and help parents steer their children clear of these
exposures.
Clinton's order was well founded. Hundreds of thousands of children have blood lead
levels that put them at risk. Traces of mercury are common in many foods. In-utero alcohol
and nicotine exposure reach children as their organs are forming.
But the program was handed off to Vice President Gore and the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). At the EPA's request and with Gore's blessing, the Child Health Testing
Program, as it is now called, was greatly narrowed in scope. The EPA abandoned any effort
to actually test air, water, food, or breast milk. It decided against warning parents
about which foods contain DDT or PCBs, both of which persist in the environment many years
after being banned. The EPA's program even ignores children who have already been exposed
to toxic chemicals and what harm may have come to them.
Instead, Gore and the EPA have decided to test chemicals on animals, primarily rats, in
an effort to determine the toxic doses children should be expected to tolerate. If a
chemical doesn't kill a rat or make him visibly sick, says the EPA, it's okay in your
child's breakfast cereal or drinking water and fine for a breast-feeding baby.
The program has made animal protection groups cringe, as some of the EPA's tests kill
more than 1,000 animals per chemical tested. Public health advocates are equally aghast.
Far too many chemicals have looked safe in rodents or other animals, only to cause
problems in humans, particularly children.
PCRM's Proposal to Protect Kids
In meetings with the EPA, chemical manufacturers, and health advocates, PCRM has
proposed a radically different program, based on the following steps:
1. Actual chemical exposure
levels should be measured by careful monitoring of breast milk, food, water, and air
samples. One such program, called the National Human Exposure Assessment Survey (NHEXAS),
measured chemicals in air, water, soil, dust, food, blood, and urine, as well as on
surfaces and human skin in 1995, and a Science Advisory Board technical review was highly
favorable.
2. When a chemical contaminant
is identified, in water or breast milk, for example, the next step must be to track down
its source and take action to eliminate it.
3. When humans have been
exposed to chemicals, their health status should be carefully checked so as to allow
strong public health measures without waiting for further testing.
4. We should assume the worst,
aiming to reduce exposures without any a priori safety threshold of
"acceptable" levels drawn from animal tests. Sensitivity to chemicals varies
widely and unpredictably between species as well as between individuals. Doses that may
appear safe in animals, even when adjusted by some arbitrary numerical factor, may not be
safe for all humans. Sensitivities to potential mutagens and carcinogens differ widely
between individuals due in large part to genetic differences.
5. Exposure results should be
publicized to enable the public to take defensive strategies. We have a right to know what
is in water and air and which food products are free of detectable residues.
The Executive Order that launched this process did not call for a massive program of
animal tests. It called for reviews of existing safety data and proposals to inform the
public about risks. For those exposures that present the greatest threats to children, we
do not need endless testing; we need action that respects public health.
A Better Way
PCRM has called on the EPA not to attempt to exonerate chemical exposures by setting
supposedly "safe" levels in animals. Instead, the EPA needs to be alert to what
harmful substances children might come into contact with, track down their sources, and
aim for zero tolerance. For naturally occurring substances, such as mercury, tolerable
limits are set by natural background levels.
A helpful approach is taken by the School Environment Protection Act, introduced by
U.S. Sen. Robert Torricelli (D-N.J.), which promotes hygienic methods in schools that
avoid pesticide use, based on the working assumption that pesticides may have adverse
health effects for some children at any exposure level.
Major Risks to Children
- Lead concentrations are dangerously high for approximately 900,000 children under six
years of age, putting them at risk for brain damage and other devastating consequences.
- Mercury reaches children through consumption of fish and fish products, particularly
tuna. While its toxicity is well-known, parents may not know where it is likely to be
found
- In-utero alcohol exposure causes 40,000 cases of birth defects annually in the U.S.,
including up to 12,000 cases of fetal alcohol syndrome, a common cause of mental
retardation.
- In-utero nicotine exposure causes stunted growth and mild retardation in children, based
on an assessment of seven-year-olds.
- DDT remains in the environment many years after being banned.
- PCBs also persist in the environment, yet most people are unaware of their sources or
how to protect themselves.
- Cases of accidental ingestions in young children were reported by the American
Association of Poison Control Centers as follows for 1998:
| 1. |
Cosmetics and personal care products |
157,551 |
| 2. |
Cleaning substances |
129,441 |
| 3. |
Analgesics |
89,985 |
| 4. |
Plants |
84,185 |
| 5. |
Foreign bodies |
73,983 |
| 6. |
Cough and cold preparations |
64,761 |
| 7. |
Topicals |
63,623 |
| 8. |
Insecticides, pesticides, rodenticides |
46,447 |
| 9. |
Vitamins |
39,396 |
| 10. |
Antimicrobials |
36,597 |
| 11. |
Gastrointestinal preparations |
35,391 |
| 12. |
Arts/crafts/office supplies |
29,898 |
| 13. |
Hydrocarbons |
26,018 |
| 14. |
Antihistamines |
22,854 |
| 15. |
Hormones and hormone antagonists |
22,655 |
- Trans fatty acids in maternal diets reach the fetus. While animal experiments show no
problem with trans fats, human studies have linked them to premature birth and
neurological problems.
- Heterocyclic amines are potent carcinogens produced from creatine, amino acids, and
sugars in poultry and other meats under cooking temperatures.
- Bovine peptides, especially those derived from albumin and insulin, in infant formulas
are linked to insulin-dependent diabetes.
- Shiga toxin is produced within a child's body after ingestion of E. coli O157:H7
bacteria. It can cause massive organ failure.
- Salmonella, campylobacter, and listeria are common in meats, often causing illness and
fatalities.
|