 |
Policy Reforms
to Protect Our Children
Current laws permit children to be exposed to mixtures
of hazardous substances in their homes, schools, play areas,
occupational settings, and in transit on a daily basis.
Most laws do not define the rights of children to clean
air, food, water, and safe consumer products. The following
principles could guide reform of laws to better protect
children from environmental risks.
1. Right-to-Know
Finding:
Many U.S. laws protect information on environmental
hazards (e.g. product ingredients, chemical release to the
environment, contamination levels, and some chemical toxicity
data) as trade secrets or confidential business information.
Trade secret law, defamation law, and confidentiality provisions
of various statutes inhibit public access to information.
This protection limits the public's ability to recognize
important health hazards in their environments and in consumer
products. Examples include inert ingredients in pesticides,
building materials, paints, and food additives, and genetically
modified substances. Although EPA reports chemical releases
to the environment as a requirement of several statutes,
gross releases are difficult to translate into probable
levels of exposure and risk, and many chemicals and polluters
are exempt from the reporting requirements.
Recommendations:
Amend current laws to establish the public's right-to-know
about hazardous substances-chemical, biological and physical
in air, water, food, consumer products, workplaces, schools,
recreation areas and other places frequented by children
and women of child bearing age. Knowledge of risk should
be public, not private property.
2. Surveillance
Finding:
The absence of information on chemical production, release
to the environment, movement through it, and toxicity makes
it impossible for regulators, or anyone else, to know where
hazards lie in wait. It also makes it impossible for government
to ensure that exposures are safe. Past monitoring efforts
have produced insufficient understanding of the variability
in exposures. Exposure is likely to vary across space, time,
and demographic groups, defined by age group, income class,
and ethnicity. Current health surveillance efforts are also
insufficient to detect important childhood illnesses and
disabilities that may be associated with environmental hazards.
Recommendation:
Laws should be amended to ensure the sufficiency and
public availability of information regarding environmental
hazards. Surveillance should occur at a scale and frequency
necessary to understand and manage children's exposure to
hazards. Monitoring should be conducted in schools, play
areas, vehicles, and occupational settings to better understand
children's exposure to environmental health hazards.
National registries should be developed or expanded for
major childhood diseases: e.g. cancer, birth defects, neurological
and behavioral disorders including autism, and respiratory
diseases. The National Children's Study will provide invaluable
information on patterns of exposure, illness and relative
potency of diverse hazards. Considerable progress could
be made immediately in improving surveillance efforts already
authorized by laws governing the quality of air, food, water,
soils and consumer products.
3. Fair Warning
Finding:
Current product labeling practices provide the public
with little understanding and warning of consumer product
hazards. Product benefits are normally prominent, while
hazards are rarely labeled with clarity. If labeled, small
print size and technical language often restrict public
comprehension of risks, ingredients often remain unspecified.
When specified, percentages are rarely provided. Many manufacturers
assume that hazards will be manageable if printed directions
are followed. Labeling however will never be an effective
means to manage risks faced by children, those with limited
literacy or inadequate technical competence.
Recommendation:
Standardize product warnings to alert and educate consumers
about product safety. Fair warning demands standardized
symbols of hazard that are easily recognized and understood.
4. Health Protective Law
Finding:
Most environmental laws do not demand that pollution
and contamination standards be set ensure protection of
human health. The Food Quality Protection Act is the one
clear exception, demanding that standards be set to assure
"a reasonable certainty of no harm". Other statutes
permit technological feasibility, economic costs of compliance,
and uncertain information to be considered and balanced
against health threats as government agencies make choices
to limit pollution, contamination, or risk.
Recommendation:
Establish health protection as a uniform standard for
environmental laws. Amend laws to require that contamination
and pollution limits protect the health of children, infants
and pregnant women. This change would require the reevaluation
of thousands of existing standards not yet set to protect
health. Strict deadlines should be set to achieve health
protective standards for air, water, food, soil, and consumer
products.
5. Chemical Mixtures
Finding:
No laws now limit cumulative cancer, neurological, or
respiratory health risks. These threats are permitted to
accumulate chemical-by-chemical from contaminated air, water,
food, soils and consumer products. Human exposure to mixtures
of hazardous chemicals is largely unstudied and unregulated.
Recommendation:
Ensure that children's exposure to chemical mixtures
are managed to prevent additive or synergistic effects.
Mixtures may best be managed by planning to reduce hazardous
chemical use and release at sites where children spend most
of their time: homes, schools, recreational areas, and during
transport.
6. Hazardous Places
Finding:
The public is rarely informed of the location of hazardous
sites, facilities, land uses, or landscapes. Lands and industrial
sites that pose significant threats to children's health
are often disguised. These areas may include solid and hazardous
waste repositories, underground storage tanks, former agricultural
lands, contaminated aquifers, industrial sites, military
facilities, and transport and power corridors.
Recommendation:
Create a national registry of sites that pose special
hazards to children. Centralize current and historical information
on facilities, lands and aquifers with a history of contamination.
Establish clear criteria for site listing, and include all
known sources of emissions on the registry. If followed,
these recommendations could guide parental choices concerning
where to reside, send children to school and play. This
knowledge would also improve current residents' potential
to influence those who own or manage hazardous properties.
It may also encourage real estate market values to more
truly reflect environmental quality and contamination.
7. Precautionary Policy
Finding:
Few laws demand the use of precautionary policy, or
safety factors, when setting allowable emission or contamination
limits, or levels of acceptable exposure. Two exceptions
include the Food Quality Protection Act and the Clean Air
Act. Both require that safety margins protect against underestimates
of health threats when information is uncertain. The history
of toxicity testing suggests that government scientists
and regulators have underestimated both chemical toxicity
and children's exposure. Once fully tested, few chemicals
are found to be less toxic than originally believed. The
absence of chemical production, release, exposure and toxicity
data creates a level of uncertainty that justifies the use
of safety factors and other precautionary policies.
Recommendation:
Regulations that limit exposures should assure protection
of fetuses, infants and children with an adequate margin
of safety. Until credible evidence of safety is produced,
cautious assumptions should be applied to set standards
for allowable contamination of air, water, food, consumer
products, and the environments that children live within
homes, schools, workplaces, recreational facilities and
vehicles.
source: Children's Health Environmental
Coalition http://www.checnet.org/
|
 |