Major reform of these rules is long overdue, but unfortunately the new bill is problematic. Unless significantly strengthened, it won’t do enough to protect the most vulnerable among us — particularly our children — from the harms of toxic chemicals. We can, and must, do better.

The proposed new law is a bipartisan compromise introduced by Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) and Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ). Public and environmental health groups across the country have flagged a number of fundamental problems, and note that the compromise bill does much less to protect vulnerable populations than previous versions of chemical policy reform driven by Senator Lautenberg.

Sadly, Senator Lautenberg passed away soon after the bill’s introduction. For a thoughtful tribute to his work to protect public health, see this appreciation from our colleague Andy Igrejas, campaign director for Safer Chemicals Healthy Families.

The preemption problem

One of the key problems with the compromise bill is that it would undermine real progress on toxics policy that’s been made in several states, potentially overturning hard-fought laws that take real steps to protect children from chemical harms.

The new compromise bill says once EPA takes action on a chemical, more protective state laws would be null and void.

This “preemption” of state laws — meaning weaker rules at the national level override them — is emerging as a key and insidious industry strategy. Turns out it’s much easier for chemical industry lobbyists to win one weak federal law than to do battle state by state by state.

Other weaknesses of the compromise legislation include a lack of firm deadlines to act on harmful chemicals (we know this will be problematic from our experience with pesticide law); no tools to address the special dangers of chemicals that are longlasting and can build up in the human body; and no safeguards for “hotspot” communities that face disproportionate harm.

There are other issues as well, and several of our partners have put together thoughtful analyses. See, for example, these pieces from the BlueGreen Alliance, Safer Chemicals Healthy Families, the Environmental Working Group, and this joint statement from concerned groups across the country (including PAN).

Kids & chemical soup

Here’s why it’s important to get this right: to a child’s growing body, it doesn’t matter where harmful chemicals come from — they could be pesticide residues on blueberries topping the morning’s bowl of cereal, flame retardants in a cozy mattress or softeners wafting from a favorite rubber duck.

Whatever the source, the science is increasingly clear that many chemicals in our everyday world are harming our kids. And that the national rules for protecting children from these health threats — whether pesticides or chemicals in everyday products — aren’t working very well.

So along with our efforts to press for pesticide protections and alternatives, PAN has in recent years supported the national campaign to overhaul the antiquated national rules on industrial toxics. It’s been an effective effort.

The Safer Chemicals Healthy Families campaign and its partners across the country have brought the links between hazardous chemicals and children’s health into the national spotlight. From stroller brigades to giant rubber ducks, they’ve used creative strategies to bring this important issue into the public conversation — creating space for real policy reform.

Now that policy change is in motion, it’s very important to get it right. It’s been 37 years since the last reform of the Toxics Substances Control Act; the rules put in place in this round will likely be the law of the land for decades to come.

A version of this post also appeared on GroundTruth.

I’ve always been a big fan of the platform of issues MomsRising represents– maternity and paternity leave, open flexible work, toxin free families, health care for all, early care and education, fair pay for all, and paid sick days–all near and dear to my heart and the lives of American families.

Sign This Petition

Abbott Labratories, the makers of Similac Infant Formula, had a shareholders meeting and voted down removing GMOs from their infant formula.

And thus abandoning babies.

*jaw drops to ground*

I sat here completely stunned because not only does Similac Infant Formula contain genetically modified ingredients, which hasn’t been proven safe by long-term independent testing (Yes, independent as in they have nothing to gain), it’s also labeled OR BANNED in about 64 other countries, including Russia, China, all of Europe, India and Saudi Arabia. Those countries have made labeling and removing GMOs from their food supply a priority.

I wonder why.

Here’s the real issue. When it comes to babies, is it worth the risk?

I know advocates of biotechnology are going to say that GMOs are the most tested food in history…they are regulated by the FDA…they have been deemed safe by our own governmental agencies…no one has died of a GMO…blah blah blah…

Sure, because we’ve never gotten it wrong before, right?

Here’s my point. Is it REALLY worth the risk when we are talking about babies?

New long term studies are surfacing from overseas and they are not pretty. We are finding out that even pigs are not able to tolerate GMOs without having some major issues. So why is this given to our most vulnerable?

You can tell based on laws in the vast majority of industrialized nations that there is no real confidence in the safety of GMOs. If they are so safe, why ban them?

In fact, if you go to Europe where only 5% of the food supply is genetically modified compared with America’s whopping 85%, you will find that there are lots of studies being done over there that are tying GMOs to diseases like cancer, obesity, allergies…and the list goes on and on.

Let’s also consider some basic facts that I got from Healthychild.org. Since the mid 90′s, which is about the same time that GMOs were introduced into the food supply, some very dramatic things have happened to the health of children.

• 400% increase in food allergies
• 300% increase in asthma
• 400% increase ADHD
• and 1,500% increase in Autism

And as a mother, I find that disturbing. Because even if there was a CHANCE that GMOs are dangerous, why are we putting them in baby formula? Babies are more susceptible to chemicals than adults.

Let’s leave the defenseless alone, mkay?

Here’s what I think. I think corporations CAN make good decisions. I want to feel safe about what I feed my kids. Don’t we all? I just think in this instance, Similac shareholders may have made an error in judgement. And I’m asking them to rectify it.

I’m asking Similac Infant Formula to lead this industry in a very positive way. I want them to remove GMOs from all their formulas and lead the industry so others do the same.

Because when it comes to babies…it’s not worth the risk.

Sign This Petition

You can help by visiting my petition and sharing it with your friends using #similacnogmo.

Let’s change this. We can. And we will.

For more information on the impacts of GMOs on the health of our children visit these organizations:

Mamavation.com

GMOInside.org

HealthyChild.org

He did get that job and we got that health coverage but it didn’t reduce our worries as we thought it would.  In fact, our health care coverage costs didn’t change much at all.  To my shock, our share of our family coverage through his employer was nearly the same cost as we had paid for individual coverage and the cost-sharing was the same or even more expensive.  Although it cost more than we wanted to pay, our concern about getting denied coverage for an individual plan based on pre-existing conditions (nothing serious but enough to deny us) kept us stuck.

For the first time since that pep talk before my husband’s interview, I feel some real hope that our family – and 5.3 million other Californians -  might have some real options and pay less for health coverage.

Last week, Covered California announced that the state’s health marketplace would offer health coverage through 13 health insurers throughout the state.  Beginning October 1st, consumers will be able to shop for and sign up for plans that will begin coverage on January 1, 2014.  And, the most important part, the rates are surprisingly low even before the subsidies many families will be eligible for are factored in.

Click here to see Covered California plan options

Here are some examples, which include the costs to consumers after price-reducing subsidies are factored in:

• A 26-year-old single mother earning $32,000 a year a with one young child may pay as little as $174/month for a premium “silver” plan
• A 45-year-old single father earning $55,000 a year with one teenager and another child in college may pay as low as $343/month  for a mid-level plan with eligible subsidies
• A family of four with a combined household income of $70,000 may pay as low as $549/month with eligible subsidies for a premium silver plan.
• A 21-year-old foster care youth in college with eligible subsidies may pay as little as $44/month for coverage.

Click here to use Covered California’s coverage calculator and see how much you might pay: http://coveredca.com/calculating_the_cost.html

The media covering this announcement agreed that the rates were good news for families.  Forbes said the coverage was likely “far more reasonably priced than you imagined.”  Betsy Imholz of Consumers Union shared with NPR, “I’m impressed. I actually think they are good prices.”

This is long-overdue and welcome news for Californians who are uninsured or seeking more affordable options.  For me and my family, October 1st can’t come soon enough for us to begin comparing coverage options!

Are you counting the days for the Covered California marketplace to open on October 1st?

SAN ANTONIO, Texas — I just got back from the 4th annual Salud America! Latino health summit. Researchers, policy analysts, public health advocates and elected leaders gathered to discuss the most pressing health concerns facing the U.S. Latino community.

Once under the auspice of “childhood obesity”, grassroots activists and researchers painted a much broader and more complex picture: many of the health challenges facing the Latino community is systemic and environmental. We must implement policies that bring physical education back to schools; build parks and bike lanes to promote outdoor activity; make sure that all communities have access to fresh produce; and curb junk food marketing to children — which is increasingly becoming digital and harder for parents to monitor on their own.

“Don’t reduce obesity to a disease that needs to be cured,” said Dr. George Flores, program manager for The California Endowment’s Healthy California Prevention team. “It’s an opportunity for equity.”

Photo on right: Here is a man who takes public health very seriously: New York Assemblyman Félix Ortiz. From the time he was a child and circulated his first public petition asking the Governor of his native Puerto Rico to support the formation of a youth baseball league, he has successfully helped draft and implement public health policies in New York: the first law in New York — and the country! — to prohibit hand-held cell phones while driving; a law that provides farmers with economic relief by requiring schools to purchase locally grown produce; a law to ensure that nutritionally based education programs be a part of every classroom; and a law to create five eating disorder centers across the state to help those who suffer from eating disorders like bulimia and anorexia.

Latinos are the largest minority group in the country, accounting for 50.5 million people in 2010. “The increasing presence of Latinos in the United States will impact all institutions,” said Dr. Rogelio Sáenz, Dean of the College of Public Policy at the University of Texas at San Antonio.

I was heartened by the promising statistics and stories that came out of the summit. The high school dropout rate among Latinos in the last 10 years has been cut in half and Latino youth are going to college at a faster rate than even their Caucasian counterparts. The Latina teen pregnancy rate and fertility rate, in general, has dropped with upward mobility.

In terms of health epidemics facing the community, such as type 2 diabetes and heart disease, there is a lot of grassroots energy on the ground to turn this around. Latino elected officials with the help of their constituents are helping transform “food deserts” and neighborhoods dotted by crime and blight into healthy-living hubs. Latino youth and parents especially are empowered and demanding that healthy food options be available in their local supermarkets and schools.

Photo on left: Dr. Amelie G. Ramirez, Director of Salud America! and Professor of Epidemiology and Biostatistics at the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, has moved mountains in the area of Latino health. All the research, the amazing speakers we got to network with and the summit could not have happened without her. Photo on right: Paul Lopez, a Denver City Council member and a member of the board of the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO), gave an inspiring presentation with “before” and “after” pictures of his childhood neighborhood, which now has a grocery store, community gardens at its schools, and soon, a park.

On a personal note, it was my first time in San Antonio and I fell in love with the city. What is a health conference without downtime to explore the great outdoors? Enjoy!

Photo: The outside space of the South Texas Heritage Center at the Witte Museum is lush and beautiful. In general, I was pleasantly surprised at how much green space San Antonio had — not at all what I expected with the punishing heat.

Photos: My friend Elsa took me to Mi Tierra, a Mexican restaurant in the market and hands-down the best place I’ve eaten chicken enchiladas verdes. I loved the decor of the restaurant, too, especially the mural of Latino leaders and celebrities.

Photo: And how could I visit San Antonio without stopping at the Alamo?

Join us to ask Glade to stop keeping their fragrance ingredients a secret!

Air freshener seems to be more and more prevalent in our society these days.  One market analysis forecast that home fragrance sales would reach $6 billion by 2012. I was unable to find an exact sales number for last year, but I have no doubt that it’s a shockingly high number, given the staggering array of air freshening devices available in the supermarket aisle. Aerosols, sprays, candles, plug-ins, oils, time releasers, each with dozens of different scents to choose from – the options are almost overwhelming.

“So, what’s the problem with all these fragranced air fresheners?” you ask. THIS is the problem: fragrance can be made up of more than 100 chemicals, most of which are synthetic, and some of these chemicals are harming our health.

Take these alarming statistics, for example (which, I should note, are from only one of the many, many studies I could cite about the impact of fragrance chemicals on our health):

One study in the U.K. of 14,000 pregnant women showed a link between the use of air fresheners and aerosol sprays and an increase in headaches and depression in the mothers, as well as ear infections and diarrhea in their babies. In homes where air fresheners and aerosol sprays were used on most days, women experienced 25% more headaches and 19% more post-natal depression than women in homes where such products were used less than once a week. Babies under six months old who were exposed to air fresheners on most days had 30% more ear infections and a 22% greater chance of diarrhea than babies exposed less than once a week[1]. While it is not clear which chemicals (or which combination of chemicals) found in air fresheners may be responsible for these effects, the results of this study raise concern about the safety and necessity of these products.

Let’s emphasize that frightening last sentence: We don’t know which chemicals are causing these serious health problems, or which products they’re in. That’s because most companies keep fragrance ingredients a secret with near-religious fervor. This is a big problem when it comes to air fresheners, in which fragrance can make up 70-80% of the overall composition of the product. That means we have no information on the vast majority of chemicals in the product we’re spraying in our homes.

Let’s use a real-life example with an iconic product to illustrate this problem: Glade. Glade is a household name, offering some of the most popular air fresheners on the marketplace. But the makers of Glade keep fragrance ingredients a closely-guarded secret, so we have no idea what makes up that Clean Linen or Lavender & Vanilla scent.

Which is ironic, because SC Johnson, Glade’s parent company, can’t seem to emphasize enough how dedicated they are to “honesty” and “transparency.” You may have seen the company’s CEO, Fisk Johnson, on the television screen talking about how the company discloses ingredients “right down to the dyes and fragrances.”  This commercial seems a little misleading to me.  These are just a few of their other quotes emphasizing that commitment:

“We know you value transparency, and we’re committed to sharing what’s inside our products.”

“Today’s families want to know what’s in the household cleaning and air freshening products they use in their homes.”

“That’s why we disclose all ingredients… So you know what you’re bringing into your home.”

Except when it comes to fragrance ingredients, apparently.

Here’s what the makers of Glade are willing to tell you. They released a master list of nearly 1,500 chemicals that they use in all of their fragranced products – but they don’t tell you which chemicals are in which products.

We had a feeling you wouldn’t want to wade through 1,500 chemicals, so we picked out a few choice chemicals on that giant, unwieldy list that we think you should know about:

• Synthetic musks: potential hormone disruptors which are persistent and bioaccumulative, and may break down the body’s defenses against other toxic exposures. These chemicals are showing up in our blood and breast milk.

• All 26 of the allergens currently disclosed on SCJ product labels in the European Union (EU). SCJ doesn’t disclose these allergens on product labels in the US because they’re not required to by law.

• Several additional allergens, which have been deemed of concern in the EU.

• Several chemicals of concern identified by an EU panel as having no publicly available human safety data.

• Terpenes, which can react with ground level ozone in the air to form cancer-causing formaldehyde.

• Petroleum – the same compound in gasoline.

But SC Johnson won’t tell us which products these chemicals are in? Seriously? WVE did a little of our own sleuthing work, and tested a couple of Glade products. Test results revealed synthetic musks and allergens. Test results also revealed the presence of phthalates, which the company committed to phase out two years before – SC Johnson claimed this was a contamination issue, but we have no confirmation that this issue has been resolved. Here’s the thing: The lab was only specifically testing for those chemicals because we asked them to. Unfortunately, we don’t have the money to walk into a lab and say, “Tell us everything that’s in this fragrance.” (Sure, companies deconstruct other companies’ scents all the time, but we don’t have that kind of budget.)

Having something to hide seems to be the only reason companies don’t want to tell us exactly what’s in their fragrances, SCJ included. We know that companies have some pretty advanced technology that allows them to reverse engineer each others’ scents – so threats to intellectual property and trade secrets can’t really be the issue. And we know that there are companies like Seventh Generation that disclose all ingredients without any apparent negative impacts to business. So really – what are these other companies hiding?

We believe that we have a right to know what’s in the products we’re bringing into our homes, spraying in the air that we breathe, landing on the surfaces that we touch, and settling into the dust at our feet.

And we know that we’re not alone in this belief – a study just came out last month called Thinking Consumption: Consumers and the Future of Sustainability, and the headlining find on the study was that consumers rank ingredient transparency among the most important issues for brands:

Nearly 9 in 10 consumers globally (86%) say “ingredient transparency is extremely important or very important” for companies to address as part of their products, services, or operations, including 88% of consumers in emerging markets and 84% of consumers in developed markets.

Guess who sponsored this study, among other companies? SC Johnson, makers of Glade!

Seems like SCJ should take the advice that they themselves asked for – don’t you think?

And this study isn’t the only evidence that their consumers want them to come clean on fragrance ingredients. Since WVE launched our Glade: Stop Keeping Toxic Secrets campaign, thousands of people have called on SCJ to list all fragrance chemicals through direct emails and on social media.

So, let’s recap:

• SC Johnson, makers of Glade, say that they’re committed to transparency. Oh yeah, except when it comes to telling us which fragrance chemicals are in which products.

• Certain fragrance chemicals are harming our health.

• SC Johnson just sponsored a study showing that the incredibly vast majority of consumers want to know what’s in products.

• We’ve been telling them directly that we want to know what’s in fragrance.

Seems like a pretty easy decision to us.

Join our Glade: Stop Keeping Toxic Secrets campaign on Facebook or by emailing the company here.

But I also like the fact that Mother’s Day was actually founded to celebrate moms taking action to protect their children and communities. And it’s in that spirit that I’d like to honor all the moms working to keep kids safe from harmful pesticides — from my colleagues here in the PAN office to the thousands of supporters and partners taking action in the U.S. and around the world. You are amazing.

Years ago, I had the priviledge of working with a mom from a small town on the central California coast who was deep in the battle to protect her community from the strawberry pesticide methyl bromide. Turns out this neurotoxic, ozone-depleting chemical was drifting into her neighborhood and her children’s school.

This mom — her name was Karen — got herself up to speed on the status of the chemical under state, national and international law. She dove into the science on human health effects. And she studied the patterns of prevailing winds that were blowing the toxic chemical into her home. She also worked full time and got her kids to school with lunches packed and notes to the teacher signed.

Moms shouldn’t have to work this hard to keep their kids safe.

I remember feeling both inspired by her efforts and deeply frustrated that Karen had to literally become a pesticide expert to protect her kids from harm. There’s something seriously broken about our system when individual moms have to take charge of protecting their children and communities from pesticides that scientists tell us are harmful to kids.

Mom is on the job

You may have seen the recent news coverage of Sandra Steingraber’s battle in New York to protect her kids and community from chemical harms. Her interview with Bill Moyers is powerful and motivating — it’s well worth watching if you have a chance.

With both her actions and words, Sandra once again reminds us that it’s time to play the “Save the World symphony” to protect all that we love.

“It is a vast orchestral piece, and you are but one musician. You are not required to play a solo, but you are required to know what instrument you hold, and play it was well as you can.”

This Sunday, let’s honor the creative and brave moms across the country who are taking up this challenge in all kinds of ways. Some are making smart choices in the produce aisle and farmers’ market. Others are working with schools and local farmers to get safe and healthy food into school cafeterias. Still others are meeting with — or becoming — leaders in city halls and state capitols across the country to press for change.

As she heads out the door to fight for a healthier future, here’s what Sandra — scientist, writer and longtime PAN friend and supporter — tells her kids: “Mom is on the job.”

Our hope is that our work here at PAN to protect all kids from harmful pesticides will make this job easier for moms across the country and around the world. If you agree and would like pitch in, I hope you’ll consider making a donation today.

And to all you amazing moms out there: Keep up the great work!

This post also appeared on GroundTruth.

Three things come to mind. First, I’d urge her to have the agency do a much, much better job following the science. Second, when that science points to human health or environmental harms, she needs to move fast — no dawdling allowed. And third, I’d remind her just exactly who she’ll be working for. Because even though they don’t show up in suits on EPA’s doorstep every day (like the industry reps do), it’s the nation’s children she’ll answer to in the end.

Follow the science, please

After settling in with our coffee, I’d bring up the agency’s lackluster commitment to scientific integrity. Back in 2011, critics told the New York Times that EPA’s scientific integrity policy was the weakest on the block. For an institution charged with protecting our health and environment from harm, this is not reassuring.

Here at PAN we’ve been urging the agency to “follow the science” for years — from atrazine to hormone disruptors, chlorpyrifos and carcinogens. And too often, the agency has disappointed.

Decisions based on solid, independent science will lead to better policies, plain and simple. It will also give Gina the bedrock grounding she’ll need to justify her decisions on the Hill, since EPA will undoubtedly continue to be a favorite political punching bag.

Slow as molasses in winter

Next up: the sad fact is, the agency simply takes too long to act, even when the evidence is strong. Time after time, a pesticide is flagged as problematic but remains on the market for years as the “registrant” (company making money from the product sales) submits more studies. EPA then reviews the studies and can request even more. In the case of the neurotoxic pesticide lindane, this process took — count ‘em — 29 years.

The insecticide chlorpyrifos provides another example. This organophosphate was pulled from use in homes back in 2002 because of its known dangers to children’s developing brains and nervous systems. More than 10 years later, 8-10 million pounds continue to be applied in agricultural fields every year, and evidence of continued harm to kids keeps rolling in. Yet EPA’s review continues.

This is absurd.

A better idea would be to take pesticides out of circulation when independent science shows they are likely to be harmful — especially to children. Then it’s back in the companies’ court to make the scientific case that their product is, in fact, safe.

If proven safe, their product could go back on the market and the process would surely move much more quickly since they’ll be motivated to push it through. If not safe, generations have been protected from harm.

And about that chemical soup

Finally, I’d encourage Gina to use her new leadership to address the fact that U.S. children — an entire generation — are feeling the harmful effects of the chemical soup we’ve created for them. From pesticides in their water, air and food to toxicants in the products that surround them, children take in a dizzying array of hard-to-pronounce chemicals that their small bodies are ill-equipped to withstand.

Our recent report on trends in children’s health shows so many diseases and disorders on the rise that this generation is likely to be the first that is, overall, less healthy than their parents. The American Academy of Pediatrics agrees this is a serious problem, and that reducing kids’ exposure to harmful pesticides is a very good idea.

Gina McCarthy can do something about this when she takes the reins at EPA. She can — and should — stay committed to former Administrator Lisa Jackson’s strategic focus on protecting and promoting children’s health. In my recent visit to DC I had a chance to chat with the good folks in EPA’s Office of Children’s Health Protection. They are doing good work that should be supported and built upon. But how about putting a kids’ health expert in each EPA office — air, water, pesticides, etc. — to be sure every decision is putting the health of kids at the top of the priority list?

We hear Gina has a reputation as a smart, no-nonsense straight-shooter with charm. Let’s hope she puts these talents to work on behalf of our kids.

A version of this post also appeared on GroundTruth.

“Children’s exposures to pesticides should be limited as much as possible.”

The report, Pesticide Exposure in Children, was published by the country’s most renowned group of children’s doctors, and the Center for Food Safety’s Cool Foods Campaign is in complete agreement with its no-nonsense recommendation. Choosing foods that are USDA-Certified Organic is the only way to ensure that our food purchases prohibit the use of synthetic pesticides and thereby limit children’s exposure to these chemicals. Here are the four things parents need to know from the AAP’s report:

#1. What are pesticides anyway?

“Pesticides represent a broad classification of chemicals that are applied to kill or control insects, unwanted plants, mold or unwanted animals (e.g. rodents).” In this report, the AAP focused on certain pesticides (insecticides, herbicides, and rodenticides) with the greatest acute and chronic toxicity for children, including organophosphates (OPs).   OPs are some of the most common and acutely toxic insecticides used today. These nerve-disrupting agents include a variety of “highly toxic” chemicals, several of which have been banned for home use in the U.S. because of their adverse effects.

#2. How are children exposed to pesticides?

“In the general population, the food supply represents the most important source of exposure for … OPs.” The most widely used OP in U.S. food production, malathion, is used on many of our kids’ favorite foods, including strawberries, carrots, grapes, sweet potatoes, and dozens more.  Research by Harvard University’s School of Public Health on malathion metabolites in the urine of children found that even low levels of malathion were associated with a 55% higher risk of having ADHD.

In addition to the food kids eat, children (and pets) may also be exposed to a cocktail of pesticides in the home, such as flea treatment for cats and dogs, lawn-care products, and even treatment for head lice.

Everyone knows that young children play on and crawl across the floor, and “exhibit frequent hand to mouth activity.”   Remember that phase when everything went in your child’s mouth?  These normal behaviors increase the risk of exposure to pesticide residues that may have settled on floors, in carpets, drapes and other surfaces. And, that’s why, as the report concludes: “Children’s unique behaviors and metabolic rate often place them at risk for absorption of higher doses from contaminated environments in comparison with adults.”

#3. Why are children vulnerable?

AAP reminds us that “children are [also] uniquely vulnerable to uptake and adverse effects of pesticides because of developmental, dietary, and physiologic factors.” Let’s look more closely at food – identified in the report as the most important source of pesticide exposure – and consider this example:

“One example evident from the biomonitoring data is chlorphrifos, a non-persistent organophosphate (OP) insecticide. Although banned in 2000 for use inside the home, it continues to be used in agriculture, including orchard fruits, such as apples and pears, and other dietary staples of children. In the Center for Disease Control biomonitoring data, chlorpyrifos-specific urinary metabolites were highest for the youngest age group assessed (6-11 years) compared with older children and adults.”

Despite the fact that this toxic OP pesticide has been  banned in residential areas, it is still allowed in agriculture, meaning it can infiltrate its way through our food system. Children are more vulnerable to these and other pesticides because of their small body weight, and on top of that, they also tend to eat more of foods like apples (think apple juice, apple slices, apple sauce) that have OP residues like chlorphrifos.

#4. How can parents limit their children’s exposure to pesticides?

The AAP cites a study conducted on elementary school students in Seattle where participants, ages 3 to 11-years-old, were first monitored for the presence of malathion and chlorpyrifos metabolites three days on their conventional diets before the researchers substituted most of the children’s conventional diets with organic food items for five consecutive days. The children were then re-introduced to their normal foods and monitored for an additional seven days.

The researchers found that “A rapid and dramatic drop in their urinary excretion of metabolites of malathion and chlorpyrifos OP insecticides during the organic diet phase was observed.” Once the children returned to their conventional (i.e. non-organic) diets, the average malathion metabolite concentration increased as did the chlorpyrifos metabolite concentration.

You don’t need to be a doctor or even a scientist to understand the cause and effect: You feed kids foods that have organophosphates in them and it will show up in their urine as their body works to excrete the toxin. You feed kids foods that don’t have OPs in them and their urine is clean. You re-introduce the toxin and – to no surprise; it shows up in the urine once again.

There is plenty more in this report; enough to scare any parent silly.  But, the big take-away message for parents is to limit your child’s exposure to pesticides as best you can. Since our food supply is “the most important source of exposure” to the most dangerous compounds, the safest choice is to invest in organic food, educate yourself about pesticide exposure, and let Congress know you want policies that promote the growth of a healthy, organic food system.