Kristin Schafer

    Memo to Congress: Toxic chemicals wreak havoc on developing minds

    Posted February 5th, 2010 by

    So it looks like Congress is finally beginning to take a serious look at toxic chemicals and how they affect our health. This week they heard from advocates, health professionals and parents calling for stronger laws to protect children from dangerous chemicals. The Senate subcommittee hearing included participants in the innovative biomonitoring study: Mind, Disrupted.

    Mind, Disrupted is an eye-opening project.

    Twelve adults whose lives have been touched by a learning or developmental disability – either themselves or a family member – volunteered to have their bodies tested for toxic chemicals. Scientists looked for chemicals known to damage nerves or interfere with the proper working of hormones. They found them.

    Mercury. Organochlorine pesticides. Perchlorate. BPA. Triclosan. The list goes on. Combined, a total of 61 contaminants were present in the bodies the study participants. Each person had at least 26 toxins, some many more. The chemicals studied are found in everything from baby bottles to frying pans, computers to hand soap, children’s toys to the vegetables served with dinner.

    What does it mean? The study authors, from the Learning and Developmental Disabilities Initiative, aren’t claiming cause and effect. They’re just pointing out – in a very personal way – that we know these chemicals are in our bodies, and we know they can wreak havoc on the developing nervous system. Shouldn’t we be doing something about it?

    Jeff Sell, Esq, one of the study participants, is Vice President for Policy of the Autism Society and father of twin teen sons with autism. His pitch to the Senators: “Given increasing rates of learning and developmental disabilities — particularly autism — we need to recognize that the rising costs associated with long term care of disability, special education and related health care will only continue to grow.”

    Learning disabilities of all kinds – autism, ADHD, dyslexia – are on the rise in communities across the country. It’s a rare classroom that doesn’t have one child or more facing some kind of extra challenge. While there are questions about how to best measure the trends (are we diagnosing more cases?) there’s general consensus among health professionals that the increases are real.

    A recent article in The Parent Paper summarizes why the numbers are a moving target, and what we do know. For example, CDC officials reported at the end of 2009 that autism rates have gone up 58% in the past three years. And in 2008 a group of concerned scientists issued a statement saying: “in general, disabilities (including disorders of learning, attention, emotional state and behavior) have increased significantly over the past four decades.”

    Exposure to chemicals has also increased “significantly over the past four decades.” We now have a whopping 80,000 or so industrial chemicals on the market, along with more than 17,000 products registered for use as pesticides. Some of these chemicals damage the nervous system or otherwise interfere with normal development. Coincidence? Maybe.

    The hearing this week in the Senate on “public exposure to toxic chemicals” is another step toward fundamental reform of the national law governing industrial chemicals, the Toxic Substances Control Act. A diverse and growing coalition of more than 120 groups, the Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families campaign, is pressing Congress to pass smart federal policies that can actually reduce our exposure to toxic chemicals.

    Scientists are calling for action too: “The overwhelming evidence shows that certain environmental exposures can contribute to lifelong learning and developmental disorders,” says Ted Schettler, MD, MPH, Science Director for the Science and Environmental Health Network and Board Member for Pesticide Action Network. “We should eliminate children’s exposures to substances that we know can have these impacts by implementing stronger health-based policies requiring safer alternatives.”

    Hear hear. Meanwhile, we do what we can at home: avoid anti-bacterial soaps, control pests without chemicals, buy organic when we can. For more ideas, see the “Limiting toxicity” section of the excellent article in The Parent Paper. Then keep that pressure on the politicians to fix our very broken system, and get a better one in place.

    Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
    * * * * *
    Posted Under: H: Environmental Health
    Permalink

    9 Comments

    April 26, 2010 at 12:27 pm by Kathy

    Thanks so much for covering the important results of this biomonitoring study. Triclosan is one of the many chemicals identified in this study. To learn more about triclosan and why it’s so dangerous, please visit: http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/water/chemical-contaminants/what-is-lurking-in-your-soap/

    [Reply]

    February 15, 2010 at 6:36 pm by Kristin Schafer

    Thanks to Donna and Chali for sharing the information on testing, very interesting! Also wanted to let folks in the DC area know about an informational briefing coming up this Friday, February 19th on Capitol Hill, specifically focused on the Mind,Disrupted report. Speakers will include several of the participants in the study, and the event will be at noon in the Cannon Caucus Room. Please RSVP to Ellie Collinson at (202) 587-4935 or e-mail ecollinson@rabengroup.com.

    [Reply]

    Anita Reply:

    @Kristin Thanks for letting us know!

    [Reply]

    February 10, 2010 at 4:07 pm by Liz Amason

    A new study just came out at the end of January showing the correlation between phthalate exposures and ADHD and other conditions.
    My blog post regarding this study and it’s findings: http://bit.ly/cfSVjD

    [Reply]

    February 8, 2010 at 10:32 am by Beth

    Does this also include finding out whether the increased numbers of vaccines in the past 25 years or so has had an impact? I’m interested as mercury was on the above list. Never mind that some doctors have gleefully rejoiced that neurological disorders have continued to rise despite removal of mercury from most vaccines (though, notably, not flu shots, which we are all pressured to give to our children).

    Obviously, our environment is contaminated quite sufficiently on its own. I think it’s important to look at all possibilities, however, and not assume that the number of vaccines are safe, just because they haven’t been proven to be unsafe.

    Notably, I knew one kid in elementary school in the ’70s-’80s who seemed to be autistic, and have since met only a few others as adults. I definitely don’t think vaccines are the only answer, but I don’t think it’s fair for them often to be discounted either.

    [Reply]

    February 5, 2010 at 6:56 pm by Charli

    It’s true, as you say, that “Scientists are calling for action too.”

    Alternatives to animal testing exist in a powerful way and many scientists advocate them. Chemical reform should not only modernize policy, but modernize the science that supports that policy.

    Many of the toxicity tests currently used are based on experiments in animals and use methods that were developed as long ago as the 1930’s; they and are slow, inaccurate, open to uncertainty and manipulation, and do not adequately protect human health. These tests take anywhere from months to years, and tens of thousands to millions of dollars to perform. More importantly, the current testing paradigm has a poor record in predicting effects in humans and an even poorer record in leading to actual regulation of dangerous chemicals.

    Let’s ensure chemicals reform uses all the necessary tools to truly make our children, our environment, and animals safe.

    [Reply]

    Donna Nitzberg Reply:

    @Charli, Hi. I wrote the story about environmental toxins and LDAs in the Parent Paper, which Kristin mentions in her blog. I agree with you that a huge problem here is that most of the chemicals we use everyday are untested. Obviously you can’t test chemicals directly on children so it’s a bit of a Catch 22. But Maureen Swansen at the LDA’s Health Children Project mentioned to me that there are new in vitro testing paradigms being developed. She says: ” Yes, there is a desperate need for better testing techniques – and better ways to study the effects of these chemicals…. There are a whole range of lab tests that scientists are working on. Developing tests can be done more in a test tube that wouldn’t have to rely on animal studies. Those are in the developmental stages.” Which sounds very exciting. Do you know what they are and when these will be available?

    [Reply]

    Chali Reply:

    @Donna Nitzberg, Thanks for your comment! I do know a little about the matter. You can find more info here: http://www.reformtoxicitytesting.org. But from what I’ve read the blueprint for development and implementation of alternatives to animal testing is the National Research Council report, Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century: A Vision and a Strategy in 2007 (it’s cited in the link above).

    In this report they state that (and I’m quoting from the website), “In the NRC Vision, a suite of these tests would replace a single animal test. Each test in the suite would measure different changes that occur in response to a chemical, giving a comprehensive picture of the affect the chemical may have on normal cell and tissue function. These test methods can be automated, so scientists can use machines to test hundreds and even thousands of chemicals at the same time, monitoring most of the possible effects on cells, tissues, and organs resulting from exposure to each chemical. This type of screening is called high throughput screening.

    Using this approach, regulatory scientists can simultaneously examine numerous possible health effects of exposure to thousands of chemicals. With these data, they can determine which chemicals present a concern and flag those for further testing, setting aside chemicals that present little or no health concerns. This approach would allow scientists to quickly analyze the backlog of chemicals that may not have undergone rigorous safety testing. That would reduce the amount of uncertainty in the chemical market, optimizing protection of human health and the environment.”

    I hope this answers your question. The website is really the best source of information!

    [Reply]

    February 5, 2010 at 4:17 pm by Beth

    This is wonderful news. I know several people suffering from chemical insensitivity which has gone largely unaddressed (though this is very slowly changing) in the medical arena. Along with growing autism rates is the rise in cancer and other diseases in pets – largely due to environmental factors. Not sure why this has taken so long to come to light. Thanks for your post.

    [Reply]

    Leave a Comment

    Your name is required
    An Email address is required

    Notify me of follow-up comments via e-mail