Kristin Schafer

    Rethinking toxic chemical risk

    Posted June 6th, 2012 by

    There’s an interesting debate emerging in the public health world. It has to do with whether we need to rejigger our thinking about the risks pesticides and other chemicals pose to children’s health.

    Traditionally, we’ve had a “disease-oriented” approach, assessing risk based on the severity of a health outcome (think birth defects or cancer). But earlier this month a provocative Environmental Health Perspectives article argued that a “population approach” might be wiser — meaning that even when a health effect is not severe, if it’s affecting a huge number of our children (think dropping IQs), we should be paying close attention.

    Our colleagues at the Environmental Defense Fund described the issue well in a recent blog, highlighting the EHP article’s findings that population-wide impacts of chemical exposures are “surprisingly” large “due not so much to their effect sizes, but rather to the prevalence at which children in the U.S. experience these exposures.”

    If we really are talking about protecting public health, focusing on such widespread impacts — and taking action to prevent them — would seem to emerge as priority. Clearly, serious disease impacts represent a tremendous burden as well and cannot be brushed aside. It may sound overly dramatic, but we really do ignore the less severe, widespread impacts of chemical exposure at our peril.

    The EHP article’s author, Dr. David Bellinger of Boston Children’s Hospital, puts it this way:

    Although a factor associated with a large impact would be a significant burden to a patient, it might not be a major contributor to the population if it occurs rarely. Conversely, a factor associated with a modest but frequently occurring impact could contribute significantly to population burden.

    The argument that public health priorities around chemical risks must focus on the “breadth” of an impact just as much as its “depth” makes very good sense.

    This post appeared previously at GroundTruth.org.

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

    2 Comments

    December 3, 2012 at 3:49 am by Chemical Suppliers

    Nice article and info about toxic chemical. Kristin Schafer good job.

    [Reply]

    July 17, 2012 at 5:35 pm by Keith

    Insurance will cover things that hppean to you in an accident that need correction plus numerous others but if you’re meaning bigger breasts or a hair transplant you are out of luck. They won’t pay for that.

    [Reply]

    Leave a Comment

    Your name is required
    An Email address is required

    Notify me of follow-up comments via e-mail