Will future generations be less contaminated? Lawmakers are deciding now.
Posted February 19th, 2010 by Kristin SchaferI truly hope my grandchildren come into the world carrying fewer chemicals than my children did when they were born. My oldest just started high school, so any grandchildren are many years off. But members of Congress are deciding right now what chemicals my daughter will pass along to her children. My vote? As few as possible.
Senators and Representatives are considering a dangerous group of chemicals called “persistent, bioaccumulative toxins,” better known as PBTs. These chemicals can last for years in the environment — and in our bodies. Some travel the globe on swirling currents of wind and water, eventually settling in the polar regions. And many can damage our nervous, reproductive and immune systems at astonishingly low levels.
Most PBTs can pass from mother to child during pregnancy and breastfeeding – and infants and children are especially vulnerable to these chemicals as their bodies develop. These are very scary substances.
PBTs are all around us. From tomatoes doused with the pesticide endosulfan and lice shampoos made with lindane, to computers treated with flame retardants (a group of chemicals known as PBDEs), many many everyday products carry PBTs into our homes and bodies.
Enough is enough. As part of the broader efforts to fix our broken chemical policies, Congress should tell EPA to get chemicals that qualify as PBTs out of products and off the shelves.
Other countries – 169 of them at last count – have already recognized that persistent chemicals that don’t respect national borders are just too dangerous to have on the planet. They’ve adopted the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, a global treaty that targets traveling PBTs for worldwide phase-out. The U.S. signed the treaty back in 2001, but hasn’t officially adopted it yet.
Ten years ago, I traveled to Germany to be part of the negotiating sessions where this treaty was being created. I was just back from maternity leave, and was still breastfeeding our son Connor. When I returned from Bonn, I wrote these words:
“It’s quite possible—indeed likely— that Connor has ingested some of the chemical industry’s most dangerous products along with nature’s perfect food for infants. Of course, Connor will be off to kindergarten before any treaty goes into effect, but being a nursing mother brings this policy work down to a very personal level, and reminds me, in a concrete way, that we are working to protect the right of women worldwide to safely bear and breastfeed our children.”
When Connor started kindergarten in 2004, the 50th country adopted the treaty, making it binding international law. Participating countries got to work eliminating the first 12 chemicals on the list (including dioxins, PCBs, DDT and seven other pesticides). In May of last year, the list of chemicals targeted for global phaseout expanded to 21.
Congress needs to know we want action now on PBTs here in the U.S. Today’s version of being “better off” than your parents? Being less contaminated with toxic chemicals. It’s the least we can do for future generations.



2 Comments
March 26, 2010 at 12:39 pm by Ethel JamfreyThe cavalier attitude of our laws currently governing use of pesticides in schools and in places where children play is costing us billions in poor performance in learning with each exposure increasing the illnesses of children and teachers that are in many cases “subclinical” and never reported to any agency. This is all in addition to the “serious reportable illnesses” that we do hear about.
Applying pesticides “to label specifications” that state that the product is to be used in schools, cafeterias, restaurants, rest homes, etc. gives pesticide applicators the “right to use it in these places”. When the pesticides are known NEUROTOXINS, and are suspected of Kidney, Liver and Gastrointestinal symptoms as well, WHAT ARE WE DOING TO THE KIDS???? What are we doing to the adults as well? Does Grandma really have a disease or is she having a reaction to a pesticide?
On a given day of going to a restaurant, school, beauty shop, grocery store and just about anywhere else, a person can be exposed to a “coctail” of various pesticides that together make up an even more serious effect…effects that are never discussed in relationship to each product individually…these combinations in the body produce relatively “unknown” effects on the person…depending on their already existing “body burden” of persistent pesticides in the tissues of the body, depending on their genetics and their current state of health.
As one of many who have had tissue testing, I have lab results of high levels of DDT, DDE, Lindane, Chlordane, Eldrin, Dieldrin…among others. Because of this “coctail” I carry with me, I go into symptoms whenever I lose weight or come into contact with a variety of other VOC’s and supposed “less toxic” pesticides.
We desparately need legislation that will protect our kids…so many of them are already affected…
they need the chance in life to develop to their full potential without illness produced by pesticides. We need legislation that will protect all people from harmful pesticide exposures.
[Reply]
March 4, 2010 at 3:57 pm by Kristin SchaferUpdate for those tracking this issue – Congress held a hearing today on PBTs, heard an earful on why these chemicals should be a priority. Check out our PANUPs news service article on the hearing at http://www.panna.org for links to testimony and more.
[Reply]
Leave a Comment