(Page 5 of 5)

The chemical industry has benefited financially from anemic governmental regulations, but the American public has paid the price. The economic burden of environmentally-related diseases in children is mounting rapidly. The chemical industry has transferred the cost of disease first to the healthcare delivery system through direct care costs, and second to society through the human impact and actual economic burden of illness. Philip Landrigan, M.D., chairman of the Department of Community and Preventive Medicine at Mount Sinai Medical Center and an expert in children’s environmental health, has performed extensive research on the economic effects of diseases caused by environmental toxins. His team determined that the cost to society of four environmentally-related diseases in American children—asthma, cancer, lead poisoning, and neurobehavioral disorders—is $55 billion annually. By comparison, stroke, which is the third-leading cause of death in American and afflict over 700,000 individuals each year, costs society only $52 billion.

Advocates of children’s health have called for a “precautionary principle” when it comes to chemical pollutants. The principle, as defined by the Science & Environmental Health Network, dictates that “when an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.” Implementation of this principle would mean taking action before large numbers of children start getting sick, requiring manufacturers to demonstrate the safety or hazards of chemicals, and finding alternatives to the use of chemicals suspected to be adversely affecting children’s health. The precautionary principle promotes policies that protect human health in the face of uncertain risks. Instead of asking “what level of risk is acceptable?”, children’s health advocates argue that society should ask “how much contamination can we avoid while still achieving our goals?” The precautionary principle encourages a shift from asking questions to finding answers focused on reducing children’s toxin exposure.

While following a precautionary principle would require a radical shift in priorities on the part of the federal government and a major change in the business philosophy of industry, it would not be impossible to achieve. Recent successes in Europe demonstrate that precautionary alternatives can be successfully implemented. The European Union recently approved a law, over the protests of industry, placing the burden on industry to demonstrate chemicals’ safety. The law also required that any chemical used in the manufacturing process be tested for its impact on human health. Individual European countries have also taken their own precautionary measures. In Sweden, for example, concern arose during the 1990s over flame retardants known as PBDEs. Despite a relative lack of toxicological information, the Swedish government feared future health risks and implemented precautionary measures to restrict the use of PBDEs. The restrictions have been successful, and recent data demonstrates that levels of PBDEs in Swedish mothers’ breast milk have fallen since PDBE use has been regulated. Meanwhile, in the U.S., where PBDEs are still unregulated, levels of the toxin are one hundred times higher than in Sweden.

Adults living in 2006 are the guardians of a generation at risk. Our dismal environmental health record calls out for reform, and promoting policies based on the precautionary principle is the best mechanism to promote public and environmental health. Children cannot advocate for themselves—they must rely on adults to protect them. Industry, the public, and the government must all share responsibility for creating safer environments in which America’s children can live, learn, and play.

Andrew Chalupka is a junior Political Science major at Yale University.