Our Bodies, Ourselves (155 page)

Most children in the United States are exposed to potentially hazardous chemicals before they are even born. A father's sperm or mother's eggs, if damaged through pesticide, chemical, or other exposure, could potentially affect an embryo's development. According to the 2010 report of the President's Cancer Panel (PCP), studies have found a total of three hundred chemicals present in the umbilical cords of newborns, prompting the authors to assert, “To a disturbing extent, babies are born ‘pre-polluted.' “
4
Exposure to potential contaminants while in the womb may irreversibly and negatively affect important development, predisposing babies to illnesses and susceptibilities throughout their lives. Because of this, the PCP urges those considering having a child to “avoid endocrine disrupting chemicals and known or suspected carcinogens prior to a child's conception and throughout pregnancy and early in life, when damage is greatest.”
5
(See
“Key Terms to Know,”
, for a definition of endocrine disrupting chemicals and other key words in this chapter.)

Once a child is born, exposure can continue through breastfeeding. Toxics are easily stored in a woman's fat through the process of bioaccumulation, and mothers pass them to newborns through their milk. Even so, breast milk is still considered the healthiest form of infant feeding in all but rare cases, because the many benefits are so significant for both mothers and babies.

Many chemicals considered hazardous to babies' health, especially when they are consumed in breast milk, have been banned in the United States, yet traces of these banned chemicals are still found in women's breast milk.
6
Some women and babies are at especially high risk because of diet or environmental exposures; for example, among indigenous people in the high Arctic, babies take in seven times more PCBs than the typical infant in Canada or the United States.
7

Breast milk offers tremendous protective qualities and benefits that outweigh the risks of low-level exposure to toxics in most cases. Babies who are formula-fed are more likely than babies who are breastfed to develop ear infections, diarrhea, asthma, diabetes, lower respiratory tract infections, and eczema. Both sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) and childhood leukemia, while rare, are more common in babies who are formula-fed.
8

Women can make individual adaptations to limit the toxics in breast milk. For example, women at Akwesasne (see
sidebar,
) adjusted their fish intake during their reproductive and nursing years to reduce exposure to PCBs and other contaminants. Equally important at Akwesasne and other communities, people are mobilizing to challenge polluters, holding them accountable for environmental degradation, and demanding adequate remedies.

Too often, individuals rather than government institutions or companies are expected to take
primary responsibility for health and safety. For example, employers may require employees to wear personal protective equipment (which may be ill-fitting and cumbersome) instead of changing a risky practice or substituting a less hazardous substance. Or we are told that our behavior is what makes us get sick or stay well. But we can't avoid being exposed to toxic substances or dangerous conditions that we cannot control. Furthermore, our personal “choices” are limited by economic constraints, access to information, family obligations, workplace rights, and available alternatives.

Many environmental health hazards are caused by industrial practices and pollution that expose individuals and communities to chemicals, often without the people affected being given any information about potentially harmful effects. We may know little, for example, about pesticides sprayed on the foods we eat and chemicals used in our homes and workplaces.

It's the responsibility of industry and government to ensure that information is properly disseminated and regulations are properly enforced, and to fund scientific studies that analyze the potential impact of different hazards, as well as respond to communities most affected. There are state and federal right-to-know laws that provide some access to critical information about exposure and potential effects, but these laws will make a difference only if communities insist on their implementation.

Meanwhile, in a world of constant exposure to chemical contaminants, and after decades of public health nightmares like DDT and asbestos, we can no longer assume that products are safe. Only a few hundred of the tens of thousands of chemicals in use are adequately tested; many substances suspected to cause cancer or reproductive health problems are not regulated at all.
9

Community activists, researchers, and advocates from the fields of science and health are calling for the increased use of a new kind of risk paradigm that encourages anticipatory action in the absence of scientific certainty. This Precautionary Principle states, “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.”
10

Jennifer Coleman of the Oregon Environmental Council explains: “Today, tens of thousands of synthetic chemicals are ‘innocent until proven guilty'—that is, they are not thoroughly tested for hazards to health or the environment before they are used to make consumer goods. We need a chemical policy that ensures the safety of all consumer products before they reach the shelves. Until that occurs, we must work on banning or restricting the use of potentially harmful chemicals one at a time.”
11

The Precautionary Principle requires taking action in the face of uncertainty, shifting the burden of proof to those who create risks, and analyzing alternatives to potentially harmful activities. For more information, visit the Science & Environmental Health Network, which has numerous articles, statements, and government positions concerning the Precautionary Principle: sehn.org/precaution.html.

Advocacy is another important part of protection and remedial action. Women are pushing for more research on risks that are poorly understood, launching community-based health projects, calling for enforcement of regulations to keep our environment safe, and insisting that
communities that are most vulnerable are protected against and compensated for unnecessary health burdens.

More work and advocacy are being done through national and international networks, often linking researchers and health-care providers to women working for change in their communities. One key organization is the Collaborative on Health and the Environment (CHE) (healthandenvironment.org), an international partnership that pays special attention to reproductive and cross-generational impacts. Elise Miller, the director of CHE, explains why activism on this issue is desperately needed:

Only recently has research focused on how certain chemicals may disrupt women's reproductive health. With the leadership of scientists, health professionals, and patient advocates, these concerns are now starting to be prioritized. Our great hope is that future generations of women and their partners will not have to struggle with the rampant incidence of infertility, endometriosis, and other reproductive health disorders we see today.
12

Everyone is exposed to trace amounts of lead through air, food, water, dust, and various products. Lead occurs naturally in the environment and has many industrial and commercial uses (it is used in plumbing pipes and car batteries, for example). Lead is a neurotoxic, meaning it affects our nerve cells. Even small amounts can be dangerous, since the substance accumulates in tissue and bone over time. Sickness from lead is often referred to as “lead poisoning.” Acute exposure can result in vomiting, diarrhea, seizures, coma, and death. Chronic exposure can result in brittle bones; anemia (iron deficiency); damage to the brain, nervous system, liver, kidney, and blood system; and general weakness.

Children and pregnant women are most susceptible to serious health effects of lead. Dr. Louis W. Sullivan, former Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, called lead the “number-one environment threat to the health of children in the United States.”
13
Lead crosses the placenta in a mother's womb to reach her developing fetus,
14
and occupational health studies show increased miscarriages and stillbirths among women who work with the substance. Long-term exposure can also reduce male fertility. Even limited prenatal and/or childhood contact can affect children's intellectual development, behavior, growth, and hearing, and may result in early puberty for girls. Those under the age of six are most vulnerable. Children who eat a diet rich in iron and calcium absorb less lead, since calcium prevents absorption. (Pregnant women also need to ensure their calcium intake is high.) Dairy products, red meat, dark leafy greens, tofu, and beans, can help to increase iron and calcium levels.

Historically lead was an ingredient in both paint and gasoline; while those uses have mostly been discontinued, there is a persistent concern about lead paint in housing, especially in older homes and in poorer neighborhoods where remediation has been lax.

The EPA estimates that lead paint poisoning affects more than 1 million American children. Owing to a lack of adequate nutrition and an abundance of substandard housing, children from low-income families are eight times more likely to experience lead poisoning than those from higher-income families. African-American children are five times more likely to be poisoned than white children. In New York
City, as of 2009, more than 80 percent of the children poisoned by lead are children of color.
15

Lead exposure in the home can occur through lead pipes and lead-based paint, particularly in older buildings. The EPA considers lead-based paint to be in good condition if it's not chipping. Chipped or otherwise degraded paint should always be removed by a trained worker; never sand or burn off paint that may contain lead, as dry chips, fine particles, and vapor are easily inhaled.

Airborne lead emissions also raises concerns. In 2011, the U.S. and Illinois Environmental Protection agencies launched a joint investigation after lead levels at an elementary school in Chicago's Pilsen neighborhood were found to be at or above federal limits. “Lead pollution exceeded health standards during a fifth of the days monitored and, on one day in December, spiked more than 10 times higher—findings that alarm even veteran investigators,” reported the
Chicago Tribune.
16
The school is near several industrial polluters, including a coal-fired power plant, and community activists have long asserted that the neighborhood is disproportionately affected by air pollution.