Big Bucks (Yours) Fighting Bogus Health Risks

An October press release from the Environmental Protection Agency's National Center for Environmental Research announced that EPA is funding a handful of researchers to investigate the role of "environmental chemicals" in putting children at risk of disease. The press release says that "protecting health is one of the highest priorities at EPA" -- and that it is critical to "better understand harmful exposures" for children -- adding, "For many reasons, children are likely to be more vulnerable than adults to the effects of environmental contaminates."

This effort by EPA (and the Department of Health and Human Services and other government agencies) is called the National Children's Study and monitors 100,000 children from the womb to age 21 to measure the effect of environmental chemicals on health and development. In fiscal year 2007, Congress devoted $69 million to it.

Unfortunately, the recipients of the grants from EPA to study "environmental chemicals" include those who have built their careers claiming that trace levels of industrial chemicals make children sick.

These include Dr. Philip Landrigan, co-director of the Mount Sinai Center for Children's Environmental Health (whose work is described as investigating "environmental risks to children" in urban areas and promoting "policies to reduce or eliminate exposure") and Dr. Elaine Faustman from the Center for Child Environmental Health Risks Research at the University of Washington (who has worked to "better understand childrens' susceptibilities to agricultural pesticides"). Working with them is Dr. Iva Hertz-Picciotto, who not only worries about toxic household cleansers but studies the purported disease-causing effects of amalgam dental fillings, a favorite quack topic.

*****

Despite conventional wisdom, there is no mainstream scientific evidence that points to children's health being imperiled by trace levels of chemicals in the environment. The chemicals that are being targeted are used in a safe, regulated manner, including fire-retardant chemicals for furniture, plasticizers in toys, and industrial chemicals that might be detected in trace amounts in water or air. An examination of any textbooks on the causation of human disease will not cite trace environmental chemicals as a threat to either children or adults. In other words, the tens of millions of government dollars being consumed here are directed at purely phantom risks.

Furthermore, there is little toxicological evidence to support the premise that children are consistently more susceptible to trace chemicals than are adults. And there are few empirical data to support the claim that children have greater exposure to environmental chemicals than adults.

Nonetheless, the scientists involved in the pursuit of chemicals in the National Children's Study are not neutral on the subject at hand. They are committed to the assumption that trace chemicals are harming children -- instead of investigating a premise, they are engaged in proving it. Bluntly put, EPA is funding scientists who have an anti-chemical mindset. The list of fundees does not include one scientist known to reject the claim that trace chemicals pose a hazard.

While organizations like the one I head up are frequently targeted as "fronts" for industry when we recite the scientific facts about the causation of disease, it is obvious that scientists pursuing "chemicals" with tens of millions of federal dollars also have a potential bias: they will not be funded by EPA unless they "confirm" that trace chemicals are a hazard -- a clear conflict of interest. If "he who pays the piper calls the tune," we should certainly worry about a regulatory agency whose power depends upon regulating chemical threats funding a chemical witch hunt.

Self-appointed environmentalists routinely claim that those who disagree with them about trace chemicals causing disease are representing the interests of Big Business. Then ought we not to worry that government-funded scientists are representing the interests of Big Government -- and doing so with budgets hundreds of times greater than those of the handful of groups who argue that modern technology is safe?

*****

Children have long been portrayed as victims in anti-chemical campaigns. It is good public relations strategy to create anxiety about the most vulnerable individuals in our society. People fear the unknown, the unfamiliar, the invisible -- and trace levels of chemicals fit the bill perfectly here. Public perceptions of child susceptibility to "chemicals" is largely influenced by psychological factors rather than dispassionate scientific assessments of risk.

However, pursuing scary phantom risks means devoting less attention to real (but often mundane) risks -- ones that threaten children and adults alike -- such as car accidents and vaccine-preventable diseases. The EPA funding of this study suggests that the federal government plays a very significant role in the campaign against chemical use, with the hot-button issue of children's health being just a
cynically-used means to that end.

Dr. Elizabeth M. Whelan is president of the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH.org, HealthFactsAndFears.com).

Comments

[olivine]

Then what is going on?..Why are childhood cancers up over 30% (according to Dr. Samuel Epstein, awarded the 2005 Albert Schweitzer Medal for Humanitarianism, among many other awards and honors),if the environment is not toxic? Let's see...roughly 1 in 150 children are now diagnosed with autism or something like it- again roughly, it used to be 1 in 10,000 in the not too distant past...cancer used to be rare, especially in the 20 to 30 year old age groups... today , it is easy to find a support buddy going through the same horror-even if you have only recently graduated from college.Fish is so toxic that pregnant women are advised not to eat it...(hmmmmm,I think I will pass as well).Toxins may be bearable up to a certain point, but eventually, there is an overload of what the body can sustain-and that includes mother earth-and all hell breaks loose.

[Newfycrat]

Hmmm. I suppose we should just tell the parents of the poor Australian children that they should not worry about "environmental chemicals". Or are you saying that unless the "chemicals" do not have an immediate effect, they are GRAS? And how then would one explain all the "chemicals" in cigarettes?

[nancydarling]

In the interest of full disclosure, Dr. Whelan admits on the ACSH web site that they receive 40% of their funding from the chemical industry. My research on line indicates the number is closer to75%. Does that mean they are shilling for the petrochemical industries? They deny it---you decide.

[LeftRight]

So, wait, what you're saying is that the people who have been studying whether there are health risks associated with these chemicals, are actually being paid to study whether there are health risks associated with these chemicals?

I'm sorry, but if I'm going to spend taxpayer dollars on something like, say, curing cancer, I'm going to go to a company who's been trying to find a cure for cancer, not some random guy on the street.

Further, in your post you state that the government is funding scientists with an anto-chemical bent. I'm sure that they are also funding scientists with a pro-chemical bent, and I'm more worried about that, having seen what more right-wing type scientists are capable of saying (global warming doesn't exist, smoking is good for you, etc...) and as long as the government is showing BOTH side (which, again, I'm sure that they are) then there's no problem. We have too many chemicals anyway....

[stephley]

As a voter, taxpayer and mother, I'm okay with the government maybe wasting a little money to find out whether trace chemicals actually are safe for my child - though it is a stretch for my imagination to think asbestos, lead, mercury might really be fine in small doses. And don't worry Ms. Whelan, there's a little left over in the budget to study car accidents and vaccine-preventable diseases.