Experts call for stricter regulation of chemicals endangering children's health

The number of children with serious diseases has increased significantly over the past 50 years. An extensive array of research has found one of the primary causes is exposure to synthetic chemicals.

Now, a consortium of 25 scientists and legal experts has released a paper calling for sweeping changes to federal law regarding chemicals, in order to protect children's health.

The report, published Wednesday in the New England Journal of Medicine, says unregulated chemicals found in everything from food to mattresses have led to a growing health crisis among children. And they want the government to fundamentally restructure the law so chemicals are rigorously tested for toxicity before they reach the market.

The lead author of the study is Dr. Philip Landrigan, a pediatrician, epidemiologist and director of the Global Observatory on Planetary Health at Boston College. He spoke with WBUR's All Things Considered host Lisa Mullins.

On the most profound changes in children's health linked to chemical exposure:

"In the past 50 to 75 years, a whole suite of non-communicable diseases have gone up in children. Some of the most noteworthy are a 35% increase in the incidence of childhood cancer. Autism now affects one child in 36, according to CDC data, and a number of chemicals — lead, certain pesticides, ambient air pollution [and] brominated flame retardants have all been shown to reduce children's IQ, to impair their cognitive function.

"Some widely used chemicals... particularly chemicals that go into plastics, like phthalates, have been shown to increase risk of birth defects in baby boys — birth defects of the reproductive organs. The impact of that carries through to adult life shows up as reduced fertility. And it's prenatal exposure to the mom during pregnancy which appears to be particularly hazardous in all these cases.

"There's an ancient axiom in medicine and toxicology that the dose makes the poison, meaning that the higher the dose, the greater the harm. But what we've learned in the last ... couple of decades is that in early human development, which really means during the nine months of pregnancy, the timing is equally as important as the dose. And even a very tiny dose at the wrong moment in early pregnancy can have very serious consequences for a child's health and child's development."

On how to reduce exposure to chemicals:

"Firstly, people should take conscious, intentional steps to reduce their exposures to chemicals in the home. Reduce use of plastics. ... Certainly don't microwave food in plastics, because the microwaving drives the chemicals out of the plastic into the food. [Even if a product says it's microwavable], I would still dump it out into a glass or a ceramic dish before I put it into the microwave.

"Another action that people can take is to reduce, or even better yet, eliminate their use of pesticides in the home. Buy organic food where you can afford to do so, because people who eat organic food have much less pesticide exposure than folks who eat so-called conventional food.

"I hate to use a brand name, but look for things like Seventh Generation products, which try deliberately to use fewer chemicals in their formulations for detergent. Look for things like a mattress made by Naturepedic, which is free of all kinds of chemicals, as opposed to one that's loaded with brominated flame retardants.

"People can do things like agitate for less pesticide use in the school, less pesticide use in parks, bans on plastic bags — all of which will reduce people's exposure to chemicals. And ... work with their legislators, both at the state level as well as nationally, federally to regulate chemicals."

On what researchers are calling for in the report:

"We know it's aspirational and we know it's big, but we think that there needs to be a fundamental restructuring of chemical law in this country to prioritize the protection of children's health.

"And what that means in practical terms is that any new chemical that a manufacturer wants to bring to market has to be tested for toxicity before it's brought to market and shown to not cause harm at the anticipated levels of exposure. And then the second thing that needs to be done is that of all the chemicals that are out there, EPA needs to continue to do what they're doing now to to pick off the chemicals that are in widest use where there's already a high index of suspicion and subject them to the kind of scrutiny that they're directing right now to chemicals like formaldehyde and trichloroethylene."

On the American Chemistry Council's claim that the federal government (under a 2016 amendment to the Toxic Substances Control Act) is already conducting stringent review of chemicals and, in some cases, taking it too far:

"Firstly, I certainly agree with the American Chemistry Council that there are some chemicals that have proven enormously beneficial. Think of drinking water disinfectants that prevent cholera and other diarrheal diseases. Think of all the chemicals that go into pharmaceuticals. Those are beneficial chemicals. And it's true that the EPA has established a short list of chemicals that they have examined very closely. And they have been proposing regulations on ... some high-priority chemicals like trichloroethylene, which is a solvent, or formaldehyde, which is very widely used in multiple different products.

"Those are small steps in the right direction ... [but] I would argue that any new chemical, especially new chemicals that are going to go into products for use by children, has to be subject to the same kind of scrutiny as we give to pharmaceuticals."

On the prospect of further regulation of the chemical industry under President-elect Donald Trump:

"I totally agree... that the incoming administration will not be friendly to chemical regulation at the federal level. But remember, not all policy in this country is made in Washington. The big states — Massachusetts, New York, California, Minnesota — have powerful state legislatures that are beginning to ban certain chemicals and force changes in national markets.

"For example, if California, New York and Massachusetts all declare that a particular chemical is harmful, it's going to be very difficult for the chemical industry to market that chemical nationally ...

"There's some grounds for optimism in thinking about Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has spoken out in the past about the hazards that multiple chemicals pose to children. I don't agree with all of Mr. Kennedy's arguments. I certainly disagree with his stance on vaccines. But when he talks about toxic chemicals harming children's health, he and I are on the same page. So maybe there's some room to work there."

On what he's seen as a pediatrician:

"In my early days as a pediatrician, I saw children who are exposed to lead at relatively low levels who had loss of IQ and behavioral problems from lead. More recently, I've seen the increase in the number of children with autism and attention deficit disorder, which can be attributed in part to toxic chemicals. And I think pediatricians in practice across the country are seeing these trends and find them very worrisome and want more to be done to protect children against chemicals."

After this interview, the American Chemistry Council — an industry trade group — told WBUR in a statement that its members undertake extensive scientific analyses to evaluate potential risk of their chemicals and that the council works with federal agencies to strengthen government regulations.