Search

There are numerous pesticides and toxic chemicals in the environment that have yet to be evaluated for potential to cause developmental neurotoxicity. Recent legislation and testing initiatives provide an impetus to generating more information about potential hazards to children. In the United States, the 1996 Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) required the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) to make a finding that a pesticide food use is safe for children. In addition, the law requires U.S. EPA to incorporate an additional 10-fold factor in risk assessments for pesticide residue tolerances to take into account the special sensitivities of infants and children as well as incomplete data with respect to toxicity and exposures. The potential of chemicals in food and drinking water to cause endocrine disruption will also be examined via the Endocrine Disruptor Screening and Testing Program required by the FQPA and the 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act. In addition, a new voluntary chemical information program will provide screening-level information for the some 2,800 high-volume chemicals in commerce in the United States. These initiatives will need to be accompanied by research focused on developmental toxicity for children, including developmental disabilities. Developmental disabilities exact a large toll on children's health in the United States. Three major developmental disabilities--autism, cerebral palsy, and severe mental retardation--each affect substantial numbers of children. We know very little about the etiology of these conditions. A number of priority areas for research are suggested, including a large environmental prospective study of developmental neurotoxicity.

Children may be more susceptible to exposures to environmental toxins than adults and may be more vulnerable to their effects. Because of this, the health care community and those responsible for children need to be alert to possible environmental factors in identifying and responding to the health problems of children. Their focus should be on the causes of the health problem, emphasizing environmental sources, and not on simply treating the symptoms.

Doing a better job of protecting children from environmental hazards requires having more and better information about both children’s susceptibility and their exposure to toxic substances. There are many critical gaps in knowledge of this issue. This article presents several examples specifically related to children’s exposure to pesticides which illustrate environmental risks for children. The cases examined include the risk posed to children by the use of the insecticide aldicarb on bananas, and reported illnesses in children caused by the use of the insecticide diazinon in the home and by the use of interior house paint containing mercury. The cases presented illustrate how regulatory agencies, parents, health care providers, and others who come into contact with children on a regular basis all have roles to play in filling in the information gaps regarding children’s exposure to environmental hazards and the deleterious effects of these exposures.

To assess the effect of interim clean-up measures on the current health of a community, we conducted a follow-up survey of 193 residents living near the McColl waste disposal site and a comparison area located approximately 5 miles from the site. Results from this survey were compared with results from a similar survey conducted 7 years earlier. Odors were detected at least once per week by 32.7% of "high-exposed" respondents in 1988 compared with 68.5% in 1981, but prevalence odds ratios (PORs) comparing symptom reporting between "high-exposed" and comparison-area respondents were greater than that of the 1981 survey for 89% of symptoms. PORs comparing symptom reporting between these two areas were greater than 2.0 for 64% of symptoms assessed in the current survey. Symptoms reported in excess did not represent a single organ system or suggest a mechanism of response. PORs comparing respondents who were very worried about the environment and those reporting no worry were greater than 2.0 for 86% of symptoms. These finding, along with environmental data from the area, suggest that living near the waste disposal site and being very worried about the environment, rather than a toxicologic effect of chemical from the site, explain excess symptom reporting found in this follow-up study.