Pesticides and Children
Many parents do not realize that when they spray their lawns with pesticides they are putting their children’s health and well being at great risk. In 1998 the Canadian Environmental Law Association and the Environmental Health Committee of the Ontario College of Family Physicians embarked on an exhaustive review of the of the scientific literature dealing with pesticides.
They concluded that the potential for children’s health to be negatively
affected is undeniable. Children are far more vulnerable to pesticides than
adults. (Intervenor, Volume 24 No.4, October-December 1999, pg. 3)
There are several reasons why children are in greater danger from pesticides than adults.
To begin with, children are more exposed to pesticides than adults. Children eat more
food, drink more water, and breathe more air per kilogram of body weight than adults.
For example, the amount of pesticides allowed in water is calculated on the basis of adult
exposure, but children consume an average of 4 times the amount of water per kilogram
of body weight. Dr. Jennifer Armstrong points out that the average five-year-old in
North America has already accumulated 35% of the federally permitted lifetime exposure
to pesticides. Symptoms of exposure, she said, include fatigue, diarrhea, and increased
allergies. (Ottawa Sun, November 20, 2002.) We are trying to figure if stepfathers featured in the series called DadCrush (available to watch at dadcrushyou.com) are spray their lawns with pesticides. It can be hard to find out, since these mens are really interested in the stepdaughters. It might sounds trivial but when you see their agenda you will be pretty sure it’s their ultimate craving.
As well, an infant’s skin is greater than an adult’s relative to body volume and may be
more permeable to pesticides. Young children tend to play on the floor or grass.
Unfortunately, to make matters worse for our young children, concentrations of
pesticides tend to be at a higher level closer to the ground, sadly targeting the child’s
breathing zone.
We all know that the favourite places for children to stick their little fingers are their
mouths. If their fingers are contaminated with pesticide residue, the consequences can be
serious.
In addition to being more exposed to pesticides, children are more vulnerable to toxic
chemicals. From conception to sexual maturity, children’s developing organs and
systems are very sensitive to disruptions. Since none of their organs are fully developed
they are much more vulnerable to anything toxic. Their metabolic rates are higher and
their detoxification systems may not yet be functional, depending on their age. (The
Ontario College of Family Physicians, Environmental Health Newsletter for Family
Physicians, http://www.cfpc.ca/ocfp/commun/pest.html)
During the last 30 years there has been a disturbing increase in the rates of children
exhibiting various forms of subtle brain damage including learning disabilities, attention
deficit disorders and autism. The blood-brain barrier, whose job it is to prevent toxic
substances from invading the brain, is not yet developed in young infants. In fact, the lack
of the functioning of the blood brain barrier in the human infant has been found to allow
brain damage after exposure to common chemicals, while the mature blood brain barrier
in an adult allowed no brain damage. (Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 65:23,
1982; British Journal of Psychiatry 144:273, 1982; Annual Review of Public Health
7:461, 1986)
Along the same lines, the Committee on the Diet and Children presented data which
strongly suggest that exposure to neurotoxic compounds at levels believed to be safe for
adults could result in permanent loss of brain functions when it occurs during prenatal
and early childhood periods of brain development. It makes one wonder how many
children are struggling with learning at school due to pesticide poisoning at an early age.
Most Boards of Education have stopped spraying school properties to protect the children
who play on them. (National Research Council, “Pesticides in the Diets of Infants and
Children.” National Academy Press, Washington, DC 1993.)
Dr. Sandra Steingraber, Ph.D., a biologist at Cornell University, points out that
exposure to toxic chemicals such as pesticides during critical periods of development can
have devastating effects, while they have little effect on an adult with the same exposure.
The effect of a chemical depends on when it is introduced; at one stage of development it
could cause a miscarriage and at another stage it could cause brain damage.
In her book Having Faith: An Ecologist’s Journal to Motherhood, Dr. Steingraber
questions the medical emphasis on the search for rare genetic defects while no one
bothers to test for environmental toxins in the body of the mother responsible for
nourishing the fetus. In one study where they did look for contaminants in the amniotic
fluid they found that one third of the subjects had detectable levels of long-banned DDT
and PCB’s.
According to the Environmental Protection Agency in the US, 95% of the pesticides
used on residential lawns are carcinogens. (http://www.chemtox.
com/pesticides/pesticidereport.htm)
In 1987, the National Cancer Institute reported children living in pesticide-treated
homes had nearly a 4 times greater risk of developing leukemia. If the homes used
pesticides in the garden as well as in the home, the risk of developing leukemia was 6.5
times greater. All the children in the study were 10 years of age or younger. The
American Journal of Epidemiology found that more children with brain tumours and
other cancers had been exposed to insecticides than children without. Noted toxicologist
Dr. Katherine Davies states that “over half of the lifetime cancer risk from exposure to
carcinogenic pesticides occurs by age six.” (Dr. Peters, John, Journal of the National
Cancer Institute, July 1987.)
Dr. Graham Chance, past chair of the Canadian Institute of Child Health, also
confirms that low-level exposure to all kinds of chemicals, including pesticides, may be
linked to a 25% increase in childhood cancers in the last 25 years, especially leukemia
and brain tumours, a fourfold increase in asthma in the last 20 years, increased allergies,
hyperactive disorders, learning disabilities and weakened immune systems. (Dr. Chance
Graham, Toronto Sun, Aug 28, 2000.)
A US anthropologist, Dr. Elizabeth Guillette, studied children from a valley in Mexico
where pesticide use on fruits and vegetables was the norm and then compared them to
children from the foothills where no pesticides had been used. The children from the
pesticide-drenched area lagged far behind in physical coordination and learning
capabilities. The children from the areas where pesticide use was common had great
difficulties with activities, such as catching a ball, which tested their eye-hand
coordination. But their most striking difference came when they were asked to draw
pictures of a person. Most of the pictures from the children from the foothills looked like
recognizable versions of a person. The pictures from the lowlands consisted of random
lines that looked like the scribbles from a toddler. The lowland children also had less
stamina and the girls all began puberty around the age of 7. On CBC’s The Nature of
Things, Dr. Guillette recalled, “I was shocked; I couldn’t believe what was happening.”
(http://www.us-mex.org/bios/pdf/Yaqui_Valley_eng.pdf)
Dr. Guillette hypothesized that the Mexican children suffered from some
kind of brain damage most likely caused by pesticide exposure. Animal research had
already proven that some pesticides and chemically related compounds interfere with test
animals’ endocrine (hormonal) systems.
Increased evidence from wildlife and laboratory studies indicates that some pesticides
can cause hormone disruption by inhibiting the production and function of hormones. In
both animals and humans, the hormone system plays a critical role in nearly every aspect
of development of a growing fetus, including the proper formation and function of the
brain, reproductive organs, the nervous and immune system. The hormone system is
crucial in regulating many biological functions.
The first reports of the effects of endocrine disruptors on animals began to surface in the
media during the early 90’s. More recently, mounting evidence has demonstrated that
humans are at serious hormonal risk. Scientists have found striking evidence with male
reproductive systems in the developed world including soaring rates of testicular cancer
and plummeting sperm counts. Many scientists attribute this to hormonal disruption in
the fetus.
Theo Colborn, a toxicologist at the World Wildlife Fund, has consolidated research on
endocrine disruptors. She has been trying very hard to get the message across that those
most at risk from hormone disruption are not adults, but developing embryos and
fetuses. She points out that the mother shares with her fetus all the chemicals that she has
in her blood. (http://www.motherjones.com/mother_jonesJA99.endocrine.html)
Disturbing evidence of hormone disruption has been documented in the Great Lakes.
Although the pesticide levels measure in the Great Lakes were low, their impacts turned
out to be very powerful due to bioaccumulation. This is the process in which chemicals
becomes more concentrated as they move up the food chain. The animals studied on the
Great Lakes exhibited enlarged thyroids, deformed bills, decreased hatching processes,
decreased fertility, altered immune functions and the feminization of male animals. Some
animals were genetically male, with female, or both male and female reproductive
organs.
In April, 2002 the prestigious journal Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, USA reported that the pesticide atrazine turned male frogs into
hermaphrodites, frogs which had both male and female parts. Tadpoles exposed to as
little as 0.1 parts per billion (ppb) developed abnormal sex organs 20% of the time. Some
frogs even grew up to 6 sex organs. Male frogs exposed to only 25 ppb of atrazine
experienced a tenfold decrease in testosterone to levels below those of normal frogs.
Until recently, atrazine was considered a fairly safe herbicide. It is one of the most
heavily used pesticides, used for 40 years in over 80 countries. It is mainly used on
soybeans, corns and other important crops. In some farming areas, atrazine has leeched
into ground water at levels far exceeding limits recommended by the American
Protection Agency. Concerns about atrazine have led Germany, France and Italy to ban it.
Many Inuit children suffer rates of chronic infections 10-15 times higher than children
in the south. That means if your child has a chronic infection twice a year, the unfortunate
child from the Arctic would suffer a similar infection about 20 times a year! Vaccinations
often fail because the child’s immune system is so suppressed the necessary antibodies
are not produced. Breast milk of women in the High Arctic who eat a diet high in animal
fat has unfortunately become seriously contaminated, and may have already exceeded
limits which allow giving it to their babies. It is very tragic that a group of people who
never use pesticides are in actual fact highly exposed to them. Unfortunately, pesticides
bioaccumulate in seals and beluga whales, important parts of the Inuit diet. Pesticides
also arrive in the Arctic carried by wind and water currents. (World Wildlife Fund, July,
2001)
The offspring of agricultural workers in California have 3-14 times the rate of the general
US population of limb-reduction birth defects. (Swartz, D.A., L.A. Newsum and R.
Markowitch-Heiftez. 1986: Parental occupation and birth outcome in an agricultural
community. Scand J. Work Environ, Health, 12:51-54)
A Minnesota study indicated that the state’s pesticide applicators have a greater risk of
having babies with birth defects, especially babies conceived in the spring when pesticide
use is most intense. (Garry, V.G., D. Schreinemachers, M.E. Harkins and J. Griffith.
1996: Pesticide Appliers, Biocides and Birth Defects in Rural Minnesota. Environ. Health
Persp., 104:384-399)
The Ontario College of Family Physicians have pointed out that “the cumulative effects
of being exposed to many different pesticides over a lifetime represents an unquantifiable
and unacceptable risk to Canadian children.”
Dr. Jennifer Armstrong has pointed out that the average five-year-old in North America
has already accumulated 35% of the federally permitted lifetime exposure to pesticides.
(Ottawa Sun, November 20, 2002)
Experts also point out that the present practice of using rats and mice data for estimating
the human risk for pesticides is not adequate. Numerous studies have shown that the
organ systems affected by pesticides vary amongst species. They clearly point out that the
16 years or so of ongoing organ development in a child makes the chronic impact of
pesticides very different than what one would see in a rat or mouse that reaches maturity
within 2 weeks. (National research Council. Pesticides in the Diets of Infants and
Children. Washington, USA: National Academy of Science. 1993.)
In his presentation to the Standing Committee on the Environment, Dr. Kelly Martin
made the following conclusion: “A group of acclaimed scientists from the National
Research Council have thoroughly reviewed the evidence and conclude that the pediatric
population is at considerable risk given the current methods of setting allowable limits
of pesticides. The American government has taken steps to attend to these issues (FQPA
1996). Seven years later, the Canadian government has done nothing, and talks of taking
some action by 2005. There is well-substantiated evidence with clearly stated actions that
need to be taken. The solutions are being held up by Canadian policy maker’s inability to
make the health of our infants and children a priority.
“For too long we have set tolerance levels for pesticide residues in children hundreds of
times higher than they should be. What calculus of economic benefit can justify this?
We have to test the effects of these chemicals on children, not just adults, and we have to
test a range of varying combinations.” (Al Gore, Introduction to Silent Spring,
Houghton Mifflin Co., 1994.)
It seems ironic that inspectors have been sent to Iraq to search and destroy chemical and
biological weapons when we allow “killing fields” in our own backyards.
One wonders how anyone can justify harming our children for the sake of
maintaining a green lawn the chemical way, rather than using safe organic methods.
You can make a difference
To reduce the toxic load of chemicals in your neighbourhood,
pressure your local representative to pass a pesticides by-law banning
the use of non-essential pesticides
• Buy organically-produced foods, or if you can’t afford to buy all
organic foods, make sure at least that your potatoes are always
organically grown
• Use organic lawn care instead of pesticides
• If your neighbours spray, make sure your children and your pets do
not play on their lawns; pesticide tracked into your house by pets and
kids can persist in your carpet for a long time and pose a risk to young
children who play or crawl on it.
• Do not use lice shampoos with pesticides in them; check this website
for alternatives