Children's Environmental Health Administration Report Card, 2001-2004

[Guest guest]

http://www.cehn.org/cehn/reportcard2004.html

 

Children's Environmental Health Administration Report

Card, 2001-2004

 

 

TOPIC/ NET IMPACT/ GRADE

 

Air Quality -2.3 F

 

Environmental Public Health Tracking

0.7 C

 

Executive Order on Children's Environmental Health &

Safety/Interagency Collaboration

-2.4 F

 

International Agreements & Cooperation

-2.4 F

 

Lead -0.1 C

 

Mercury -3.0 F

 

Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs)

-0.3 C

 

Pesticide Regulations/Food Quality Protection Act

-3.3 F

 

Politics, Science & Policy

-4.3 F

 

Protecting Children's Health at the U.S. EPA

-2.1 F

 

Right-to-Know & Access to Government Information

-1.5 F

 

Support for Children's Environmental Health Research &

Programs

-1.9 F

 

School Environmental Health & Safety

-0.4 C

 

Toxic Substances & Wastes

-3.1 F

 

Voluntary Children's Chemical Evaluation Program

(VCCEP)

-0.2 C

 

Water Quality

-2.5 F

 

Final Grade

-1.92 F

 

BUSH'S 2000 STATEMENT AS A CANDIDATE ON CHILDREN'S

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ISSUES

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

 

“Considering children’s unique risks, as well as those

of other uniquely vulnerable groups of people and life

stages, is critical to effective environmental health

and safety protection. There are still many unanswered

questions about the effects of various environmental

compounds on children’s health. We must dig deeper. We

need sound data to help us move beyond speculation and

conjecture and compile the very best evidence we can

on the effects of potentially hazardous exposures on

children. In the meantime, we must take sensible,

science-based precautions.”

 

--Candidate George W. Bush, September 2000

 

Each Administration’s actions – and inactions –

profoundly affect the lives and well-being of

children, through childhood and beyond. When lead

additives were banned from gasoline, tens of millions

of children suddenly had brighter futures. In

contrast, the slow pace of regulation of fine

particulates has led to millions of preventable cases

of childhood illness and shortened the lives of tens

of thousands.

 

For more than a decade, the Children’s Environmental

Health Network has worked to protect children from

environmental health hazards through targeted

research, professional education, public outreach, and

protective policies. We have championed policies such

as the Food Quality Protection Act that take

children’s unique vulnerabilities into account. We

have alerted policymakers to key gaps in protection,

such as the omission of schools, children’s

“workplaces,” from workplace safety protections.

 

As a key part of our mission, CEHN has compiled here a

complete picture of an Administration’s impact on

protecting children from environmental toxicants,

allowing us to evaluate which decisions have protected

children and which have failed to do so.

 

Unfortunately, this evaluation makes clear that, in

general, this Administration’s track record is toxic

to our children, lessening protections for children

and missing opportunities to keep toxicants out of our

children’s environment.

 

Even as this report is being finalized, a number of

emerging issues reiterate the overwhelming pattern

that children are losing out to other priorities of

this Administration.

 

For example, the inaction of the U.S. EPA to prevent

high lead levels in drinking water or to act when such

levels are found has put not only D.C.-area children

but all children at risk.

 

We need to do better, we can do better, and this

Administration had ample opportunity to do better.

 

This is the third report the Network has issued on the

Bush Administration. The first two did not grade or

rank Administration actions. Those reports sought to

highlight opportunities for protecting children and to

point out the areas on which any Administration’s

record would be evaluated, long before the

Administration began setting its policies.

 

But this report shows that the situation has moved

from “needs improvement” to “failed.” It reviews 16

different areas. In each, a variety of decisions were

identified and researched. Experts ranked each

decision point as to its impact, positive or negative,

on children’s environmental health. These rankings

were tallied and converted into a grade for each

section. (See Background section below).

 

Of the 78 decision points identified in the report,

only 16 were found to have a positive impact on

children. The remainder, 62, were decisions with a

negative impact on children. For many of these

decisions, their impact will be felt for years to

come.

 

Why has this Administration failed to protect

children? Frequently, as this review illustrates, the

decisions made on environmental health were marred by

science distorted or ignored.

 

*For example, in spite of ample documentation that

mercury is highly toxic and that mercury in our

environment is a compelling children’s health concern,

the Administration has proposed removing mercury from

the list of a hazardous air pollutants, leading to

less stringent regulation.

 

*Similarly when data found a toxic pesticide -–

already banned across the European Union –- in more

than 30 water systems at “levels of concern” for

infants, the EPA response was not to protect children

by further limiting the pesticide. Instead, the Agency

asked the pesticide maker merely to monitor the water

more frequently. More examples of failing to use the

best science to protect children appear each week, in

areas from issuing air permits to risk analyses – and

as long as they continue to do, CEHN will continue to

try to call attention to them and to ensure that

children’s protections are restored.

 

In other cases, ranging from inadequate funding of

research programs to leaving the Office of Children’s

Health Protection without a director for more than two

years, protecting children has simply taken a back

seat to other Administration priorities.

 

As these examples illustrate, in only five of these 16

areas did the Administration receive even a barely

passing grade. No area received a grade above a “C”,

and only one showed a net positive impact. In areas

ranging from air quality to toxic substances and

wastes, from the intersection of politics, science and

policy to pesticide regulations, the Administration

failed to move forward to protect children.

 

The most positive actions found were the signing of

the international treaty to eliminate persistent

organic pollutants, EPA’s proposed tough restrictions

on off-road diesel emissions, and the Administration’s

support for programs that collect and release

information on children’s exposures to environmental

toxicants.

 

A substantial subset of the positive decisions

occurred only after strong public outcry in opposition

to a proposed policy. In these cases, the

Administration’s first choice was not to protect

children. A better outcome emerged only because of

public pressure. These examples range from the

standards for arsenic in drinking water to the

continued funding of some of the centers of excellence

in research in children’s environmental health.

 

Another example was HHS’ Centers for Medicare and

Medicaid Services (CMS) proposal to abandon Federal

oversight in screening low-income children for lead

poisoning -- a potentially useful but woefully

underfunded program that calls for more Federal

support, not an abrogation of Federal

responsibilities. This retreat was halted only by the

resulting outcry from Congress and public health

experts.

 

Similarly, the proposal to weaken the 1972 Clean Water

Act (see Water Quality section) was halted only after

the National Rifle Association, Ducks Unlimited,

Pheasants Forever and other groups applied pressure to

the Administration.

 

It was also common to see the pattern where a positive

decision, with a lesser impact, was more than

counter-balanced by a longer-term negative decision of

greater potential impact.

 

For example, while the EPA is to be commended for its

new “Air Quality Index” to predict soot pollution for

almost 150 cities, at the same time the Agency is

weakening key air quality programs, such as New Source

Review. As a result, we can anticipate that the index

will be finding more hazardous soot to measure.

 

The FDA is attempting to improve its advisories

regarding mercury in fish (with mixed success) at the

same time that the Administration’s proposals would

allow higher levels of mercury into the environment

for a longer time period.

 

Extending the Executive Order on children’s

environmental health and safety offers little to

praise when at the same time the Executive Order is

critically undermined in the process. The Task Force

created by the Executive Order is to be commended for

some efforts to address school environmental health

issues; but at the same time the Task Force stepped

back from working on neurotoxicants other than lead.

 

Furthermore, this Administration has effectively

trumpeted its positive steps, such as its commendable

“Clean School Bus Initiative,” while working

behind-the-scenes to take steps backward.

 

For example, the Administration moved forward with

some fanfare to create four new research centers on

children’s environmental health. Then EPA quietly

backed off on its commitment to continue to fully fund

the original eight centers; so instead of 12 centers,

soon the total will decrease to 11 – and then only

upon the insistence of Congress.

 

Administration representatives volubly committed to

obtaining Senate approval of the international treaty

to ban persistent organic pollutants (mentioned

earlier), then quietly promoted legislation

undermining the implementation of the treaty.

 

As quoted above, candidate George W. Bush expressed a

strong and compelling commitment to protecting our

children from environmental risks in 2000. On issue

after issue, from air to “right to know” to water,

this Administrations’ actions support neither

candidate Bush's original declarations of concern for

children's welfare nor the Federal government's duty

to protect our children from environmental health

hazards.

 

Candidate Bush wrote: “A strong and effective Office

of Children’s Health Protection (OCHP) is vital to

ensure that the EPA’s standards and regulations

protect children from environmental health and safety

hazards.” His Administration has undermined and

understaffed the OCHP.

 

He wrote: “I support the use of added margins of

safety as a precautionary measure in instances where

science is unclear as to risks facing children from

environmental exposures to chemicals.” Yet this

Administration is eliminating the children’s safety

margins that are required by pesticide law.

 

He wrote: “I strongly support the goals of the April

1997 Executive Order on children’s environmental

health” but then weakened it.

 

He wrote: “I believe we must improve public access to

preventive information concerning risks to children’s

health and safety and how best to avoid them.” This

Administration has drastically limited the information

available to the public about environmental health

hazards, and is seeking further limits.

 

As candidate Bush wrote: “A serious commitment to

reduce risks requires a well-coordinated, cohesive

strategy. More than that, though, it requires a

President willing to lead the way and commit the

necessary resources.”

 

Unfortunately, the leadership and commitment

identified in those words has not been evident in this

Administration. Our nation’s children are at risk as a

result.

 

BACKGROUND

 

Because children, due to their biology and behaviors,

are often more susceptible to health hazards in the

environment, we need to take extra measures to ensure

that all children have a healthy future. For over a

decade, the Children’s Environmental Health Network

(CEHN) has worked, across party boundaries and around

the nation, to promote these measures.

 

As part of that ongoing work, in the election year of

2000, the Children’s Environmental Health Network

submitted a questionnaire to the major presidential

candidates, asking how they would help to protect our

children from environmental dangers such as air

pollutants, unsafe pesticide and chemical residues,

and heavy metals. All three candidates responded,

including then-Governor George W. Bush. (The full text

of his response is in Appendix xvii, page 111.)

 

In July 2001 and in May 2003, the Network issued

reports that reviewed the Administration’s

opportunities and activities to date (Bush

Administration Six Month Check-Up: A Follow Up Of

Campaign Promises, and Are Children Left Behind?:

Children’s Environmental Health under the Bush

Administration, respectively). This report, like the

first two, describes specific decision points in the

executive branch with a direct or indirect impact on

children’s environmental health. This report goes

further by including rankings of these decisions by

environmental health experts, creating a report card

to summarize this Administration’s three-year record

on children’s environmental health. Though this is the

first such report card, the Children’s Environmental

Health Network intends to continue this practice in

the future.

 

The Children’s Environmental Health Network extends

its gratitude to the many experts who contributed to

this report, formally and informally, especially to

our reviewers. Any errors or omissions do not reflect

on their work, however, and this report card reflects

only the views of the Children’s Environmental Health

Network.

 

Grading:

 

Each decision point was ranked on a scale of +5 to –5

for its impact on children’s environmental health. The

average of the rankings for all decision points in a

chapter was then converted to a letter grade:

 

A 3.0 and above

B 1.0 to 3.0

C –1.0 to 1.0

F < -1.0

 

Reviewers:

 

Lynn R. Goldman*, MD, MPH, Professor, Bloomberg School

of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University

Lisa Greenhill, MPA, Legislative Manager, Association

of Women's Health, Obstetric & Neonatal Nurses

Leyla Erk McCurdy, Senior Director, Health and

Environment Programs, The National Environmental

Education & Training Foundation

Jerome A. Paulson, MD, Associate Professor, George

Washington University, and Co-director, Mid-Atlantic

Center for Children's Health and the Environment,

George Washington University

J. Routt Reigart*, MD, Professor of Pediatrics,

Medical University of South Carolina

Daniel Swartz*, Executive Director, Children’s

Environmental Health Network

Nsedu Obot Witherspoon, MPH, Assistant Director,

Children’s Environmental Health Network

 

* CEHN Board member

 

THE POLICY IMPLICATIONS OF CHILDREN’S DEVELOPMENT AND

ENVIRONMENT

 

Though the process of child growth and development has

not changed, the world in which today’s children live

has changed tremendously from that of previous

generations. One of these changes is the phenomenal

increase in substances to which children are exposed.

Human activities have introduced chemicals ranging

from higher levels of heavy metals to newly-invented

synthetic chemicals into our children’s environments.

Indeed, traces of some of these compounds are now

found in all humans and animals. For the majority of

the thousands of chemicals created since World War II,

little is known about their health effects on

children.

 

However, the fundamentals of pediatrics -- that

children are not just “little adults” -- have

traditionally not been considered in governmental

policy-making, standard-setting or legislating.

 

Dozens of studies and reports have been published in

the last decade illustrating the inadequacies of our

policies in assuring children grow up in a healthy

environment, with perhaps the best known being

Pesticides in the Diets of Infants and Children,

published by the National Academy of Sciences in 1993.

The Children’s Environmental Health Network was

created to help protect our children and generations

to come by promoting the incorporation of the

following basic tenets into policy and practice:

 

*

 

Children are growing. Pound for pound, children

eat more food, drink more water and breathe more air

than adults. Thus, they are likely to be exposed to

substances in their environment at higher levels than

are adults. Children have higher metabolic rates than

adults and are different from adults in how their

bodies may absorb, detoxify or excrete toxicants.

*

 

Children’s systems, including their nervous,

reproductive, digestive, respiratory and immune

systems, are developing. This process of development

creates periods of vulnerability, especially for the

fetus. Exposure to toxicants at such times may result

in irreversible damage even though the same exposure

to a mature system may result in little or no damage.

*

 

Children behave differently than adults, leading

to a different pattern of exposures to the world

around them. For example, they exhibit hand-to-mouth

behavior, ingesting whatever substances may be on

their hands, toys, household items, and floors.

Children play and live in a different space than do

adults. For example, very young children spend hours

close to the ground where there may be more exposure

to toxicants in dust, soil, and carpets as well as

low-lying vapors such as radon, mercury or pesticides.

*

 

Children have a longer life expectancy than

adults; thus they have more time to develop diseases

with long latency periods that may be triggered by

early environmental exposures, such as cancer or

Parkinson’s disease.

*

 

Children do not have control over their

environment and are not able to remove themselves from

harmful situations. They must rely on adults to assure

they are in a healthy environment.

 

Thus, a healthy, safe environment is not only

beneficial to all, it is crucially important to

children.

Other materials:

 

CEHN's Press Release on the 2004 Administration Report

Card

 

Rabbi Daniel Swartz, Executive Director, Press

Conference Statement

 

Alesia Ashley, Stuart Hobson Museum Magnet Middle

School student, Press Conference Statement

 

Home | What's New | Index/Search | About the Network |

Education | Research | Policy | Links

 

About Children's Environmental Health | Get Involved

 

Resource Guide on Children's Environmental Health |

Suggest a site | Comments

 

8/18/2004

 

©

 

 

Children's Environmental Health Network

110 Maryland Avenue NE, Suite 505

Washington, DC 20002

 

 

Phone: (202) 543-4033

Fax: (202) 543-8797

Email: cehn | web designer

URL: http://www.cehn.org