Rachel's News #909: A New Paradigm in Toxicology

[Guest guest]

At 12:46 PM 6/1/07, you wrote:

..

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

Rachel's

Democracy & Health News #909

 

" Environment,

health, jobs and justice--Who gets to

decide? "

 

Thursday, May

31,

2007..................Printer-friendly

version

 

www.rachel.org

-- To make a secure

donation, click

here.

 

 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

Featured stories in this issue...

 

A Response To

Paul Hawken's 'To Remake the World'

Activist and author Kate Davies responds to Paul Hawken about

the

nature and future of the worldwide social movement that has arisen

in

response to widespread ecological devastation and global

warming.

The Faroes Statement

In this powerful consensus statement, more than 200 scientists

from

five continents call for a precautionary approach to toxic

chemicals,

to protect fetuses and children from chemical exposures that may

cause

serious disease later in life, and which may also afflict their

children and grandchildren. The Faroes Statement defines a

" new

paradigm of understanding in toxicology. "

Scientists

Warn of Dangers Chemicals Pose To Fetuses, Kids

The Los Angeles Times put the blockbuster

" Faroes

Statement "

story on page 1. So far, not a peep from the Boston Globe, the

Washington Post or the New York Times.

The

Developmental Basis of Health and Disease

A new hypothesis undergoing scientific testing and scrutiny is

called the developmental basis of health and disease: " If

true, then

it says that the focus on disease prevention and intervention

must

change from the time of disease onset to perhaps decades prior:

during

the in utero and neonatal period. Perhaps the reason it has been

so

difficult to link environmental exposure to disease susceptibility

is

that scientists have been looking at the wrong time! "

Watching

TV Before Age 2 Leads To Attention Deficits and Obesity

Early exposure to TV can have a negative impact on an infant's

rapidly developing brain and put children at a higher risk for

attention problems, diminished reading comprehension, and

obesity,

researchers say.

The Link

Between Early Childhood Education and Health

The health of adults is determined not only by early nutrition

and

exposure to chemicals, but also by early educational

experiences,

which shape the architecture of the brain.

An

Important Conference on Corporate Power -- June 8-10

An important conference to be held June 8-10 in Washington, DC.

" Taming the Giant Corporation " will investigate the

evolving sources

and forms of corporate power, and how it can be subordinated to

people's control (including by displacing corporations altogether

from

certain segments of the economy and society). Learn more about

the

conference at

http://www.tamethecorporation.org/.

 

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

 

Rachel's Democracy & Health News #909, May 31, 2007

[Printer-friendly

version]

 

A RESPONSE TO PAUL HAWKEN'S 'TO

REMAKE THE WORLD'

 

By

Kate

Davies

 

Hooray for Paul Hawken! His article " To Remake the World " in

Rachel's

News

#908 and his new book

" Blessed

Unrest: How the Largest Movement

in the World Came into Being and Why No One Saw it

Coming " are

extremely timely and thought-provoking.

 

Hawken has put his finger on a global phenomenon that has been growing

since the 1999 protests against the World Trade Organization in

Seattle. Largely unacknowledged by the spotlight of media attention, a

new social movement has been quietly gaining strength in the U.S. and

internationally. In bringing it to light, Hawken has revealed a trend

that is positive and hopeful at a time when these qualities are sorely

needed in the world.

 

Although he has done an outstanding job of describing the new

movement, several points call out for further exploration.

 

First, Hawken shies away from giving the new movement the full

recognition of a name, calling it instead " this unnamed

movement. "

This is a little strange because it has already been given several

names. My favorite is " the new progressive movement, " in homage

to the

U.S. Progressive Movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

The new progressive movement embraces many of the same principles as

its predecessor, including beliefs in truly democratic institutions

and processes, efficient government and the elimination of corruption,

social and economic justice, regulation of large corporations and

monopolies, and environmental protection.

 

He also asserts that the new movement lacks many basic attributes of

previous social movements, specifically an ideology, leaders, and

internal organization. Let's look at each of these in more detail.

 

Ideology

 

Hawken says the new movement does not have an ideology and its

" big

contribution is the absence of one big idea. " He is right -- in a

sense. The new movement does not impose a rigid article of faith on

its members, but it is guided by one big, inspirational idea. Indeed,

Hawken acknowledges as much in the article's title.

 

The movement's big, inspirational idea is that ordinary people, acting

together, can " remake the world. " Collectively, empowered

citizens can

do more than just succeed on individual issues, like climate change or

immigration. They can do more than just win legislative victories,

like banning toxic flame retardants or protecting endangered species.

The new movement is motivated by the transformative idea that by

working together citizens can recreate the whole of society.

 

This is not a new concept. It is the same one that stimulated the

birth of this country. But it is an idea that most Americans seem to

have forgotten of late. In today's social and political climate, the

thought that ordinary people can shape society -- rather than just

relying on politicians, corporate leaders and economists -- is truly

radical. This may not be " ideology " in the sense that Hawken

uses the

word, but it is a " big idea " that motivates the entire

movement.

 

In addition to this, there are four goals or aspirations that unite

much of the movement:

 

** Creating an open, participatory and fully accountable democracy;

 

** Social and economic justice;

 

** Sustainability for people and the planet; and

 

** Health and wellbeing for all.

 

Most members of the new movement are committed to all these goals,

even if they work on only one. Collectively, they provide an inspiring

and world-changing ideology, especially when combined with the idea

that empowered citizens really can remake society.

 

Leaders

 

Hawken states that the new movement has few recognizable leaders. He

says: " Its leaders are farmers, zoologists, shoemakers, and

poets. " In

short, there is no Martin Luther King Jr. or Mahatma Gandhi to look up

to and venerate.

 

Going one step further, I would say that the un-acclaimed leaders of

the new movement exemplify new types of leadership. Transcending

traditional concepts of charismatic and authoritative leadership, they

are extremely low key and modest. They are people who emerge in

response to specific situations and then relinquish their role when

circumstances change. And they are people who serve a group rather

than impose their will upon it.

 

The new movement is not alone in embodying new types of leadership.

Many organizations are now experimenting with different approaches.

Indeed, innovative ways of thinking about leadership have become very

fashionable lately. Many authors, including

Ronald

Heifetz,

Peter

Senge and

Meg

Wheatley, have advocated many innovative ideas, such

as:

 

** Seeing leadership as a process of relationship, rather than

control;

 

** Recognizing that there are many different types of leaders;

 

** Thinking about leadership from a systems perspective; and

 

** Focusing on the adaptive challenges of long term change, rather

than imposing immediate technical fixes.

 

They highlight that the concept of leadership itself is changing. So

it should not be surprising that the leaders of the emerging movement

are different from those of previous movements.

 

Internal Organization

 

Hawken asserts that the new movement does not have any internal

organization, saying: " It forms, gathers and dissipates

quickly, " an

organic process that is " dispersed, inchoate, and fiercely

independent. "

 

This is true, but the idea that the emerging movement is more of a

loose network than a coherent organization is not new. In early 2004,

Gideon Rosenblatt, Executive Director of ONE/Northwest, published a

paper called

" Movement

as Network: Connecting People and

Organizations in the Environmental Movement. " In it,

Rosenblatt made

the point that the strength of the environmental movement is the

countless links between people and organizations, rather than the

people or the organizations themselves.

 

Although the " movement as network " idea espoused by Hawken

and

Rosenblatt has much to commend it, social movements need at least some

internal organization. Without any lasting internal structures, it can

be difficult to sustain the long-term political momentum needed to

successfully confront the entrenched power elites.

 

So what types of structures would be helpful? There are many

candidates including policy " think tanks " to facilitate

strategic

planning, national or regional groups to help local ones mobilize the

public, research units to provide information, educational

institutions to provide training and support, groups with expertise in

communications, and last but not least, organizations with fundraising

experience.

 

Beyond " To Remake the World " and " Blessed

Unrest "

 

The next step beyond Paul Hawken's article and book is to ask:

" How

can we build the new movement? " The answer may determine not only

the

success of the movement itself but also whether it can truly

" remake

the world. "

 

I believe that the emerging movement needs to deepen its understanding

of what it takes to achieve systemic social change. This will require

a greater understanding of the culture it wants to transform and a

more strategic approach to advance progressive change.

 

Understanding Culture

 

Many members of the new movement are natural activists -- me included.

By this, I mean we want to identify problems and solve them. We want

to fix what's wrong with the world! Our strengths lie in targeting

specific issues and promoting solutions.

 

But this emphasis on particular problems means that we pay less

attention to the cultural origins that cause the problems we seek to

correct. Developing an in-depth understanding of the fundamental

economic, political and social forces that shape western culture is

essential to identify the leverage points for change. If the new

movement does not have a comprehensive knowledge of the culture in

which it operates, how can it hope to intervene effectively?

 

This is challenging because issues are usually represented separately

from each other by the media and other mainstream social institutions.

Unemployment is portrayed as a different issue from racism. Racism is

framed independently of environmental quality. Environmental quality

is described without any connection to the economy. This fragmentation

makes the public perceive individual issues in isolation from one

another and prevents them from seeing the common cultural origins that

connect different issues.

 

A Strategic Approach to Progressive Change

 

Activists' usual emphasis on immediate solutions also means that the

new movement pays less attention to strategies for long term success.

As a result, it is relatively unskilled at achieving lasting,

resilient change. Although the emerging movement is good at winning

battles, it needs a better understanding of the strategies necessary

to win the war.

 

Developing a strategic approach to progressive change will require

knowledge of how social change actually happens. So how can the new

movement acquire such knowledge?

 

1. One key source of information is previous movements, such as the

civil rights, anti-Vietnam War, and women's movements. These and other

movements have not yet been adequately studied for what they can teach

the new movement about progressive social change.

 

2. Current thinking about the process of social change provides

another source. Ideas about social constructivism will be particularly

relevant.

 

3. A third source is adult learning theory. Much work has already been

done on the relationship between learning and change that will be

helpful.

 

In summary, the emerging movement could learn a lot about the process

of progressive social change that will enable it to be more strategic.

 

Closing Comment

 

Paul Hawken's article and book make an important contribution to

progressive social change. They describe what has previously been an

unnoticed, but widespread, movement and in doing they so make it much

more visible.

 

But Hawken's work is double-edged. At the same time as he describes

the new movement, he asserts that it is fundamentally indescribable,

saying: " No book can explain it, no person can represent it, no

words

can encompass it. " This remark runs the risk of being more poetic

than

helpful.

 

Indeed, on the basis of these words, Hawken's readers may question the

existence of a movement at all. If it cannot be explained, is it in

fact real? If it cannot be represented, does it actually exist? If it

cannot be encompassed, is it really a single entity? I fear that

Hawken's dualistic representation of the movement could dilute its

significance and effectiveness. It also threatens to undermine his

central thesis -- that there is a new global movement for progressive

social change. Hawken's true gift is to help us all see just how real

this movement is -- real enough " to remake the world. "

 

==============

 

Kate

Davies is Core Faculty in the

Center

for Creative Change at

Antioch University Seattle. She is currently working on a book called

" Making Change: Ideas, Values and Strategies for Building the New

Progressive Movement. "

 

Return to Table of Contents

 

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

 

PPTOX

2007, May 24, 2007

[Printer-friendly

version]

 

THE FAROES

STATEMENT

 

Human health effects of developmental exposure to environmental

toxicants

 

Consensus statement issued by the International Conference on Fetal

Programming and Developmental Toxicity

 

[introduction: This consensus statement was issued March 24, 2007, by

the International Conference on Fetal Programming and Developmental

Toxicity held May 20-24, 2007, at Torshavn, Faroe Islands, which was

attended by more than 200 biologists, toxicologists, epidemiologists,

nutrion researchers, and pediatricians. The conference was organized

jointly with, and sponsored by, BCPT (the journal, Basic & Clinical

Pharmacology and Toxicology); the World Health Organization; the

European Environment Agency; the Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention; National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National

Institutes of Health. The conference was co-chaired by Philippe

Grandjean (University of Southern Denmark and Harvard School of Public

Health) and Pal Weihe (The Faroese Hospital System).]

 

Background

 

Fetal life and early infancy are periods of remarkable susceptibility

to environmental hazards. Toxic exposures to chemical pollutants

during these windows of increased susceptibility can cause disease and

disability in infants, children, and across the entire span of human

life. Among the effects of toxic exposures recognised in the past have

been congenital malformations and other adverse pregnancy outcomes.

These outcomes may be readily apparent and have been linked to

toxicant exposures during or prior to pregnancy. Even subtle effects

caused by chemical exposures during early development may lead to

important functional deficits and increased risks of disease later in

life. The notion of developmental plasticity of organ functions and

disease risks has gained much support from both experimental and

epidemiological studies. The timing of exposure -- with an emphasis on

critical windows of susceptibility -- has therefore become a crucial

factor to be considered in toxicological assessments.

 

During May 20-24, 2007, researchers in the fields of environmental

health, environmental chemistry, developmental biology, toxicology,

epidemiology, nutrition, and paediatrics gathered at the International

Conference on Fetal Programming and Developmental Toxicity, in

Torshavn, Faroe Islands. The conference goal was to highlight new

insights into the effects of prenatal and early postnatal exposure to

toxicants, and their sustained effects on the individual throughout

their lifespan. The Conference brought together, for the first time,

key researchers to focus on human data and translation of laboratory

results to elucidate the environmental risks to human health.

 

Research state of the art

 

The developing fetus is extraordinarily susceptible to perturbation of

the intrauterine environment. Fetal development is adjusted to the

intrauterine environment of nutrients and energy supply to fit the

anticipated postnatal environmental conditions. If a disparity arises

between prenatal and postnatal environments, it can cause

abnormalities in energy metabolism, endocrine functions, and organ

development. Evolution seems to have favoured a " thrifty "

phenotype

that optimizes the energy use, but which, in an environment with ample

food and limited energy expenditure, can increase the likelihood of

developing obesity, metabolic syndrome, and associated diseases.

 

The physiological mechanisms involved in the development of energy and

nutrient metabolism are also highly vulnerable to toxic effects of

environmental chemicals. Chemical exposures during prenatal and early

postnatal life can bring about important effects on gene expression,

which determines normal development and also predisposes to disease

risks during adolescence and adult life. Many environmental chemicals

can alter gene expression by DNA methylation and chromatin

remodelling. These epigenetic changes can cause lasting functional

changes in specific organs and tissues and increased susceptibility to

disease that may even affect successive generations.

 

New research on rodent models shows that developmental exposures to

toxic chemicals, such as the hormonally active substances,

diethylstilbestrol, tributyl tin, bisphenol A, genistein, can increase

the incidence of reproductive abnormalities, metabolic disorders,

including obesity and diabetes, and cancer, presumably through

epigenetic mechanisms that do not involve changes to DNA sequences but

may be heritable.

 

Prenatal exposure to diethylstilbestrol, an estrogenic drug no longer

used on pregnant women, causes an increased risk of vaginal, uterine,

and breast cancer. Low-level developmental exposure to a plastics

ingredient, bisphenol A, can result in increased susceptibility to

breast cancer or prostate cancer, and prenatal exposure to

vinclozoline, a common fungicide, also promotes later development of

cancer. These substances are only weak carcinogens, if at all, in the

adult organism but are nonetheless hazardous to the growing fetus. In

addition, when exposure to a carcinogenic substance occurs during

early development, the expected life-span will exceed the normal

latency period for development of the disease.

 

Functioning of the human reproductive system is highly vulnerable to

changes in the intrauterine hormonal environment. In men, increasing

occurrence of testicular cancer, poor semen quality, and

cryptorchidism have all been linked to developmental exposures to

maternal smoking and endocrine disrupting chemicals, such as

diethylstilbestrol. Additional risk factors include fertility

treatment of the mother, phthalate exposure, and occupational exposure

to pesticides with suspected estrogenic and antiandrogenic activity.

Perinatal exposure to endocrine disrupting chemicals, such as

polychlorinated or polybrominated biphenyls, endosulfan, or DDT

compounds, may affect puberty development and sexual maturation at

adolescence. Expression of some of these effects may be promoted by

predisposing genetic traits.

 

The brain is particularly sensitive to toxic exposures during

development, which involves a complex series of steps that must be

completed in the right sequence and at the right time. Slight

decrements in brain function may have serious implications for social

functioning and economic activities, even in the absence of mental

retardation or obvious disease. Each neurotoxic contaminant may

perhaps cause only a negligible effect, but the combination of several

toxic chemicals, along with other adverse factors, such as maternal

stress or decreased thyroid function, may trigger substantial

decrements in brain function and may predispose to the development of

serious degenerative disease.

 

The immune system also undergoes important development both before and

after birth. New evidence suggests that exposure to some immunotoxic

chemicals, such as polychlorinated biphenyls and atrazine, and

maternal stress may cause aberrant reactions of the immune system to

foreign proteins, including vaccines. Such effects may be related to a

shift in immune system balance, with an increased susceptibility to

infections and an increased risk of development of allergy in the

child.

 

While the research on developmental toxic effects has to date

emphasised maternal exposures and the neonatal environment, the

possibility exists that paternal exposures may also affect the child's

development. Experimental studies suggest that ionizing radiation,

smoking, and certain chemicals may be of importance, and some

exposures may also affect the sex ratio of the children.

 

Conclusions

 

Three aspects of children's health are important in conjunction with

developmental toxicity risks. First, the mother's chemical body burden

will be shared with her fetus or neonate, and the child is then likely

to be exposed to larger doses relative to the body weight. Second,

susceptibility to adverse effects is increased during development,

from preconception through adolescence. Third, developmental exposures

to toxicants can lead to life-long functional deficits and

manifestations of increased disease risks.

 

Research into the environmental influence on developmental programming

of health and disease has therefore led to a new paradigm of

toxicologic understanding. The old paradigm, developed over four

centuries ago by Paracelsus, was that " the dose makes the

poison " .

However, for exposures sustained during early development, the most

important issue is that " the timing makes the poison " . This

extended

paradigm deserves wide attention to protect the fetus and child

against preventable hazards.

 

Part of the new insight derives from numerous animal studies on fetal

programming being responsible for reproductive, immunological,

neurobehavioural, cardiovascular, and endocrine dysfunctions and

diseases, as well as certain cancers and obesity. These adverse

effects have been linked to chemical pollutants at realistic human

exposure levels similar to those occurring from environmental sources.

Among the mechanisms involved, particular concern is raised about

changes in gene expression due to altered epigenetic marking, which

may not only lead to increased susceptibility to diseases later in

life, but the effects may also be passed on to subsequent generations.

Most chronic disease processes are characterised by multi-causality

and complexity. Understanding such processes requires a more holistic

approach that focuses on systems and tissue biology.

 

Recommendations

 

** Studies on the etiology of human disease therefore need to

incorporate early development and characterise appropriately the

factors that determine organ functions and subsequent disease risks.

Such associations can best be examined in long-term prospective

studies, and existing and planned birth cohorts should be utilized for

this purpose.

 

** Cross-disciplinary approaches and translation of animal data on

exposure biomarkers and disease susceptibility need to be promoted for

application in studies of the etiology of human disease. Communication

and clarification of key concepts and terms needs to be stimulated

between the scientific disciplines involved and between these

scientists and policymakers.

 

Environmental chemical exposure assessment should emphasise the time

period of early development. Exposure data already routinely collected

need to be optimised for application in epidemiological studies. Cord

blood, cord tissue, human milk and other biological samples can be

applied for assessment of exposure biomarkers and for determination of

gene expression changes.

 

Since humans are exposed to numerous chemicals during development and

throughout life, mixed exposures need to be considered in a life-

course approach to disease. Further, the interaction due to other

life-style factors, such as intake of essential nutrients and societal

environment, needs to be explored. This research should also involve

the impact of genetic variation and genetic predisposition to disease.

 

** Toxicological tests and risk assessment of environmental chemicals

need to take into account the susceptibility of early development and

the long-term implications of adverse programming effects. Although

test protocols exist to assess reproductive toxicity or developmental

neurotoxicity, such tests are not routinely used, and the potential

for such effects is therefore not necessarily considered in decisions

on safety levels of environmental exposures.

 

The accumulated research evidence suggests that prevention efforts

against toxic exposures to environmental chemicals should focus on

protecting the fetus and small child as highly vulnerable populations.

Given the ubiquitous exposure to many environmental toxicants, there

needs to be renewed efforts to prevent harm. Such prevention should

not await detailed evidence on individual hazards to be produced,

because the delays in decision-making would then lead to propagation

of toxic exposures and their long-term consequences. Current

procedures therefore need to be revised to address the need to protect

the most vulnerable life stages through greater use of

precautionary

approaches to exposure reduction.

 

Note: This statement has been developed by the International

Scientific Committee of the conference, taking into account comments

and suggestions from the conference participants. The statement

(pending minor editorial revision) will be included in the conference

proceedings.

 

Members of the International Scientific Committee

 

David Barker (UK)

David Bellinger (USA)

Ake Bergman (Sweden)

Roberto Bertollini (WHO)

Sylvaine Cordier (France)

Terri Damstra (WHO)

George Davey-Smith (UK)

Erik Dybing (BCPT)

Brenda Eskenazi (USA)

David Gee (EEA)

Kimberly Gray (NIEHS)

Mark Hanson (UK)

Peter van den Hazel (The Netherlands)

Jerry Heindel (NIEHS)

Birger Heinzow (Germany)

Irva Hertz-Picciotto (USA)

Howard Hu (USA)

Terry Huang (NICHD)

Tina Kold Jensen (Denmark)

Philip J Landrigan (USA)

Caroline McMillen (Australia)

Katsuyuki Murata (Japan)

Larry L Needham (USA)

Sjúrður Olsen (Denmark)

Beate Ritz (IARC)

Greet Schoeters (Belgium)

Niels E Skakkebæk (Denmark)

Staffan Skerfving (Sweden)

 

Copyright 2006 by Thomas Steen Christensen

 

Return to Table of Contents

 

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

 

Los Angeles Times, May 24, 2007

[Printer-friendly

version]

 

SCIENTISTS WARN OF DANGERS CHEMICALS

POSE TO FETUSES, KIDS

 

By Marla Cone

 

In a strongly worded declaration, many of the world's leading

environmental scientists warned Thursday that exposure to common

chemicals makes babies more likely to develop an array of health

problems later in life, including diabetes, attention deficit

disorders, prostate cancer, fertility problems, thyroid disorders and

even obesity.

 

The declaration by about 200 scientists from five continents amounts

to a vote of confidence in a growing body of evidence that humans are

vulnerable to long-term harm from toxic exposures in the womb and

during the first years after birth.

 

Convening in the Faroe Islands in the North Atlantic, toxicologists,

pediatricians, epidemiologists and other experts warned that when

fetuses and newborns encounter various toxic substances, growth of

critical organs and functions can be skewed. In a process called

" fetal programming, " the children then are susceptible to

diseases

later in life -- and perhaps could even pass on those altered traits

to their children and grandchildren.

 

The scientists' statement also contained a rare international call to

action. The effort was led by Dr. Philippe Grandjean of Harvard

University and University of Southern Denmark, and Dr. Pal Weihe of

the Faroese Hospital System, who both have studied children exposed to

mercury for more than 20 years.

 

Many governmental agencies and industry groups, particularly in the

United States, have said there is no or little human evidence to

support concerns about most toxic residue in air, water, food and

consumer products. About 80,000 chemicals are registered in the United

States.

 

Yet, the scientists urged government leaders not to wait for more

scientific certainty and recommended that governments revise

regulations and procedures to take into account subtle effects on

fetal and infant development.

 

" Given the ubiquitous exposure to many environmental toxicants,

there

needs to be renewed efforts to prevent harm. Such prevention should

not await detailed evidence on individual hazards, " the scientists

wrote in the four-page statement.

 

The scientists are particularly concerned that the newest animal

research suggests that chemicals can alter gene expression -- turning

on or off genes that predispose people to disease. Although the DNA

itself would not be altered, such genetic misfires in the womb may be

permanent, and all of the subsequent generations could be at greater

risk of diseases, too.

 

" Toxic exposures to chemical pollutants during these windows of

increased susceptibility can cause disease and disability in childhood

and across the entire span of human life, " the scientists

concluded.

" Recent research now shows that even subtle effects caused by

chemical

exposures during early development may lead to important functional

deficits and increased risks of disease. "

 

The Barker Hypothesis, conceived by a British scientist in 1992, says

human fetuses are " programmed " for diseases by their early

environment. The scientists concluded that this is now well-documented

for toxic exposures by a large collection of animal experiments and

some human data.

 

" A sad aspect with many of these prenatal exposures is that they

leave

the mother unscathed while causing injury to her fetus, " said Dr.

Philip Landrigan, a pediatrician who chairs the Mount Sinai School of

Medicine's Department of Community and Preventive Medicine. He was one

of the statement's authors.

 

In a more optimistic vein, the researchers said that if contaminants

do play a big role in human health problems, some diseases could be

prevented.

 

" Reducing exposure would lead to tremendous benefits, " said Dr.

Bruce

Lanphear, director of the Environmental Health Center at Cincinnati

Children's Hospital Medical Center. " We shouldn't wait for an

epidemic

to fully mature before we develop policies to protect children. "

 

For centuries, the basic rule of toxicology has been " the dose

makes

the poison. " Now, the scientists say " the timing makes the

poison " --

in other words, when a toxic exposure occurs is as important as how

much people are exposed to.

 

The fetus " is extraordinarily susceptible to perturbation of the

intrauterine environment, " they wrote.

 

The growing brain is the most sensitive. Mothers' exposure to mercury

and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in fish and other seafood can

cause slight declines in IQ and motor skills. In addition, early

exposure to pesticides might trigger Parkinson's and Alzheimer's

diseases.

 

Also, children exposed to lead, organophosphate pesticides or

cigarette smoke have greater risk of attention deficit hyperactivity

disorder. One of every three cases of the neurological disorder,

affecting an estimated 560,000 children in the United States, can be

attributed to either lead exposure or prenatal tobacco smoke exposure,

Lanphear reported in a study published last December.

 

The immune, reproductive and cardiovascular systems also are

vulnerable to early damage. Children exposed prenatally to PCBs have a

high rate of infections and weak response to vaccinations. Many

chemicals also can mimic hormones, and in animal tests, they feminize

newborns, lowering sperm counts and promoting prostate, testicular,

uterine and breast cancers.

 

In the newest area of research, metabolic systems -- which control how

nutrients are converted into energy -- have been altered by chemicals

administered in animal experiments, changes that may contribute to

obesity and diabetes.

 

" These adverse effects have been linked to chemical pollutants at

realistic human exposure levels similar to those occurring from

environmental sources, " the scientists wrote.

 

Among the risky chemicals they named are bisphenol A, found in

polycarbonate plastic food and water containers, the pesticides

atrazine, vinclozolin and DDT, lead, mercury, phthalates used in some

cosmetics and soft plastics, brominated flame retardants, arsenic,

which contaminates some water supplies, and PCBs, banned but

ubiquitous, particularly in fish.

 

Some of the chemicals already have been regulated in the United

States, but many have not. Moreover, the scientists said, tests for

developmental effects are not routinely required, so " the

potential

for such effects is therefore not necessarily considered in decisions

on safety levels of environmental exposures. "

 

" We have absolutely solid evidence for certain chemicals -- lead,

methyl mercury, PCBs, arsenic and the organophosphate pesticides, "

Landrigan said. " We know with great certainty that prenatal

exposure

to any of these materials can damage the developing brain with

resulting lifelong loss of intelligence and disruption of

behavior. "

 

Yet there is " an incredible gap, " he said, because 80 percent

of major

chemicals in commerce have never been tested to see if they damage

early development.

 

Although the statement did not include any reference to it, some of

the U.S. scientists said Congress should adopt a new law, similar to

one enacted by the European Union last year, that requires more

chemical testing and could ban many hazardous substances.

 

The conference was funded by the World Health Organization, National

Institutes of Health, European Environment Agency and the Centers for

Disease Control and Prevention.

 

Denmark's Faroe Islands, just south of the Arctic Circle, was the

venue because it is home to the longest-running human experiment

analyzing prenatal toxic exposure. Since 1986, Grandjean and Weihe

have tracked Faroese children from the womb to adolescence to monitor

neurological effects of mercury in seafood. Their findings prompted

U.S. advisories that women of childbearing age and children avoid

swordfish and other highly contaminated fish.

 

Ten U.S. scientists served on the 28-member committee that wrote the

consensus: Landrigan; Brenda Eskenazi of the University of California,

Berkeley; Irva Hertz-Picciotto of UC Davis; Beate Ritz of UCLA; Jerry

Heindel and Kimberly Gray of the National Institute of Environmental

Health Sciences; Larry Needham of the CDC; Terry Huang of the National

Institute of Child Health and Human Development; David Bellinger of

Harvard University; and Howard Hu of University of Michigan.

 

Copyright 2007, Los Angeles Times

 

Return to Table of Contents

 

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

 

Reproductive Toxicology, May 1, 2007

[Printer-friendly

version]

 

THE DEVELOPMENTAL BASIS OF

HEALTH AND DISEASE

 

Role of exposure to environmental chemicals in the developmental basis

of disease and dysfunction

 

By Jerrold J. Heindel**

 

There is a major paradigm shift taking place in science that while

simple is profound. It states that the root of many diseases,

including reproductive diseases and dysfunctions, will not be found by

examination of disease onset or etiology hours, days, weeks, or even

years prior to disease onset. The new paradigm suggests that

susceptibility to disease is set in utero or neonatally as a result of

the influences of nutrition and exposures to environmental

stressors/toxicants.

 

In utero nutrition and/or in utero or neonatal exposures to

environmental toxicants alters susceptibility to disease later in life

as a result of their ability to affect the programming of tissue

function that occurs during development. This concept, that is still a

hypothesis undergoing scientific testing and scrutiny, is called the

developmental basis of health and disease. If true, then it says that

the focus on disease prevention and intervention must change from the

time of disease onset to perhaps decades prior: during the in utero

and neonatal period. Perhaps the reason it has been so difficult to

link environmental exposure to disease susceptibility is that

scientists have been looking at the wrong time! Certainly not all

exposures that result in increased disease or dysfunction occur during

development. This paradigm shift just suggests that this is a

sensitive window of exposure that should be examined more thoroughly.

 

This concept has its origins in two disciplines, epidemiology studies

of humans and developmental toxicology studies in animals. The

underlying scientific hypothesis behind the developmental basis of

adult diseases has been developed by epidemiology studies and

emphasized by Dr. David Barker in the United Kingdom. He has shown

that during development fetuses respond to adverse conditions, mainly

severe undernutrition, by favoring the metabolic demands of the

growing brain/CNS and heart at the expense of other tissues. The

growing brain/CNS and heart tissue may not, however, escape entirely

unscathed. The long-term consequences of this response are that the

fetus is protected from death, is live-born, but has a low birth

weight and is more prone to diseases later in life.

 

These epidemiology studies show that low birth weight (LBW), small for

gestation age (SGA), frank intra-uterine growth retardation (IUGR) or

clinically abnormal thinness at birth strongly predicts the subsequent

occurrence of hypertension, hyperlipidemia, insulin resistance, type 2

diabetes, ischemic heart disease, breast or prostate cancer in adult

life. Fetuses that are clinically malnourished during the first

trimester of development are also three times more likely to be obese

as adults (reviewed in [1]).

 

The concept of fetal programming of structural-functional formations

during development has been proposed to explain these findings.

Programming is the term used to describe lifelong changes in function

that follow a particular event in an earlier period of the life span.

While epidemiology studies have identified the phenomenon of metabolic

programming, little is known about the mechanism(s) by which fetal

insults lead to altered programming and to disease later in life. In

addition, emphasis thus far has been on alterations in nutrition

during development with virtually no focus on the role that exposures

to environmental agents, such as air or water pollution, either alone

or in combination with qualitative alterations in macro- or micro-

nutrition (i.e. soy protein, phytoestrogens, isoflavones or other

chemicals in herbal supplements or dietary sources), might have on

this phenomenon.

 

With regard to developmental toxicology, it is known that between 2

and 5% of all live-born infants have major developmental defects. Up

to 40% of these defects have been estimated to result from maternal

exposure(s) to harmful environmental agents that directly or

indirectly create an unfavorable intrauterine environment. A spectrum

of adverse effects can occur, including death, structural

malformation, and/or functional alteration of the fetus/embryo. The

traditional focus of the science of developmental toxicology has been

on the role of agents (environmental or drugs) that cause either

premature death of the fetus or birth defects. In recent years,

attention has turned to examining the effects of in utero or neonatal

exposure to environmental agents on functional changes in tissues,

e.g. permanent changes in tissue function that are not the result of

overtly or grossly teratogenic effects but that result in increased

susceptibility to disease/dysfunction later in life. This new focus on

functional changes has been made possible by the development and use

of " omics " technology that has allowed the examination of

gene

expression changes in tissues during development. It should be noted

that this hypotheses was actually formulated over 20 years ago by Dr.

Howard Bern when he described the " fragile fetus syndrome " [2].

It has

been revived and is now receiving significant attention due to

advancement in genomics and proteomics technology that has allowed

scientist to detect changes in gene expression and protein levels in

tissues, presenting a possible mechanism for the phenomenon described.

 

The epidemiology data that support the Barker hypothesis on the fetal

basis of adult disease, together with the preliminary data showing

alterations in gene expression and tissue imprinting due to in utero

or neonatal exposures to some environmental agents, provide an

attractive framework for understanding delayed functional effects of

toxicant exposures. Thus it has been proposed that exposure to certain

environmental chemicals alone or in combination with altered

nutrition, leads to aberrant developmental programming that

permanently alters gland, organ or system potential. These states of

altered potential or compromised function are hypothesized to result

from epigenetic changes, e.g. altered gene expression due to toxicant-

induced effects on imprinting, and the underlying methylation-related

protein-DNA relationships associated with chromatin remodeling. The

end result is an animal that is sensitized so that it will be more

susceptible to diseases later in life.

 

The following key points serve to elaborate this general hypothesis:

 

** There is a unique sensitivity to the developing fetus which may be

due to multiple factors including undeveloped DNA repair, or immature

immune system, lack of detoxifying enzymes, primitive liver

metabolism, lack of blood/brain barrier, increased metabolic rate and

increased sensitivity to epigenetic changes.

 

** This unique sensitivity is during tissue development, which in many

cases extends well into neonatal life.

 

** The initiating in utero environmental insult may act alone or in

concert with in utero nutrition and/or with later exposures. That is,

there could be an in utero exposure that would lead by itself to

pathophysiology later in life or there could be in utero exposure

combined with a neonatal exposure (same or different compound(s)) or

adult exposure that would trigger or exacerbate the pathophysiology.

 

** The pathophysiology may manifest as: the occurrence of a disease

that otherwise would not have happened; an increase in risk for a

disease that would normally be of lower prevalence or an earlier onset

of a disease that would normally have occurred; or an exacerbation of

the disease.

 

** The pathophysiology may have a variable latent period from onset in

the neonatal period, early childhood, puberty, early adulthood, or

late adulthood; depending on the toxicant, time of exposure and

tissue/organ affected.

 

** The effects may be transmitted to future generations through the

germ line.

 

** The effects of in utero exposure to toxic environmental chemicals

may occur in the absence of reduced birth weight. This makes it more

difficult to assess, than effects due to severe nutritional deficits

during development.

 

In addition, extrapolation of risk may be difficult since effects may

not follow a monotonic dose-response relationship, the toxicant may

have an entirely different effect on the embryo, fetus, or perinatal

organism, compared to the adult and exposure of one individual to an

environmental toxicant may have little effect, whereas another

individual will develop overt disease or dysfunctions.

 

The short-term approach to addressing this paradigm is to produce in

utero or neonatal exposure to an environmental agent at

environmentally relevant doses. Then to correlate exposure

measurements with measurements of gene expression in target tissues at

or near birth or the termination of dosing. Some animals are then

allowed to mature and onset of disease/dysfunction is quantitated.

Gene expression studies are carried out on the diseased tissues.

Finally gene expression changes noted after dosing are correlated with

gene expression changes in the diseased tissue to show that in utero

exposure has resulted in altered programming of gene expression and

this effect correlates with disease. In the long term it is necessary

to show cause and effect relationship between in utero or neonatal

exposures, altered gene expression in target tissues and disease.

Finally, the mechanism responsible for the altered gene expression

that is responsible for the increased incidence or severity of disease

must be determined. Once completed, the intervention and prevention

strategies can be developed to reduce the incidence of disease. There

are several recent reviews on this paradigm [3], [4], [5] and [6].

 

This special edition of reproductive toxicology is intended to

highlight recent data that show proof-of-principle for the hypothesis

that in utero or neonatal exposures to environmental agents alone or

in combination with altered nutrition can provide the developmental

basis for a number of later-occurring diseases. Some articles are

research manuscripts, some are reviews and some are combinations, all

are focused on the developmental basis of adult disease paradigm.

 

The main focus is on animal studies as the developmental basis of

disease paradigm is particularly difficult to assess in humans at this

point in time; as in utero exposures must be linked to gene expression

or other tissue potential changes at birth and then linked to an adult

disease. Nonetheless, humans are exposed to a variety of environmental

chemicals in utero, many are the same chemicals that have been shown

to cause increased incidences of disease/dysfunction later in life in

animal studies and at similar concentrations to those used in the

animal studies [7], [8] and [9]. Indeed a recent publication by The

Environmental Working Group [10] showed that a variety of industrial

chemicals, pollutants, and pesticides could be measured in human

umbilical cord blood. They tested newborns for 413 environmental

chemicals and found that 287 of them were found at some levels

including various PCBs, mercury, DDT and dioxins. In addition, the

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), has recently

released its Third National Report on Human Exposures to Environmental

Chemicals [11]. It reports on blood and urine levels for 148

chemicals, 38 for the first time, by age, sex, race or ethnicity, in a

random sample from participants from the National Health and Nutrition

Examination Survey (NHANES) from 2001 to 2002. These data indicate low

exposure to multiple chemicals including mercury, phthalates,

bisphenol A, phytoestrogens, organochlorine pesticides, herbicides and

dioxin-like chemicals. Thus the potential exists for extrapolation of

the animal data on the developmental basis of health and disease to

human health.

 

Indeed the first article in this edition focuses on human exposures

during development. This is followed by an examination of epigenetics

as the mechanism for the developmental basis of adult disease. The

following 21 articles describe the state of the science in this

exciting and emerging area highlighting the developmental basis of

obesity, reproductive diseases, cardiovascular disease, respiratory

disease, and neurological disease. It will take years to discern the

actual importance of this new paradigm to disease processes. It is

hoped that this special edition will stimulate research in this

direction.

 

**Division of Extramural Research and Training, National Institute of

Environmental Health Sciences, Department of Health and Human Service,

79 T.W. Alexander Drive, Building 4401 3rd Floor, Mail Drop: EC-23,

Room 3413, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, United States

 

References

 

[1] P.D. Gluckman and M.A. Hanson, Developmental origins of disease

paradigm: a mechanistic and evolutionary perspective, Pediatr Res 56

(2004), pp. 311-317.

 

[2] H. Bern, The fragile fetus. In: T. Colborn and C. Clement,

Editors, Chemically-induced alternations in sexual and functional

development: the wildlife/human connection (1992).

 

[3] K.P. Miller, C. Gorgeest, C. Greenfeld, D. Tomic and J.A. Flaws,

In utero effects of chemicals on reproductive tissues in females,

Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 198 (2004), pp. 111-131.

 

[4] A.C. Vidaeff and L.E. Sever, In utero exposure to environmental

estrogens and male reproductive health: a systematic review of

biological and epidemiologic evidence, Reprod Toxicol 12 (2005), pp.

5-20.

 

[5] C. Lau and J.M. Rogers, Embryonic and fetal programming of

physiological disorders in adulthood, Birth Defects Res (Part C) 72

(2005), pp. 300-302.

 

[6] A.J. Drake and B.R. Walker, The intergenerational effects of fetal

programming: non-genomic mechanisms for the inheritance of low birth

weight and cardiovascular risk, J Endocrinol 180 (2005), pp. 1-16.

 

[7] L.L. Needam and K. Sexton, Assessing children's exposure to

hazardous environmental chemicals: an overview of selected research

challenges and complexities, J Expos Anal Environ Epidemiol 10 (2000),

pp. 611-629.

 

[8] C. Mori, M. Komiyama, T. Adachi, T. Sakurai, D. Nishimura and K.

Takashima et al., Application of toxicogenomic analysis to risk

assessment of delayed long-term effects of multiple chemicals

including endocrine disruptors in human fetuses, Environ Health

Perspect 111 (2002), pp. 803-809.

 

[9] E.V. Younglai, W.G. Foster, E.G. Hughes, K. Trim and J.F. Farrell,

Levels of environmental contaminants in human follicular fluid serum

and seminal plasma of couples undergoing in vitro fertilization, Arch

Environ Contamin Toxicol 43 (2002), pp. 121-126.

 

[10] Environmental Working Group. 2005;

http://www.ewg.org/reports/bodyburden2.

 

[11] CDC. National report on human exposures to environmental

chemicals. 2005;

http://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport.

 

Reproductive Toxicology

Volume 23, Issue 3, April-May 2007, Pages 257-259

 

Copyright 2007 Elsevier

 

Return to Table of Contents

 

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

 

 

Boston

Globe, May 27, 2007

[Printer-friendly

version]

 

HEAVY TV VIEWING UNDER 2 IS

FOUND

 

Ignoring risks, parents cite 'educational' value

 

By Barbara F. Meltz, Globe Staff

 

About 40 percent of 3-month-olds watch television or videos for an

average of 45 minutes a day, or more than five hours a week, according

to the first-ever study of the viewing habits of children under the

age of 2.

 

The study, by pediatric researchers at the University of Washington,

also found that by age 2, 90 percent of children are watching

television for an average of more than 90 minutes a day.

 

Such early exposure to screens can have a negative impact on an

infant's rapidly developing brain and put children at a higher risk

for attention problems, diminished reading comprehension, and obesity,

researchers said.

 

Researchers said they were surprised not only by the number of hours

young children are spending in front of the television but also by the

primary reason: Most parents are using television as an educational

tool, not for the more conventional explanation of babysitting.

Despite nearly a decade of warnings by pediatricians to the contrary,

parents believe that the content of programs aimed at babies is good

for brain development.

 

" I wouldn't be so upset about this if I thought parents were doing

it

because they needed a break to take a shower or make dinner, " said

Dimitri Christakas, the University of Washington pediatrician who co-

authored the study. " What I'm troubled by is the notion that

parents

think it's good for their kids. That's more likely to lead to

excessive viewing rather than occasional viewing. "

 

The new study, based on 1,009 random telephone interviews with

families in Minnesota and Washington, was published in this month's

Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine. (According to the

study, the families interviewed were more likely to be highly educated

and higher-income than the general US population.) The top two reasons

parents gave for allowing babies to watch television is that the

programs " teach something " or are " good for his/her

brain " (29

percent), and because it's " something he/she really enjoys

doing "

(23 percent). Needing to keep a baby occupied scored in third place

(20 percent).

 

" That's stunning when you consider that the best evidence shows

that

early viewing puts children on a trajectory that places them at a high

risk for attention deficit, diminished reading ability, and

obesity, "

says Andrew Meltzoff, a developmental psychologist who co-authored the

new book, " The Elephant in the Living Room, Make Television Work

For

Your Kids, " with Christakas. " These parents want to do the

right

thing, but there's a huge discrepancy between what the professional

community recommends -- no viewing under 2 -- and what is happening in

real life. "

 

Kristy Merhib of Milford reflects the dichotomy. She says her 4-month-

old, Jake, has been watching practically from birth even though she

knows about pediatricians' recommendations to the contrary.

" That's

why I'm careful to use it in moderation, and only what's

educational, " she said. " I think even at this age, something

is

definitely getting through. Colors, numbers -- he really seems to pay

attention. "

 

The baby video market is a billion-dollar-a-year industry, with Baby

Einstein videos, programs aimed at stimulating development and

activity in infants and toddlers, generating sales of more than $500

million alone last year.

 

Cathy Davies of Wayland, who has a 2 1/2-year-old and 1-month-old,

says the guideline is the reason she waited until her oldest was 18

months before she introduced baby videos. With her second, she won't

wait that long. " I bet he'll be watching at a year, " she said.

" I

know it's controversial, but it's geared to babies. "

 

Another mother, Renata Wilson of Newton, put Isabella in front of

" Baby Einstein " at 2 months. " We're a bilingual family. I

only

speak Portuguese to her, so I thought it would be a good way for her

to get more English, " she said, noting that even at a young age

her

daughter seemed to pay attention.

 

That parents put so much stock in videos such as the wildly popular

" Baby Einstein " series has researchers and educators wondering

what

they can do to support parents' good intentions but wean them away

from the baby video market.

 

" We have succeeded in convincing people that the first years are

critical to brain development, " said Meltzoff, who is co-director

of

the Institute for Learning and Brain Sciences at the University of

Washington. " The unfortunate consequence is that it has spun off

to

build a brainier baby enterprise, where people think they have to use

technology to take advantage of this critical window. "

 

What parents identify as attention and learning scientists say is a

primitive reflex known as the orienting response.

 

" Yes, the baby is staring at the screen, but it's wrong to think

the

child likes it, " said Christakas, the study's co-author and

himself

the father of two young children. " He or she has no choice in the

matter. He's hard-wired to pay attention to anything that is fast-

moving, brightly colored, or loud. It's a survival response. "

Christakas said he embarked on the study after being perplexed by the

results of a 2003 Kaiser Foundation study that found that children

under age 6 were spending up to two hours a day in front of a screen,

despite the American Academy of Pediatrics recommendation that

children under 2 watch no television at all.

 

A baby is born with 100 billion brain cells, but only 17 percent of

them are immediately operational. " The rest of the wiring follows

in

the days, weeks, months, and years to come, " said child

psychologist

David Walsh, president of the National Institute on Media and the

Family. What's not hard-wired by genetics gets soft-wired by

experience and exposure. " For instance, we don't need to teach

babies

to make noise; that's hard-wired, " Walsh said. " But which

language

do they end up speaking? That's the soft-wiring. "

 

Early screen-viewing has a negative effect on soft-wiring even when

the content is baby-safe, he said. " The question to ask isn't,

'What

is she watching,' but, 'What else isn't she doing?'? " he said.

" When

there's screen time at an early age, the brain is wired to respond to

screens even before they crawl or say their first words. At a time

when they need to be interacting with the environment and with real

human beings, they are being conditioned to respond to a screen. "

 

What's more, he said, babies who are in front of a screen as early as

3 months are at higher risk for childhood obesity. " Wiring is

based

on repetition, on patterning. It's a reasonable hypothesis that if a

baby is in front of a screen at 3 months, it will be harder to get him

away from the screen at 3, 8, 10, or 13, " he says. " We're

conditioning them to be couch potatoes. "

 

Contact Barbara Meltz at

meltz.

 

Return to Table of Contents

 

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

 

 

Economic

Opportunity Institute, Mar. 24, 2004

[Printer-friendly

version]

 

THE LINK BETWEEN EARLY

CHILDHOOD EDUCATION AND HEALTH

 

Early Experiences are Important Determinants of Adult Health Status

 

By Jen Brown

 

A child's early experiences are lifelong determinants of health and

well-being. Studies in neurobiology, neurodevelopment, and early

intervention show that the years birth to school age are critically

important for brain development.[1] During this critical time,

children develop the essential language and cognitive skills required

to learn, develop their ability to manage emotions and stress, and

learn to cooperate with others. Properly shaping the architecture of

the brain in these earliest years of life has profound benefits in

adult life.

 

Many of the risks for the diseases of adult life (e.g. heart disease)

are, in part shaped by learning, coping, and decision-making skills

that are set in the earliest years of life.[2] These skills determine

performance in the school system and set children onto life pathways

that in turn, affect their health and well-being over time.

 

Early Childhood Trajectory

 

The Role of Early Childhood Education

 

Early childhood education plays a crucial role in children's

development. A key requisite for optimal healthy child development is

secure attachment to a trusted caregiver, giving consistent caring,

support and affection early in life.[3] Coping skills are strongly

influenced by how well children are " nurtured " during the early

years

of childhood. Spending one's early years in an unstimulating,

emotionally and physically unsupportive environment affects brain

development in adverse ways, and leads to cognitive, social and

behavioral delays.

 

Evaluation of quality early learning and care provision before the age

of 5 years has found that it is associated with improvement in a range

of educational and social measures, some of which have been documented

many years after the care. In one of the studies, the Perry Preschool

Project followed participants up to 27 years of age and showed that

the people from the preschool group were more likely to have

advantageous social outcomes such as high school graduation,

employment, fewer arrests, higher earnings, and owning their own home

than those who did not participate in the program.[4] These findings

have been confirmed by multiple other studies.[5]

 

The Perry Preschool program also measured a significant effect on teen

pregnancy, showing that youth who did not receive the program were

nearly twice as likely to have a teen pregnancy than those who did

receive the program.[6]

 

Similarly, the research demonstrated the benefits of creating

opportunities for children to participate in decision making from an

early age. The study discovered that children from impoverished inner-

city environments who planned and made decisions about their school

activities in their preschool years were, in adulthood, significantly

less (as much as 50 percent) involved in using drugs.

 

Lack of school readiness puts children at risk of academic, social and

behavioral difficulties in school. Those children are more likely to

leave school before high school graduation, get involved in criminal

behavior, become pregnant as a teenager, and become addicted to

tobacco, alcohol, and other drugs.[7] And the combination of

behavioral problems and failure in school are also associated with low

levels of physical and mental health in adulthood.[8] The reverse is

also true. Children from high quality early learning and care programs

are more likely to graduate high school, go on to college or higher

learning, and earn more. These outcomes are all associated with better

physical and mental health as adults.

 

Access to Health Services

 

Early care and learning programs are often a vehicle for health

education and promotion to children. Research has shown that early

childhood programs can affect children's physical health by requiring

that children be properly immunized; by linking them to health

services; by conducting vision, hearing, and developmental screenings,

and in some cases, by providing them with nutritious meals.[9]

Children who attend quality early child programs have greater access

to health care and improved physical health, receive better dental

care, and demonstrate improved nutritional status and better

nutritional practices.[10]

 

Early learning and care programs are also essential in getting

children enrolled into low-income children's health insurance programs

for which they are eligible, such as Medicaid and the Children's

Health Insurance Program (CHIP).[11]

 

Prevention Results in Cost Savings

 

Cost implications are very clear. Loading our energies at the

beginning of the children's services continuum makes sense since early

childhood development and prevention services are immensely more cost-

effective than waiting to pay for health care services later in the

life.

 

Endnotes

 

[1] Shonkoff, J.P., Phillips, D.A. (2000)

From

Neurons to

Neighborhoods:

The Science of Early Childhood Development. National

Research Council and Institute of Medicine. Washington, D.C.: National

Academy Press. pg. 314.

 

[2] Hertzman, C., Mustard, F. (1997)

A

Healthy Early Childhood = A

Healthy Adult Life. Founders Network Report, The Canadian

Institute

for Advanced Research: 1(1)

 

[3] Shonkoff, J.P., Phillips, D.A. (2000).

 

[4] Barnett, W. S. (1996).

Lives

in the balance: Age-27 benefit-cost

analysis of the High/Scope Perry Preschool Program (Monographs

of the

High/Scope Educational Research Foundation, 11). Ypsilanti, MI:

High/Scope Press. A summary of the Perry study findings up to age 40

is available

here.

 

[5] Reynolds, A.J. et al. (2001) Long-term Effects of an Early

Childhood Intervention on Educational Achievement and Juvenile

Arrest: a 15-Year Follow-Up of Low-income Children in Public Schools.

JAMA

(and be sure to get the published correction to this

article). " Smart Start: A Six County Study of the Effects of Smart

Start Child Care on Kindergarten Entry Skills, " Frank Porter Graham

Child Development Center Smart Start Evaluation Team, North Carolina.

(1999).

 

[6] The rate for youth not receiving the program is higher than 100

because some youth may have had more than one teen pregnancy during

the course of the study.

 

[7] Hertzman, C., Keating, D. (eds.) Developmental Health and the

Wealth of Nations: Social, Biological, and Educational Dynamics. New

York: The Guilford Press, 1999.

 

[8] Acheson, D. (1998) Independent Inquiry into Inequalities in

Health. London: The Stationary Office.

 

[9] Zigler, E., Piotrkowski, C.S., Collins, R. (1994) Health Services

in Head Start. Annual Review of Public Health: 15:511-34.

 

[10] Howes, C. 1990. " Can the age of entry into child care and the

quality of child care predict adjustment in kindergarten? "

Developmental Psychology, 26(2), 292-303. McKey, R.H., Condelli, L.,

Ganson, H., Barrett, B.J., McConkey, C., & Plantz, M.C. 1985. The

impact of Head Start on children, families, and communities. Final

report of the Head Start Evaluation, Synthesis, and Utilization

Project. (Washington, DC: CSR Incorporated for the Head Start Bureau,

Administration for Children, Youth and Families, U.S. Dept. of Health

and Human Services). (A more recent eva,luation of the effectuiveness

of the Head Start program can be found here.)

 

[11] Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

 

Return to Table of Contents

 

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

 

Essential Action, May 31, 2007

[Printer-friendly version]

 

CORPORATE POWER SINCE 1980

 

By Robert Weissman

 

The United States Since 1980 (Cambridge University Press, 2007) is a

superb short work from Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and

Policy Research.

 

In a couple hundred pages, Baker covers enormous territory, reviewing

the rightward shift in U.S. politics, the sharpening of inequality

(and underlying causes), U.S. unilateralism in global affairs, and

much more. He concludes by identifying the U.S. political system's

failure to address three overriding problems: provision of healthcare

to all at an affordable cost, the spiking trade deficit, and global

warming.

 

The distressing effects of corporate power and influence is interwoven

into the narrative of The United States Since 1980, but corporate

power is not analyzed in its own right.

 

There will be an opportunity to conduct that kind of analysis at an

important conference to be held June 8-10 in Washington, DC. " Taming

the Giant Corporation " will investigate the evolving sources and forms

of corporate power, and how it can be subordinated to people's control

(including by displacing corporations altogether from certain segments

of the economy and society). You can get information on the

conference, and register, at: .

 

What might be the key themes of a book titled, Corporate Power Since

1980?

 

Some interrelated concepts, not listed in order of importance, would

include:

 

1. Corporate political organization. Big business has mobilized itself

into a dominant political actor, with capacity through its various

tentacles both to frame the contours of big picture policy debates,

and to win narrow legislative battles, at all governmental levels. The

proliferation and strengthening of corporate-backed think tanks, front

groups, lobbyists, trade associations and more, are all evidence of

corporations' dramatically increased political power -- in the United

States and around the globe.

 

2. Corporate globalization. Big corporations now operate globally,

both on the production and selling side. They leverage the threat of

moving production to drive down labor and environmental standards.

They and their allies have drafted international trade agreements that

embed their power in law, and impinge on the ability of governments to

control them. They have also created massive global trade imbalances,

which threaten the future stability of the global economy. On the

seller side, they are driving a homogenization of culture on a global

scale.

 

3. Corporate concentration. Wal-Mart was an insignificant blip on the

retail radar screen in 1980. It now dominates retail markets in the

United States, with growing power overseas. Big box emulators have

concentrated sales in retail market after retail market. Antitrust

concepts in the United States have fallen by the wayside, evidenced

perhaps most spectacularly in the permitted reunification of the two

biggest components of the Standard Oil breakup, Exxon and Mobil. In

sector after sector -- food manufacturing, finance, pharmaceuticals,

tobacco, aircraft, defense contracting, utilities, energy, insurance,

hotels, mining, media -- fewer companies are in control.

 

4. Union busting. The trend is sharpest in the United States, where

there has been a perilous decline in union membership. The blue-collar

unionization rate fell from 43.1 percent in 1978 to 19.2 percent in

2005 -- a drop of well over half. Corporations' vicious anti-unionism,

offshoring and threats to close plants all contributed to plummeting

union rates -- and the undermining of wage scales and employment

conditions for working people. Similar pressures are starting to be

felt in Europe, though Europe has, so far, largely resisted the

degraded standards of the United States. Meanwhile, the World Bank

actually advises countries to cut back on labor rights in order to be

more competitive.

 

5. Corporate subcontracting. Brand-name industrial firms increasingly

don't make what they sell. Instead, they subcontract the work, often

on a global scale. What might be high-paying jobs turns instead into

low-income or sweatshop work -- and the identifiable company is able

to swear off responsibility for how their subcontracted workers are

treated, or for the pollution or other undesirable aspects of the

production and services they subcontract. Subcontracting functions as

a massive escape from accountability.

 

6. Deregulation. The election of Ronald Reagan gave corporations the

opportunity to achieve the roll back of environmental, consumer and

workplace safety regulations -- and they've been rolling back ever

since, often on a global scale. Equally important has been economic

deregulation -- removal of U.S. rules governing how finance,

telecommunications and utility companies can operate, for example.

This deregulation has facilitated massive consolidation, consumer rip-

offs and serious threats to economic well-being -- as evidenced by the

Enron scandal and collapse, which was rooted in deregulation of energy

and financial markets.

 

7. Tax manipulation. Concludes Citizens for Tax Justice in a 2004

study: " Eighty-two of America's largest and most profitable

corporations paid no federal income tax in at least one year during

the first three years of the George W. Bush administration -- a period

when federal corporate tax collections fell to their lowest sustained

level in six decades. " Corporate political power has led to lowered

tax rates and creation of endless tax loopholes and subsidies. And the

spectacular rise of offshore tax havens has made the tax avoidance

business into its own industry.

 

8. Commercialization. Commercialism has become ubiquitous, in ways

barely imaginable a quarter century ago. Corporate marketers target

small children in the most devious of ways, and advertising is

pervasive in schools. A new speciality known as neuromarketing is

doing brain scans to gain " unprecedented insight into the consumer

mind, " as one neuromarketer put it. " Buzz marketers " are employing

people to hawk corporations' stuff, but not tell the friends, family

and neighbors they are pitching. Results of corporate commercialism

include an epidemic of marketing-related diseases such as obesity

(rising now in developing countries as well as the United States),

more materialistic values at the expense of civic ones, and

consumption-driven challenges to the sustainability of the planet.

 

9. Financialization. Wall Street and the global finance sector now

exert an extraordinary grip over the real economy, placing

unprecedented pressure on producing and service companies, and

interfering with the ability of countries to manage their economies.

Speculation and hot money, fueled in equal parts by new technologies

and deregulation, give Wall Street managers enormous power. Meanwhile,

the invention of new financial instruments has injected enormous risk

into the global economy -- easily ignored in good times, and rarely

borne by the wealthy in down times.

 

The recent rise of private equity -- an updated version of the

leveraged-buyout movement of the 1980s -- threatens still further to

destabilize shared social understandings. Private equity firms now

pool vast sums from institutional players (such as pension funds), and

then borrow still more, to buy out publicly traded companies. Hidden

from public scrutiny, the private equity managers typically then seek

to squeeze the companies (and especially their workers), before

placing them back on the market.

 

10. Enclosing the knowledge commons. The value-added component of

making things is embedded progressively less in the manufacturing

process, and more in the development side -- in the knowledge about

how to design and make the thing. Corporations -- especially in the

pharmaceutical, software and entertainment industries -- have

responded by demanding heightened patent and copyright protections, to

give them monopoly control over information and knowledge -- even

though that knowledge is typically extracted in significant measure

from the public domain. One manifestation of this movement is the

imposition of a global patent standard, leading to skyrocketing drug

prices in developing countries.

 

11. Global environmental and public health treaties. Not every trend

has seen corporate power deepened. With many problems globalized,

citizen activists have managed to push successfully for some legally

binding global solutions, often in issue-specific treaties, including

ones to address the hazardous waste trade, pesticides and other

pollutants, tobacco control, and protection of the ozone layer.

 

12. Popular movements to curtail corporate power. Beyond specific

advocacy efforts around treaty-making, there have emerged robust

advocacy and solidarity networks to counter corporate malfeasance,

influence and demands. From winning improvements in working conditions

to blocking bad trade deals, from lowering the prices of essential

medicines to blocking biotech companies' efforts to experiment on

humans and the environment on a planetary scale, from supporting

indigenous peoples' rights to blocking destructive dam projects, these

networks have scored important victories. Relatedly, a series of mass

mobilizations have occurred to challenge corporate dominance, and

popular movements have linked up and created growing countervailing

power in national and international spheres.

 

But while an historical perspective on Corporate Power Since 1980 does

not offer an unyielding picture of corporate supremacy, the

predominant trend is toward dramatically heightened corporate power.

Indeed, by far the most serious barrier to addressing each of the

three overriding problems that Dean Baker highlights as challenges for

the United States -- affordable healthcare for all, the trade deficit,

and global warming -- is overcoming entrenched corporate practices,

privileges and prerogatives.

 

Robert Weissman is editor of the Washington, D.C.-based Multinational

Monitor, and director of Essential Action.

 

© Robert Weissman

 

Focus on the Corporation is distributed to individuals on the

listserve corp-focus. To , or

change your address to corp-focus, go to: http://lists.essent

ial.org/mailman/listinfo/corp-focus or send an e-mail message to

corp-focus-admin with your request.

 

Focus on the Corporation columns are posted at: www.multi

nationalmonitor.org/editorsblog and http://www.corpora

tepredators.org.

 

Return to Table of Contents

 

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

 

Rachel's Democracy & Health News (formerly Rachel's Environment &

Health News) highlights the connections between issues that are

often considered separately or not at all.

 

The natural world is deteriorating and human health is declining

because those who make the important decisions aren't the ones who

bear the brunt. Our purpose is to connect the dots between human

health, the destruction of nature, the decline of community, the

rise of economic insecurity and inequalities, growing stress among

workers and families, and the crippling legacies of patriarchy,

intolerance, and racial injustice that allow us to be divided and

therefore ruled by the few.

 

In a democracy, there are no more fundamental questions than, " Who

gets to decide? " And, " How do the few control the many, and what

might be done about it? "

 

As you come across stories that might help people connect the dots,

please Email them to us at dhn.

Rachel's Democracy & Health News is published as often as

necessary to provide readers with up-to-date coverage of the

subject.

 

Editors:

Peter Montague - peter

Tim Montague - tim

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

 

To start your own free Email subscription to Rachel's Democracy

& Health News send any Email to: rachel-.

 

In response, you will receive an Email asking you to confirm that

you want to .

 

To , send any Email to: rachel-.

 

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Environmental Research Foundation

P.O. Box 160, New Brunswick, N.J. 08903

dhn

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

 

---

Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.859 / Virus Database: 585 - Release 2/14/05

 

 

******

Kraig and Shirley Carroll ... in the woods of SE Kentucky

http://www.thehavens.com/

thehavens

606-376-3363

 

 

 

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.859 / Virus Database: 585 - Release 2/14/05