Washblog

As I think about this past year, I realize that I have seen the kind of passion to protect children that shines through in John's Christmas letter expressed everywhere around me in the public arena -- by state legislators, by my son's public school teachers and Principal, by public health officials, by citizen activists, and by many others. Innumerable people give with pure generosity to advance the wellbeing of children. This force of love and caring is much more powerful than all the economic greed and political dysfunction that, at times, seems to dominate public life. The letter that appears below the fold, reprinted with permission from the author, reflects his personal views and, except where noted, does not reflect the positions of any of the organizations he names.

Christmas letter from John Roberts, reprinted with his permission, December, 2007

Helping Children - Reducing Health Costs
There is a close link between the care we give our children and their development, between exposure of children to physical and social stressors and present as well as future health costs.

Why is it that we spend more on health per person than any nation and have such poor health?

Why has the percentage of children with a chronic illness that reduces their activity three months out of the year risen from 1.8% to 7% in a little over 45 years with asthma (9%), attention deficit hyperactive disorder (ADHD) (6%), and obesity (17%) being the leading causes? (1)

Why do we rank next to the bottom of 21 rich nations in the UNICEF 2007 Report Card 7: An Overview of Child Well-Being in Rich Countries?. (2) Some 24% of our children live in poor families that are excluded from a minimum acceptable way of life.  Poverty is a major driving force for an unhealthy environment with our poor children having much higher rates of asthma and lead poisoning. (3, 4)

We are the richest country and rank last in the health and safety of children as measured by an average of three indicators:

1. The 7+ infants per 1,000 who die in the first 12 months
2. The 8% of babies who are underweight (<2500g)
3. The percentage of children who are not immunized against preventable diseases (1)

Why do we rank at the bottom for young people's health and risk behaviors covering exercise, diet, obesity, and a high teenage pregnancy and fertility rate?  We have the highest percentage (23%) of children living in a single parent family. It appears that as the gap between rich and poor became wider in the US, we began falling behind other rich countries starting in the 1950s (4).

The United Nations, World Health Organization (WHO), and International Labor Organization issued in 2007 the joint Environmental Health Criteria 237: Principles for Evaluating Health Risks in Children Associated with Exposure to Chemicals. (6). WHO estimates that 30% of the world-wide burden of children's diseases can be related to environmental exposures.  The timing of exposures can be as important as the amount.  Early exposures to chemicals can lead to miscarriages; low birth weight; birth defects, infant mortality, asthma, lead poisoning, ADHD, immune impairment, as well as early or delayed puberty. (5)   Puberty is coming two months to two years earlier in girls in the US.(7)  Cancer, asthma, and heart disease in adults can in part be related to early exposure to pollutants.

WHO suggests we should monitor and reduce the exposure of children to the industrial chemicals where we have evidence even though full proof of causal association is lacking.  Many thousands of chemicals associated with industrial development have not been tested for health effects on infants.(5)  Many are being found in house dust at concentrations that exceed health based standards. (8, 9)

Why did the UNICEF Report Card 7 and the WHO Environmental Health Criteria 237 report on children receive so little coverage in the US press and political discussion?

Potent economic and political barriers
There are potent economic and political barriers to expanding public awareness of poor child health in the US and the application of cost-effective solutions for reducing childhood exposure and health costs. (10)  The media and government do not always operate in the public interest because we have the best government and media that money can buy.  The freedom of the press belongs to those who own the press.   Government and media action is for sale to the highest bidder.  News coverage is affected by the economic interests of the advertisers and the corporate owners of major media.  Advertisers have the power to partially or completely black out news that has an adverse affect on their market.  Reporters have difficulty getting such stories past editors who want to please their advertisers.  Congressional and State legislatures do not want to fund activities that are opposed by major donors to their political campaigns.  The same large sources of money can have a corrupting influence on both government and media such that the health of children and health costs have a low priority.  Media in the public interest (NPR and PBS) must walk a razor's edge to avoid offending legislators and losing their government funding.

It is easier to improve elections and government than to reform private media.  The public funding of political campaigns is a good place to begin.  This is the most important way to remove barriers to protecting the health of children, funding of education, eliminating poverty, action on global warming, and many other needed changes.  Elected leaders who are free from obligations to large campaign donors can serve the public interest. They will require media that use public airways to devote more time to public service as a requirement for a license.   They will resist efforts of the FCC to allow major media corporations to own both newspapers and TV stations in the same area.

The League of Women Voters of Seattle (LWVS), League of Women Voters of Washington (LWVW), and the US League are doing the hands-on work to safeguard our democracy, including the public funding of campaigns. They are non-partisan. They are working to change Washington State law so that cities and counties will have the option of public funding of local campaigns. I encourage you to join the LWV as one of the best ways to become informed and to take action that will make democracy work.  Men are welcome...

The LWVS and LWVW have taken the position that we should reduce exposures to toxics in the home.  They were instrumental in the founding of the Master Home Environmentalist Program (MHE) of the American Lung Association in Seattle that has spread to 16 locations.  You can get a free home assessment by a MHE by calling 206-441-5100.  

John Roberts

1. Perrin JM, Bloom SR, Gortmaker SL 2007. The increase of childhood chronic conditions in the United States. JAMA 297:2755-2759.
2. UNICEF. 2007. Report Card 7: Child poverty in perspective: An overview of child well-being in rich countries. UNICEF, Innocenti Research Center, Florence, Italy.
3. Gilbert SG, Weiss. 2006. A rational for lowering the blood level action level from 10 to 2 microg/dl. Neurotoxicology 27:693-701.
4. Krieger J, Takaro TK, Song L, Weaver M. 2005. The Seattle-King County healthy homes project: A randomized, controlled trial of a community health worker intervention to decrease exposure to indoor asthma triggers. American Journal of Public Health 95:652-659.
5. Bezruchka S. 2007. Give children our best. Op Ed. Seattle Times. Seattle, WA, April 29, 2007, p. J1.
6. WHO. Environmental Health Criteria 237; Principles for evaluating health risks in children associated with exposure to chemicals. United Nations, NY, NY.
7. Steingraber S. 2007. The falling age of puberty in U.S. girls: What we know, What we need to know. Breast Cancer Fund. www.breastcancerfund.org.
8. Butte W, Heinzow B. 2002. Pollutants in house dust as indicators of indoor contamination. Rev Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 175:1-46.
9. Rudel RA, Camann DE, Spengler JD, Korn LR, Brody JG. 2003. Phthalates, alkylphenols, polybrominated diphenyl ethers, and other endocrine-disrupting compounds in indoor air and dust. Environmental Science and Technology, 37:4543-4553.
10. League of Women Voters of Seattle Natural Resources Committee. 2000. Protecting Infants from home toxics: Economic and political barriers to action. LWVS May, 2000 VOTER, Seattle, WA. pp R1-R15.

1. Protecting Our Children by Monitoring and Preventing Lead Exposure, By Steven G. Gilbert, John Roberts, Charles Bagley, Noemie Maxwell, and Robins Evans-Agnew, appears in the January 2008 Seattle Voter. It does not present an official position of the League but, rather, gives opinion and information for the consideration of League members. The authors as members of the LWVS National Resources Committee, recommend that the US Center for Disease Control "acknowledge the new science" and reduce the blood lead level that triggers action to protect children from continuing exposure from the current 10 µg/dL to a new standard of 2 µg/dL1.
2. Also see Washblog stories:
   Visionary Asthma Pilot Program Helps Children Breathe and Learn
   Less Time in Hospitals, More Time in School: Home Visits for Children with Asthma
   Our Buildings Ourselves:  Connecting Human, Community, and Ecological Health