Chemicals in environment may cause disabilities in children

By Danielle Knight

Washington, DC, Sept. 7 (IPS)— Toxic chemicals commonly released by industry into the environment in large quantities across the United States may be adding to the mysterious surge in child development and learning disabilities, warns a new report released here Thursday.

More than one in every 200 children who suffer from developmental or neurological disabilities could have acquired the impairment by exposure to these toxic chemicals, according to the report by three national environmental and health advocacy organizations.

The most recent data available say US companies reported to the federal government that they had released in 1998 more than one billion pounds (450 million kilograms) of developmental and neurological toxins in the nation’s air and water.

These chemicals have the potential to affect the way a child’s body and brain develop, says the report. Many defects could have been caused by exposure to the developing fetus, it says.

“While it’s usually impossible to say that a particular child’s disability is caused by a toxic chemical, it is clear that toxic chemicals are taking a tragic toll across the population,’’ says Ted Schettler, a practicing physician in Boston, speaking on behalf of Physicians for Social Responsibility, which co-authored the report.

About 12 million children in this country -- under the age of 18 -- suffer from one or more developmental, learning or behavioral disabilities. These include disabilities like mental retardation, birth defects, autism, or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

The report builds on recent findings by a scientific panel convened by the National Academy of Sciences that found as many as three percent of known developmental and neurological defects in children were caused by exposure to known toxic substances.

The panel also concluded that 25 percent of these problems may be the result of environmental and genetic factors working in combination, and that toxic substances may play a significant but undetermined role.

Based on these estimates, Polluting Our Future concludes that more than 360,000 children in the United States suffer from developmental or neurological disabilities caused by a range of toxic exposures including developmental and neurological toxins released in the environment by industry.

“Now we know what we have suspected for years, that toxic chemicals are bringing anguish to thousands of families in this country,’’ says Larry Silver, a doctor and president of the Learning Disabilities Association of America, which also co-authored the report.

According to Silver, the amount of developmental impairments, like autism and low birth weight, are increasing in the United States.

“In 50 percent of the cases, there are family histories of these types of problems, but in the other 50 percent we don’t know what it is and suspect that it could be related to chemical releases,’’ says Silver, who is also a clinical professor of psychiatry at Georgetown University.

The report uses the toxic chemical release data available through the Environmental Protection Agency. By law, US companies must report certain toxic chemical releases to this regulatory body.

But “emissions reported to the federal government account for only an estimated five percent of all chemical releases in the country.’’ Therefore, the amount of chemicals in the environment that could impact child development could be as much as 24 billion pounds (10 billion kilograms), says the report.

The chemical manufacturing industry is the single largest industrial source of developmental and neurological toxin emissions to air and water in the United States, it says. Paper, metal, and plastics manufacturers as well as electric power companies are also major emitters of these substances, according to the report.

Solvents are among the leading developmental and neurological toxins released by industrial facilities in the United States, says Schettler.

Toluene --a solvent used commonly in printing facilities-- is of particular concern, says Schettler, because it is released in large quantities. More than 98 million pounds (45 million kilograms) of the substance were released into the air and water in 1998, according to the report.

Toluene can cause abnormalities of the face and head resembling those of fetal alcohol syndrome. It can also cause growth retardation and persistent deficits in cognitive, speech, and motor skills, he says.

“Because many printing facilities are often closer to residential areas than other industries, this industry and the government should make greater efforts to switch to safer technologies that present less of a potential health risk to children nearby,’’ says Lynn Goldman, a pediatrician and professor at Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health.

Other developmental and neurologically toxic pollutants like lead, cadmium and manganese are also on the list.

“Conspicuously absent, however, are data on neurologically toxic pesticides,’’ adds Schettler. This is because there are no legal requirements for reporting their release into the environment.

Even for the reported substances, there are no national, state, or local policies that effectively encourage producers or users to test their chemicals for the potential to harm the brain or the development of children before putting these substances into products or emitting them into the environment, he says.

To the alarm of environmentalists, lawmakers --under heavy pressure from chemical and other industries-- have not mandated that all chemicals be tested for these impacts.

“Potential developmental and neurological toxins should be tested in the laboratory -- not on our children,’’ says Schettler.

Part of the lack of testing is a result of laws that require further testing only if some minimal negative health effect has been proven.

Billion dollar NAFTA challenge to California MTBE ban

By Cat Lazaroff

Washington, DC, Sept. 11, (ENS)— An international tribunal has begun considering a claim that the United States must pay a foreign investor almost $1 billion because of a California measure to prevent water contamination.

The Canadian challenger, Methanex Corporation, has argued that a plan to remove the toxic chemical MTBE (methyl tertiary butyl ether) from California’s gasoline violates the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

Methanex is a major producer of methanol, one key component of MTBE. Methanex claims that under NAFTA, it is owed $970 million in profits it will lose if California bans MTBE.

Methanex has sued under Chapter 11 of NAFTA, a clause intended to protect foreign investors when they sink money into projects in NAFTA member countries, including the United States, Canada and Mexico. In this case, Canadian Methanex says an environmental law passed by a US state would cost the company millions in lost profits.

“The Methanex case is a clear illustration of one of NAFTA’s most serious environmental flaws,” said Martin Wagner, attorney for the environmental group Earthjustice. “Methanex’s claim is tantamount to extortion, because they are demanding almost a billion dollars if California insists on keeping its drinking water free of toxic contaminants.”

California Governor Gray Davis ordered the MTBE phase out by 2003 after studies showed that the additive may cause cancer as well as neurological, dermatological and other problems in humans.

Leaks of MTBE from cars, boats and underground storage tanks are threatening serious contamination of California’s water supplies. Several other states have banned or proposed banning MTBE, and the federal government is considering a nationwide ban. After months of intense negotiations, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee voted Thursday to ban MTBE across the United States.

“Methanex and other investors are claiming that NAFTA requires governments to pay polluters not to pollute,” said David Schorr, director of World Wildlife Fund’s Sustainable Commerce Program. “Something is seriously wrong with the way the NAFTA investment chapter is working.”

Environmental groups sent a letter to the US government on Friday, demanding that the US prevent deliberations on the dispute from harming the environment. The letter also demands that the US “vigorously support” the right of citizens to be heard.

Under NAFTA, arbitration tribunals are modeled after private commercial arbitrations: they are held behind closed doors, with no avenues for the public to participate and observe. Two environmental groups have formally requested that the arbitrators agree to consider briefs they intend to submit. Methanex is opposing these requests, while the US government has so far refused to clarify its position.

“Serious questions of public policy and constitutional law are being decided in secret,” said David Waskow, trade director at Friends of the Earth. “These NAFTA provisions are badly slanted in favor of providing access for multinational corporations, while shutting out ordinary citizens and local communities.”

Environmental groups say there is reason to fear that Methanex’s challenge may succeed.

In a similar case decided earlier this month, an international arbitration tribunal ordered Mexico to pay $16.6 million to a California company, Metalclad, after the Mexican state and municipal governments refused to permit the company to operate a hazardous waste facility near local residences.

Metalclad built the hazardous waste facility after getting permits from the Mexican federal government. But the governments of the state and city of Aguascalientes refused to permit the facility to open or operate, leaving the property standing vacant for years.

Metalclad wanted its money back.

The NAFTA arbitrators considered the city’s refusal to allow the plant to operate - based on opposition to the project by local residents and concerns that the facility would cause environmental harm - a violation of NAFTA’s requirement of “fair and equitable treatment.”

The tribunal also found that the state government had violated NAFTA by declaring the area around the waste facility site an ecological zone in which potentially polluting activities are prohibited to protect rare cactus. The measure meant the facility could not operate there.

In a US court, the Metalclad challenge would have failed. Under US law, the state government’s action would likely not be considered a taking of the investor’s property requiring compensation under the US Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court.

The NAFTA arbitrators, however, required payment to the company, regardless of whether or not the measure was necessary to protect the environment.

Environmentalists are citing the Methanex and Metalclad cases as examples of some of the worst environmental and democratic shortcomings of NAFTA.

“Redefining the carefully balanced approach of US constitutional takings law in a trade agreement will have a chilling effect on the ability of US local, state and federal governments to protect the environment,” said Jake Caldwell of the National Wildlife Federation.

“These cases illustrate that international corporations are on the offensive,” said Stephen Porter, senior attorney with the Center for International Environmental Law. “They are using trade rules to advance narrow commercial interests by challenging society’s efforts to protect the environment and public health.”

Leaked memo exposes Monsanto’s propaganda campaign

United Kingdom, Sept. 10— A confidential internal report leaked to GeneWatch UK reveals that Monsanto is involved in a global campaign to promote genetically modified foods by influencing which experts get on international scientific committees, promoting their views through supposedly independent scientists and gaining influence with key decision makers in government departments in developing countries.

Monsanto’s 10-page internal report, headed “company confidential,” summarizes the activities of its Regulatory Affairs and Scientific Outreach teams for May and June 2000.

It describes developments in the regulation of GM crops in 20 countries worldwide and Monsanto’s efforts to influence them. The countries include Japan, Bulgaria, Thailand, Mexico, Brazil and South Korea as well as the USA and the European Union.

“The leaked report shows how Monsanto is trying to manipulate the regulation of GM foods across the globe to favor their interests,” said Dr. Sue Mayer, GeneWatch UK’s director. “It seems they are trying to buy influence with key individuals, stack committees with experts who support them and subvert the scientific agenda around the world.”

“The scale of the campaign shows just how desperate Monsanto is to save its business,” said Mayer. “The report shows that they have virtually given up trying to influence the debate here in the UK, having failed to convince the public of their case.

“But it is worrisome that Monsanto has clearly stepped up activity elsewhere, particularly in developing countries. And while Monsanto often claims they want to listen and engage in dialogue, it is quite clear from this leaked report that this is just window dressing for a behind-the-scenes campaign to promote their products come what may.

“Governments and scientists are going to have to take precautions against such pressure if they are not to lose even more consumer confidence.”

The following extracts from the leaked internal paper illustrate how pervasive the Monsanto campaign is:

“Global: Scientific outreach and Ag Regulatory was instrumental in assuring that key internationally recognized scientific experts were nominated to the FAO/WHO [Food and Agricultural Organization/World Health Organization] expert consultation on food safety which was held in Geneva this past month. The consultation and final report were very supportive of plant biotechnology, including support for the critical role of substantial equivalence in food safety assessments, antibiotic resistance markers used in these products, and the reservation of animal feeding studies to address specific questions rather than for routine safety.”

“Thailand: A GMO detection lab was established by the Ministry of Public Health to develop methods to certify exports to Europe. The lab director Dr. Pakdi is a key player in international CODEX activities and has requested Monsanto’s assistance to train technicians and provide reference samples. Cooperation with this request is likely given the importance of the lab and Dr. Pakdi’s position.”

“Global: Contacts were made with the directors of Poison Control Centers (PCC) in many countries which should be especially useful to facilitate rational regulation because the Poison Center directors are relied upon heavily by state and local agencies ... an editorial was drafted by Dr. John Thomas, (Emeritus Professor of U. Texas Medical School in San Antonio) to place in a medical journal as the first in a planned series of outreach efforts to physicians; a meeting was held with Prof. David Khayat, an internationally well known cancer specialist, to collaborate on an article demonstrating the absence of links between GM food and cancers ...”

“Global: Monsanto representatives were successful at the recent Codex Food Labeling Committee meeting on maintaining two labeling options for further consideration by the committee.”

For more information: www.genewatch.org