Source: Google Snapshot -- original gone
The US National Research Council (NRC)
was commissioned by the US Congress to study scientific
and policy issues concerning pesticides in the diets of
infants and children. A Committee on Pesticides in the
Diets of Infants and Children (Committee on Pesticides)
was charged with responsibility for examining what was
known in the US about exposures to pesticide residues in
the diets of infants and children, the adequacy of
current risk assessment methods and policies, and
toxicological issues of greatest concern(1).
Children are not mini-adults
Children are different from
adults in that they are still developing, and have
different dietary needs and metabolism. In 1989, a study
published by the US Natural Resources Defense Council
pointed out that young children generally receive greater
exposure to pesticides in food than adults(2). Relative
to their weight, children consume both more food than
adults and larger quantities of fruit—commodities more
likely to be contaminated with pesticide residues. Data
from animal studies indicates that the young of many
species are more likely to retain a greater portion of a
given dose of certain toxins because of increased
absorption and decreased elimination. Additionally,
detoxifying enzymes are not fully functional in the
young. Finally, protein binding, a significant
detoxifying mechanism, is less well developed than in
adults(3).
Greater risk in infancy
A number of laboratory studies have shown that animals
are at greater risk of developing cancer if exposure
began in infancy rather than later in life. Of 14
carcinogens reviewed by the US Natural Resources Defense
Council(4), the young were more susceptible to 12.
Another review found that the young were more susceptible
to 8 out of 10 carcinogens examined(5). The reasons for
such
susceptibility may be linked with the rapid cell
division entailed in development and growth; but also
with the fact that children have more of their lives
still to live during which exposure and carcinogenic
action may occur.
Age-related
susceptibility has been demonstrated for a number of
neurotoxins. Of 31 neurotoxic metals, pesticides and
other organics analysed in one review(6), there was an
age-related
difference in
susceptibility for all but two. In 66% of the cases
where
susceptibility differed with
age,
the young were more susceptible. For example, they are
especially susceptible to the acute effects of
organophosphate insecticides: young rats have been shown
to be more susceptible than adults to the lethal effects
of 15 out of 16 organophosphate insecticides tested. For
parathion and methyl parathion the fatal dose in the
young rat is six to eight times lower in relation to body
weight than in adult rats(7).
Parental diet affects offspring
Parental diet has been shown to affect offspring. In a
human developmental study of the effects of consuming
organochlorine-contaminated fish, the infants of women
who ate an average of two meals per month of fish from
the US Great Lakes were compared to those infants of the
women who ate less than two such meals a month. The
children of women who ate the contaminated fish more
often had a lower birth weight, disproportionately
smaller heads, and a shorter gestation period than the
children who had less exposure(8). Measurements were made
later of the powers of visual recognition of these
children(9). At seven months, those children with more
exposure were less likely to recognise and look at a new
photograph after having seen one photograph. When they
were tested at four years of
age,
those children with more exposure had losses in
short-term memory on both verbal and quantitative
tests(10).
New report confirms cause for
concern
The Committee on Pesticides of the NRC studied whether
toxicity tests are sufficiently reliable in extrapolating
from young or mature animals to young children, and
reviewed the current state of knowledge about perinatal
and paediatric toxicity. Neurotoxic and immune system
effects can be critical in the developing child. Cancer
risk may be related to
age
at first exposure. The study also looked at toxicity
testing within the US registration system, the monitoring
of dietary exposure to pesticide residues in foods, and
the sources of exposure to pesticides other than in food.
The monitoring data examined dated from 1988 and earlier.
The Committee found quantitative and occasionally
qualitative differences in toxicity of pesticides between
adults and children. Qualitative differences are the
consequence of exposures during vulnerable periods of a
child’s development: one example cited is exposure to
chloramphenicol in newborn babies, which leads to
vascular collapse (grey baby syndrome). The quantitative
differences are due in part to
age-related
differences in biological factors such as absorption or
metabolisation. The extent of toxicity is also related
to size, immaturity, and variation in body composition.
The relative differences in toxicity between children and
adults were about 10-fold.
The Committee also found that infants and children
differed both qualitatively and quantitatively from
adults in their exposure to pesticide residues in foods.
However the Chair of the Committee, Dr. Philip Landrigan
stressed that: “Our report should not be a cause for
alarm . . . children should eat a wide variety of fruit
and vegetables to get the vitamins and minerals they
need, but the regulatory system needs to be changed.”(11)
The report recommended that:
Pesticides in children’s food is the subject of a further
report from the Environment Working Group, a non-profit
environmental research organisation(12). Using more
recent data from the period 1990-92, the report looks at
the patterns of food consumption of young children, and
the monitoring capabilities of US Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) laboratories. It considers that FDA
seriously under-reports pesticide residues in the food
supply. From 80% to 100% of residue analysis at five of
12 FDA regional laboratories were not capable of finding
80% of the pesticides used in agriculture.
This report, which also
considered the exposure of children to pesticides that
the US EPA considers probable or possible human
carcinogens, estimated that millions of US children
receive up to 35% of their entire lifetime dose of some
carcinogenic pesticides by
age
five. This pattern is most evident for pesticides used on
foods heavily consumed in the first years of life—in the
US these are the fungicides captan (35% of lifetime risk
by age
5) and benomyl (29%) and the insecticide dicofol (32%).
In contrast to the NRC report,
the Environment Working Group does not see a change in
regulatory procedures as the way forward. It also
stresses the importance of continuing to eat fresh fruit,
vegetables, and other staples, but advocates reducing the
use of pesticides in food production, including:
Responding to both reports, EPA’s Administrator Carol
Browner together with the FDA and the US Department of
Agriculture, announced its commitment to reducing the use
of pesticides, and to promoting sustainable
agriculture,(13) although exactly how was not specified.
Both reports would be used “as a basis for formulating
the legislative and regulatory policies needed to put the
Administration principles into effect.”
The UK position
Of the three pesticides identified in the Environment
Working Group’s report, benomyl is widely used in
horticulture, captan has considerably fewer uses and
dicofol has no approved uses. Residue monitoring is more
up-to-date than the data used by the NRC, and UK
authorities differ from the US EPA as to what pesticides
are carcinogens. Nevertheless, a number of concerns
remain.
The Pesticides Trust has written with
these concerns to the UK’s Advisory Committee on
Pesticides, the independent body of scientists that
advises government ministers. The ACP has since replied
saying it will examine in detail the NRC report at future
meetings.
|
I promise to answer your message -- click here to send me a personal message
|
SUBSCRIBE: The Wednesday Letter is a free electronic monthly newsletter written and published by Karl Loren. You can view more than 50 back issues of this publication by clicking here. The Wednesday Letter subscription list is maintained on a secure server, no name is ever given or sold to anyone, and it is never used except for this Newsletter. It is automatically published on the Tuesday night just before the first Wednesday of every month. You can subscribe to this free monthly electronic letter by entering your eMail address and name below. You will then automatically receive a request for confirmation, sent to whatever address you have entered. If you do NOT receive this confirmation request, then you will not be subscribed. There may have been an error with your address and you should resubmit. The letter is never sent twice to the same address -- so you do not have to worry about a duplicate subscription. When you receive this confirmation request you must reply to it, or your subscription will not become active. No one can subscribe your name, and address, without you being notified, and if you get an unwanted notice of subscription you only need to DO NOTHING and the subscription will NOT be active.
REMOVAL: You can remove yourself from the subscription list in several different ways. Click here to read about this entire newsletter system. Every edition of The Wednesday Letter is delivered to your address with YOUR name and address in view on the letter, with a link that allows you to remove THAT name from the subscription list. If you try to send this removal message from an address different from the one you used to send in your original confirmation, then you will get a warning notice first, sent to the subscription address, asking you to confirm that you want to be removed from the list -- by replying to THAT request for confirmation, you will then be automatically removed. Thus, no one else can unsubscribe you, from some other computer, without your knowledge. But, if you send in the unsubscribe notice from the same machine used to receive the Letter, then the removal from the subscription list is automatic.
Personal Message: When you send a personal message to Karl Loren, you will receive a personal reply as per his instructions. Karl pledges that every personal message will get a personal answer. When you provide your mail address, we will send you free information including our free catalog and a cassette tape lecture by Karl Loren about heart disease, no charge, by mail, even if outside the US. You can select particular information you would like to receive, along with the free cassette tape and catalog.
You can reach Vibrant Life in many ways, including by mail to Vibrant Life, 2808 N. Naomi St., Burbank, CA 91504. Within the US and Canada, use the toll free number: (800) 523-4521, the local number: (818) 558-1799, the FAX: (818) 558-7299, eMail to kimberly@oralchelation.com or any one of the hundreds of message forms throughout the 50 web sites. Vibrant Life normally ships the same day we get an order. There are message forms on each of the 100,000+ pages on this and other sites where you can communicate with Vibrant Life. Check out our companion site, at: http://www.oralchelation.net where Karl's 2000 page book is published. Karl Loren is the author and webmaster for this BOOK, as well as for another web site about ORAL CHELATION. His personal philosophical articles are at PHILOSOPHY.
Copyright © May 20, 2008 6:24 AM by Karl Loren on behalf of Vibrant Life, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Permission is granted for non-commercial downloading, copying, distribution or redistribution on two conditions: One, that some form of copyright notice is included in every copy distributed or copied, showing the copyright belonging to Vibrant Life, Burbank, CA, at www.oralchelation.com . The second condition is that the material is not to be used for any purpose contrary to the purposes and objectives of this site. This permission does not extend to materials on this site which are copyrighted by others.
