EPA Cutting Funds for Studies of Kids Health

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), have for more than two decades sponsored a network of centers that study children’s environmental health from before birth, but now the EPA has decided not to renew the support when it runs out in July.  According to the Journal Nature, these studies “are rare and valuable, because they can reveal associations between environmental exposures early in life and health problems years later.”  The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) does not have sufficient funding on its own to continue the projects, and the centers are worried that the EPA’s withdrawal will force them to shut down their important research that protects kids.

  • For example, the Columbia Center for Children’s Environmental Health in New York City since 1998 has collected samples of blood, urine and even the air in children’s homes, starting even before birth, to understand the impacts of chemicals and pollutants exposure on kids, and their work led to the City’s 2018 decision to phase out diesel buses.
  • The center at the University of Illinois is currently studying how chemicals in plastics and other common products for the home might impact reproduction.

Most importantly, the centers work with local organizations to educate communities about the findings of their studies, many of which address environmental risks that impact children from low-income neighborhoods.  In addition, EPA has basically sidelined its Office of Children’s Health Protection, which advises agency leaders on the special health needs of children.  They put the head of the office on administrative leave last September and have not told her why or brought her back.

Why This Matters:  Many believe that EPA is doing the bidding of the chemical industry — by stymieing research that could suggest the need for new or tougher regulations, they can keep them from ever happening.  What you don’t know about kids’ health can’t hurt them, right?  As Tracey Woodruff, who runs the children’s center at the University of California, San Francisco explained, as the agency weighs costs/harms of a chemical against its benefits, she says, “if EPA doesn’t know, it counts for zero.”

Up Next

Climate Change Risks the Lifelong Health of All Kids Alive Today

Climate Change Risks the Lifelong Health of All Kids Alive Today

According to the Lancet’s 2019 Countdown report, the worst effects of climate change will fall to the youngest, and most dire for them lie ahead.

Bottom Line: Children alive today stand to experience significant public health risks unless we take drastic action on climate change.

Continue Reading 294 words
Limit Science By Requiring “Transparency” — EPA’s New Strategy

Limit Science By Requiring “Transparency” — EPA’s New Strategy

The New York Times reported on Monday that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is preparing to issue a new draft of a controversial rule they floated once before, but have now expanded, that would request raw data for nearly every study the EPA considers in preparing regulatory rulemakings, including confidential medical records.

Why This Matters: Scientists and public health groups believe that this proposal will not increase the reliability and public accountability of the rulemaking process.  Instead, this rule will make it more difficult to enact new clean air and water rules because many studies linking pollution to health problems rely on patient information provided under confidentiality agreements. 

Continue Reading 474 words
J & J Pulls 33,000 Bottles of Baby Powder After Asbestos Traces Are Found in Testing

J & J Pulls 33,000 Bottles of Baby Powder After Asbestos Traces Are Found in Testing

Johnson & Johnson (J&J), the makers of baby powder and many other baby and beauty products, was forced to recall 33,000 bottles of baby powder in the United States after the Food and Drug Administration found trace amounts of asbestos, a known carcinogen, in samples taken from a bottle purchased online.  The recall caused retailers like Target and CVS Drug Stores to remove all 22 oz J&J baby powder products from their shelves, even those not covered by the recall, and stock prices for the company took a hit.

Why This Matters:  J&J has maintained that its powder products do not contain asbestos — but now that the government testing revealed traces of asbestos, the company is at even greater risk of losing the public’s trust.

Continue Reading 572 words