Since about 1945, children have been raised in novel chemical environments -- they have been exposed to toxic, human-made substances for which they have no biological preparation. Urban pesticides -- bug sprays, pet flea and tick products, hair treatments for lice and especially "cosmetic" pesticides to control weeds and insects in lawns and gardens -- are all contributors to this unprecedented chemical environment.

Although the evidence linking such chemicals to health impacts on children is not conclusive, it suggests that exposure to cosmetic pesticides represents a readily preventable source of harm to children.

By far, most of the pesticides used in and around the home are those employed in the quixotic quest for the perfect lawn -- weed free, immaculately manicured, and emerald green. Cosmetic pesticides and the lawn business make up a multibillion-dollar industry in North America.

In the US, 34 million kg of pesticides were applied to lawns and gardens in 1997. American home lawns occupy about 8.5 million hectares. That is more than is devoted to any agricultural crop, and larger than the province of New Brunswick. [1] A 1991 Canadian survey indicated that 66 percent of householders used lawn pesticides and 36 percent used a commercial lawn care company. [2]

While urban exposure to pesticides is virtually ubiquitous, indoors and out, home pesticide use constitutes the primary exposure site for children. Because toxins are carried in the blood and in some cases can cross the placenta, many children receive their first exposures while still in their mother's womb.

Every time children are exposed to pesticides, they are subject to complex mixtures of chemicals -- the active ingredients, formulants (the other ingredients that help in the transport and application of the pesticide), contaminants (formed as by-products of the manufacturing process), and metabolic breakdown products. In some cases, the various formulants, contaminants and metabolites may be more hazardous than the respective active ingredients. These exposures are multiple, cumulative and may be additive or synergistic in effect.

When it comes to chemical exposures, children are not "little adults". In fact, they are uniquely vulnerable to the hazards of pesticides. Children tend to be more exposed to toxics such as pesticides because they drink more, eat more, and breathe more, proportionately, than adults. Children are also less able to metabolize and excrete most toxic substances and their organ systems are more vulnerable because they are rapidly growing and developing.

Furthermore, children are more vulnerable on account of inadequacies in the regulatory process of setting standards and registering pesticides. The majority of pesticides (and other toxic substances) in commercial use today were evaluated based on the hypothetical healthy 70 kg adult male and not the 7-kg child, or the less-than-14-gram embryo.

A child's nervous system is particularly vulnerable to neurotoxins. Timing is all. Special "windows of vulnerability" exist -- brief periods early in development when exposure can permanently alter the structure or functioning of an organ system, like the brain.

A sense of urgency prevails among experts watching trends in children's health. The incidence of childhood cancer has increased in Canada and the United States over the past decades,[3] while our society is experiencing an epidemic of developmental, learning and behavioural disabilities -- part of what Dr. Philip Landrigan, calls the "new pediatric morbidity." [4]

While cosmetic pesticides are increasingly suspected as contributors to several of these trends, the strongest scientific evidence is available for cancer. Epidemiological studies have shown that home use of pesticides is associated with increased cancer risks in children.

A study by Jonathan Buckley and colleagues from the Children's Cancer Group found that children who had been exposed (in utero and in early childhood) to household pesticides and professional extermination methods within the home were three to seven times more likely to develop non-Hodgkin's lymphoma compared with children who had not been exposed. The more pesticide exposure the children had, the higher their lymphoma rates.[5]

James Davis and research associates from the Missouri Department of Health and the University of California-Berkeley, have found that the risk of childhood brain cancer increased more than five-fold in families that used pesticide bombs, no-pest strips and flea collars in or around the home. Brain cancer also posed an elevated risk in families that used pesticides to control garden insects, termites, head lice and garden weeds.[6]

In an article critically reviewing 31 studies published between 1970 and 1996, Julie Daniels, Andrew Olshan and David Savitz of the Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of North Carolina, assessed the risk of childhood cancer associated with exposure to pesticides through parental occupation or by residential use. [7] Daniels and her colleagues observed that childhood brain cancer and leukemia were the cancers most studied and that the researchers had found "fairly consistent, moderate increases in risk." [8]

It must be emphasized that while the epidemiological studies cited make a statistical correlation or link between exposures and various types of cancer, they do not necessarily imply or demonstrate a causal connection. However, awaiting definitive proof of harm is awaiting the impossible, and this strategically benefits those with vested interests in the status quo.

A philosophy of precaution dictates that when flying blind one slows down -- better safe than sorry. Protecting our children's health demands preventative and precautionary action on the part of our policy makers and the general public.

Cosmetic pesticides pose one of the most contentious and divisive issues facing communities in Canada and the US. Canada's Parliamentary Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development examined pesticide use and concluded that cosmetic pesticide use was as important a health issue as pesticide use in agriculture.[9] The committee concluded its report, Pesticides: Making the Right Choice for the Protection of Health and the Environment, by recommending that new cosmetic pesticides should not be registered for use in Canada and that existing compounds should be gradually phased out.

The use of pesticides for aesthetic purposes is being vigorously contested in communities across the country. Numerous municipalities already have restrictive pesticide policies in place. This includes, for example, 37 municipalities in Quebec plus the City of Halifax where pesticide bylaws cover both public and private property. In Ontario, at least 20 municipalities (including Toronto and Ottawa) are actively considering restrictive bylaw options.

Almost everywhere pesticide industries oppose these bylaws and policies. But in a recent precedent-setting case (Spraytech and Chemlawn v. Hudson, Quebec), the Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the right of municipalities to restrict the use of pesticides on both public and private property.

The majority of Supreme Court judges grounded the validity of the Hudson bylaw in international law and policy, specifically the precautionary principle. They ruled that local governments could take protective health measures without definitive scientific proof of harm. [10]

This will provide powerful and timely leverage for other municipalities across Canada to follow suit, and continues the irrepressible momentum of the alternatives to urban pesticides movement.

The movement to promote alternatives to urban pesticides has raised public awareness of the huge and unnecessary price we pay for maintaining that ordered, lifeless putting green known as the Canadian lawn. After all, dandelions don't cause cancer.

Notes

[1] F.H. Bormann, et al., Redesigning the American Lawn (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001).

[2]L.J. Struger, et al., Environmental Concentrations of Urban Pesticides (Ottawa: Environment Canada, 1994).

[3] A number of Canadian and US sources indicate agreement with the statistic that the incidence of pediatric cancer has increased by about one percent per year over the last 25 years. For Canadian children under 19, the overall incidence of cancer increased by 28 percent for the period 1970-2000, or about one percent per year. Other sources suggest that childhood cancer rates have stabilized since the early 1990s, and that the upsurge in the 1980s was an apparent one due to improved detection. For brief discussions of the incidence issue in Canada and the United States see K. Cooper, et al., Environmental Standard Setting and Children's Health (Toronto: Canadian Environmental Law Association and Ontario College of Family Physicians, Environmental Health Committee, May 25, 2000), pp. 70-71, available at ; Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (CAPE), Children's Environmental Health Project available at (accessed September 5, 2001); G. Solomon, "Cancer and the Environment: Childhood Cancer with Gina Solomon," WebMD Health (accessed September 5, 2001); and S. Lester, "Children and Chemicals," Everyone's Backyard, 16:3 (1998), pp. 12-14.

[4] T. Schettler, et al., In Harm's Way: Toxic Threats to Child Development (Cambridge Massachusetts: Greater Boston Physicians for Social Responsibility, 2000), available at . This ground-breaking report asserts that there is an "epidemic" of neurodevelopmental disabilities in the US, whether new or newly recognized. They offer as evidence statistics such as the estimate that nearly 12 million children (17 percent) under age 18 suffer from one or more developmental, learning, and behavioural disabilities. It is assumed that on account of similar environments, children in Canada suffer proportionately.

[5] J.D. Buckley, et al., "Pesticide Exposures in Children with Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma," Cancer, 89:11 (2000), pp. 2315-21.

[6] J.R. Davis, et al., "Family Pesticide Use and Childhood Brain Cancer," Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 24 (1993), pp. 87-92.

[7] J.L. Daniels, et al., "Pesticides and Childhood Cancers," Environmental Health Perspectives, 25:2 (1997), pp. 268-77.

[8] Daniels, ibid., p. 271.

[9] Report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development (Canadian House of Commons), Pesticides: Making the Right Choice for the Protection of Health and the Environment (Ottawa: Public Works and Government Services Canada, May 2000).

[10] The Internet source for the Supreme Court decision is .

Source

B. Lofquist, "Home Hazards: Residential Pesticides Pose Threats to Children's Health," Alternatives Journal, 28:1 (Winter 2002), pp. 25-26.