Children	in	Jeopardy:	Anthropogenic Toxins	and	Childhood	Exposure Russell	A	Butkus	and	Steven	A	Kolmes Introduction "In	the	Christian	view,	our	treatment	of	children	becomes	a	measure	of	our	fidelity to	the	Lord	himself." John	Paul II, 1981	Apostolic	Exhortation,	Familiaris Consortia One	could	make	a	compelling	argument	that,	from	the	perspective	of	Catholic	social	teaching (CST),	the	value	and	treatment	of	children	is	an	essential	standard	by	which	public	health	and social	justice	must	be	measured.	They	are	some	of	the	most	vulnerable	members	of	the	human family.	The	vulnerability	of	children,	particularly	to	humanly	produced	environmental	toxins, was	recently	highlighted	by a	group	of	two hundred	scientists who gathered	on the Faroe Islands in late	May 2007 for the first International Conference on Fetal	Programming	and Developmental	Toxicity.	With	a	focus	on	pediatric	toxicology,	the researchers released a statement titled "The Faroes Statement:	Human	Health	Effects	of	Developmental	Exposure to	Environmental	Toxicants".	1	In	their	conclusion they	state	that	"The	accumulated	research evidence	suggests	that	prevention	of	efforts	against	toxic	exposures	to	environmental	chemicals should	focus	on	protecting	the	fetus	and	small	child	as	highly	vulnerable	populations.	Given	the ubiquitous	exposure	to	many	environmental	toxicants,	there	needs	to	be	renewed	effort to prevent harm" (7). This conference statement appears to	affirm the	new and growing research indicating that pre and postnatal	infants	in	the	U.S.	are	increasingly	at	risk	of exposure	to	a	wide	spectrum	of	toxic	industrial	chemicals,	herbicides,	pesticides	and	heavy metals. It is	well established in	medical research that neurotoxins Published	as: Children	in	Jeopardy:	Anthropogenic	Toxins	and	Childhood	Exposure. Journal	of	Catholic	Social	Thought	7	(1):	83-114.	2010. 1	Conference on Fetal Programming and Developmental Toxicity. Torshavn,	Faroe	Islands. The	Faroes Statement: Human	Health	Effects of	Developmental Exposure to Environmental Toxicants. 24 Nlay 2007 <mV\v.precaution.orgllib/faroes_statement_	text.070524.htm>. like	lead	and	methylmercury are	extremely	dangerous	for	developing	children. Yet in spite of this knowledge the EPA states, in its 1997 Mercury Study	Report to Congress, that 7%	of women	of	childbearing	age have elevated blood mercury concentrations and that 300,000 infants each	year	may	have increased risk of	having developmental	problems	due	to	in	utero exposure to methylmercury.2 Regarding lead, Steven Gilbert of the Institute of Neurotoxicology and	Neurological	Disorders	reports	that ''lead	exposure remains	a	significant hazard in the	U.S. and around the world with significant numbers of children age 1-5	with elevated	blood	lead	levels"	(524).3 The	data	on	lead,	PCBs, and	mercury exposure and	the	consequential	health impacts on	children are troubling enough; however, very recent ground breaking research released by the Environmental Working	Group	(EWG)	forces	us	to	re-imagine	the	extent	to	which	pre	and	postnatal infants are exposed to toxic industrial chemicals, many of which are commonly found in household products. In	a	follow-up	study	to	its	initial research on	Body	Burden, The	Pollution in People (2003), the EWG released in July 2005 its report titled Body Burden, The Pollution in Newborns. Self-described as "A benchmark investigation of industrial	chemicals,	pollutants,	and pesticides	in	human	umbilical	cord	blood"	this	research	can	only	be	described	as	startling.	(1)4	Body burden is	the	term used	by	environmental	toxicologists to	refer to	the	toxic	burden of	pollutants carried in the human body. In the EWG research study on infants, researchers analyzed the umbilical cord	blood	of	ten	newborn	babies	in	the	U.S.	between	August	and	September	2004.	The test results revealed a total of 287 chemicals found in umbilical cord blood. According to Jane Houlihan and her colleagues, "This study represents the first reported	cord	blood tests for	261 of	the targeted chemicals and	the	first	reported	detections	in	cord	blood	for	209	compounds"	(7). Furthermore they	state: "Of	the	287	chemicals	we	detected	in	umbilical	cord	blood,	we	know	that 180	cause cancer in	humans or animals, 21	7	are toxic to the	brain and	nervous	system,	and	208 cause	birth	defects	or	abnormal	development	in	animal	tests"	(7-8). The gravity of EWG's ground breaking study on the body burden of infants is	compounded by the	fact	that current federal	legislation in	the 2	United States. Environmental Protection Agency. Mercury: Human Exposure	. 28 May 2007 <www.epa.gov/mercury/esposure.htm>. 3	Gilbert,	Steven	G.	"Ethical,	Legal	and	Social	Issues:	Our	Children's	Future."	NeuroToxicology.	26	(2005):	522-527. 4 Houlihan, Jane, et al. Bod y Burden: The	Pollution in	Newborns. July 14, 2005. Washington,	D.C.:	Environmental	Working	Group.	28 May	2007	<www.ewg.org/ reports/bodyburden21>.	1,	13,	16,	27-29, 31,	35. U.S. on safeguarding children from toxic exposure is at best mixed and at worse appallingly inadequate. On the upside, the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 has, according to EWG, reduced the exposure of	children to	a	host of	very dangerous pesticides (28). On	the	downside, there is virtually no protection specifically focused on children to reduce or eliminate their exposure	to	toxic industrial chemicals.	Bear	in	mind	that	the	U. S.	manufactures or	imports	nearly 75,000 chemicals a year, most of which have never been tested for safety regarding human health. The	primary culprit in	the	lack	of adequate control is	the	woefully	weak and ineffective Toxic Substance and Control Act of 1976, particularly when one factors in the unique vulnerability	of infants	and	young	children.	According	to	Houlihan and	company,	"The	government gives children no explicit protection under the federal law	meant to ensure the safety of other chemicals (the Toxic Substance Control Act), even though risks from childhood exposure to industrial chemicals are no lower than those from pesticides" (21). In EWG's judgment, "fetal exposure	to	industrial	chemicals	is	quite	literally	out	of	control"	(27). The scenario briefly outlined above raises the question whether the primary issue is more intensive toxicological research on childhood exposure and health impacts or whether the heart of the	matter is the creation of	adequate	public	policy and	advocacy for	children. It	is Steven Gilbert's view that "in many cases we have more than enough information	on	the effects	of	hazardous	chemicals	on	children's	health to	make	rational	policy decision	to	protect health and prevent harm" (522). Itis with this assessment in mind that this paper will investigate	and	analyze, in	some	measured	detail,	four	basic	aspects	of	children's exposure to environmental toxins and	how this public phenomenon	ought	to	be	interpreted	and	assessed through the lens of Catholic social teaching. To begin, our analysis will summarize and highlight key scientific	findings	on	toxic	chemical	exposure	to	pre-natal	and	newborn children and	why,	given	the	unique	biological	characteristics	of	infants, they	are	particularly vulnerable. Vulnerability of children to environmental	toxicity is	also	a	function	of	economic	class.	Poor and	minority	children	are	more	susceptible	to	toxic	exposure.	This	scientific	assessment	will	also highlight	the	primary	health	threats	to	children	exposed	to	anthropogenic	toxicants. Second, this paper will offer a brief analysis and summary of current federal legislation that directly impacts children's	health as	it	relates to the control	or	lack	of	control of	toxic	chemicals. The	case	will	be	made	that children and their health	are	not, as a rule, important factors in	the creation of public policy and that there is an urgent need for sound policy that will protect infants	and	young	children from	harm. Third, our investigation	will assess	the	reality	of	childhood exposure from	the	perspective of Catholic	social	teaching.	While	CST	has	a	long	tradition of	advocacy	for	children in	cultivating	a culture of life and justice, the issue of toxic exposure has gone unrecognized in official documents (e.g.	pastoral letters)	on	children.	Nevertheless a	compelling case from	CST can and must be made that-from within the modern Catholic rights tradition-children have a right	to	an	environment	free	of	harmful	chemical	exposure.	Given	this	rights	tradition	our	fourth point of analysis	will	be that the	U. S.	Church, as	an	expression of its mission in the public domain, must increase its advocacy for	better	public	policy	in	the	protection	of	children	from harmful exposure and the negative, and often irreversible health impacts of environmental toxins.	This	is	a	matter	of	social	and	environmental	justice. A	Scientific	Assessment: Infant	Development, Pathways of	Exposure	and	Health	Impacts of	Anthropogenic Environmental	Toxins Routes of Exposure The	pathways	by	which	infants	and	children	are	exposed	to	environmental toxins are often subtle	and invisible. Toxic	exposure doesn't	require	a	pregnant	mother	who	consumes	alcohol or a father who fills the home environment with secondhand cigarette smoke. The pathways of	exposure aren't limited to	urban life	or	poor neighborhoods,	although poor children tend to	be	more susceptible.	Vulnerability to	toxic	exposure	begins	with	the	prenatal	exchange of	materials	between	mother and child through the umbilical cord and continues through breast	feeding.	As	infants	develop	motor	skills	like	thumb-sucking	and	crawling	they	are	exposed to	common	household	contaminants	such	as	dust and toys that often end up in their mouth. The contamination continues through childhood exposure to what appears to be healthy food and air. Environmental toxins that can irreparably diminish the	quality	of	later life	are often	invisible,	detectable	only	with	expensive	and	sophisticated	analytical	instrumentation. Infants and children are rapidly growing organisms, with cell divisions taking place and biological tissues and	organs forming.	This	makes them especially susceptible to acquiring large amounts of toxic	material into	their developing	bodies, and	also	susceptible to the	development of uncontrolled cell divisions known as pediatric cancer. Neurological development occurs rapidly through the infant and childhood year, with brain development taking place as an elaborate process that becomes threatened if	neurotoxins arc	present	at	crucial	moments.	5 Crawling and	hand to mouth behaviors increase uptake of	a wide variety	of materials (Gilbert	523). For	example,	the typical sensory-motor activity of children exposes them to the toxic contamination of dust that includes	heavy	metals and	pesticides.	6 Infants	and	children	are	also	especially	vulnerable to	toxins	because	their bodily defenses are incomplete. They	have an	immature bloodbrain	barrier	that	lets	more	toxins	pass	from	their circulation	into	their	central	nervous	system	that	would	not	occur	with	an	adult.	Children	have lower levels of chemical binding proteins that would protect an adult from toxins reaching their vital organs. Infant biochemistry is	also less capable of detoxification and excretion of poisons than an	adult. These developmental characteristics, combined with a child's longer lifespan,	increases	the	time	for	negative	consequences	to	develop	creating	an	unusual potential for	impacting	human	health	from	environmental	toxic	exposures	(Houlihan	13). The special vulnerability of the young, along with the involuntary nature of the risks to which they are exposed, makes this a crucial issue. An	unborn child cannot choose what materials enter it through the estimated 75 quarts of blood passing daily through the umbilical cord at four months gestation, or the roughly 300 quarts of umbilical cord blood that provide a	nine	month old	unborn infant	with daily	nutrients	and oxygen (Houlihan	16). Neither can a nursing	child	choose	to	drink	breast	milk	that	contains	fewer	toxins.	As	parents and	as a society,	choices are made for children	at particularly fragile	moments	in	their	life. These	choices	are	often	made	in	ignorance, since	parents may know nothing of the health threats that surround the	pregnant	mother	or	the	nursery. 5 Faustman, E. M., et al. "Mechanisms Underlying Children's Susceptibility to Environmental Toxicants." Environmental Health Perspectives 108, Supplement 1(2000):	13-21 and	Rice, D. and S. Barone, Jr. "Critical Periods of	Vulnerability for the Developing Nervous System: Evidence from	Humans and	Animal Models,"	Environmental	Health Perspectives 108,	Supplement 3	(2000): 511-533. 6 Cohen, Hubel, et al. Children's Exposure Assessment: A Review of Factors Influencing	Children's	Exposure, and the Data Available to Characterize and Assess	that Exposure."	Environmental	Health Perspectives	108	(2000): 457-486; Lioy, P. J., N. C. Freeman and J. R. Millette. "Dust: A Metric for Use in	Residential and Building	Exposure	Assessment	and	Source	Characterization." Environmental	Health	Perspectives 110 (2000): 969-983 and Simcox, N. J., et al. "Pesticides in Household Dust and Soil:	Exposure Pathways	for	Children	of	Agricultural	Families."	Environmental	Health	Perspectives	103	(1995):	1126-1134. Toxins known to enter unborn children through the umbilical	cord	include methlymercury and inorganic mercury. Mercury also passes from mother to infant via breast milk, with methylmercury passing	more readily.7	Methylmercury is absorbed by mothers when they eat predatory fish (e.g. albacore tuna, salmon, mackerel, shark, swordfish,	etc). Inorganic mercury exposure results from mercury leaching out of amalgam dental fillings and from atmospheric mercury released	from	coal	burning power plants and	other industrial facilities. It should	also	be noted, however, that consumption of	fish	low in	mercury	during	pregnancy is actually beneficial for	the unborn	child's brain	development.	8 Prenatal exposure	to	DDE (a	breakdown product of	DDT,	now	banned in the U.S. but persistent and still widely used around the world) is demonstrable in children whose umbilical cord blood has been sampled.9 Fish consumption, especially of predatory fish, is often linked to higher maternal levels of DDE as well as other fat soluble contaminants like PCBs. The most egregious situation is for Alaskan natives	and Canadian Inuit,	whose excessive blood DDE levels are associated	with their diet of marine mammals and predatory fish, but who live in	a region that	never	used	DDT	to	protect crops.10 The Body	Burden report	stated that an average of 200 chemicals	was found in any one baby's umbilical cord blood. Among the chemical	compounds discovered were eight	perfluorocarbons used in	fast	food	packaging	and clothing, including PFOA, categorized as a likely	human	carcinogen by the EPA:s	Science Advisory	Board. Other toxins included	dozens of the brominated flame retardants	and many pesticides (Houlihan 31, 33). Brominated flame retardants, also known as polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) are absorbed by mothers due to the high	U.S.	background level	and passed	through	breast	milk.	These	are	toxic 7	Bjornberg, Karolin	A., et al. Transport of	Methylmercury	and Inorganic Mercury	to	the	Fetus	and	Breastfed Infant." Environmental Health Perspectives 113 (2005):	1381-1385, and	Grandjean, Philippe, et al. "Umbilical	Cord Mercury Concentration	as Biomarker of Prenatal Exposure."	Environmental Health	Perspectives	113	(2005):	905-908. 8	Oken,	E.,	et	al.	"Maternal	Fish	Consumption,	Hair	Mercury,	and	Infant	Cognition in	a	U.S.	Cohort."	Environmental	Health	Perspectives	113	(2005):	1376-1380. 9	Sunyer,	Jordi,	et	al.	"Prenatal	Dichlorodipheylydichloroethylene	(DDE)	and	Asthma	in	Children."	Environmental	Health	Perspectives	113 (2005):	1787-1790. 10	United	States.	National	Environmental	Justice	Advisory	Council,	Federal	Advisory	Committee	to	the	U.	S.	Environmental	Protection Agency.	2002.	Fish	Consumption and Environmental Justice. 15	May	2007 <http://w\vw.epa.gov/compliance/environmentaljustice/nejac/fish-consump-recom-report.html>. materials that	the U.S. and Canada allow for use as fire retardants	(in furniture, computers, TVs, automobiles, etc.) despite medical evidence	that	has resulted in the banning	of PBDEs by the	European	Union. The average level of brominated fire retardants in the breast	milk of 20 first-time U.S. mothers was approximately 75 times higher than was found in European women.11 PEDE concentrations in breast	milk in	the	U.S. correlated to	concentrations in	house dust	and	increased	maternal	consumption	of	dairy	products and	meat.	12 In Salinas Valley, California, scientists collected urinary samples from	low-income	women	in agricultural settings	and	discovered	elevated levels of organophosphate pesticides during pregnancy and the breastfeeding period.	13	These	highly soluble	materials	were	passing to their	children	before	and	after	birth.	A	large	study	in	Washington	State	concluded	that	children in	agricultural	communities	had	greater	levels	of	pesticide	contamination	during	crop	spraying and if they lived with someone who applied pesticides. 14 Pesticides in agricultural communities	might be in the air,	water, food, on parents' clothing or concentrated in	toxic waste sites.	A study of 5,302 fetal	deaths in	Washington State	found no overall relationship between fetal	death	rates	and	proximity of the mothers' residences to known toxic waste sites,	but for	waste	sites	specifically	known	to	contain	pesticides	a	small	but	significant	increase in	fetal	deaths	occurred	when	the	residence	of	the	pregnant	woman	was	within five	miles of the	toxic site.	The	risk of fetal	death	increased	slightly	with	every	mile	closer	to	the	waste	site where	the	pregnant	woman	lived.15 A	recent study	of	the	efficiency	of	perfluorinated compounds (PFCs)	transferred	between	mother and	child by breast feeding indicated	PFC exposure of children at levels that raises serious questions of 11Lunder, Sonya and	Renee Sharp.	Mother's 1Vfilk,	Record Levels of Toxic	Fire Retardants Found in	American Mothers 'Breast Milk	. 2003. Washington, D.C.:	Environmental	Work Group. 16	May 2007 <http://www.ewg.org/reports/mothersmilk>. 16, 27-31. 12	Wu,	N., et	al.	Human	Exposure to	PBDEs:	Association of	PEDE	Body	Burdens	with Food Consumption and	House	Dust Concentrations." Environmental Science and	Technology 41(2007):1584-1589. 13 Brachnan, Asa, et al. "Organophosphate Urinary Metabolite Levels During Pregnancy and After Delivery in	Women Living in	an Agricultural Community."	Environmental	Health	Perspectives 113	(2005):	1802-1807. 14	Fenske,	R.,	et	al.	"Biologic	Monitoring	to	Characterize	Organophosphorus	Pesticide Exposure Among Children and Workers: An Analysis of Recent Studies in	Washington	State." Environmental Health	Perspectives 113	(2005):	1651-1657. 15	Mueller, B., et al. "Fetal Deaths and	Proximity to	Hazardous	Waste Sites in	Washington	State."	Environmental	Health	Perspectives 115	(2007):	776-780. health risks, sufficient	for	the	study	authors to	call	for	an assessment	of hazardous	exposure via nursing.	16	PFCs are linked in laboratory animals to	liver and	testicular cancer, immune system disorders, birth defects, and other medical issues. PCFs are a component	of nonstick	coatings, fabric, leather, food packaging,	and other	industrial uses. Neurodevelopment and	Anthropogenic	Environmental Toxins The development of the human brain, in prenatal and early childhood periods, is especially vulnerable to	environmental toxins.	Alterations in	brain development are	irreversible, and	lead	to some degree of diminution in cognitive capacity, ability to maintain mental concentration, sensory deficits, and so forth. Cause for alarm is the fact that autism has increased tenfold from	the	early	1980s	to	1996,	and	higher ambient	levels	of	heavy	metals and	chlorinated solvents increase the	number of	children	born with the disease.	17	A recent study indicates that a link appears to exist between the proximity of maternal residence during pregnancy to pesticide applications, and increases in autism spectrum	disorders due to pesticide drift.	Two	pesticides, the organochlorine compounds dicofol and endosulfan are specifically implicated in the California	Central Valley.18	Other neurological disorders are also on	the	rise in our increasingly contaminated world. As noted above, methylmercury is a dangerous neurotoxin. Research has found that methlymercury and inorganic mercury, passing through umbilical cord blood and	breast	milk, cause'	measurable neuropsychological deficits when children are subsequently tested at age seven.19	A	recent analysis of prenatal mercury dose	versus IQ	estimated that the	IQ	of children diminished by 0.18	IQ	points	for	every	part	per	million 16 Karrman, Anna, et al. "Exposure of Perfluorinated Chemicals Through Lactation: Levels of Matched Human Mill<: and Semm and a Temporal	Trend, 1996-2004, in	Sweden."	Environmental Health Perspectives 115	(2007):	226-230. 17	Year:gin-Allsopp, M., et	al. "Prevalence of	Autism in a	US	Metropolitan Area." Journal of the	American Medical	Association 289	(2003):	49-55. 18	Roberts, E. I.,	et al.	Maternal Residence Near	Agricultural Pesticide Applications	and	Autism	Spectrum	Disorders among	Children	in the	California Central	Valley.	Environmental	Health	Perspectives 115	(2007):	1482-1489. 19 Grandjean et al; Bjornberg et al.; Rice, D. C. "Neurotoxicity of Lead, Methylmercury, and PCBs in Relation to the Great Lakes." Environmental	Health Perspectives 103, Supplement 9 (1995): 71-97; Clarkson, T. W "Mercury: Major Issues in Environmental Health." Environmental Health Perspectives100 (1992): 31-38; Gilbert, S. G., and K. S. Grant-Webster. ''Neurobehavioral Effects of Developmental Methylmercury Exposure."	Environmental	Health	Perspectives 6	(1995):	135-142. increase	in	maternal	hair	mercury concentrations	during	pregnancy.20 The	authors	noted that their study of IQ deficits did not take into account the possibility of additional diminution of attention and	motor skills. In addition to methylmercury, low-level lead exposure also damages	children's	intellectual	development. In	a	study	of	1,333	children,	it was found that when blood lead levels went from 2.4 micrograms per deciliter to 30 micrograms	per	deciliter,	IQ	decreased	by	6.9	points.21 These findings are consistent with earlier studies linking higher lead exposure to lower mental functioning and behavioral difficulties. There appears to be no "threshold" below which	exposure	is	safe.22 Research has also shown	that PEDEs,	which pass to infants via	breast milk cause memory deficits, learning and hearing impairment	and	other sensory	deficiencies.	23	PEDE exposure at	cr1tical	moments	in	prenatal brain development can cause permanent harm. PEDE levels as	low	as	four	parts	per	billion (ppb)	in	animal	brain tissue	or	12	ppb	in	animal	brain fat	cause permanent brain damage.	Thirty percent of	U.S.	women have	more than 12	ppb of	PEDE in the fat of their breast milk, and it is not known how that corresponds to resulting concentrations	of	PEDE in infant	brain tissue.24 Another toxic chemical, hexachlorohenze (HCE) an organochlorine,	used in agriculture	and industry, crosses the placenta	and also enter newborns via breast milk. A study looked at HCE levels in umbilical cord blood, and then tested for mental attributes of the same children at four years of age. Children exposed to HCE at higher concentrations exhibited significantly poorer social competence scores and attentiondeficit-hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)	scores.25 20 Axelrad,	D. A., et al. "Dose-Response Relationship of Prenatal Mercury Exposure	and IQ: An Integrative Analysis of Epidemiological Data.''	Environmental Health Perspectives 115	(2007):	609-615. 21	Lanphear,	B.,	et	al.	"Low-Level	Lead	Exposure and	Children's	Intellectual Function:	An	International	Pooled	Analysis.''	Environmental Health	Perspectives 113	(2005):	894-899. 22 Schnaas, L.,	et	al.	"Reduced	Intellectual Development in	Children	with	Prenatal Lead Exposure.'' Environmental Health Perspectives 114 (2006): 791-797 and Hu, H., et al. "Fetal Lead Exposure at Each Stage of Pregnancy as	a	Predictor of	lnfant	Mental	Development."	Environmental	Health	Perspectives	114	(2006):	1730-1735. 23 Lunder	and	Sharp,	16. 24	Lunder	and	Sharp,	27-31. 25	Ribas-Fito,	N.,	et	al.	"Exposure	to	Hexachlorobenzene	During	Pregnancy	and Children's Social Behavior at Four Years of	Age."	Environmental	Health Perspectives 115	(2006):	447-450. Exposure to	heavy	metals, chlorinated solvents.	and	DDE is	also	detrimental to	neurological and psychomotor development. For example, in the San Francisco Bay area, concentrations of heavy metals and chlorinated solvents in ambient air proximate to children's homes were positively associated	with	incidence of	autism	spectrum	disorders. Because the	levels	of	various air pollutants are often highest in the same areas, the study was unable to identify the specific heavy metals or chlorinated solvents to which prenatal or early childhood exposure was the probable cause of the increased autism.26 Furthermore, research indicates that prenatal exposure to DDE has a critical window	during the first trimester of pregnancy, during which increased exposure reduces psychomotor development measured during the infants' first year after birth. Psychomotor index deficits are consistent from the first to the twelfth month	of	life.27 Respiratory	Disease	and	Anthropogenic	Environmental Toxins Children in the U.S. today are experiencing what can only be described as an epidemic of asthma.	Childhood asthma doubled	between	1982	and	1993.28	Approximately 2.3	million	children with	asthma	in	the U.S.	live	in	parts	of	the	country	with	unhealthy	ozone	levels	in	the	air, 2.1	million	children	with	asthma	live	in	areas	with	high	levels	of	particulate	pollution for	part	of	the year and 1.3	million children	with asthma	live	inareas	with high levels	of	particulate pollution for all	of	the	year.29	Moreover,	DDE,	implicated	above	as	a	neurotoxin,	has	also	been	shown	to cause childhood respiratory disorders. Researchers studied prenatal	exposure	to	DDE	in	children	whose umbilical	cord	blood	was	sampled	in	a	study	of	asthma.	Subsequent	wheezing (at	four	years	of	age) increased	with	DDE	concentration	in	umbilical	cord	blood	at	birth.30 A	study	in	which	2,496	rural	households in	Keokuk	County,	Iowa	were analyzed indicated positive associations between living on a farm that raised swine	and asthmatic conditions, and	also	for asthmatic	conditions 26 Windham,	G. C., et al. Autism Spectrum Disorders in Relation to Distribution	of Hazardous	Air Pollutants in the San Francisco Bay Area. Environmental Health	Perspectives 114 (2006): 1438-1444. 27	Torres-Sanchez, L.,	at	el.	"In	Utero	p,p'-DDE	Exposure	and	Infant	Neurodevelopment:	A	Perinatal Cohort	in	Mexico."	Environmental Health	Perspectives 115	(2007):	435-439. 28	United States. Centers	for Disease	Control and Prevention. "AsthmaUnited	States,	1982-1993."Morbidity	and	Mortality	Weekly Report	43	(1995):	952-955. 29 United States.	American Lung	Association. 2007. State of the	Air. 17	May 2007: 6. <http://lungaction.org/reports/sota07_full.html>. 30	Sunyer	et	al.	1787-1790. and	living	on	a	farm	that	added	antibiotics	to	animal	feed.31	Swine	farms often	have	high	levels	of odor	associated	with	increased	levels	of	hydrogen sulfide,	total	reduced sulfur, and ammonia.	A study	of	swine	odors	inside North	Carolina schools determined that odor carried in by the	wind was	significantly	more	prevalent in	schools	that	had	a	higher proportion of	minority students	or a	higher proportion of	poorer students. Minority or	poor students	attended schools closer on	average	to	swine	operations	(4.9	miles	on average)	than	others	(10.8	miles	average).32 When 691 newborn infants were assessed for respiratory issues for roughly 83 days in southwestern Virginia, atmospheric ozone levels	were linked to increasing incidence of	wheeze for children of nonasthmatic mothers. Asthmatic	mothers	had infants	with increasing incidence of wheeze as ozone levels increased, and also resulted in infants experiencing difficulty breathing.	33 The	ozone levels in this study	were	near or below levels currently permissible by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. It is also known that early-life susceptibility to bronchitis is	linked to	ambient	polycyclic aromatic	hydrocarbon (PAR)	and	fine	particulate matter concentrations, with	preschool age	children	apparently especially vulnerable to illnesses induced by	air	pollution.	34 Premature	Birth,	Birth	Defects and	Anthropogenic	Environmental	Toxins Substantial	health problems such	as	pulmonary and	neurological difficulties are	often associated with	premature	birth	or	low	birth	weight.	Preterm	birth in the U.S. has increased	23% from the mid 1980s to 2002.35 In a study of birth records from four Pennsylvania counties, maternal exposure prior to birth to particulate pollution (PM10)	or sulfur dioxide increased the risk of preterm birth.36 In	California, a	large 31	Merchant,	J.	A.,	et	al.	''Asthma	and	Farm	Exposures	in	a	Cohort	of	Rural	Iowa Children."	Environmental Health	Perspectives 113	(2005):	350-356. 32 Mirabelli, M. C., et al. "Race, Poverty, and Potential Exposure of Middle School Students to Air Emissions from Confined Swine Feeding	Operations." Environmental	Health	Perspectives 114	(2006):	591-596. 33	Triche, E.	W., et	al. ''Low-Level Ozone Exposure and Respiratory Symptoms in Infants.	"Environmental	Health	Perspectives	114	(2006):	911-916. 34	Hertz-Picciotto, I.,	et	al.	"Early	Childhood	Respiratory Illness	and	Air	Pollution." Environmental Health	Perspectives	115	(2007): 1510-1518. 35 Sagiv, S.	K., et	al. "A	Time-Series	Analysis of	Air	Pollution and	Preterm	Birth	in Pennsylvania,	1997-2001."Environmental	Health	Perspectives	113	(2005):	602-606. 36 Ananth, C. V.,.	et al. "Rates	of	Preterm Delivery among Black	Women and	White Women in	the United States Over Two Decades: An Age-Period-Cohort Analysis." American Journal of	Epidemiology 154	(2001):	657-665. study	was	conducted	to	examine	the	relationship	between	air	pollution	and undesirable birth outcomes for over six	hundred thousand	newborns. Researchers	used	birth certificate data on gestational age and birth weight, the addresses of mothers, and levels of carbon monoxide and particulate matter under ten	microns in diameter (PM10)	measured	during pregnancy at	the	closest air	monitoring station to the mothers' homes. The prevalence of preterm birth was linked to high carbon	monoxide exposures during	the	first	trimester, and prevalence	of low	birth	weight	was	linked	to	high	carbon	monoxide	exposures	during the third trimester. PM	10	exposures	were linked	to	early	and late pregnancy	with preterm birth and low birth weight.	37 A strong correlation also	existed	between increasing	ozone	levels	and	decreasing	birth weights during the second and third trimesters.38 Researchers also discovered that disinfectant byproducts (DBPs) from	municipal drinking water treatment facilities had effects on prenatal human development. A study of all live births and fetal deaths (totaling 48,119 individuals) was conducted from 1998-2003 in an Arizona community that was served by three	water	treatment	facilities	producing	varying	levels	of	DBPs in	drinking	water. The	study	demonstrated that dibromatic acid had a critical window of 33-40 weeks of	gestation during which greater exposure produced low birth weights	and intrauterine growth retardation. Dichloroacetic acid	had a critical	window	of	37-40	weeks	of	gestation	during which	greater	exposure	also	produced low	birth	weights and intrauterine growth retardation.	39 Hypospadia is	a	birth defect	in	which	the	urethra of	infant	boys develops abnormally, usually on the underside of the penis. Application of pesticides with estrogenic or anti-androgenic properties (mimicking female	hormones	or	blocking	male	hormones)	has	been shown to	produce hypospadia in laboratory animals. In	Arkansas the	presence of	the	herbicide	diclofop-methly	on	a field	within	500	meters	(roughly	500	yards)	of	a	subject's	home	dm*ing	gestational	weeks	6	16	was associated	with	an	increase	in	hypospadia.40	Another	birth defect impacting infant	boys is 37 Wilhelm,	M., and B. Ritz. "Local Variations in	CO and Particulate Air Pollution and Adverse Birth Outcomes in Los Angeles County, California, USA."	Environmental	Health Perspectives	113	(2005): 1212-1221. 38	Salaam,	NL	T.,	et	al.	"Birth	Outcomes	and	Prenatal Exposure to	Ozone, Carbon Monoxide, and Particulate Matter: Results from the Children's Health Study."	Environmental	Health	Perspectives 113	(2005):	16381644. 39	Hinckley, A. F., A. M. Bach	and and J. S. Reif. "Late Pregnancy Exposures to Disinfection By-Products and	Growth-Related Birth	Outcomes."	Environmental Health Perspectives 113	(2003):	1808-1813. 40	Meyer,	K.	J.,	et	al.	"Agricultural	Pesticide	Us*e	and	Hypospadias	in	Eastern	Arkansas."	Environmental	Health	Perspectives 114	(2006): 1589-1595. cryptorchidism (undescended testicles). Studies	have	linked	this	condition to	mothers	with	higher levels of organochlorine pesticides in their breast milk. The total organochlorine load of the mother, rather than any specific pesticide, seemed to be related to this lack of testicular descent	in	the	fetus.41	Prenatal	PBDE	exposure	and	higher	PBDE	levels in	breast	milk	also	increase rates	of	cryptorchidism.42 Pediatric	Cancer	and	Anthropogenic	Environmental Toxins Premature and newborn infants are masses of frenetic cellular activity as cells divide and differentiate, tissues emerge and organize themselves into vital organs, and a complete human body emerges.	When environmental toxins are introduced into this situation they can cause	many things, but if the cells begin to divide without their typical control mechanisms acting	properly,	cancers can	develop. Two	well documented	increases	in pediatric	cancer	are the 62% increase in acute lymphocytic leukemia from 1973-1999, and the 40% increase in childhood brain	cancer	from	1973-1994.43 A study of childhood brain cancer in the eastern U.S. compared proximity between the mother's residence during pregnancy and the closest Environmental Protection Agency regulated Toxics Release Inventory (TRI)	site.	TRI	sites	are	federally licensed to	release toxins at specified maximum levels, and may be large or small scale commercial facilities. The study showed that increased risks of brain	cancer, diagnosed before age five, existed for children of	mothers	who	lived	within	one	mile	of	a	TRI	facility,	and	especially	if	the	TRI	facility was releasing known carcinogens.	44 It has also been shown that maternal occupational exposure prior to or during pregnancy to alkanes, mononuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, 41	Damgaard,	I.	N.,	et	al.,	and	the	Nordic	Cryptorchidism	Study	Group.	"Persistent	Pesticides	in	Human	Breast	Milk	and	Cryptorchidism." Environmental	Health	Perspectives	114	(2006):	1133-1138. 42 Main, I{.	M., et al. "Flame Retardants in	Placenta and Breast Milk and Cryptorchidism	in	Newborn Boys.''	Environmental Health Perspectives 115	(2007):	1519-1526.	43 Robinson, L. L., J.	D. Buckley, and G. Bunin. "Assessment of Environmental and	Genetic Factors in the Etiology of Childhood Cancers: The Childrens Cancer Group	Epidemiology Program.	"	Environmental Health Perspectives 111(1999): 201-206	and .	Schechter, C.	B. "Re:	Brain	and	Other Central Nervous System	Cancers:	Recent	Trends	in Incidence and	Mortality." Journal of the	National Cancer Institute 91	(1991): 2050-2051. 44 Choi, H., et al. "Potential Residential Exposure to Toxics Release Inventory Chemicals During Pregnancy and Childhood Brain Cancer."	Environmental Health	Perspectives 114	(2006):	1113-118. toluene, mineral spirits, and some other solvents found in workplaces are associated with increased frequencies of acute lymphoblastic childhood leukemia.45 Thyroid	Function,	Hormones,	and	Anthropogenic	Environmental	Toxins The thyroid	gland	has been	described	as the thermostat	of the	human	body,	setting	the	rate at	which	metabolism	operates.	Too	much	or	too	little	thyroid	activity	will	prevent	a	person	from living a normal life. Environmental toxins can produce a distortion in the typical thyroid function of infants and children. For example	the chemical group PBDEs, already	mentioned several	times	for	its	negative	health	impact in	our	analysis,	may	produce	infant	developmental deficits	by	reducing	thyroid function in	pregnant	mothers.	Women	with low	thyroid	hormone levels	are	much	more	likely	to	have	babies	categorized	as	having IQs	of less	than	85	and	IQs	of less	than	70.	These	IQ	levels	are	likely	to	significantly limit	their	possibilities for	a	full life	(twothirds of	children	dropping	out	of	high	school	have	IQs	below	85).	PEDE	effects	on	later thyroid level functions in	children exposed before birth may or may not be as	permanent as the neurological deficiencies produced.46 In addition to PBDEs, dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in placental tissue significantly alter thyroid function in more heavily exposed infants.	The levels	of	dioxins	and	PCBs that altered thyroid	function	were the result of typical bioaccumulation of toxins due to	exposure	of	mothers	to	a	contaminated	world.'17 Even low background levels of PCB exposure alter neonatal thyroid-stimulating hormone levels.48 Another chemical group known as phthalates is an environmentally ubiquitous plastic softening	agent	often found	in	soft	toys	and flexible bottles. Mothers with higher phthalate concentrations in their breast	milk had male infants with altered early sex	hormone levels. Early 45 Infante-Rivard, C. J., et al. "Maternal Exposure to Occupational Solvents and	Childhood	Leukemia."	Environmental	Health Perspectives	113	(2005):	787-792. 46	Lunder	and	Sharp	27-28 47	Wang,	S.,	et	al.	('In	Utero	Exposure	to	Dioxins	and	Polychlorinated	Biphenyls	and	its	Relations	to	Thyroid	Function	and	Growth Hormone	in	Newborns."	Environmental	Health	Perspectives 113	(2005):	1645-1650. 48 Chevrier, J., et al. "Associations between Prenatal Exposure to Polychlorinated Biphenyls and Neonatal Thyroid-Stimulating Hormone	Levels	in	a	Mexican-American	Population, Salinas	Valley, California."	Environmental Health Perspectives 115	(2007): 1490-1496. disruption of sex hormone levels can alter important developmental processes and cause significant	differences in later	stages of sexual	maturation. 49 Science	and	the	Precautionary	Principle The	scientific	findings	outlined	above	represent	only	a	brief	summary	of	recent	research	on	the negative	health	effects	of	environmental	toxicants	on	pre-born	and	newborn	children,	but	they do	in	our	estimation	make	a	compelling	case	for	additional	studies.	Nevertheless, in	lieu	of	the lagging research on	childhood exposure to	environmental toxins,	science	offers	an approach known	as	the	precautionary	principle that	deserves	serious	consideration for	public	policy	on children's	health. Considered	by	many	in	the	fields	of	environmental	science	and	public	health to be inherent to sound science, the precautionary principlesimple stated-requires that unless	and until a material	is demonstrated to	be nontoxic, it should not be allowed to be released into commerce (and hence the environment) for the financial benefit of a few people	or	a	company.	We	shall	return	to	this	principle	in	our	final	section. Public	Policy,	Risk	Assessment	and	Toxic	Exposure There are nearly twenty major laws and statutes that provide the regulatory and legal foundation for the Environmental	Protection	Agency	(EPA)	and	its	mission	"to	protect	human health and the environment." Of	these laws approximately a	dozen-with varying degrees of concentration	directly	or	indirectly	impact	human	exposure	to	toxic	substances.	Given	the	focus of	this	paper	on	toxic	chemical	exposure	to	pre	and	postnatal	infants	and	children, two	of	these laws	are	particularly significant. One, the Toxic Substance and Control Act of 1976	(TSCA), is important by	virtue of its inadequacy and the other, the	Food	Quality	Protection	Act	of	1996 (FQPA), is significant because it represents a	major step forward in the EPA's regulation of pesticides,	particularly in	its	attempt to	protect infants and	children from	exposure	to	these harmful	chemicals. At first glance, if one	were to read the EPA's description of	TSCA,	one	would get	the clear impression that this law is a	significant piece _____________________________________ 49	Main,	K.	M., et al. "Human Breast Milk	Contamination	With Phthalates	and	Alterations	of	Endogenous	Reproductive	Hormones	in	Infants Three	Months	of	Age."	Environmental	Health Perspectives	114	(2006): 270-276 of public policy designed to	give the	EPA considerable legal leverage in protecting	humans	from toxic exposure.	The law	was passed	by	Congress to provide	the EPA	with the authority to track, screen and test	nearly 75,000	chemicals	produced or	imported into	the	U.S.	TSCA	gives	the	EPA	a range of regulatory tools over all chemicals produced, used and distributed in the U.S. and includes	the	following: 1) authority to require testing of existing chemicals; 2) pre-manufacture review	of	new	chemical substances; 3) authority to	limit	or	prohibit existing	chemicals; 4) recordkeeping	and	reporting	requirements; 5)	export	notice	to	inform	foreign	governments	of	shipments	of	chemicals;	and 6)	import	certification.	50 An important distinction in TSCA is made between	existing and new chemical substances. All chemicals on the market prior to December 1979 are considered existing chemicals. These chemicals are included	in the TSCA inventory and comprise approximately 99%	of the chemicals currently manufactured	and in commercial use in the U.S. This is significant because, according to the Lowell Center for Sustainable Production (LCSP)51, "These chemicals are considered safe unless	the EPA can demonstrate that they present an unreasonable risk to	human health or the environment" (1). Most of these existing potential toxicants have never been tested for human safety.	According to EWG's Body	Burden report, "The vast	majority of chemicals in use today do not have anywhere near sufficient data needed to assess their safety thoroughly, particularly their safety for the unborn baby or young child" (Houlihan 27). Regrettably the implementation of	TSCA for existing chemicals inhibits the assessment of toxicants due to three major constraints. First, for the EPA to restrict a potential toxicant it must provide risk assessment data that proves that the suspected chemical "presents an	unreasonable risk" to human health.	Consequently	the burden of proof falls exclusively on the EPA. Second, to issue restrictive regulations on a chemical the EPA	most also show	that it has taken, according to LCSP, "the least burdensome	regulation to reduce risks to a reasonable level, and that the benefits	of regulation outweigh the costs to industry" (3). Third, the EPA	must do this on each individual chemical which is an exceedingly onerous	task given the	high cost and staff needed to conduct such tests. As a 50 Demuth, Mark A., ed., and MADCON Consulting	Services. Environmental Law	Library.	Description of Toxic Substance Control Act. 29 May 2007. <http://www.madcon.com/law_lib/tsca!>. 51	University	of	Massachusetts	at	Lowell.	Lowell	Center	for	Sustainable	Production (LCSP). 10 October 2003. The Promise and Limits of the United States Toxic Control Act. 30 May 2007 <www.chemicalspolicy.orgdownloads/1	0-30 Chemicals Policy	TSCA. pdf>. 3-4. result very	few toxicity studies	are ever	done by the EPA.	In	fact, according	to	a report	by the U.S. Government Accounting Office, as of 1994 the EPA had only prohibited five types of chemicals.	(PCBs, some chlorofluorocarbons, dioxin, asbestos, and hexavalent chromium) (LCSP 3). Section four of TSCA authorizes the EPA to require testing of new or existing chemicals if insufficient risk assessment data exist or if a	particular chemical is or	will be produced in such large quantities that	it	may pose a	significant environmental risk to human exposure.	According to LCSP's assessment, the EPA has had limited success collecting these data in large part because the EPA	has had to rely on voluntary submission of industry testing, and	much of the information supplied by the chemical industry is considered confidential and proprietary business information. LCSP states that "A 1998 EPA analysis found that 65 percent of the information in industry filings to the	agency under TSCA	was claimed as confidential"	and that "About 40	percent of	substantial risk notifications claim chemical identity as	confidential"	(4).	As a	result, the	use of	proprietary information as a shield for industry non-compliance	has led to what the Body Burden report calls the "stagnation" of testing and restriction of dangerous chemicals	under	TSCA. A related matter specific to TSCA and to the vast majority of public policy governing the environment and human health is the controversial model of risk assessment and management. Often referred to as cost-benefit analysis or risk-benefit analysis, this commonly used method of assessment, rooted in a utilitarian ethic, has produced the utilitarian	"calculus"	of	decision	making: the	greatest	good	at	the	lowest cost for the greatest number of	people over the longest	period of	time.	In	principle	this	model	of	risk	assessment can	yield	valuable	data on	risks to	human health provided the	procedures and	protocols are conducted in	an	inclusive and	transparent	manner.	Unfortunately this is often not the case. While there have been federal attempts to improve environmental risk assessment and management (e.g. Framework of Environmental Health Risk Management,	1997), Thomas Kerns	makes	a	compelling	case	that	the	results	are	often	compromised	by	a	number	of	factors such	as	its	flexibility, the	difficulty	in	predicting the future and, most importantly, the highly complex	yet	insufficient	scientific	data.	He	argues	that, Risk assessment and management, therefore, because they are such open ended processes, often leave an	enormous	amount of	room for the effects of	personal bi.ls	and self-interest. We know, for instance, that chemical corporations have	been able to	manipulate these	processes largely for their	own benefit, and this is due to the	highly	flexible nature	of	the	risk	assessn1ent	process	itself	(ll0).52 These are important considerations when evaluating public policy on environmental health matters but what is even more central to our analysis of health risks to infants and children is the fact that the human standard for toxicological testing upon which risk assessment	decisions	are	made	is	the	"typical"	155	pound	white	adult	male.	Maura	Ryan	affirms this	observation	when she	states	that "the	study	of children and	childhood has	always	been accorded	a	marginal	place	in	the	health,	human	and	social	sciences"	(14).	In	Ryan's	view	this	is due to the widely held research assumption that "childhood is a temporary, private, or domestic (vs. social) state as	well as	from the tendency to treat	children	as	a	homogeneous group, without attention to difference of race, class, or sex".53 It is precisely the developmental nature of infants' "temporary" state that renders them far	more vulnerable to anthropogenic toxins than the typical adult male. On this issue Kerns' observations are noteworthy: Children, Women, fetuses, the elderly, and even perhaps other ethnic groups, may well have different	responses to	a	given	dose	of	toxicant	exposure.	However, none	of	these	possibilities are normally	examined	in	standard	toxicology	testing	.54 In	spite	of	the	glaring	weaknesses	of	TSCA-considered	a	failure	by some-and	the	very	real problems	associated	with	risk	assessment	and	management,	there	is	a	positive	development	in recent	environmental	health	policy	pertaining	to	children,	the	Food	Quality	Protection	Act	of 1996,	otherwise	known	as	FQPA.	FQPA	amended	the	Federal	Insecticide,	Fungicide	and Rodenticide	Act	and	the	Federal	Food,	Drug	and	Cosmetic	Act leading to fundamental changes in the	way the EPA	regulates	pesticides.	Supported	by	a	coalition	of	diverse	groups including	public	and	pediatric	health	professionals and	grounded	in	sound	science,	FQPA sought	to	create	a	more	consistent	and	protective	regulatory	framework	on	pesticides. Moreover,	the	act	mandated	a	health	based	standard	for	pesticides	in	all	foods	and	included special	protections	for	infants	and	children.	It	also	signaled	a	shift	from	the	standard	risk-benefit model to	a	precautionary approach to	children's	health. 52 Kerns, Thomas. Environmentally	Induced Illnesses, Ethics, Risk Assessment and Human Rights. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland and Co., 2001.	110, 138, 150, 154-201. 53 Ryan, Manra A. "The Politics	of Risk: A Human	Rights Paradigm for Children's	Enviromnental Health	Research."	Environmental Health Perspectives	14,	No. 10	(2006): 1614 54	Kerns, 150. The significance	of FQPA is grounded in the fact that, according to	Gilbert, "food contaminants must	meet a	tolerance of 'reasonable certainty of no harm' standard" (527). EWG claims in Body Burden that the implementation of FQPA has "reduced or eliminated children's exposure to a number of highly hazardous pesticides	.	.	." (Houlihan	28). Consequently FQPA is an example of the type of public policy	needed to	reduce or	eliminate	the	risk	of	toxic exposure	in	infants and	children;	a	public	policy	framework	that	we	believe	is	better	served	by	a human rights standard rather than the typical risk assessment and	management approach. Human	Dignity,	Children	and	the	Right	to	an	Environment	Free	of	Anthropogenic	Toxins In the modern Catholic tradition of human rights, from	Rerum	Novarum (1891) to the present, the entire edifice of human rights rest upon the interrelated affirmations that human beings are created in the image and likeness of God and, by this virtue, are endowed with	dignity. This interpretation of the priestly assertion in Gen.1:26-27 is unique compared with other typical interpretations of this	biblical text.	Kieran	Cronin suggests that the three primary	ways of interpreting this passage are 1) that it is a validation of humanity as the apex of God's creation and consequently its lord and master; 2) that the Genesis	text indicates the	human capacity for a personal, dialogical relationship with God, and 3) that the image reflects the human role within creation as God's royal agent or steward.55 To this we would add an additional common interpretation, that humanity's	creation in the image	of God indicates that human beings are rational and	moral beings.	Consistent with these varying interpretations	the Catholic rights tradition interprets Gen. 1: 26-27 as the doctrine of the imago Dei, the theological cornerstone of human rights; a hermeneutical claim that is simultaneously ontological	and axiological.	It is ontological because	humans in their	''being-ness" represent the divine image and, consequently have intrinsic	value.	This	axiological interpretation of	the imago Dei leads to the valuation that human beings are endowed with transcendental worth and dignity. The focus of this paper, however,	compels	us	to	ask	a	key	question:	What	does	image	of God and human dignity mean in light of toxic exposure in pre and postnatal infants and very young	children and how should human dignity be interpreted 55	Cronin,	Kieran.	Rights	and	Christian	Ethics.	Cambridge:	Cambridge	University	Press,	1992.	254-256. from	the	perspective of	the	vulnerability of	infants	and	the	health risks	due	to	childhood exposure	to	environmental toxicants? From a	historical point of	view this is	not an	unimportant	question.	Prior	to the Second	Vatican Council, CST tended to interpret human	dignity from	a neo-scholastic	natural law position which, according	to	David	Hollenbach, "identifies	the	imago	Dei	with the fact that	human beings are endowed with intelligence and freedom"56 A good example	of	this	is	found	in	Pacem in	Terris	(1963)5which states	that in creating humans in God's image and likeness, God "endowed him	with intelligence and freedom, and	made	him	lord	of	creation"	(no.	3).	Recognizing the deficiency of interpreting the imago	Dei in this fashion, Kronin	makes	an insightful	observation	when he writes,	"If	the image is	related to	reason and	free	will, then	there	are	the	problems of	grounding	the	dignity	of humans lacking	these	capacities-embryos, young children, the severely retarded, the comatose, the demented."58 With Vatican II and afterwards, however, the Catholic rights tradition began	to shift to a more historical understanding of human dignity. Hollenbach concludes that ''The Council's most important contribution to the human rights tradition was its important	new	acknowledgement that the demands of human dignity are historically conditioned ones. The historical and developing character of human personhood	is repeatedly	affirmed in Gaudium et Spes".59	The Council also emphasized that the	underlying conditions of personhood and human	rights are profoundly	social. According to O'Brien and Shannon, the council recognized that "Individuals are not seen as solitary beings,	for	by the innermost nature persons are social beings, and unless	they	are related	to others, they can neither live nor	attain their full	potential" (174).60 In keeping with the spirit and intent of	Gaudium	et Spes and	more	recent documents	by	John Paul II	that introduced the	"ecological question,"	we propose that the current exigencies of humanity	in general 56	Hollenbach, David, S.J.	Claims	in	Conflict, Retrieving and	Renewing the	Catholic Human	Rights	Tradition.	New	York:	Paulist	Press,	1979.	69-70,	90-91,	94-98,	109. 67 JohnXXIII. Pacem In Terris. 11	April 1963. On	Establishing	Universal	Peace in	Truth,	Justice, Charity,	and Liberty.	Vatican	web site.	The Holy	See. 14	November 2007 <http://W\V\V.vatican.va/holy _father/john_xxiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_j-xxiii_enc_ 11041963_pacem_en.html>. 58	Cronin,	254. 69	Hollenbach,	69-70. 60 O'Brien, David J. and Thomas A. Shannon, eds. Renewing the Earth, Catholic	Documents on	Peace, Justice and Liberation. Gru.'den City,	New York: Image Books, 1977,	171-177. and children in	particular require us to recognize that human dignity	is,	among	other	things, ecologically	conditioned.	One	important	characteristic	of	the	ecological conditions that	shape	and impact	human	beings highlighted herein is the	bioaccumulation	of	persistent toxins.	The fact that this process is occurring in unborn fetuses, infants	and	young	children with negative and potentially tragic	health consequences confronts us	with a central issue on the meaning of human	dignity as	it	relates	to	human	beings in	the	nascent stages	of	development.	The simple fact is	this: due	to	the	unique characteristics	of	biological and	behavioral growth and development, children are	more	vulnerable than adults	to	the	bioaccumulation	of	toxicants. According	to the National	Research	Council's study,	Pesticides in the Diets	of Infants and Children,	''Because	they	are	growing	and	developing,	infants	and children are	different than adults	in	composition and	metabolism as	well as	in	physiological and	biochemical processes" .61 Regarding the "special characteristics of	children,"	the study states: Physical development of the body (overall growth), nervous and digestive systems, liver and kidneys, and the proportions of body	water and body fat are of special concern in	the study	of developmental toxicology. Prior to	full	matu1*ation,	damage to	an	organ	or	organ	system,	such	as the	central	nervous	system,	could	permanently	prevent	normal	physical	maturation (23). Because of these scientific observations, the human dignity of children must be interpreted biologically and	developmentally.	The	demands	of human	dignity,	as	it	relates	to	children,	requires us	to	recognize that it	is historically and	socially	conditioned,	due	to	the	proliferation of	industrial toxicants; ecologically conditioned, due to the process of bioaccumulation, and biologically conditioned, due to the unique developmental characteristics of infants and children. The convergence of these conditions has conspired to produce the reality of body burden and consequential health risks to children that prevent them from reaching their full potential as human	beings. It	is	our conclusion, therefore that this scenario	poses a	direct	threat	to	children's dignity	and	health,	and	requires	special	consideration	from	within	the	Catholic	rights	tradition. Human	dignity,	theologically	grounded	in	the	doctrine	of	the	imago	Dei,	is	the	primary	category at	the	foundation	of	Catholic	rights	theory.	As	such	it	is	not	a	moral	imperative	or	an	ethical principle	but	the	basis	for all	ethical imperatives. Because it is	the primary norm,	human dignity	is	a	universal, ontological and transcendental principle that 61	United States.	National Research Council.	Pesticides in	the	Diets of Infants and	Children.	Washington,	D.C.:	National	Academy Press,	1993.	23. applies to all	persons and the full range of	human action. Hollenbach states	that "Dignity is thus a transcendental characteristic of persons.	Human persons have a	worth	which claims respect in every situation and in every type of activity''.62 On the other hand, as	we have shown above, human dignity is also	historically and socially conditioned and, consequently, human	dignity	makes	very	specific	claims	to	ensure	that it is	promoted and preserved. These claims	or	moral	imperatives are	what	CST	construes	as	human	rights.	Simply	put,	rights	are	the minimal conditions necessary to preserve and promote human dignity or, as Hollenbach asserts, "Rights are the conditions of the realization of	human	worth	in	action".63 We	are	convinced	by	our	analysis	that	the	exposure	of	infants	and	children to persistent environmental toxicants represents a serious	affront	to	the	dignity	of	children	and necessitates	the	articulation	of	a	specific	ethical	imperative-what	we	call	a	child's	right	to	an environment	free	of	anthropogenic toxicants.	While this	right	applies	to	all	persons	and	falls under	the	general	claim	of	a	right	to	a	safe	environment, our research indicates a special urgency in the case of toxic	exposure	in	children.	Where,	however,	would	this	right	be categorized	within	the	broad	and	comprehensive	spectrum	of	human	rights	in	the	Catholic tradition?	The	immediate	and	obvious	observation	is	that	a	right to	an	environment free	of anthropogenic toxicants falls	within	those	rights	that	seek	to	ensure	the	bodily	dimension	of human	dignity.	In	other	words,	the	bioaccumulation	of	toxicants	in	the	prenatal	period,	newborn infants	and	children	is	a	violation	of	bodily	integrity	and	an	incipient threat to	health. According to	Hollenbach's	assessment of Catholic	rights	theory,	the	right	to	an	environment free	of	anthropogenic	toxicants	can	be	expressed	at	three	interrelated	levels:	personal,	social and	instrumental. 4	At	the	personal	level	it	reflects	the	requirement	of	protecting	the individual	child	from	harmful	bodily	exposure	that	is	completely	beyond	their	control.	This situation	however,	is	constituted	by	social	realities-that	is,	toxic	exposure	in	children	is	a	social and	public	phenomenon	that	cuts	across	economic	class,	race,	gender	and	ethnicity.	Moreover this	phenomenon also	reflects institutional	realities,	particularly	economic	and	political	ones that	mandate	certain	conditions in	the	interest	of	protecting	the	dignity	of	children.	These conditions	are	what	Hollenbach calls	instrumental	rights.	Taken	as	a	whole-personal,	social and	instrumental-the right to an environment free	of anthropogenic toxicants	becomes a strategic	matter of 62	Hollenbach,	90. 63	Hollenbach, 91. 64	Hollenbach,	94-98. advocacy for the creation of public health policy designed and implemented to ensure the bodily dimension of human dignity for all persons and especially those who are particularly vulnerable	to	toxic	exposure. The Church	and	Public	Policy:	Advocating for	Children's	Health As an expression of its faith and	mission, the Church in the	U.S. has always seen itself as an important	public	actor in the formation	of	public policy	on a wide range of important	national issues. On the	matter of	children and	families, the	United States	Catholic Conference	of Bishops (USCCB) issued an impressive pastoral	statement in November 1991	called	Putting Children	and Families First:	A Challenge	for our	Church,	Nation	and	World	.65	According	to	the	U.S.	Bishops,	the aim of the statement was "to shape a society-and a world-with a clear priority for families and children in	need and to	contribute to the	development of	policies that	help families	protect their children's lives and overcome the moral, social, and economic forces that threaten their future" (366). The document offers a comprehensive and detailed pre-scription for national policy	on	a	spectrum	of	social	and	economic	issues	that	directly	impact	children	making	the point that	"Children don't vote; they don't contribute to political campaigns, and therefore, they	are more likely to be ignored by governments and policy makers" (379). In setting the criteria for public policy on children the bishops outlined seven guiding principles four of which are particularly significant for	our	policy	recommendations	on	toxic	exposure	in	children: • Put	children	and	families	first. • Help; don't	hurt. • Those	with the	greatest	need require the	greatest response. This	is	the	"option	for	the poor"	in	action. • Fight	economic	and	social	forces	which	threaten	children	and	family	life	(378) Significant steps	have also	been taken at	the	institutional level of	the	USCCB. In	1998, responding	to the 1991	pastoral statement on children	and	the	growing	research	on	the vulnerability of	children	to	toxic	exposure, the	USCCB's	Environmental Justice	Program and	the Office 65 United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. ''Putting Children and Families First:	A	Challenge for our	Church, Nation	and	World." Pastoral Letters	and	Statements	of the United States Catholic	Bishops. Volume VI 1989-1997, ed. Patrick Carey.	Washington, D.C.: United States	Catholic Conference, 1998.	366,	378-379. for Domestic Social Development created a new structure called the Catholic Coalition for Children and a Safe Environment (CASE). A	coalition	of	ten	Catholic	agencies	and	organizations, CASE has outlined a number of excellent initiatives aimed at disseminating information, providing education, and promoting advocacy on children's health risks to environmental toxicants. One	of these initiatives is	"Advocating for public	policies at	the	national, state,	and	local	level	that	promote a	safe	environment for children".66	*	One of the CASE partners, the	National	Council	of	Catholic Women	(NCCW), is undertaking an important	grassroots	educational initiative	in a number	of dioceses	across the country. The NCCW is currently administering a $26,000 grant from	the	USCCB for parishbased	education on the environment	and children's	health.	The	purpose	of	the	program	is	to	train parish	leaders	and	will	focus	on	how	parishioners	"can	make	changes	that	will	improve	the	health of	infants	and	children."67 In	addition	to	CASE	initiatives	the	USCCB	office	of	Social	Development	and	World Peace (SDWP)	has posted a statement on "Children's Health and the Environment'' acknowledging that the developmental nature of childhood renders children more vulnerable than adults to toxic exposure . The statement recognizes that health impacts on children from exposure to toxic chemicals includes such illnesses as asthma, cancer	and	learning	disabilities, and	that	children in poverty are	more susceptible to exposure related diseases. The website also includes update on	CASE	related	activities	in	the	interest	of	children	and	health.68 CASE is a significant first step in the creation of a national Catholic infrastructure for the purpose	of influencing the public	and political	sector for better policy to protect children from toxicological harm. In light of the fact the USCCB has been trimming budget and staffing, it is our hope that CASE will receive the necessary funding and staff to carry out their initiatives the most important of which is-arguablyadvocacy	for	better	public	policy.	For	Catholic	action to	be	successful in this social, political arena, CASE will have to collaborate with other	public actors	who share the basic principle of protecting children from toxic exposure. Among them are organizations such as	the	American 66 United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Catholic Coalition for Children and a Safe Environment (CASE). 31May 2007 <www.usccb.org/case>. 67	National Council of Catholic Women. Make	the Case far Children's Health. 14	November	2007 <http:home.catholicweb.com/NCCW/index.cfm>. 68	United States Catholic Conference of Bishops. Social Development	and World Peace. Children's	Health and the Environment. 14	November 2007 <wmv.usccb.org. sdwp.national/childshealth0406.shtml>. Public	Health	Association,	American	Pediatric	Association and	the	Union of Concerned Scientists. It	must be remembered that the enactment of FQPA in 1996 was successful because of the broad based national	coalition that	advocated for	and	supported the	measure. The question remains, however, what should public policy look like and upon what principles should it	be designed if it is	going to	protect	the human	dignity	of children	by reducing and/or eliminating toxic exposure? A good place to begin is with the two policy measures already discussed:	FQPA	and	TSAC of 1976.	FQPA	is	important	because it is	a	model for what is possible and to some degree sets a precedent for better legislation. As noted above, FQPA shifted away from the	standard of risk assessment to a precautionary	approach to pesticide	exposure and gave children priority. TSCA is important because it is notoriously weak and needs massive overhaul in the interest of	children.	Regardless	of	the	approach,	overhauling	TSCA	or	an entirely	new	policy enactment,	we	propose	the	following	recommendations for	Catholic	advocacy for the public health of children through the restriction and/or elimination of anthropogenic environmental	toxicants. Give	Children	Priority In setting new or overhauling old public policy on hazardous substances whether they are industrial chemicals, pesticides, herbicides	or metals, the standard for analyzing health risks must shift from the	typical adult	male to those	who are	most	vulnerable to	toxic exposure:	pre and postnatal infants and young children. The scientific evidence, particularly from pediatric toxicology, is	overwhelming.	We	can	no	longer ignore that children at all levels of development are the most susceptible to the dangers of environmental toxicants, to the risk of long term health impairment, and life threatening illness. Moreover, even though toxic exposure in children appears ubiquitous, justice dictates that children in poverty, according to scientific research, are the most vulnerable and require special consideration in public policy.	Making children the standard and litmus test for public policy on anthropogenic toxins is a direct application	of	the	preferential option	to	address	the	needs	of	those	most	vulnerable. The Precautionary	Principle The best	way to	ensure that infants	and	children	in	the	perinatal	period are	given	priority is	to adopt the	precautionary principle as	the	primary stratagem	in	the	formation	of	public	health policy.	The	permanence	of	the	consequences	of	prenatal,	infant	and	childhood	exposure to toxins	calls for	a clear	scientific reply to this growing health	crisis.	Arising	out	of	medical practice and	scientific	methodology,	the	precautionary	principle	has	been	proposed	as	the	only viable	approach	to	materials	that	may	be	toxic	to	infants	and	children.69	Often	referred to	as	"do no	harm,"	the	precautionary	principle, according	to	Kerns,	"affirms	that	when there is inadequate scientific data to clearly determine a chemical's safety	or	toxicity,	the operative assumption should	be in favor of protecting the	public health rather than in favor of the	manufacturer's interest	in dispersing the product	into the marketplace	and environment".70	This	would replace	the	risk	assessment	approach as	the	primary decision making standard for chemical toxicants. This standard	is	already employed by the	U.S. Food and	Drug	Administration	(FDA), but	only	when	specific	legislation	is	being	enforced.	Before	food	or	drug	additives can	be employed commercially,	the	manufacturer must carry	out	a	rigorous	scientific	evaluation:	of	the material and	submit	the	data	to	the	FDA for review.	As	noted earlier, the	precautionary principle is also	a	component	of	FQPA	and	has	already	achieved	positive	results	for	children. The precautionary principle raises ''Help;	don't	hurt"	to	a	new level of diligence and is	perhaps one of	the	most potentially effective	policy	means	for	safeguarding	human	dignity	and	health. Shift the	Burden	of	Proof Utilization of the precautionary principle would effectively shift the burden of proof of a product's safety or toxicity to the producers	of chemical and toxic agents-before they are put on the market and enter the environment. This must apply to new as well as the vast majority. of existing chemicals currently in use. This would effectively address the primary weakness of	TSCA,	which	forces	the	EPA	to	prove the toxic risk of existing chemicals before they can be restricted. For this to be efficacious, however, public policy must contain adequate measures	for	enforcement and	ought	to	include	the	following: • Give	the	EPA	the	necessary	and	unambiguous	authority	to	require from	manufacturers impartial scientific studies on all new and	existing	chemicals to	ensure safety	and appropriate commercial	use. • Restrict	or	remove	from	commerce	all	existing	chemicals,	particularly those that are suspected to	be dangerous to infants and	children, from	commercial and	residential use	until adequate tests	have	been	performed. 69	Gilbert,	525-527. 7°	Kearns,*	133, • Eliminate	the primacy	of	claims	of proprietary knowledge and	business	confidentiality	for all health,	safety	and environmental	data. • Require that material safety data sheets (MSDS) that comply with testing protocols contain data on children and are made available to everyone impacted by the use of hazardous	and	toxic	substances.	Make	MSDS	sheets	comprehensible to	citizens. • Provide chemical manufacturers with positive incentives to reduce the use of environmental toxicants and the development of "green" or alternative chemicals that are	safer	for	both	producers and	consumers of industrial products. • When and if a risk assessment approach is taken in analyzing product safety and risk,	its	transparency,	impartiality,	and	public	accessibility	must	be	ensured.71 Right	to	Know,	Full	Disclosure	and	Informed	Consent Public policy governing the production of consumer products that contain hazardous or dangerous substances must include the public's right to know	what chemical ingredients	were used in	production. Parents, for example, have the right to know what was used in products specifically designed for children such as toys. The principle of informed consent is	closely linked	to	the	right	to	know	and	full	disclosure.	Informed consent is	widely practiced in	biomedical research, clinical	medicine and pharmaceutical products and clearly states, according to	Kerns, "that it is unethical to expose a	human being to any procedure,	substance, or	risk without that person's	informed consent".72 This	principle should be adopted in	policy measures designed to protect public health. It would require that the public be informed about the potential health risks-especially for infants and children-of any consumer product used in the home that contains hazardous substances. Combined with the public's right to know, the principle of informed consent would require the manufacturer of consumer products to fully disclose the chemical ingredients used in a particular commodity.	An example of this is	Kern's	quotation of the Center for Ethics and Toxics and their Toxic Bill of Rights, that "Labeling, disclosure and explanation of testing, ingredients or components with potential toxicity in any commercial commodity shall	be	conveyed	voluntarily and	fully	without	regard 71	Houlihan et	al.	28-29	and	Kerns 154-201. 72	Kearns, 172. to proprietary privileges" .73 Under current law producers of such things as household pesticides and herbicides are not required to provide full disclosure of ingredients. On the labeling of these products it is entirely possible that the majority of toxic substances in the product	are	hidden under the	term "inert." Safety	Standards for Children It is reasonable to assume that physical places (e.g. schools) and habitats (e.g. public parks) that are frequented by children, or where	they are the primary inhabitants would be strictly regulated regarding	the	use of	hazardous substances. At present there is	no specific	component of public policy that safeguards children in these public places	from commonly used products that often contain toxic chemicals. Perhaps the	most important of these public spaces,	where children spend	much of their time is the school. It is our contention that public policy should target schools-public and private-for improved safety standards to reduce and eliminate toxic exposure in these facilities. Public	policy	of	this nature	would	have	to	address	the use	of indoor and	outdoor toxicants and	would include the elimination of industrial solvents, toxic cleaning agents,	pesticides and	herbicides. Increase Funding for	Pediatric Toxicological Studies We	have	made the	point in	this analysis that	the	primary issue	is	not	more research but the development of	better public policy to	protect	children from	toxic	exposure.	The	irony is	the fact	that public policy	often earmarks the distribution of federal funding to and for those groups	that	make	the	most	noise	and	have	the	greatest	power.	As	the U.S. Bishop's	stated, "Children don't	vote" and "they	don't contribute to political campaigns."74 Protecting children is	not the standard research	goal	in	risk assessment tests for	product safety and toxicity and yet the growing evidence from recent pediatric toxicological studies is clear that children are the	most vulnerable. Consequently, any public policy	act designed to protect children from exposure to anthropogenic toxicants must contain funding for increasing the quantity and quality of	toxicological studies	aimed at	the entire	range of	their development. In particular the	following areas	require concentrated research: 73	Kearns, 171. 74	United	States Conference of Catholic Bishops.	"Putting Children and Families	First:	A	Challenge	for	our	Church,	Nation	and	World." Pastoral Letters and	Statements of the United States Catholic Bishops. Volume VI 1989-1997, ed. Patrick Carey. Washington, D.C.: United	States	Catholic	Conference,	1998.	379. • The	toxicological and	health impact potential of	in	utero exposure	to multiple chemicals, since chemical interactions	may increase	toxicity. • The	impacts	of	ambient	air	on	the	increase	and	etiology	of	asthma. • The toxicological	impact on the increase in neurodevelopmental	disorders. • The health impacts of endocrine disruptors in	young men and	women. • The environmental etiology	behind the	dramatic	rise of childhood	leukemia,	brain cancer (glioma),	and	other	emergent	cancers. Conclusion:	Church	and	the	Faith	that	does	Justice How,	exactly, the above recommendations would be articulated and integrated into	new	public policy enactments is, at this time, still specu-lative. Philip Landrigan of New York's	Mount Sinai School	of	Medicine suggests that at	the	federal	level the	passage of a	"Children's	Environmental Health Act" and a "Children's Environmental Protection Act" or at the state level a "School Environmental	Protection	Act"	could	establish	the	necessary	policy	framework	to	prevent	harm	and promote	the	health	and	safety	of	young	children.75	Regardless of	specific	policy	proposals, there is no doubt that any attempt to overhaul the current legal status quo on anthropogenic environmental toxicants will be met with serious and sustained resistance by chemical corporations and	their social	and political	allies.	To	achieve	success	it	will	require	the	Church	and	its	social and	political allies	to-in	the words of the U.S. bishops-"fight economic and	social	forces	which threaten children and family life." In	the mean	time	the Church's strategy to promote	parish-based	education	such	as	the	educational initiatives	of	the	NCCW	are	promising endeavors	that	could	have	immediate	positive	results	in reducing	toxic	exposure	in	children.	We	make	this	claim	based on	newly	released data	from	a	study entitled ''Pollution in	People, a Study of 'Toxic Chemical in Oregonians" released	in	2007	by	the Oregon	Environmental Council.76	One	of	the	participants	in	the study	who donated her	blood and urine to	be	tested for the	presence of 29 toxic chemicals	was a	young	mother who	had decided to reduce her unborn child's exposure to two types of hormone	disrupting 75	Landrigan, Philip	J.	"Environmental Pediatrics and	the Ecological Imperative." EcoHealth	3	(2006):	75-76. 76 Oregon	Environmental Council,	Pollution in	People, a	Study	of Toxic	Chemicals	In Oregonians.	12 November, 2007.	26 November 2007 http://oeconline.org/pollutioninpeople/index.html. chemicals, phthalates (contained in	many plastics and personal care	products)	and	Bisphenol	A (found in some	baby bottles,	plastic	toys and	food	containers, etc.).	She	had the	lowest	number of chemicals detected in	her	body of any	study participant, her total phthalate level	was	under half of that of the second lowest participant,	and her body	alone contained	no	detectable level	of Bisphenol A.	Her simple actions to	protect her unborn	and	subsequently infant	child	from	the consequences	of	exposure	to	phthalates and	Bisphenol A	were successful. The	affordable steps	taken by this	prudent	mother (removing	a vinyl shower curtain, eliminating plastics	from her kitchen and home, choosing nontoxic personal care products	for	mother and	child)	were	effective	even	in	our complicated contaminated	world. We discovered that guidance to do this is available from free, simple, and readily accessible website information such as	www.safecosmetics.org; http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/special/parentsguide/index.php?nothanks=l	; http://www.oeconline.org/, and	www.checnet.org/healthe-House/pdJlplasticchart.	pdf. Similar resources	to reduce dietary mercury	and PCB consumption are also readily available from http://www.nrdc.	org/health/effects/mercury/walletcard.pdf	and http://www.environmental defense.org/documents/1980_pocket_seafood_selector.pdf.	Developing	curricular	materials based	on these and other resources is well within the	capacity	of	parish educational programs, and	parents would	welcome this	information to protect their children's health. A	related issue to the impact on children's	health from exposure to anthropogenic toxicants is that this situation is seriously exacerbated	by the disturbing fact that, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, between	nine	and	ten	million	children in	the	U.S. are uninsured	for	health care (American	Medical Student Association).	77	While it is	beyond the scope	of	this paper to	probe this connection in	any	depth,	we	must assume, given the increase in such illnesses as asthma, autism,	leukemia and	glioma, that it	represents a significant economic	burden	for	many families. The total number of children without health care is further complicated by the fact that 70% come	from families	with	incomes	below the	federal	poverty	level	and	60	%	or	more are	racial or ethnic minorities-who are particularly vulnerable to toxic exposure. Overall children compose 70%	of all recently uninsured Americans.	78	The	AMSA estimates that "children without private health insurance	grows by roughly 3,000 every day"	(1). Moreover the CCHC reports 77 American Medical Student	Association. Facts on Uninsured Children. 15	November 2007. <www.amsa.org/cph/CH1Pfact.cfm>. 78	American	Medical	Student	Association	and	Campaign	for	Children's	Health	Care. America's	Uninsured	Children:	Minority	Children	at	Greater	Risk	.	15	November	2007 <www.childrenshealthcampaign.org>. * that 13.5	million or 18.5%	of	children under 18have special	health care	needs".	79 Children with special health care	needs are defined as those	"who	have or are at increased risk for a	chronic physical, developmental, behavioral, or emotional condition and who also require health and related services of a type or amount beyond that required by children	generally''80	A	review of the chronic illnesses in the category of special health care needs includes such maladies as asthma, autism, ADHD, mental retardation and sensory impairments. The scientific research clearly	indicates that	exposure	to	anthropogenic toxicants accounts	for some of the etiological conditions for a range of chronic illnesses in	children including those identified above. Viewed from the Catholic rights tradition, the ethical imperative to provide care for special needs children is clear and the ethical demand to reduce childhood toxicant exposures that increase the	number of children requiring special care	is	equally	clear. In	spite of the worrisome trends of toxic exposure to children and	health care there is some cause for hope. The current National Children's Study that is in its early stages promises to address the	research	gap	on	children's health	and	acknowledges that	the proportions of children with chronic illnesses-conditions to which environmental toxins contribute-seems to be growing.	The study will look at over 100,000	kids across the	U.S. in a representative sampling of locations from pre-birth to 21 years of age. The study will research pregnancy outcomes including birth weight and birth defects, neurodevelopment and behavior, asthma, obesity, exposure to air pollution, hormonally active environmental agents and reproductive development, etc. A	large	number of	toxic	metals and	synthetic	organic compounds in	children's body burden will be tested. There will also be data collected on the characteristics of the neighborhoods	and homes,	child care sites	and	schools	of	the	children	involved	in	the	study. This	project,	endorsed	by	the	USCCB's	CASE	partners,	could	provide	much needed data on	the health status	of	the	nation's	children	particularly in relation to toxic exposure. There are limitations in the study	but	the	most	pernicious is	the	availability	of	funding.	There	is	a	lack	of long	term	commitment	to	funding	this study	and,	like	many legislative	measures in the	U.S. government; it	is	funded by annual acts	of Congress. Consequently, funding for the National Children's Study will 79 Campaign for Children's Health Care. Children and Youth with Special Health Care Needs. 15 November 2007 <www.chilch*enshealthcampaign.org>. 80	McPherson, M. et	al. "A	New	Definition of	Children	With Special Health Care	Needs,"	Pediatrics	102	(1998):	137-140. always be up for grabs among competing interests and will necessitate constant lobbying efforts	to	maintain	the	breadth	of	the	research and	the	project's	momentum. The	U.S. Church utilizing its institutional apparatus can and	must	play a	key	lobbying	role	in supporting the	National Children's	Study. Nevertheless, based	on	our	research on	the	health impacts to children exposed to	anthropogenic toxicants and	the	concomitant issue	of	health care, we believe the magnitude of the current situation warrants a significant	pastoral response	by	the	USCCB.	Perhaps	a	follow-up	statement to	Putting Children	and Families First would	be	appropriate in	refocusing	the	Catholic	communities'	attention	on	the	current	status of children. Given the	National Children's	Study and the national debate on health care, a major pastoral statement would be a timely public	endeavor.	It is	our obligation to	protect the	human dignity of children through participation in the public domain	by defending the rights of the most vulnerable in our midst. In doing so, the Church publicly expresses its faith as the faith that does	justice and, according to	Pope Paul VI, promotes "the concrete demands of the Christian faith for a just, and consequently necessary, transformation of society''	(no.	51).81 81	Paul VI.	Octagesima Adveniens.	14 May	1971. The Eightieth Anniversary	of	"Rerum	Novarum "	(A	Call to	Action	).	Vatican	web	site. The	Holy	See.	14	November	2007 <http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Paul06/p6oct.htm>.