Scientific Consensus Statement on Environmental Agents Associated with Neurodevelopmental Disorders.
The consensus statement outlines the current scientific understanding of the links between environmental factors and learning and development disabilities. It was developed by the Collaborative on Health and the Environment's Learning and Developmental Disabilities Initiative (November 2007).
See below for the scientific panel members
The statement concludes:
"Given the serious consequences of learning and developmental disabilities, a precautionary approach is warranted to protect the most vulnerable of our society."
Children at heightened risk
"The development of the human brain begins in utero. The long and complex development of the brain and nervous system leaves it susceptible to the adverse effects of chemical exposure.
For their body weight, children eat and breathe more than adults, thus a small exposure translates into a big dose.
Even very low doses of some biologically active contaminants can alter gene expression important to learning and developmental function."
Variations in individual susceptibility
"Due to genetic variation people differ in susceptibility to exposures. Not identifying and studying susceptible subgroups can result in failure to protect those at high risk." (Ed - Dr Albert Schatz, discoverer of Streptomycin, the first cure for tuberculosis (for which his doctoral supervisor received Schatz' Nobel Prize), and long-term fluoride researcher, identified this in the 1970s)
"Children are often more susceptible than adults to the effects of exposure to environmental agents.
Children lacking certain nutrients are more vulnerable to toxicants. For example iron and/or calcium deficiency affects absorption of heavy metals such as lead and manganese." (Ed - Fluoridating agents contain significant levels of heavy metals, including lead. Silicofluorides also increase the uptake of lead.)
"As our testing methods have become more sophisticated, the recognition of individual sensitivity and, in particular, the sensitivity of the developing nervous system to the effects of environmental agents has grown.
Recent biomonitoring studies reveal the range of compounds we are exposed to and that accumulate in our bodies. Experiments with single chemicals can underestimate the effects of these chemicals in mixtures."
Where science meets the roadblock of policy
"[Despite 2000 years of knowledge that lead affected the mind, it] was added to paint and gasoline, removed only following considerable research that confirmed what was already known." (Ed - Similarly, fluoride's toxicity has been known since the 1800s, yet promoters still deny this in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence.)
"Lead is probably the most studied of environmental contaminants. Its effects on development and learning are undisputed. Recent research indicates there is no safe level of lead exposure for children. Lead exposure impairs overall intelligence and is associated with ADHD, even at minute exposures. Efforts to prevent lead exposure provide an outstanding example of the struggle when science meets policy. The US CDC has not adjusted the blood-lead action level since 1990 despite scientific evidence of behavioural effects well below [this level]." (Ed - We would suggest that fluoridation provides an equally outstanding example, especially in light of the NRC Review findings.)
Low dose effects can differ completely from high dose effects
"The very low-dose effects of endocrine disruptors cannot be predicted from high dose studies, which contradicts the standard 'dose makes the poison' rule of toxicology." (Ed - Dr Albert Schatz identified this some decades ago; that low-dose effects can be quite different from high dose effects and begin to appear only below the level where high-dose toxicity reduces to near zero.)
Fluoride:
"The question is what level of exposure results in harmful effects to children. The primary concern is that multiple routes of exposure, from drinking water, food and dental care products, may result in a high enough cumulative exposure to fluoride to cause developmental effects. It is not clear that the benefits of adding fluoride to drinking water outweigh risks of neurodevelopment or other effects such as dental fluorosis." (Ed - It is important to note here that the consensus is that dental fluorosis is considered an adverse health effect to be considered against fluoridation within a toxicological analysis; not just a harmless cosmetic effect as proponents claim.Panel members
David Bellinger, PhD, MSc, Harvard Medical School
Lynn Goldman, MD, MPH, Johns Hopkins University, Bloomberg School of Public Health
Philippe Grandjean, MD, Harvard School of Public Health
Martha Herbert, MD, PhD, MAssachusetts General Hospital
Philip Langrigan, MD, MSc, Mount Sinai School of Medicine
Bruce Lamphear, MD, MPH, University of Cincinnati
Barbara McElgunn, RN, Learning Disabilities Association of Canada
John Meyers, PhD, Environmental health Sciences
Isaac Pessah, PhD, University of california, Davis
Ted Schettler,MD, MPH, Science and Environmental Health Network
Bernard Weiss, PhD, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry
The consensus document references 205 research articles. There are two pages of signatories to this consensus, including the Panel
