1
SLIDE SHOW ON PRECAUTIONARY ACTIONS
A Precautionary Tale
About
Keeping The American
Promise:
Building Strong, Healthy and
Safe Communities
This slide presentation was developed by the Center for Health, Environment
and Justice’s BE SAFE Campaign. www.besafenet.com www.chej.org
P.O. Box 6806, Falls Church, VA 22040 703-237-2249
2
Begin speaking here –
Good ________________ morning/afternoon/ or evening
My name is ____________________________________________
I am with ___________________ Group you are with (PTA/PTO member) . . . . .
I’m (or the organization you represent) are concerned about how chemicals are finding their way into our everyday environment and
lives.
I have volunteered to present this slide show to you, to share what I know and to explain the reasons for my concerns.
Before I do so, there are a few house keeping details that I need to share.
The slide show is 30 minutes long and we’ll have snacks at the end (optional)
The rest rooms are located _________________________________
There is a sign-in sheet and I hope everyone signs in.
Last, but not least, I want to thank ______________________ for helping with the event.
3
This slide show was developed by the Center for Health, Environment and Justice, located in Falls Church, VA,
just outside of Washington, DC. CHEJ was founded by Lois Gibbs, the mother who led the struggle for relocation
of 900 families away from the Love Canal dumpsite in Niagara Falls, NY. The Center works with a network of
thousands of grassroots groups nationwide. BE SAFE Campaign is a project of CHEJ that is working with
grassroots groups who want to create a societal shift toward safer products, chemicals and technologies.
This presentation will last about 30 minutes. Afterwards, I’d be happy to answer questions and lead a discussion
about what we might do here locally to protect public health and the environment from exposure to environmental
chemicals.
If you have questions I cannot answer, CHEJ and members of the BE SAFE Campaign have agreed to find those
answers for us. After speaking with CHEJ, I’ll get back to you with their response . . . . the reason the sign in
sheet is important.
Finally, everyone was given an evaluation sheet to fill out. It is important to us to understand what you thought
about the information and the way it was presented. If the slides are too complex or to simplified, please let us
know. CHEJ and I would appreciate you filling out the evaluation sheet before you leave.
(Optional: I have copies (black & white on paper) of the slide show available for you, if you’d like one after the
presentation.)
Let’s begin ----- 1st slide or transparency, please
4
This presentation was put together by the Center for Health Environment and Justice’s
BE SAFE and Childproofing Our Communities Campaigns.
A Precautionary Tale About
Keeping The American Promise: Building Strong, Healthy and Safe Communities
Next slide please…… 
5
The purpose of the presentation is to:
- increase the public’s understanding of how decisions are being made today around environmental chemicals
and public health consequences
- explain the shortfalls in our current regulatory system to protect public health and the environment from
chemical exposures.
And to ---
- provide guidance and steps individuals and groups can take to influence a logical change in the decision
making process to reduce or eliminate involuntary environmental chemical exposures.
Next slide please
6
What do we mean when we say decision-making based upon Precautionary Action or
the Precautionary Principle?
The Wingspread Statement defines the precautionary principle in this way:
“When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment,
precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships
are not fully established scientifically.”
This statement came out of a historic gathering, at Wingspread Conference Center, of scientists, philosophers,
lawyers and environmental activists who reached an agreement on the necessity of the Precautionary Principle in
public health and environmental decision-making. The key element of the principle is that it incites us to take
preventative action in the absence of scientific certainty.
Next slide please
7
Precautionary action is a shift in the way decisions are made
Currently, when making a decision about chemical use in our environment, our society asks . . .
How much harm can we (humans and the environment) tolerate – or how much harm is “acceptable”?
A precautionary approach asks a different question about chemicals in our food, water, air and consumer products,
which is:
How much harm can we avoid?
Next Slide Please
8
This is not a new concept, in fact people think about the question of avoiding harm every day.
For example:
People wear seat belts, use child protective seats, and place gates across stairwells to protect toddlers. We lock our
cars and homes at night, women avoid medication and alcohol during pregnancy, get flu shots, have annual eye
exams or physicals for ourselves and children . . . and are careful driving near schools.
Next Slide Please
9
Corporate leaders and government regulators think about precautionary action in a very different way.
Instead of evaluating where human health or environmental threats can be eliminated – government and corporate
decision makers begin their thinking—by defining what risks are acceptable or can be tolerated.
It is a rare occasion when a conversation within a government agency or a corporate boardroom begins with:
“Do we need to use this chemical or product? Is there something safer and poses little or no risk that is just as
useful for our purposes?”
Instead, money and profits – economic factors – almost always trump public health when decisions are being
made. The more likely conversation in a boardroom would begin by asking, “is there a less expensive way to
produce our product(s)?
Corporations aren’t necessarily good or evil. To understand why they make these decisions we have to
acknowledge the structure of how they work.
Corporations are compelled to maximize their profit, or shareholder’s value, or run the risk of being eliminated by
their competitors. And, CEO’s that don’t work to maximize shareholder’s value are subject to legal action for
violating fiduciary responsibility. CEO’s don’t have to take into account the full costs of using a toxic chemical,
like medical costs for injured workers or families, new water wells, toxic clean-ups and other costs.
Therefore, the most central and fastest way to change corporate behavior is by changing consumer behavior. I will
talk more about consumer influence on the market later.
Next Slide Please
10
As you can see from this recipe card . . . the question of public health risks is not focused on prevention of harm,
but rather on the level of risk that humans and the environment can tolerate or are “acceptable.”
Acceptable or tolerable risks are determined by government and corporations are based on a little science . . . many
assumptions and guesses . . . and complex mathematical models.
The outcome is a guess about safe levels of exposures to chemicals and potential adverse health effects.
It’s a recipe for Disaster.
It is a complicated process. So let me see if I can simplify it for you. The following illustration will describe the
difference between the way taking a precautionary action and a risk-based action would result in dramatically
different solutions and protections.
Next Slide Please
11
Parents with a toddler know it is their responsibility to be cautious and place a gate across the top of a staircase to
prevent their toddler from falling down the stairs.
If parents didn’t have a gate or couldn’t afford to purchase one, they would be creative and find a way to block the
opening to the stairs.
Responsible parents will take every step necessary, including making financial sacrifices to protect their children.
Next Slide Please
12
The way this scenario would play out under our current system for government and corporations is as follows.
The corporation would argue that the cost of taking preventative action . . . purchasing a gate . . . is too high
and the risk of a child falling down the stairs and being seriously harmed is very low.
The corporation would undertake a study to determine how many toddlers would fall down the stairs and how
much harm they would incur.
They would contact insurance companies to find the national statistics of the number of toddlers who fall down the
stairs and the extent of their injuries on an annual basis.
After finding that a few toddlers would fall and suffer some harm, the corporations would continue to argue the
gate is too expensive . . . and cause undue economic hardship on the company.
Instead they would convince regulators that inexpensive pillows at the bottom of the stairs would provide ample
protection and would result in . . . an acceptable level of harm . . . for falling toddlers.
13
The cost to a corporation, using this example, is only the price of a gate and installation. That is how corporations
and government regulators determine costs.. However, the costs, if harm does occur, include more than the cost of
just installing a gate.
It could include hospital emergency room costs if a child breaks a bone, the costs of parents taking off work to care
for their child, and if the child is seriously injured . . . or crippled . . . the long term costs to care for the child, and
the loss of the child’s potential future earnings.
Next Slide Please
14
Moving from the abstract example of a staircase, to a real world example, it looks more like this.
The coal fired power plants that are operating today release a significant amount of mercury into the air during
operation. The industry claims that although they could reduce the mercury emissions, the costs of retro fitting the
plant is expensive, while the threat of harm to public health or environmental is not very high—a small risk.
It is an undisputed fact that this airborne mercury lands in rivers, lakes and the ocean, and that mercury builds up in
the fish population. One in six women in the U.S. of childbearing age have mercury in her bloodstream at levels
that are deemed unsafe by government scientists. Through no fault of their own, these women are exposed to
mercury by simply eating fish---from tuna fish from a can to fresh fish from a river or lake. This is just not right
nor seen as an acceptable risk by pregnant women who need protection from such exposures—especially when it’s
achievable.
According to data from the Center For Disease Control, each year, more than 15,000 children born in Florida, were
exposed to unsafe levels of mercury as a fetus. Even low exposures to mercury in the womb and in childhood
could lead to life-long neurological and learning problems.
In this situation the CEO of the power plant only looks at the front-end cost of reducing the mercury releases into
the air. The cost of a child’s learning disabilities or other related health problems, and societal costs for special
educational teachers, health care are never factored into the CEO’s cost equation.
15
PVC plastic--which is plastic made with chlorine—presents a similar situation. Although there are many other
alternative plastics available on the market today -- this product remains on the market because the producers argue
there are minimal risks associated with PVC.
But that’s not true. The lifecycle of PVC products causes serious environmental and public health problems.
Families living around plants that make or mold the plastic have reported high rates of cancer, birth defects and
other diseases. The additive chemicals in flexible PVC can leak out of the bottle or container and into the products,
like shampoo, food, or drinks. The new shower curtain smell is PVC evaporating into the air from the shower
curtain. Some of these additive chemicals can cause cancer, reproductive and respiratory problems. This is why
many health care facilities have stopped using PVC IV bags and other medical products. Finally, when PVC
products are disposed in a landfill, these same chemicals that leak into the products and evaporate into the air can
leak into groundwater. Burning PVC in an incinerator releases dioxin and other dangerous chemicals are released
into the air.
These risks have far reaching effects and costs associated with them. We currently have safer plastics available
that would provide the same usability without the huge public health and environmental risks or costs.
Next Slide Please
16
The external costs are almost never factored into decisions around environmental chemical exposures.
Victim and societal costs are real and expensive, such as the loss of property values, environmental clean ups, and
caring for a child born with a birth defect as a result of mercury in the fish that the child’s mother eat.
Let’s look at asthma. Asthma is increasing in this country. The costs of treatment are significant.
In the U.S., about 15 million people have asthma. It has become the number one chronic disease in children. It is
the primary reason that children across the country are hospitalized and one of the top reasons they miss school.
Numerous studies have found air pollution results in an increase in asthma.
Next Slide Please
17
In Georgia, for example, the cost of childhood asthma includes:


Three hundred and ninety thousand (390,000) missed work days for parents—which equals 30 - 60 million
dollars per year
Plus one hundred and seven (107) million dollars in hospital charges
Reducing asthma in Georgia by 20 – 40 percent will save Georgia families and the state between
27 – 67 million dollars per year.
In Massachusetts, the estimated number of children with asthma is over 100,000.
The medical costs for environmentally induced asthma range from 10 million to 35 million dollars per year.
In Massachusetts, Neurobehavioral disorders including ADHD, and account for 150,000 children in special
education programs. It is estimated that environmentally attributed illnesses within this number costs the state 38
million to 154 million dollars. The future loss of earnings for these children as they become adults ranges between
103 million to 412 million dollars.
These costs are not included in the “cost analysis” when corporations and regulators determine “tolerable or
acceptable risks.” A full cost accounting would consider all these impacts.
Next Slide Please
18
The Center for Health, Environment and Justice’s, BE SAFE and Childproofing Our Communities Campaigns,
(YOUR ORGANIZATION’S NAME ) and others are working to change the way decisions are made.
We are working for responsible action ---placing gates at the top of the stairs rather than pillows at the bottom-Saving taxpayers and families from the costs and unnecessary suffering that result from preventable harm.
Current chemical laws and regulations are 30 years old and haven’t kept pace with the latest scientific research,
which shows that even small doses of chemicals can cause diseases, and that children are at highest risk.
In fact, most of the 80,000 chemicals in use today have never been tested, and 2,000 new chemicals are being
added each year.
Most people believe that government acts as responsibly around industrial chemical testing as they do with
evaluating safety of food products and drugs. But sadly it’s not so.
For most chemicals, we don’t know how they interact with our bodies or how they will affect future generations.
There is no real understanding of how multiple chemical exposures from our air, water, food and consumer
products are affecting our bodies. It’s frightening that we don’t know.
Next Slide Please
19
The process we use to regulate chemicals over the past several decades has led us down a path that is not health
protective. This outdated way we make decisions relies on guesswork and assumes we can manage and measure
risks to public health and the environment.
Today, we are discovering that not only did we guess wrong, but the process used to guess is both misleading and
dangerous. Americans have such faith in science that it is difficult for us to accept that we don’t know enough to
accurately measure, manage and control risks.
Let’s look at the history of lead, a commonly known chemical. As you can see in this slide, what we once believed
was a “safe” level of lead has changed dramatically from 1960 to 2000.
In 1960, government assumed that 60 micrograms of lead in blood was tolerable. They were wrong. This meant
that many too many children were exposed to life altering levels of lead that likely reduced their IQ and the ability
to reach true birth-based potential.
Studies estimate that each IQ point lost in a child represents a loss of $8,300 in annual income for that child. To
support children with low IQs, society needs additional dollars for special education teachers and other programs.
More importantly, children who are harmed intellectually or physically cannot achieve their “American Dream”
without great difficulty.
This is just unfair.
Next Slide Please
20
Each time there is evidence of possible harm from a chemical like lead or mercury, corporations demand absolute
proof of harm . . . growing evidence of probable harm is not enough . . . before they will change their practices or
products. Absolute proof—100% scientifically certified—is sometimes impossible to obtain and could take
decades. In the meantime innocent unsuspecting people will be harmed in the process.
The tobacco industry is a very good example of how this works. They demanded proof of harm before taking
action. Most people watched the debate about cigarette smoking for years in the newspapers and on television.
Some people publicly testified that they smoked for 50 years without an effect while others said they smoked for
less time than that and developed lung cancer.
There was science indicating a health concern with tobacco use as far back as 1945. It wasn’t until the 1990’s that
cautionary steps were taken. Many people still remember the cigarette companies corporate leaders standing in
front of Congress with their right hand in the air swearing that cigarettes were not addictive and posed few risks.
It would be impossible to debate the risks of each of the thousands of chemicals on the market today in the same
manner as tobacco use, which was resolved after 40 plus years of debate.
Next Slide Please
21
So how do we move forward with a different, more protective way to make decisions?
1. We need to understand that science can provide guidance for the choices that we make, but cannot give us
the entire answer.
2. We need to shift the burden of proof of harm. This means that protection of public health and the
environment needs to receive the benefit of doubt, not the corporate bottom line. Corporate leaders need to
act responsibly and prove their products and processes are safe before they enter the environment and
marketplace—similar to what happens with food products and drugs.
3. We must heed early warnings signs. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it
is likely to be a duck. If there are indications that harm is occurring, then we must take those warnings
seriously, not dismiss them until someone can show absolute cause of harm.
4. We must examine all available alternatives. Are there other products, processes, chemicals or practices that
will present no or less harm than what is being proposed?
Next Slide Please
22
Why is it so important to act now?
Because our children and our country’s future is at risk. Children may represent only a small percentage of today’s
population . . . but they represent 100% of our future.
Our country’s future leaders need to be strong, healthy and able to reach their intellectual potential for America to
compete in the global market.
A child’s first environment is in their mother’s womb. Chemicals can cross the placenta and interfere with the
baby’s development. For example, mercury from mothers eating fish - can result in brain and nervous system
damage to the developing baby.
If you look at this growth chart of a developing baby from the first week until full term - 38 weeks - you can see
the different times that are critical to the development of organs, limbs and the nervous system. The dark gray
areas on the bar are highly sensitive periods and the light gray bars are less sensitive times. Just a small exposure
to chemicals in one of these windows of opportunity can result in serious harm to the developing baby.
Exposures at certain times can make a critical impact– like the central nervous system indicated as the first bar
under the fetus graphics—the first six weeks are most important. Development of the heart (second bar) is also
very sensitive the first six weeks of baby’s development.
Today, America is seeing a nationwide increase in childhood brain and central nervous system cancers in preschool children. In the past decade, children from birth to four years of age, have seen a 53% increase brain and
central nervous system cancers. No one knows for sure how much of this increase in cancer is due to chemical
exposure in baby’s first environment – the womb.
Next Slide Please
23
When a child is born they do not behave like “little adults.” They behave like children, crawling on the floor, dirt,
or grass, and putting their hands and objects in their months. This behavior places them at higher risk than adults.
Look at these pictures drawn by 4 & 5 year old children living in Mexico. Everything about the children’s families
were the similar, food, culture, and lifestyle, except for where they lived. The children were asked to draw a
picture of a person. As you can see, the children’s drawings on the left have more detail. These children lived
high up in the hills—some distance away from where the agricultural pesticides were used regularly in the valley.
The drawings on the right are from children living in the valley where significant quantities of pesticides are used
on agricultural crops and lands. Pesticides effect the nervous system – the brain, and you can see this difference in
these drawings. Although children are most vulnerable --- adults are not free from involuntary risks from
environmental chemicals.
We’ve seen sperm counts in men decrease over the past two decades
Breast cancer and chemical sensitivity are increasing in both men and women.
Endometriosis and diabetes are also on the rise, likely from dioxin in the food and environment.
Next Slide Please
24
How can we take steps to change the way decisions are made?
- We need to question whether a product, chemical, process or practice is suspected of causing harm to public
health or the environment, and
- We need to ask if there is a safer alternative available today that can be used.
Next Slide Please
25
How does this work in your everyday life?
If we all start where we live, work, learn, play and pray to create a change, than two things will transpire:
First - We can create a shift in the market that would offer safer choices at a competitive price.
Second - We can shift public opinion, through our local work and conversations. A knowledgeable public will
provide the foundation for asking corporations and government to act as responsibly as you have—in your
home, place of worship, school, etc.—and find safer alternatives to harmful products and practices.
Next Slide Please
26
Here are a few first steps you can take.
Resources are available at the end of this presentation.
If you belong to a faith-based group you should look to see what products the institution is using to clean the
building, control pests, or to treat the lawn.
Ask the institution to explore using less harmful products or methods to reduce the risk of harm.
- Ask the leader of your faith-based institution to talk with the congregation about these issues and being
living stewardship of the earth and its creatures.
- Pass a purchasing policy with the institution that screens products to identify the safest products available for
your purposes, and looks at the products lifecycle—from production to disposal.
Next Slide Please
27
If you have a child in school, pre-school or daycare, you should ask the same set of questions.
What does the school use for cleaning? There are non-toxic cleaning products available and being used
successfully in schools across the country today.
There are also successful non- toxic pest management programs in schools that successfully mange the buildings
and grounds without the use of hazardous pesticides or fertilizers.
Where does the food for lunches come from? Healthy foods grown without pesticides and other chemicals can be
bought from local farmers or other sources. Obesity is a problem with children today and healthy food can
be a good start toward solving this problem. Schools that buy large quantities of organic foods can help shift
the market and support the farmers who do not use of agricultural chemicals.
If renovations are planned, form a green building committee to look at material options. Carpets, PVC products
can transfer chemicals into the air for months after installation. Students and staff often complain of
headaches, nausea after construction. Ample non-toxic alternative products exists which can improve
students health and learning.
Engage students in programs that educate them as well as giving the youth an opportunity to play a role at their
local school. CHEJ has a school-based program that can be used for this purpose with students from
kindergarten through 12th grade.
Next Slide Please
28
Ask your city, town or state to pass a purchasing policy that requires the purchasing department review all products
for their hazard levels.
There are specific model policies that small towns and large cities and states have already adopted in an effort to
protect their citizens and be responsible with taxpayers’ monies.
A link to a list of policies is available on the BESAFENET.com and chej.org websites
Next Slide Please
29
Be a responsible consumer.
Don’t buy products that release chemicals into our environment or into the product we’re buying. PVC, as I’ve
mentioned . . . releases serious toxic chemical during production, can leak chemicals into the products and
when burned releases very toxic chemicals (dioxin) into the environment.
Turn the plastic container until you see the triangle-recycling symbol. If it has a 3 or the letter V in the center of
the triangle than its made of PVC—don’t buy it. There are many other plastic options to chose from. Write
down the corporations 800 number on the label of products that you won’t buy and tell them why you didn’t
purchase their product.
Look at the resources on the web (included at the end of this presentation) for a list of least harmful common
everyday products you can buy, including plastics, shoes, toys, electronics, automobiles and more.
Buy organic when you can. The more we buy organic the more shelf space the store will give to the product line.
This will replace chemical laden vegetables and fruits.
Ask you garden center for non-toxic products for your lawn and garden. Talk with groups who research pest
management options for getting rid of your ants and other pests without using highly toxic products.
Next Slide Please
30
There is a fairly long list on the web site on the resource page that lists consumer items that are available across the
country which are much more healthy and environmentally friendly.
Although society needs to begin to make decisions differently . . .
it really comes down to:

common sense

acting responsibly, whether you are a institutional leader, community activist or an individual consumer

and having a shared vision of creating and maintaining a strong, healthy and safe America for our children and
their children.
If everyone plays a small role we can make significant change. It is our responsibility to keep the American
Promise accessible for future generations.
Thank you for your time and your future actions to secure this shared vision
of building strong, healthy and safe communities.
END OF SLIDE SHOW
I’d be happy to take questions or comments if anyone has one.
31
Wingspread Statement Slide 3 - :A Common Sense Way to Protect Public Health & the Environment, Prepared by the Science &
Environmental Health Network, January 25, 1998
Decision making Slide 4 - A Map Toward Precautionary Decision-making. Raffensperger, C. and J. Tickner, eds. 1999. Protecting
Public Health and the Environment: Implementing the Precautionary Principle. Washington, DC: Island Press
Risk Assessments Slide 7 - Rachel's Environment & Health News, #195 - Risk Assessment -- Part 2: No Person Shall Be... Deprived
Of Life. Peter Montague, August 21, 1990
Cost-Benefit Slide 11 - Pricing The Priceless: Cost-Benefit Analysis of Environmental Protection, Lisa Heinzerling, Frank Ackerman,
Georgetown Environmental Law and Policy Institute, Georgetown University Law Center, DC 2002
Costs of Disease slide 12 - PROSPERING WITH PRECAUTION: Employment, Economics, and the Precautionary Principle; Frank
Ackerman and Rachel Massey, Global Development and Environment Institute,Tufts University, August, 2002
Lead Slide 14 – Needleman, H.L. and Landrigan, P.J. (1994) Raising Children Toxic Free, New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Growth Chart Slide 17 - Moore & Persaud, 1973
Children’s Drawings Slide 18 - Guillette, EA, Meza, MM, Aquilar, MG, Soto, AD, Gracia, IA (1998) “An anthropological approach
to the evaluation of preschool children exposed to pesticides in Mexico.” Environmental Health Perespectives 106 (6): 347-353
Greater Boston Physicians for Social Responsibility (GBPSR) (2000) In Harms Way: Toxic Threats to Child Development, Greater
Boston Physicians for Social Responsibility, Cambridge, MA, May
Mercury Levels in Various Fish www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/03/briefing/4010b1-11-fish-data-revised.pdf
Costs of preventable Childhood Illness: The Price We Pay for Pollution; Rachel Massey, MSc, MPA and Frank Ackerman, PhD,
September, 2003 Global Development and Environmental Institute Tufts University.
Human Exposure Assessment Report from Environmental Health Perspectives January, 2000