Lead: A Regulatory Success Story

Research!America's former chairman, the Honorable Paul G. Rogers recognized that environmental factors played a major role in health effects and was a consistent advocate for changing environmental policy to improve public health. His work to pass the Clean Air Act is actually part of a larger story about how research played a major role in the 20th century guiding policy to successfully regulate lead.

Today, we know that lead exposure is a problem for children’s health, but this wasn’t always the case. Research evolved the scientific understanding of lead poisoning, which can be broken down into four stages [1].

1. Children assumed not to be affected by lead
2. Cases of acute lead poisoning were identified but were thought to result in either death or recovery
3. Lasting mental deficits only occur when children had clinical symptoms of lead poisoning
4. Children without clinical symptoms can still have mental deficits in language, IQ, or attention

In response to research, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) adjusted its definition of a safe blood lead level for children, which prompted regulations to reduce lead exposure.

Image credit: K. Sexton, et al. "Human Biomonitoring of Environmental Chemicals." American Scientist 2004; 92: 38.

There were two major sources of lead exposure for children: leaded gasoline and lead paint.

Lead was a standard additive in gasoline, but in 1965, research demonstrated that the increased lead concentrations in the air were the direct result of human activities, like burning leaded gasoline. This clear link between air quality and health was why Paul Rogers led the fight to pass the Clean Air Act. Passage of the Clean Air Act paved the way for the phase-out of lead in gasoline by 1996.

Lead based paints were commonly used in homes in the early 1900s. Research linking lead exposure to children's health effects prompted a 1978 federal limit on the lead content in paints used in residential buildings.

Image credit: National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS)

Together, these policy actions were extremely successful at reducing lead exposure. Banning leaded gasoline reduced the average air lead concentration by 94%. This ban, in conjunction with the limit on the lead content in paint, reduced the average blood lead level in children more than 7 times below the 1970s level.

This reduction in the United States is estimated to have resulted in an economic gain between $110 and $319 billion dollars for children born in a given year [2]. This economic gain was calculated using the increased worker productivity that will result from the improved cognitive ability of children with lower lead exposures.

Lead regulation is a great example of how research can lead to policy changes that can benefit public health and save money.


References
1. H. Needleman. Annu. Rev. Med. 2004; 55: 209-222.
2. Grosse, S.D. et al. Environ. Health Perspect. 2002; 110: 563-569.


This is Part 3 of 10 in our Chemical Exposures and Public Health series.
Part 1 - From Interest to Passion
Part 2 - An Environmental Health Risk
Part 3 - Lead: A Regulatory Success Story
Part 4 - Something My Body Needs Anyway?
Part 5 - Obesity's Elephant: Environmental Chemicals
Part 6 - Why Our Approach to Toxicology Must Change
Part 7 - Failures of U.S. Chemical Regulation
Part 8 - Cleaning Up Our Act
Part 9 - Environmental Health Research Saves Lives and Money
Part 10 - Call to Action

An Environmental Health Risk

Image credit: Echoey13

How often do you think about the chemicals in products you buy and if they could affect your health? We use a number of products every day from shampoo to cleaning products and we expect that the government regulates these products to make sure they are safe.

Unfortunately, in the past, certain chemicals have been discovered to affect our health only after they reached the market, as was the case for lead paint. Today, this is happening again with a group of compounds called endocrine disrupting chemicals, which mimic our hormones.

WWII increased demand for products, resulting in the development new uses for natural chemicals, which exposed us at higher levels, and the acceleration of the production of chemicals not previously found in nature. But no one thought about potential effects on our health, until Rachel Carson published Silent Spring. Her book raised awareness that chemicals could interact with our bodies.

Image credit: Beverly & Pack

Carson published evidence that the pesticide, DDT, had put the bald eagle on a path towards extinction, and if it was hurting wildlife, it could potentially be harmful to humans as well. DDT was considered a miracle pesticide and was used for everything from combating malaria to protecting cotton. However, Carson's book spurred national action that ultimately led to a ban of DDT.

Silent Spring was the beginning of an environmental movement, which I'll share some results of in more detail tomorrow.


This is Part 2 of 10 in our Chemical Exposures and Public Health series.
Part 1 - From Interest to Passion
Part 2 - An Environmental Health Risk
Part 3 - Lead: A Regulatory Success Story
Part 4 - Something My Body Needs Anyway?
Part 5 - Obesity's Elephant: Environmental Chemicals
Part 6 - Why Our Approach to Toxicology Must Change
Part 7 - Failures of U.S. Chemical Regulation
Part 8 - Cleaning Up Our Act
Part 9 - Environmental Health Research Saves Lives and Money
Part 10 - Call to Action

From Interest to Passion

As a kid, I was always vocal about my concern for the impact of pollution on the environment. Back in March, I wrote a more detailed post about my interests, but here is a recap:

I wrote a letter to President Clinton when I was eleven, on U.S. international environmental policy. In seventh grade, we were required to conduct a science fair project, and clearly my project focused on an environmental problem. I investigated the effects of chemicals in products we use, like antifreeze or detergent, on plant growth. As I expected, my research findings showed that nearly all the plants were less healthy than the unpolluted plants (I've included a photo of one of the posters as proof). Looking back, I now like to think of this project as foreshadowing.

Shortly after, I became interested in the clear connection of environmental pollution and human health. I studied chemistry to gain an understanding of how chemicals interact with our environment and our bodies. While my doctoral research was not directly environmental, I took every liberty I had to learn about current environmental problems. My graduation requirements included designing a research project outside of my field. I used that opportunity to learn about bioremediation, or using nature as a tool to remove contaminants from the environment. Specifically, I was looking to solve the problem of the estrogen from our birth control getting in the water, since research was showing it was causing developmental problems for male fish.

Here at Research!America, my policy project continued the theme and had an environmental focus. I examined the intersection of Chemical Exposures and Public Health, which is becoming a defining concern of the century. Environmental health research is on of the most direct ways the U.S. can use research and prevention to save both lives and treatment costs.

Over the next 9 posts, I will share with you my research results, tell you about the things I believe we need to be concerned about, and finally what actions we can take to make a positive change.


This is Part 1 of 10 in our Chemical Exposures and Public Health series.
Part 1 - From Interest to Passion
Part 2 - An Environmental Health Risk
Part 3 - Lead: A Regulatory Success Story
Part 4 - Something My Body Needs Anyway?
Part 5 - Obesity's Elephant: Environmental Chemicals
Part 6 - Why Our Approach to Toxicology Must Change
Part 7 - Failures of U.S. Chemical Regulation
Part 8 - Cleaning Up Our Act
Part 9 - Environmental Health Research Saves Lives and Money
Part 10 - Call to Action

Where Do Scientists Belong in Policy?

I finished my Ph.D. in July and promptly packed up and moved to D.C. Why? I have had a long-standing interest in science policy and wanted learn how scientists fit in the process. As I try to find my place in the science policy world, I'm interested in knowing where you, our readers, think scientists belong.

There are multiple ways that scientists can contribute to policy, but what role do you think they should be playing?

What role should scientists play in the policy process?
	Vote in elections
	Get published
	Be a science advisor
	Get a job on the Hill
	Become a lobbyist
	Run for office
pollcode.com free polls

On Writing

Today's post was inspired by this publication.

In my work with New Voices and the interns and fellows in our office, I often find myself repeating the same advice: add a story, make it personal. Most of the people I'm working with are trained scientists, and they claim that learning how to inject themselves in their writing is incredibly difficult. A quote I found while reading this week, explains the situation:

"[Scientists'] language is intended to convey a special meaning: the relationship between the problem expressed, and the results at hand, not a plot or storyline." (chapter 5)

When I received my first training in writing, I was told that my personality should only be expressed in the nature of my writing, not in the words themselves. That meant no first-person narrative style, personal anecdotes, opinion statements, or un-researched claims. If it was a valid claim (I can hear my teacher saying this in my head), someone else will have opined it or you'll be able to quote a source of some kind.

My academic writing never veered far from that philosophy. Outside academia, however, I found it confining; with all due respect to my writing instructors, I cannot agree with that theory. To think that if it was a good idea, than someone else will have had it first, is to believe that there is no new knowledge or perspective to be had in the world. Moreover, it is hard to be persuasive without passion, and passion is personal.

Not all personality is professional and there will still be some venues (say, when submitting to an academic journal) that academic-style writing is appropriate. But when trying to communicate with the public or policymakers, the personal story makes the difference.

I found my ability to integrate "story" during my last semester of graduate school. My speech writing professor insisted on the same reliable/credible sourcing as instructors of the past, but also on the integration of an arc, or a flow to the writing that compelled people to continue on.

Non-fiction can be entertaining as well as informative. All we need is a little science, a little passion, and a little practice.

Just (a little) food for thought.

National Institutes of Health

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is the primary agency that funds biomedical research. The NIH supports research at hospitals, medical schools, and universities.

Did you notice that there is an ‘s’ at the end of ‘Institutes’? That is because the NIH is made up of 27 institutes and centers, which makes discussions about funding sources really confusing since each institute and center has its own unique abbreviation. Were you submitting that application to NIGMS, NIBIB, or NCI? Huh?

The NIH began in a one-room laboratory in 1887. This lab was known as the ‘Laboratory of Hygiene’ and was set up within the Marine Hospital Service (which later became the U.S. Public Health Service). In 1930, the Ransdell Act reorganized the Laboratory of Hygiene into the National Institute of Health (no ‘s’ at this point). Today, the NIH has grown to a campus of 75 buildings over 300 acres.

Each year the NIH invests over $28 billion dollars in research, with over 83% of the money being distributed through competitive grants. Submitted grants undergo an intensive peer-review process to identify projects that are the most promising and address the NIH’s research priorities. This review process seems to work well for the NIH, considering over 100 scientists who have either worked for NIH or been funded by NIH have received a Nobel Prize for their work.

The current director of the NIH is Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D., a brilliant scientist who is well known for the leadership role he took in the completion of the Human Genome Project. He is also invested in improving science communication, and was recently recognized as a Rock Star of Science.


This is Part 4 in the Introduction to Federal Agencies series.
Part 1 - Acronyms, Abbreviations and Agencies
Part 2 - A-B...C-D-C?
Part 3 - Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

Child Nutrition is a Global Concern

April is Global Child Nutrition Month. This is the perfect time to give the globe a “check-up” for developments, efforts, and general information on children’s nutrition in a few regions of our planet. Let's start our journey here at home in the United States.

According to the National Alliance for Nutrition and Activity, two-thirds of premature deaths in the U.S. are due to poor nutrition, physical inactivity and tobacco use. Nutrition is a key ingredient to a healthy life-style. It should be on everyone’s agenda, especially those in a position of responsibility to children.

Within the United States there are initiatives taking place to battle childhood obesity. The First Lady, Michelle Obama, and former president Bill Clinton have undertaken stamping out this problem as their personal platform.

A group of retired military officers going by the name “Mission: Readiness” are calling school lunches a national security threat. These officers are looking at it from a recruitment perspective. A large portion (9 million to be exact) of 17-24 year old are too overweight to join the military. Even those who wish to make that most noble commitment cannot because they do not meet basic regulations to be successful airmen.

The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act that just passed the House Agriculture Committee gives power to the Secretary of Agriculture to set forth new standards for school lunches, breakfasts and all foods sold on school grounds. With efforts from the First Lady, “Mission: Readiness”, and many other public health groups child nutrition and combating childhood obesity has been brought to the forefront of policy in the United States.

The U.S. is not the only country with a childhood obesity problem. Mexico’s childhood obesity rate is second only to the United States. A health ministry report released in January noted that school children in Mexico have an average of five opportunities to eat in the average school day. This is quite astounding considering the school day only lasts four hours. School lunches and food sold on school grounds is a target amongst Mexican policymakers. North America is not the only region focusing on nutrition issues. Though, the picture in other nations is on the opposite end of the nutrition spectrum.

North America has plenty of food for its children. Children need only to make healthy decisions and have healthy options available to them. South-east Asian nations are plagued by a lack of food rather than poor quality. Organizations are engaging in grassroots efforts to develop new food options through farming, herding, and fishing.

To curb this problem World Vision introduced vegetable crops such as potatoes, carrots, and cabbage into children’s diet in East Timor, a south-east Asian nation. Also, farming techniques and goat, chicken, and fish farming is developing for new sources of food.

Cost of food and the heavy effect of weather are serious problems in most of Africa and organizations are working to counteract that fact.

Concern Worldwide hosts supplementary feeding programs for malnourished children. The UN World Food Program is also providing supplementary rations to children under the age of five, pregnant women and nursing mothers.

Babysitters, parents, school officials, and policymakers should be concerned with the food being distributed to the children of all nations. There are basic guidelines for nutrition and how much of which foods we are supposed to consume each day.

With this information in mind we should educate children on proper eating habits. Also, we should support organizations that provide nutritious meals or meal supplements to children in parts of the globe that do not have access to sufficient food sources. No child should go hungry, ever.

Advocating for the Intersection

Now that we’ve seen intersection between medical research and public health, what should our advocacy messages be moving forward in order to support this collaboration?

Increased funding for health research is vital. We are currently spending about five and a half cents on the dollar for health research, and approximately 70% of Americans believe that we should be spending more. By increasing funding we can support the discovery of new treatments and therapies for health problems such as childhood obesity and HIV.

In order continue public health’s work moving forward, it’s also important to increase funding for the CDC. By supporting the organizations that focuses on health promotion and disease prevention, we will help to find non-biomedical ways to combat health problems within the general public.

So, speak out! Talk to your congressman and senator about the importance of medical research and public health.

This is Part 5 of 5 in our Intersection of Medical Research and Public Health series.
Part 1 - The Intersection of Medical Research and Public Health
Part 2 - Research and Public Health Tackle the Flu Together
Part 3 - Today's Epidemic: Childhood Obesity
Part 4 - HIV/AIDS: From Death Sentence to Chronic Disease?
Part 5 - Advocating for the Intersection

March of Dimes Walk for Babies

Looking at me using physics to life up a car at COSI, you'd never know I was born with a congenital birth defect. My right kidney had two upper poles, rather than one, and a blocked ureter.

In my case the doctor used dye to follow the path of blood and urine through my system. Because the blocked ureter only occurred in one kidney, renal function (kidney function) appeared to be normal. This was not the case and as a result the kidney deteriorated over time and had to be removed via nephrectomy (kidney removal). Because of organizations such as the March of Dimes Birth Defects Foundation better science exists today for identifying issues in premature babies, newborns, and infants.

As a teenager I babysat a young girl who had the exact same birth defect as I experienced. Her mother had us compare scars and this little girl’s scar was half the size of mine. Instead of an incision that extended from my front to my back , hers was only 3 inches long. She also had half of her kidney on which the doctor performed the nephrectomy. I was overjoyed to learn that medical science had developed enough for this little girl to have an even better outcome than my successful surgery.

March for Babies, formerly WalkAmerica, funds programs, advocacy and research to prevent premature birth, birth defects, and infant mortality. Each year the American government spends billions of dollars on research for diseases and disorders. It is imperative that research continue for children and infants specifically, because their bodies metabolize drugs differently. Medical professionals cannot make dosing decisions based on weight alone. Infants deserve definitive solutions to their health issues.

The March of Dimes first mission was to eradicate poliomyelitis (polio by its common name) in America. The polio epidemic reached its height in the mid 20th Century and affected not only infants, but also adolescents. Jonas Salk developed a vaccine for polio, which was subsequently tested in a clinical trial (one of the largest in history) sponsored by the March of Dimes. The trials were a success and as of 1991 polio has been eradicated in the western hemisphere.
March of Dimes Birth Defects Foundation continues to educate people and fund and advocate for research to improve the health of premature babies and infants. We can contribute by participating in the Walk for Babies this Saturday, April 25th 2010.

If you live in the DC area, join the anticipated thousands of participants this weekend in the March of Dimes March for Babies. The March of Dimes Birth Defects Foundation is holding its annual March for Babies.

The event begins at the Washington Monument grounds at 15th Street NW and Constitution Avenue NW. Registration begins at 8:00 am and the walk begins at 9:00am. Washingtonians will come together for four miles to support research that improves the health of one of society’s most defenseless group.

There are other opportunities to donate to the cause. Famous Footwear has a coupon for the official shoe of the Walk for Babies. You can form a team, join a team, or donate directly to the organization via their website.


Jessica Stutzman has a Bachelor of Arts in Security and Intelligence from The Ohio State University and is an administrative assistant at Research!America. She has previously contributed to New Voices on women's issues.

Environmental Re-Revolution

Happy Earth Day, New Voices! Today is the 40th anniversary of Earth Day. The first Earth Day was held in 1970; founded by Senator Gaylord Nelson. After seeing the devastation caused by a massive oil spill off the coast of Santa Barbara in 1969, Senator Nelson was infuriated by the lack of action in Washington, DC. He suggested holding a nationwide “teach-in” in response to growing environmental degradation.

Nelson said, “I was satisfied that if we could tap into the environmental concerns of the general public and infuse the student anti-war energy into the environmental cause, we could generate a demonstration that would force this issue onto the political agenda.”

At the end of the day, it was clear Earth Day was a success. The widespread involvement has been attributed to the grassroots organizing, with more than 20 million people participating. April 22, 1970 was the first Earth Day, but also marked the beginning of the modern environmental movement.

Forty years later, Earth Day is more widely attended and has become an international celebration. However, the event does not carry the same sense of urgency. Recent polls highlight the trend of the American public’s dampened concern over environmental issues. Americans increasingly believe that environmental issues, such as climate change are being over exaggerated.

Image credit: Gallup

This societal shift is, in part, because the environmental threats we face today are not things we can easily observe. In the 1970s, celebrating Earth Day was taking action against clouds of smog in Los Angeles, oil soaked wildlife that companies were not held accountable for, and a river in Ohio that caught fire. Today, Earth Day raises awareness for several environmental issues that are difficult to perceive for most Americans. Worldwide, drinkable water is becoming scarcer, yet in the U.S. it flows freely from our taps. The average global temperature has been on a long-term upward trend, but this winter Mother Nature crippled cities like Washington, DC and Baltimore, MD with record-breaking snowfall.

It is time to renew the call to action. Here's a powerful video put together by Greenpeace, evoking the memory of JFK to deliver a call to action for world leaders to address environmental issues, such as climate change.

Video credit: Greenpeace

This Earth Day make the commitment to advocate for environmental protection, and to also make small changes in your life that could really add up if they became part of a revived movement. Here is a list of some things you can change right now to make a difference:

If you aren’t using it, unplug it. Even though you’ve turned an appliance off, if it is plugged into an outlet it is still drawing power. Unplugging appliances could result in a reduction in 10% of your household energy use, which can add up to real savings. If you appliances are plugged into a power strip, you can simply turn the power off.

Switch from bottled to filtered water. Bottled water requires much more energy to package and ship AND it costs you more money in the end.

Eat less meat. Meat production is estimated to produce 18% of global CO2 emissions.

Eat local. I was surprised to learn that the food we buy in the supermarket has traveled 1,500 miles on average to get from where it is grown to our plate. That requires a large amount of energy used just to move your food from point A to your plate.

Stop the leaky faucet. Not only is it an irritating sound to hear, it is also costing you money. The EPA website has some information about how you can do-it-yourself.

Be mindful of your water usage. Do you ever notice the person in the public restroom who leaves the water running not only while they lather their hands, but also while they go for the paper towels to dry off? I sure do. There are many times you can conserve by not leaving the water running, like washing your hands, brushing your teeth, or hand washing dishes.

Reduce Toxic Exposures. The EPA has started a great program called “Design for the Environment.” Companies with the label have worked with the EPA to reformulate products with safer chemicals.

Recycle Your Electronic Waste. Seventy percent of the heavy metals that end up in our landfills come from our discarded electronics, even though they are only about 2% of our discarded waste. Recycling keeps these toxic chemicals out of our environment.

How will you celebrate?

I myself will be attending “The Climate Rally” Earth Day event which is taking place this Sunday on the National Mall in Washington, DC. Festivities start at 11am and go on until at least 7pm. So if you are in the DC area, stop on by!