by Jeanie Graustein, 

Environmental Justice Coordinator, Office of Urban Affairs,

        The celebration of “Respect Life Sunday” on the first weekend of October often coincides with the observance of the Feast of St. Francis of Assisi, the patron of ecology, who had deep respect for all life. He understood that human beings were completely dependent on God and on the workings or services of the created world, but he saw that people often were not thankful and respectful in their use of God’s gifts, even in the 13^th century. Now, at the beginning of the 3^rd millennium in our much more complex world, Francis can inspire us anew to reflect on the ways in which our uses of creation affect the poor and vulnerable, especially children born and unborn. The Holy Father and our bishops have called us to this task and to action based upon it

In his reflection, “Choose Life: Toward a Culture of Life in the New Millennium”, Archbishop Charles Chaput comments on the many threats to human life, especially at its beginning and end. He says that “to refrain from killing other human beings does not exhaust our obligation toward others. It is the starting point of human rights, the necessary first step in building a culture of life.” Today, as part of this obligation, we need to extend the scope of what respecting life involves and to examine how the many unintended consequences of our uses of the environment may threaten children’s health and that of future generations.

This need arises from the fact that children are particularly susceptible to damage from environmental hazards because their bodies, both in utero and in their first few years, are developing and growing at a rapid rate. They consume more food and drink and breathe more air as a percentage of body weight than do adults, so their exposure to chemicals and particles is greater. Their behaviors of crawling and of putting their hands and many objects into their mouths also increase ingestion of pollutants. Children’s immature systems are not as efficient at dealing with pollutants as are those of adults.

Some examples of health problems caused by environmental factors:

· In Connecticut, the Department of Environmental Protection has warned that pregnant women, women who might become pregnant, and children should not eat fish from certain lakes and rivers, or certain fish from Long Island Sound. These are contaminated with mercury and PCB’s from incineration, spills, or improper disposal of these toxic substances. This is of particular concern to families that depend on fishing for most of their protein.

· Lead poisoning from paint in older homes, usually ingested as dust, causes physical, intellectual, and behavioral problems in infants and children. A developing fetus can be harmed by the mother’s exposure. Poor and minority children living in deteriorating urban housing are most at risk. ( The elimination of leaded gasoline greatly reduced overall exposure to lead.)

· Asthma rates, deaths, and emergency room visits among children and young people have increased dramatically since 1980. Puerto Rican children have the highest rates of any group, and Black children are 5 times more likely to die from asthma than white children. Asthma attacks are triggered by both outdoor (ozone, sulfur dioxide, soot) and indoor (tobacco smoke, gas pilot lights, pesticides, dust mites, roaches, pet dander, solvents) air pollution.

· Children are exposed to pesticides by many routes. Evidence is growing that household pesticide residues on toys and pets can expose small children to toxic substances. Children may have accidental exposure to garden, lawn, and farm chemicals and to pesticides used in schools. Limits for pesticide residues in foods have largely been calculated for adults rather than children, and sampling of foods is often limited by lack of resources. Mothers’ breast milk may contain pesticide residues, dioxins, and PCB’s.

· 10 million children under the age of 12 live within four miles of a toxic waste dump, and communities with the greatest percentage of minority residents have the most waste facilities and pollution-producing industries.

Why are such situations occurring? Over 75,000 new chemicals have been invented in the last 50 years, which are used in, or are by-products of, consumer goods, activities, and services which have created our modern lifestyle. Amounts and effects of either occasional or lifetime exposures through direct contact, food, air, and water are largely unknown, as are the effects of the interaction of a wide variety of substances within the body. Air and water pollution, which have decreased in many areas under Clean Air and Clean Water regulations, are still a concern as our demands for energy continue to grow and as more trash is incinerated. Air quality is still threatened as suburban sprawl grows and the number of cars and the miles driven both increase. Motor vehicles are the source of about half of Connecticut-generated air pollution, with diesel fuel producing particularly harmful exhaust.

We need to continually examine our situation, both locally and regionally, for as Archbishop Chaput remarked: “The culture in which we live is an ecology. If we pump waste into the air we breathe or water we drink, we become ill. We poison the root system that sustains us all. If we reject the value and dignity of human life, we build our culture on a lie and its structures cannot endure.”

Back

What we can do as individuals and as a parish?