In the middle of a very busy New Years Eve, slightly stressful, energetic day, I found this 
small 
simple 
sweet 
sunny
 moment of bliss to watch the kookaburras from the balcony our family beach house. And laugh they did.

Ahhhhhh.

Happy New Year

For the love of books…

I grew up in a family of readers. Everyday from the age of 4, my mother would send us to our rooms to read for at least 1 hour. It didn’t matter that my brothers and I at that time couldn’t read. We all sat in silence and flicked through the colorful pages of books. This ritual still lives inside of me today, and I am passing it on to my chicks. And as I am reading them Dr Seuss I am reminded by his famous saying ‘The more you read, the more things you will know. The more that you learn, the more places you’ll go.’

There are many books that have helped me become a stronger and more vulnerable woman in 2011. Here is my top 10 list in the hope that others on a similar journey will find these useful:

1. Food Rules by Michael Pollan (I do love anything by Michael Pollan)
2. Feed your Skin by Carla Oates
3. The Fifth Sacred Thing by Starhawke
4. Medicine Woman by Lynn V Andrews
5. The Land of Painted Caves by Jean M. Auel
6. Business of the 21st century by Robert Kiyosaki
7. Raising Elijah: Protecting Our Children in an Age of Environmental Crisis by Sandra Steingraber
8. Writing Spirit by by Lynn V Andrews
9. Animal, Vegatable, Miracle by Barbara Kingsolver
10. Tribes by Seth Godin

What were your highlights of 2011? What books would recommend to others? I for one am keen to know….

Habitat: The Eco-system Within

This is an article I am proud of and feel grateful to Peppermint Magazine for publishing it. I have also had quite a number of people email me as a result of the article expressing thanks and appreciation. I feel deeply honoured by their corrospondance to me. Click the link to read the entire Habitat Article…. Enjoy!

Now, I make no apologies for being a Miessence warrior. I love the stuff. Raw. Potent. Certified Organic. Shipped fresh. But  the  Darling Salt Glow is very special product.

When we asked Miessence Director Narelle Chenery to create a special product for the holiday season, we knew that she would deliver an exceptional treat – and she has! The environmental-saving Darling Salt Glow is an eco-conscious body scrub made from salt sourced from the troubled Murray-Darling Basin located in southeastern Australia. The salt in the body scrub is produced naturally from underground saline aquifers that have been lying dormant for thousands of years. By utilizing these waters the salinity problems are reduced, the environment is improved, and a unique, pure, inland salt is produced. I haven’t found a product on the market that is this environmentally conscious.

The Darling Salt Glow helps to reduce the serious salinity problem in the Murray-Darling Basin. The impact of salinity is immense, resulting in losses in fertile productive land and decreased biodiversity in the native wetlands. An area the size of a football oval is being lost to salinity every hour. So scrub up!

Exfoliation of the skin has significant benefits.

● Blended with nourishing, organic coconut oil
● Delicious organic citrus and spice essential oils
● Revitalizes skin, leaving it feeling silky soft and smooth
● Exfoliates dead, dry skin cells, revealing plump, fresh skin
● Boosts circulation and stimulates the senses
● Smooths rough, dry areas
● Leaves skin supple, glowing and nourished

And here are the certified ingredients for the Darling Salt Glow:

Sodium Chloride from inland salt produced by solar evaporation of brine in Australia. Exfoliates, revitalizes, smooths, boosts circulation, stimulates the senses.

*Cocosnucifera (coconut) oil – Virgin coconut oil from the Pacific Islands, collected, grated, and cold-pressed within hours of opening the nut. Antiviral, antifungal, antibacterial, soothes, softens, smooths. Relieves dry, rough and wrinkled skin.

*Citrus dulcis (sweet orange) essential oil – Cold-pressed from the peel of the fruit grown in Italy. Astringent, antibacterial, antiseptic, toning and cleansing.

*Citrus aurantifolia (lime) essential oil – Steam distilled from the peel of fruit grown in the West Indies. Cleansing and antiseptic.

*Cinnamomum zeylanicum (cinnamon) leaf essential oil – Steam distilled from the leaf grown in Sri Lanka. Soothes, cools, antimicrobial and astringent.

*Syzygium aromatica (clove) bud essential oil – Steam distilled from the flower buds grown in Sri Lanka. Antiseptic, stimulating and painkilling.

*Rosmarinus officinalis (rosemary) leaf CO2 extract – Antioxidant and protective.

*Simmondsia chinensis (jojoba) seed oil – Cold-pressed from the bean of the desert plant in Argentina. Emollient, moisturizing, high in vitamins, skin protective, helps regulate PH, soothes inflamed skin.

*Certified Organic Ingredients

The Darling Salt Scrub is only around during the festive season so if you want to try some CLICK HERE

Happy scrubbing for your health and the environment!

I must confess: this has been a challenging to write about. The tension around vaccinating children is, how do I diplomatically say it – palpable.

Look at any parenting site dedicated to openly discussing vaccination and the dialogues are brutal. It’s apparent that the predatory instinct of the Wolf that lurks behind any good mother emerges when defending and protecting her cub. And like a wolf, we hunt in packs (gathering evidence and like-minded parents and practitioners to defend our decisions) and strike for juggler when we are cornered or feel threatened. Make no mistake, I too, can be one of those wolves I admit. Put oxybenzone on my child’s skin, an ingredient commonly found in conventional sunscreen and a known endocrine (hormone)-disrupting chemical, and I am known to hunt you down and attack without prejudice. It’s not personal – it’s primal, and I will defend my pack.

And it seems debate around vaccination has become even more divided these days as the Federal government moves to wed the vaccination schedule with the family tax benefit. If you are a ‘conscious objector’ to vaccinations you may not be affected –you just have to put in the form. But if you have missed or delayed your child’s vaccinations, or just don’t want some of the vaccinations, the government will doc you almost $2100 per child.

It’s been these latest government moves that have got me thinking more about the future of vaccinations, about control, the role of the State, and about the information (and science) we accept or reject about vaccination based on our values, faith, risk perceptions, intuition, and ideals that reinforce our opinions or identity as part of a social group.

Where paths diverge…

So what does the science say about vaccinations?

In short, that any risks associated with vaccinations are outweighed by the numerous benefits. Or in scientific terms – the correlation between vaccinated children and certain diseases does not equal causation.

Policy makers and practitioners then interpret this science and implement it via the National Vaccination Schedule. This schedule is carried it out in two ways: on an individual basis to protect specific persons at risk; and on a population basis, to provide ‘herd immunity’ to protect individuals who have not been vaccinated. The argument is that the higher the immunisation rate in any population, the less likely that a pathogen will penetrate the group and find a susceptible person inside. As immunization rates drop, that protection grows thinner.

So why then do many parents disagree – sharply and persistently – about the facts on which scientists largely agree, and the government implements the schedule? Why is it that many parents choose not to vaccinate, or partially vaccinate their children given the evidence?

The thing about science is that whilst it seems all but omnipotent, given many of the impressive advances we have witnessed over the generations (and some advances that prove our other advances were not so successful) it never proves anything in an absolute sense. Nor is everything scientifically tested, including many vaccinations, and when some testing has been done, it hasn’t been done long term, nor has it been done in conjunction with other vaccines.

The area of chemicals is analogous to vaccines in many ways. 75% of everyday chemicals used in consumer chemicals have never been tested for their toxicity of the human body (or the environment), the long term effects are unknown, and testing of multiple variations to chemical exposure is rarely (if ever) carried out.

Also consider that some things may never be measurable. I was recently doing some research about the onset of labour and scientific uncertainty dominates this area. No one knows exactly what sets in motion the onset of labour – uterine contractions. Sure scientific papers focus on the intrinsic factors such as the cascade of biochemical changes that soften the cervix of the uterus and coax its muscles into a synchronized action. But the ultimate source of them remains unelucidated. When does a baby in utero tell the body when (s)he is ready to start her journey into this world? We don’t exactly know. And may never know. It’s what makes the journey of growing babies so celestial.

So vaccinations, like many topics, including climate change, global warming, chemical pollution, evolution, even the onset of labour remain contested. And perhaps always will be. Scientific uncertainty is a fact!

‘But what about the terrible life-threatening diseases of polio and measles,’ I hear you say. Indeed, while young parents today did not grow up with the debilitating and often fatal diseases such as polio and measles, parents across the globe continue to speak out about the severe regression and disabilities of their children following vaccine exposure, despite the scientific evidence. Asthma, cancer, autism, allergies, autoimmune diseases and neurological disorders are all on the rise, and most people experience these ‘disorders’ and diseases in our everyday lives. As parents of today, we are certainly not immune to the health challenges of our times.

Some say that science will eventually provide a way out of these diseases and diverging vaccinations debates – but as great as science is (and I’m part of this area myself)—it is not without limitations (or hindsight). There are some big questions, many ethical, that arise for me both as a researcher and a mother that frame the vaccination debate and yet are rarely discussed. Given that today’s children under five receive 13 injections and numerous oral vaccine courses, making up a total of 45 vaccine doses throughout childhood, I wonder if our children’s children continue to be vaccinated and in even more quantities than today’s children (as has been the case for the previous generations)? And what about their children’s children? How much is enough. How many vaccinations do we have to produce before we say enough is enough. When we reach one hundred? Or two hundred? Are we a culture that just continues to produce vaccines in response to disease? Is this really a way to live? I often wonder what kind of a path we are setting up for future generations by not asking these today.

Or is there another path? Surely with all of our knowledge and resources we are capable of developing a world where prevention is the cure. If we can put a man on the moon, surely we can create a clean sustainable environment that is harmony with the natural movements of the earth and seasons and where our children don’t have to be jabbed with concoctions and chemicals? I’d like to start talking about a path that is based on prevention not reaction. That seems so worthy of attention.

One of the  many challenges of being a parent is talking to our children about the terrible problems happening on earth today – that surely need to be solved by adults, but impact our children profoundly….and will do even more so in years to come if we don’t change our current course of action.

So how do we talk to our children about climate change, chemical pollution, the deforestation of the earth, wars, water shortages?

I don’t really know to be honest, and I’m struggling with it, but I can tell you that I’m being gentle as I learn how to tell my truth to my children, without frightening them. Parenting is an inherently political act. How we raise our children and the choices they make is significant to the course of our future, and the future of our planet.

It all started last week when Adiva wanted to dress up as a white rhinoceros. And as I pinned the light grey coloured tulle fabric and strips of leather hide around her little body, it occurred to me that his costume might well outlast the species. I decided not to tell her that. Then I heard her friend Ix tell her on the drive home that she thought that the earth and the animals were quite sick. That she had seen a turtle last week in Morton Bay with plastic wrapped around its flippers. The turtle limped its way through the water. And then one morning we recieved a short film clip that I am posting about here. We watched this 5 minute film together. I cried. Then Jase. Then Adiva. And then we talked gently about the earth and how she breathes…her beauty…her finite resources..how she is hurting…how she is fighting back…what we can do…and who we can be in the face of such changes.

This is how I have started talking to my children about these issues. I don’t know if it is right, or wrong. It just feels like the right place to start. I want to share this film with you. It’s a brilliant film.

Love Sarah xox

Since the release of the  Campaign for Safe Cosmetics report,  Johnson and Johnson have aggreed to reformulate its flagship baby shampoo to remove chemicals that release formaldehyde.

The company released a statement stating they are no longer introducing new products with formaldehyde-releasing preservatives and they have reduced their use of the chemical by 60% in the US market and 33% globally over the past few years.

The Johnson and Johnson statement said: ‘We know that some consumers are concerned about formaldehyde, which is why we offer many products without formaldehyde releasing preservatives, and are phasing out these types of preservatives in our baby products worldwide’.

And whilst this is undoubtably a step in the right direction, I still find it remarkable that a company like Johnson and Johnson, a household name, can be putting in carcinogenic ingrediants into their products for generations, and will not be called to account for this by any regulatory or government bodies. It raises profound intergenerational ethical issues.

If you want to avoid formaldehyde-releasing ingredients and 1,4-dioxane, you need to know what to look for as they’re NOT listed on the label; at least not in those words.

Common ingredients likely to contaminate products with formaldehyde include:

• Quaternium-15
• DMDM hydantoin
• Imidazolidinyl urea
• Diazolidinyl urea

To avoid 1,4-dioxane, watch out for these ingredients, which create 1,4-dioxane as a byproduct:

• PEG-100 stearate
• Sodium laureth sulfate
• Sodium myreth sulfate
• Polyethylene
• Ceteareth-20

If you want to get even more informed on this topic, CLICK HERE for the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics Report, entitled Babys Tub Is Still Toxic

While researching overseas earlier in the year, I worked with the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics on a camapign targeting Johnson and Johnson baby products. The campaign purchased (I did the Australia and Indonesian section of this) and reviewed labels of the Johnson’s ‘No More Tears’ Baby Shampoo sold in 13 countries to see if the products contained quaternium-15, a chemical preservative that kills bacteria by releasing formaldehyde. These are the findings:

Products purchased in the following countries contained the formaldehyde-releasing preservative quaternium-15:

• Australia
• Canada
• China
• Indonesia
• United States

Products purchased in the following countries did NOT contain quaternium-15:

• Japan
• Netherlands*
• South Africa
• United Kingdom

*Products sold in Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Finland use the same formulation as products purchased in the Netherlands.

Yes, that’s right. Everyday, Australian babies are subject to formaldehyde-releasing ingredients in Johnson’s Baby Shampoo while the company is making formaldehyde-free versions of the shampoo in several other countries!

And let me tell you a bit about  this chemical…Quaternium-15 is a formaldehyde releasing chemical.  Formaldehyde is a known carcinogen (causes cancer). It also causes allergies and contact dermatitis, headaches and linked to chronic fatigue. The vapor is irritating to the eyes, nose and throat (mucous membranes) – which is a little hilarious given that it’s ‘no tears’ shampoo we are talking about…its all around this region.  Formaldehyde was recently added to the U.S. government list of known human carcinogens by the National Toxicology Program, under the Department of Health and Human Services.  According to a peer-reviewed paper in the Journal of the Dermatology Nurses’ Association, quaternium-15 is ‘the most sensitizing formaldehyde-releasing preservative and has been repeatedly shown to be a strong allergen that can cause contact dermatitis.’

What a crazy toxic world we live in. Stay tuned for more information about the campaign…

I am priviledged to be doing a presentation with Alf Orpen on Saturday 26th of November in Brisbane. If you can get there, it will be awesome event!

Alf is a entrepreneur activist, ethical investor, and developer of regenerative businesses. He is a founding director of several enterprises which have achieved annual revenues ranging from three hundred thousand to twenty million dollars. Alf is the co-founder and co-director of Miessence the worlds first certified organic range of skin care, cosmetics, and nutritionals and co-founder of the Organic Farm Share. I have certainly learnt much from him about growing ethical businesses and the organic industry.

Come and learn about health and the body, toxicity,  how you can start and grow a successful organic business, build a passive income and have a positive impact on our planet. CLICK ON THE IMAGE BELOW FOR DETAILS, OR TO RESERVE YOUR SEAT AT THE EVENT, OR FOR MORE INFORMATION, CLICK HERE.

It’s difficult to think anything but pleasant thoughts while eating your own homegrown tomato.

Since journeying back to Australia and emersing ourselves in everyday Brisbane living again, I have found myself yearning for connection with nature, health and self – yearing for community (It seemed so much easier when we were living on farms, tipis and yurts around the globe). It’s been a somewhat unsettling time for us as a family, and without this connection a certain amount of dis-ease has been creaping into our lives. Tiredness. A colesore here and there. A sore throat. Sore back. Crankiness.

Jeddabugs second birthday was an opportunity to reconnect to nature, health and self again. One of the greatest lack in our world, is the deep agony of separation and loneliness – we all long for connection with others. So we called on our community to help us celebrate Jeddabugs birthday and create our vege patch. It was a wonderful day and I feel deeply grateful to all beautiful friends for bringing our vege patch to life, for your generous time and seedlings, and blessing our Jeddabugs on her second birthday. It was a wonderful gift to our family and we hope to to repay it forward to others also seeking connection with nature, health, self and community.

Antioxidents? Free radicals?

I bet you have heard of them, but may not know exactly what they are and how they operate in your life. This short video by Narelle Chenery from Miessence is a gem. It explains (in just a few minutes) how we accumulate free radicals from environmental toxins and poor food choices, and how we can act to neutralise them with antioxidant-rich foods such as berries and raw cacao.

Berry Radical – Educational Video from Miessence on Vimeo.

Purchase your amazing Berry Radical antioxident HERE

OR…

SAVE 20% off this order and all future orders by purchasing your Miessence Vitality Pack here
for your daily superfood dose of In-Liven Probiotic, Deep Green Akaliser and Berry Radical Antioxidant.

To your health and vitality,

Sarah

This is an interview I did with the ABC last week about changes going on the chemical regulations in Australia and generally about chemicals and the human body generally. It’s about 9 minutes long. Have a listen…CLICK HERE

‘Better than any argument is to rise at dawn and pick dew-wet red berries in a cup’ [Wendell Berry]

Jase and the girls went to the farm on the weekend (I stayed home and completed a presentation for the Australian Public Health Conference on the lack of protective policies in the area of children’s environmental health. Ironic!). When the girls emerged from the car just on sunset their fingers and nails were gruby, their hair was notty and wind-swept, and they were flushed with excitment and joy. Adiva offered me a huge bounty of organic cabbages, sweet peas, turnips and lettuces that she had wrapped up in the picnic blanket. She had proudly picked these with her friend Alf. If you want more information about the Organic Farm Share please click HERE. Otherwise, enjoy the photos. Nothing makes me smile more than children and organic vegetables…

Whatever came of violence, but more violence?

I was listening to B105 FM morning radio last week . The presenters of the show Labby, Stav and Abbie, were discussing research about the act of spanking (smacking) children. Abbie, being pregnant, said that she thought that smacking was an acceptable parenting practice – as did the research itself. Marjorie Gunnoe, from Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan carried out the research, and said that ‘The claims made for not spanking children fail to hold up. They are not consistent with the data’. The research questioned 179 teenagers about how often they were smacked as children and how old they were when they were last spanked. Their answers were then compared with information they gave about their behaviour that could have been affected by smacking. This included risk behaviour such as early sexual activity, violence and depression, as well as some protective behaviors as academic success and ambition. The research suggested that those who had been smacked up until the age of six performed better in almost all the protective categories and no worse in the risky behaviours than those never punished physically. Teenagers who had been hit by their parents from age seven to 11 were also found to be more successful at school than those not smacked but fared less well on some negative measures, such as getting involved in more fights.

The release of this research then lead the way for parenting groups such as, Parents Outloud, to speak out, welcoming the research. Its spokeswoman, Margaret Morrissey, said in a media interview: ‘it is very difficult to explain verbally to a young child why something they have done is wrong. A light tap is often the most effective way of teaching them not to do something that is dangerous or hurtful to other people – it is a preventive measure. While anything more than a light tap is definitely wrong, parents should be allowed the freedom to discipline their children without the fear that they will be reported to police.’

Then psychologist and author of The Spoilt Generation: Why Restoring Authority will Make our Children and Society Happier, Aric Sigman, got in on the discussion. He told the Sunday Times: ‘The idea that smacking and violence are on a continuum is a bizarre and fetishised view of what punishment or smacking is for most parents. If it’s done judiciously by a parent who is normally affectionate and sensitive to their child, our society should not be up in arms about that. Parents should be trusted to distinguish this from a punch in the face.’

So what does our current laws say about spanking? Parents are allowed by law to mete out ‘reasonable chastisement’ on their children, providing smacking does not leave a mark or bruise. These limits were clarified in the 2004 Children’s Act.

While many organizations and individuals also came out deploring the research and its findings, the conversation on B105 got me thinking about a list I wrote in 2005 when I was pregnant with my first baby.

A year prior to writing this list I didn’t know I was going to be having children. I didn’t have any plans to have children but I didn’t rule it out either. I was 28 at the time, and to be honest, I had started to assume I would never have a life-long partner or children for that matter. After a string of romances with mainly musicians and artists, everything had always come to flailing end. As for having children, I thought that perhaps the time moment had passed.

But then out of nowhere: Kapow. Love. With a guy who did IT for a living and liked power tools. Strange. But so right. And then marriage.  Maybe we’ll have a baby, I thought. Instead we took ourselves overseas. Then after nearly a year of experiencing the world and eachother a baby came into our lives. Shock. Then the nausea, then the vomiting and then severe hyperemesis gravidarum. Hyperemesis by definition is a rare but extreme form of morning sickness characterized by prolonged violent vomiting (and rumoured to have killed Charlotte Bronte, the author of Jane Eyre). It lasted for about 6 months of my pregnancy. At this time I finally emerged from my bed and began the process of making peace with what I felt more like a parasite than a baby. A counselor who had been with me throughout the pregnancy suggested I write a peacemaking list to my unborn baby.

I remember lying against a tree near the hospital and writing this list as I waited for my partner to come and get me. In truth I had sneezed, then wretched so violently, that I had wet my pants and he was on his way to bring me new knickers and pants.

Pregnancy taught me humility.

As a watched the leaves in the branches and sat in my wet knickers my list started like this: ‘I promise I will never hit (smack) you – ever’. Then I started crying.

And when I had stopped crying, I wrote more solemn intentions to the unborn but realer-than-real child of my imagination. Some of them I have already broken, most I can remember now, but the one that stuck with me is ‘I will never smack you’. Neither in discipline, nor in anger.

Why would I hit someone I love? Whatever came of violence, but more violence? I know this – I had worked in family violence for nearly 6 years. But then again it used to be acceptable to keep slaves, hunt down our indigenous peoples, shoot bushmen, wear leopards and rape your wife. We have moved on. Surely.

I remember being hit as a child. Incessantly ‘tapped’ on the hand by my teachers, the nuns, my father. I also remember being hit so hard my nose started bleeding. At school my arm had been wretched as I was hauled in front of the school for laughing during the Australian anthem. I was 6. Humiliated in front of my friends. Told I was a bad, bad girl.

What did it teach me? To be fearful of adults. Fearful of expressing myself. To be a ‘good’ girl. To be sneaky. To lie. To hide. Can a child differentiate between a tap on the wrist and abuse? I’m not so sure. I couldn’t.

I see parents horrified when their children hit or bite or scratch other children in the sandpit. We say ‘no’. We tell our children to share, care, to be gentle. Are we modeling this to them when we smack them? Tap them?

That children who are smacked performed better in life? In my field of work, I see more people than any other time in history taking anti-depressant medication, and others taking medication to manage anxiety. And that does not account for the tens of thousands who self-medicate with drugs both legal and illegal. Despite the health risks, thousands of Australians continue to smoke cigarettes. Obesity is at an all time national high. Divorce rate is over 50%. Our society continues to be plagued by intolerance, poverty, crime and violence. Our environment is crumbling. Is polluted. People are stressed, depressed and overwhelmed by insecurity and low self-esteem. Is this the best we can do?

Our current parenting practices do a poor job of developing human beings with healthy self-esteem. Parenting is focused on control and discipline. Reward and punishment. But it doesn’t have to be this way. We have the opportunity to move away from power struggles and to honour and celebrate the unique personalities of our children. It will take courage for the first generation of parents to stand up and say ‘yes, we can do better’ and be willing to say no to smacking, and move towards a new model of parenting.

And here is a more generalised policy about chemical exposures and human health….

Environmental Exposures and Human Health Policy [Draft]

The Public Health Association of Australia notes that:

1. We are living in a time of large scale and high volume industrial and manufactured chemicals. Global chemical production has escalated from around one million tonnes a year in 1930 to some 400 million tonnes being produced annually today.[i] Over 80,000 chemicals are now registered for use in Australia (40,000 industrial chemicals) and accessed via everyday consumer products ranging from foods and food packaging, clothing, building materials, water, cleaning products, personal care products.[ii] Yet 75% of these have never been tested for their toxicity on the human body or the environment.[iii]

2. The backlog of internationally untested chemicals is both an Australian specific and a global issue[iv]

3. People are affected by manufactured chemicals unequally:

• People of low socioeconomic status are more likely to be employed in occupations with higher levels of chemical exposure (e.g., mining, construction, manufacturing, hair solons, agriculture, certain service sector occupations) and to live in more highly contaminated communities.
• Women often have higher levels of many toxic and hormone-disrupting substances than do men.[v]
• Chemical contaminants are being passed on to the next generation, both prenatally and during breastfeeding. Many chemicals have been found in maternal blood, placental tissue, and breast milk samples from pregnant women and mothers who recently gave birth.[vi][vii][viii][ix]
• Children are uniquely susceptible and vulnerable to environmental hazards compared to adults (See PHSS Children’s Environmental Health Policy)

4. In utero and childhood exposures to environmental chemicals constitute a source of inequity between generations highlighting the need for significant ethical policy and regulations.[x]

5. Exposure to many chemicals has been linked to a range of diseases and impairments. These include asthma,[xi] [xii][xiii]allergies,[xiv] autoimmune diseases, cancers[xv][xvi]neurological impairment[xvii], birth defects and infertility.[xviii] 

6. Many of the diseases caused by manufactured chemicals can successfully be prevented, thus saving lives, enhancing the quality of life, reducing health care and education costs, and increasing national productivity.[xix][xx]

7. Evidence on individual and multiple environmental exposure effects on disease initiation and outcomes, and consequent health system and societal costs are not being adequately integrated into national policy decisions and strategies for disease prevention, health care access, and health system reform.

8.  Regulatory agencies in Australia do not have a clear picture of what chemicals Australian’s are exposed to and in what concentrations. This is due to limited research, data collection about chemical exposure and the regulatory framework which is based on a ‘proceed until danger is proven’ approach, rather than a precautionary principle.

9.  Australian specific evidence on inutero exposure, level of harm, and increased risk from chemical exposures is insufficient.

10. Governments and regulatory agencies across the globe, including Australia, are faced with the urgent task of prioritizing chemicals for regulation and eradication. This needs to be systematically co-ordinated.

11. Individuals and communities are not being provided all available information about chemical exposures they may experience, the cumulative effects of such exposures, and how to minimize harmful exposures. 

The Public Health Association of Australia affirms the following principles:

12. Australia is a signatory to the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development which states;

“In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation, a statement known as the Precautionary Principle.”[xxi]

13.  Guiding principles for the Australian Charter for Environmental Health include the protection of human health. This is stated as ‘Protect human health by identifying threats posed by environmental hazards as early as possible and by introducing appropriate safeguards. Ideally these should be sustainable and cost-effective’.[xxii]

14.   That the health of children and young people is important to future generations and the future of the planet. Societies have a social and ethical responsibility to ensure that children can reach and maintain their full potential and be provided with a safe, clean environment.

15. To protect the Australian population from exposure to chemical exposures, the nation needs a comprehensive, cohesive policy agenda and regulatory framework based on prevention and a precautionary principle.

16. That there are many opportunities for harmful environmental exposures, ample opportunities also exist to intervene in, ameliorate, and prevent environmental health hazards. Governments, industry, the academic and medical communities, and individuals all have untapped power to protect the health of current and future generations of Australians and reduce the national burden of disease. 

The Public Health Association of Australia believes that the following steps should be undertaken:

17. A precautionary, prevention-oriented approach should replace current reactionary approaches to environmental contaminants in which human harm must be proven before action is taken to reduce or eliminate exposure. Though not applicable in every instance, this approach should be the cornerstone of prevention strategy that emphasizes primary prevention, redirects accordingly both research and policy agendas, and sets tangible goals for reducing or eliminating toxic environmental exposures.

18.  That this precautionary approach be adopted and incorporated at all levels of government as a primary guide to all policy development program implementation and decision-making including health and environmental decision-making.

19. This precautionary approach shifts the burden of proving safety to manufacturers prior to new chemical approval, in mandatory post-market studies for new and existing agents, and in renewal applications for chemical approval.

20. The Australian Government must set a priority process and commence the long overdue assessment of Australia’s existing chemicals. That the detection of a chemical in human umbilical cord blood is the most urgent and hence the most appropriate criteria on which to base regulatory prioritisation of chemical assessments. Chemicals that children are exposed to prenatally and being detected in newborn babies must be fast-tracked for immediate assessment and removal from the market.

21. Reform of reducing chemical exposure will need to encompass these essential changes:

• Require manufacturers to provide basic information for all chemicals used in products;
• Hold industry responsible for demonstrating the safety of the chemicals used in production;
• Promote safe alternatives to harmful chemicals;
• Make information about the effects of chemicals on human and environmental health publicly available;
• Immediately begin phasing out the most hazardous chemicals on the market.

22. Epidemiologic and hazard assessment research must be strengthened in areas in which the evidence in Australia is unclear, especially research on workplace exposures, the impact of in utero and childhood exposures, and exposures that appear to have multigenerational effects.

23. Public health messages must be developed and disseminated to raise awareness of chemical risks and that support people to reduce or eliminate exposures whenever possible. 

The Public Health Association of Australia resolves to undertake the following actions:

The Board, Branches and the Environmental Health and Child Health SIGs will:

24. Work in partnership with government and non-government organizations to develop and implement a comprehensive intersectoral national strategy to reduce the impact of chemical exposures on the health of Australians, especially children, the indigenous population, and people of low socioeconomic status.

25. Write to the National Health & Medical Research Council (NHMRC) enHealth, the Commonwealth and State/Territory ministries of health and the environment seeking support for substantial funding for research programs aimed at:

• understanding the causes of environmental damage to individuals;
• populations with an emphasis on vulnerable groups; and, ·
• identification and trialing of strategies that reduce environmental health risks

26. Advocate for the protection of children and other vulnerable groups from environmental health hazards and the inclusion of the welfare of these groups in health impact assessments and policy development on an on-going basis.