U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

23–574 PDF 2017

S. HRG. 111–1248 

STATE OF RESEARCH ON POTENTIAL 

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH FACTORS WITH AUTISM 

AND RELATED NEURODEVELOPMENT DISORDERS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CHILDREN’S HEALTH 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

AUGUST 3, 2010 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

BETTINA POIRIER, Staff Director 

RUTH VAN MARK, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CHILDREN’S HEALTH

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota, Chairman 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

BARBARA BOXER, California (ex officio) 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma (ex officio) 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

AUGUST 3, 2010 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Klobuchar, Hon. Amy, U.S. Senator from the State of Minnesota ...................... 1 

Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California ........................ 2 

Udall, Hon. Tom, U.S. Senator from the State of New Mexico, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 46 

Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 84 

WITNESSES 

Anastas, Paul, Ph.D., Assistant Administrator, Office of Research and Development, and Science Advisor, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ........... 4 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 7 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Boxer ............................................................................................ 22 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 24 

Birnbaum, Linda, Ph.D., D.A.B.T., A.T.S., Director, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, and Director, 

National Toxicology Program, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services ......................................................................................................................... 28 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 31 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Boxer ............................................................................................ 39 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 43 

Pessah, Isaac N., Ph.D., Director, Department of Molecular Biosciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, and Director, University of California Davis 

Children’s Center for Environmental Health and Disease Prevention ........... 56 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 59 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Boxer ................................ 61 

Response to an additional question from Senator Inhofe ............................. 63 

Lanphear, Bruce, M.D., MPH, Senior Scientist, Child and Family Research 

Institute, and Professor, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, British Columbia, and Adjunct Professor, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center .......................................................................................................................... 64 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 66 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Boxer ................................ 70 

Response to an additional question from Senator Inhofe ............................. 72 

Moen, Mary .............................................................................................................. 73 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 75 

Response to an additional question from Senator Boxer .............................. 78 

(1) 

STATE OF RESEARCH ON POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH FACTORS WITH AUTISM AND RELATED NEURODEVELOPMENT 

DISORDERS 

TUESDAY, AUGUST 3, 2010 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CHILDREN’S HEALTH, Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in room 

406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Amy Klobuchar (Chair 

of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Klobuchar, Boxer, and Udall. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Call the hearing to order. 

I want to thank all of you for being here today for this important 

hearing. As a mother of a 15-year-old daughter and as the Chair 

of this Subcommittee, protecting our children from exposure to 

harmful substances is an issue that is extremely important to me. 

I also know that it is very important to Chairman Boxer, who has 

made this a cause for much of the work that she’s done for California and for the country. So I am honored to have her here as 

well today. 

This is why we are here, and it is to highlight the latest scientific 

research on the environmental impacts on autism and other 

neurodevelopmental disorders. Before we consider policy changes, 

we need to understand the latest science. 

Two decades ago autism and other neurodevelopment disorders 

were little-known, uncommon diseases. Today they affect 1 million 

to 1.5 million Americans, and 1 in every 110 children born in the 

U.S. will be diagnosed with autism. That means that there will be 

more kids with autism than juvenile diabetes. Yet there is still so 

little known about the disease, its causes, or treatments. 

I know personally many of my friends have kids with autism. I 

know that they struggle not only with the treatment, but it is always so difficult because they never really know the cause. 

Sometimes when we are here in Washington, we don’t realize 

that the abstract numbers that I just mentioned, those 1 million 

to 1.5 million Americans, 1 in every 110 children, that those abstract numbers have very real implications in people’s lives. 
2 

I know this because I meet Minnesota families like the Moens, 

who are here with us today, that deal with the challenges of having 

an autistic child, and the frustrations of not having the answers. 

There is no cure for autism yet, so it is clear more research is needed. We need to look at the various factors that could contribute to 

autism so that we can find a cure and develop better services and 

treatments for those living with the disease. 

With the rapid growth in the incidence of autism, Congress took 

action and passed the Combating Autism Act of 2006, providing 

nearly $1 billion to combat neurological disorders through screening, education, early intervention, prompt referrals for treatment 

and services, and research. In last year’s Recovery Act we invested 

over $10 billion in NIH for new research on mental health, including at least $60 million devoted to autism diagnosis and treatment. 

But even with this increase in research funding, we must continue to do our part to ensure that our researchers and medical 

professionals are better equipped to recognize and diagnose autism 

and other neurodevelopment disorders. We also need to increase 

awareness of autism. Early diagnosis and intervention can greatly 

help kid with autism. And it can reduce the cost of lifelong care by 

two-thirds. 

While we don’t have a cure, there are treatments and therapies 

that can help improve the quality of life of kids with autism. As 

we know, children are more susceptible to environmental dangers 

than adults. Children consume more food and water, touch more 

dirt, because they are closer to the ground, and can be exposed to 

toxins easier than adults. Because their immune systems are still 

developing, kids are more likely to become sick when exposed to environmental risks. 

Along with the EPA, the National Institute of Environmental 

Health Centers for Children’s Environmental Health and Disease 

Prevention Research are studying how exposure to chemicals in the 

environment could lead to neurodevelopment disorders in children, 

including autism spectrum disease. The research that these agencies are conducting will further our knowledge in the potential 

causes of autism and other neurodevelopmental disorders. In turn, 

these results will help us stem the increasing prevalence of these 

diseases and eliminate potential environmental dangers facing our 

kids. 

Your testimony today will go a long way in helping us better understand potential environmental factors related to autism and 

what the state of the research is today. Your stories will help us 

understand the urgency behind the research. 

I thank you all for joining us today, and I look forward to hearing from all of you. 

Now I will turn it over to the Chair of this Committee, Chairman 

Boxer. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator BOXER. Senator Klobuchar, Madam Chair, thank you 

very much. 
3 

I want to begin by saying that we were all deeply saddened to 

learn of the passing of your mom, Senator. Our thoughts and prayers are with you and your family at this time. 

I want to note that Amy’s mom dedicated her life to teaching 

children. I know how proud she must have been when her daughter 

founded the first subcommittee on this Committee dealing with 

children’s health. So we dedicate this hearing to her mom. 

Today’s hearing will look at the latest research on potential environmental factors that might harm the health of our children, including the ability to learn and think and interact with families 

and other people in society. The EPA and the National Institute of 

Environmental Health Science fund a variety of studies on 

neurodevelopmental disorders, including autism. 

I would like to extend a special welcome to Professor Isaac 

Pessah from the University of California Davis’ Mind Institute, 

who will testify in the second panel. The Mind Institute receives 

Federal agency funding to conduct research on these very important issues. 

While science is still working to identify the cause of autism, exposure to toxic chemicals in the environment is one crucial area of 

inquiry. The Children’s Center at UC Davis is conducting research 

on environmental health factors with autism, including chemicals’ 

potential impacts on brain development on social behaviors, and 

immune system function. Their research is especially important 

now, since some data indicates that the occurrence of autism is 

growing. 

The Federal Centers for Disease Control estimates that on average 1 in 110 children in the United States has symptoms of autism 

spectrum disorder, or ASD. In California, State agencies are reporting an apparent rise in the incidence of ASD. In its most recent report, the California Department of Developmental Services found 

that from 1997 to 2007—while the total number of people served 

by the department increased 56 percent—the number of people 

with autism grew 321 percent. 

Autism can affect entire families and have financial and other effects throughout society. The Federal Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee estimates that autism spectrum disorders’ cost 

to society is currently between $35 billion to $90 billion annually. 

Today’s hearing focuses on research, but there are a number of 

other ways this Committee is working to protect children and families from toxic chemicals. For example, communities need help 

dealing with the impacts of autism and other disorders that may 

have connections to environmental health. When these disorders 

appear in concentrations or clusters, it may be an indication that 

environmental factors are playing a role in making people sick. 

I am introducing a bill this week to ensure that Federal agencies 

are coordinating their efforts on disease clusters as effectively as 

possible and that the resources are there to help the people in the 

areas that need them. This will include making sure communities 

that suspect they have a cluster of disease can call on the Government to investigate and address their concerns. 

My bill will also require EPA to upgrade their data tracking systems to strengthen the Federal Government’s ability to investigate 

disease clusters. In addition, Senator Lautenberg’s bill—the Safe 
4 

Chemicals Act of 2010, introduced earlier this year—would take an 

important step toward testing and identifying chemicals that could 

harm our children before them come to market, instead of having 

to deal with consequences after the fact. 

What we want to do is require that the chemical industry prove 

that their chemicals are safe to use before they are allowed on the 

market, rather than the reverse. Right now society has to prove 

that the chemicals are not safe. We think the producers should 

have to prove they are safe before they get on the market. 

So today’s hearing—and I thank Senator Klobuchar for her leadership on this—will help inform our efforts to protect America’s 

children from environmental dangers. I look forward to hearing 

from the witnesses. I have about—I can stay until about 11, and 

then I will read the rest of the testimony. But I am very grateful 

to Senator Klobuchar for her leadership. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much, and thank you for 

your kind words about my mom, who devoted herself to kids. She 

had 30 second graders, when she was 70 years old, in her class. 

But lately, in her last few years, she was mostly watching C-SPAN, 

and loved watching Senator Boxer give speeches. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. She would always say, where were you? I 

saw Senator Boxer. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. So we have two great witnesses to begin 

here. Our first witness is Dr. Paul Anastas with the EPA Office of 

Research and Development. Dr. Anastas is the Assistant Administrator for the Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Research 

and Development and the science advisor to the agency. 

Our second witness is Dr. Linda Birnbaum with the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Birnbaum is the Director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, overseeing research relating to autism and other neurodevelopmental disorders. 

I will introduce our second panel. Senator Boxer already mentioned one of the witnesses, as well as the Moens from Minnesota, 

which is what guided me to make the decision I would be here this 

morning for this hearing. Because I came all the way in, and the 

work must go on. 

So we will start with you, Dr. Anastas. 

STATEMENT OF PAUL ANASTAS, PH.D., ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, AND 

SCIENCE ADVISOR, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

Mr. ANASTAS. Thank you, Chairman Klobuchar, Chairman Boxer. 

It is a pleasure to be with you here this morning. 

My name is Paul Anastas, the Assistant Administrator for the 

Office of Research and Development in EPA. It is a pleasure to discuss this important issue. It is also a pleasure to be here with my 

esteemed colleague from the NIEHS and the other panelists. 

This issue is tremendously important, when we talk about the 

potential environmental factors related to autism and other 

neurodevelopmental disorders. I am a father of two small children. 

I know how essential it is that we do everything we can to ensure 
5 

the health and the safety and the well-being of our children going 

forward. 

Autism can be a heartbreaking neurodevelopmental disorder that 

may prevent children from fully experiencing typically social interactions essential for well-being, for individual emotional and cognitive development. Autism spectrum disorder is a range of complex neurodevelopmental disorders characterized by social impairments, communication difficulties, and restricted and repetitive 

pattern disorders. 

Autistic disorders, sometimes called autism disorders, or classical 

autism, is the most severe form of ASD. Other conditions along the 

spectrum include the milder form of ASD known as Asperger’s Syndrome. 

Scientists are uncertain about what causes ASD. However, many 

believe it could result from a variety of factors, including a combination of genes, environmental exposures, and gene-environment 

interactions. Evidence suggests that the rates of ASD are increasing in the United States as both of you mentioned in your opening 

statements. 

As you know, children are especially susceptible to the effects of 

chemicals in the environment, because they eat, drink, and breathe 

far more than their body weight than adults. They absorb a greater 

proportion of many of the chemicals in the environment than 

adults do, and due to hand-mouth behavior, young children tend to 

have higher exposures to these contaminants. 

Because of its extraordinary complexity, prenatal and early postnatal brain and nervous system development can be disrupted by 

environmental exposures at much lower levels than would affect 

adults. We are learning that there are critical windows of susceptibility, both prenatally and in early childhood, in which the effects 

of exposures to environmental contaminants can be significantly 

more severe and can lead to permanent and irreversible disability. 

For these and many other reasons EPA is especially concerned 

about the potential effects of environmental chemicals on children’s 

health and neurodevelopment. 

Now, it has been suggested that improvements in diagnosis may 

be contributing to the perceived increase in ASDs. However, one recent publication from research supported by the EPA and NIEHS 

evaluated the rise in autism incidence in California from 1990 to 

2006. They found that even when factors such as early diagnosis, 

changes in diagnostic criteria, and milder cases were taken into account they did not fully explain the observed increase. As a result, 

the extent to which the continued rise represents a true increase 

in the occurrence of autism still remains unclear. 

Additionally, through a recent evaluation of autistic disorder 

data from long-term, approximately 10-year studies, EPA scientists 

found significant and surprisingly uniform timing of increases and 

cumulative incidence from 1988 to 1989, in Danish, Californian, 

and worldwide data sets. The challenge is to determine what specific environmental factors may contribute to the onset or severity 

of autism and other neurodevelopmental disorders so that exposure 

to these can be reduced. 

At EPA we are conducting research to determine how environmental chemicals could impact the development and function of the 
6 

human nervous system through our intramural and extramural research programs. EPA’s intramural research program focuses on 

susceptibility to chemicals and the factors underlying the susceptibility, the chemical mechanisms of action, and the relevance of effects to human health. 

There are now alternative models and methods, including computational toxicology, which allows us to evaluate a much larger 

number of substances in the same amount of time. We have an extensive extramural research program that includes the children’s 

research centers that we work hand in hand with our partners at 

NIEHS. And we are going to hear far more about those today, including the research of the University of California at Davis Center 

for Children’s Environmental Health, which is looking at possible 

genetic and environmental risk factors that may contribute to the 

incidence and severity of childhood autism, to understand and 

characterize common patterns of dysfunction in this disease. 

Also, we have studies in the Children’s Center at the University 

of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey and several other centers, 

which we will be happy to discuss and are detailed in our written 

testimony. 

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you here this morning. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Anastas follows:] 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Birnbaum. 

STATEMENT OF LINDA BIRNBAUM, PH.D., D.A.B.T., A.T.S., DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ENVIRONMENTAL 

HEALTH SCIENCES, NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH, AND 

DIRECTOR, NATIONAL TOXICOLOGY PROGRAM, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

Ms. BIRNBAUM. Chairman Klobuchar, Chairman Boxer, and Senator Udall, I am pleased to present testimony today on research related to neurodevelopmental disorders and to specifically discuss if 

environmental exposures are linked to the development of autism 

spectrum disorders. 

My name is Linda Birnbaum. I am the Director of the National 

Institute of Environmental Health Sciences at the National Institutes of Health and the Director of the National Toxicology Program at the Department of Health and Human Services. 

Scientists have made considerable progress in understanding 

how the brain and nervous system grow and function. It is becoming clear that neurodevelopmental disorders, such as autism spectrum disorders, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and learning disorders are likely due to a complex interplay of both genetics 

and the environment. Our research indicates that environmental 

exposures, including low-dose exposures, and lifestyle choices before a baby’s birth and during early childhood do have an effect on 

the developing brain. 

Autism spectrum disorders are developmental conditions that 

have increased in U.S. children in the past several years. NIEHS 

has significantly increased our funding this year to $9.3 million. I 

am also an active member of the Interagency Autism Coordinating 

Committee, a group of Federal agencies, autism advocates and parents who plan and coordinate a research agenda. 

Our two largest efforts on autism are the EARLI study and 

CHARGE. In the EARLI study researchers at the Drexel University, University of California, and Johns Hopkins University are 

studying mothers who already have one child with autism and who 

are pregnant again. This study is one of the largest studies of its 

kind. It will follow 1,200 mothers during their pregnancy and their 

new babies until the age of 3 to identify prenatal and postnatal exposures that may be linked to autism. 

The CHARGE study, which you will much more about from Dr. 

Pessah, which is coordinated by the NIEHS EPA Children’s Centers at the University of California Davis, is looking at a wide 

range of environmental exposures and their effects on early 

neurodevelopment. This study is following more than 1,600 children in California from three groups: children with autism, children with other developmental days, and normally developing children. 

So far, the most striking findings relate immune system alterations in children with autism, which points to the need for further 

study of the immune and nervous systems in the etiology of autism 

spectrum disorder. It is also important to note that the CHARGE 

study found no difference in mercury levels between children with 

autism and normally developing children. 
29 

I am happy to report that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act allowed NIH to increase its support for autism research. 

Our funding is being used to study air pollution, polyfluoroalkyl 

compounds, better known as PFCs, and PFOA is the most common 

one; PFCs are the ones we think about, endocrine disrupting 

chemicals, smoking, alcohol use, medication, and infections as potential risk factors for autism. 

The work we fund on autism and ASD is an important part of 

our overall investment in children’s neurological development, 

which totaled more than $29 million last year, almost $18 million 

from the regular NIEHS appropriations, plus $11.5 million in 

ARRA funds. Development of the nervous system begins in the 

womb and extends throughout childhood. 

During periods of rapid development, the brain is vulnerable. 

Even small changes in the timing of critical developmental events 

can have major consequences for brain structure and function. We 

call these critical developmental periods windows of susceptibility, 

during which different chemicals can affect the brain in specific 

and damaging ways. 

For example, the amount of lead that is toxic to an infant is 

much less than the amount that would be toxic for an adult. So infancy, in this case, is a window of susceptibility. 

Many studies have shown that mercury is also a developmental 

neurotoxicant. Studies in Bangladesh have found that arsenic and 

manganese in drinking water are associated with decreases in intelligence. 

But metals are not the only toxic agents to affect IQ, learning, 

and memory. A study published last year from Columbia University showed that a mother’s exposure to PAHS released from burning fossil fuels and tobacco can adversely affect a child’s IQ. The 

IQ scores of children exposed in utero to high levels of PAHS were 

almost five points lower than those of less exposed children. In another report, Columbia University examined prenatal exposure to 

a common flame retardant, PBDEs. Core blood specimens were 

analyzed for selected flame retardant chemicals. The same children 

were examined for neurodevelopment at ages 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6. The 

research showed that these children, who had higher blood concentrations of the flame retardants, scored lower on tests of mental 

and physical development. 

In addition to effects on learning, these same chemicals can also 

affect behavior. Early lead exposure has been associated with aggressive behavior at different age levels, from toddler to adolescent. 

Researchers at our Cincinnati Children’s Center found that childhood exposure to lead and prenatal exposure to tobacco are risk 

factors for ADHD, possibly accounting for one-third of the cases in 

U.S. children. 

A recent study from Mount Sinai’s Children’s Environmental 

Health Study found that increased concentration of pthalates in 

the mothers during pregnancy were associated with increased aggression as well as conduct problems, attention problems, and depression in the children. Pesticides are also being investigated in 

relation to ADHD. Our Harvard Center just released a report 

showing an association between exposure to organophosphate pesticides and development of ADHD. 
30 

In summary, environmental influences on brain development, behavior, and other neurological outcomes of public health concern 

are a rapidly growing area of environmental health sciences and a 

high priority for NIEHS. We believe that our research will advance 

our understanding of these conditions, including autism, providing 

new information for prevention and treatment for children. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I would be happy to answer questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Birnbaum follows:] 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much to both of you. 

I was just trying to put myself in the shoes of like a pregnant 

mom right now, or someone who has a baby that they are afraid 

has autism, and they don’t know what is wrong, and trying to figure out exactly what the state of the research is. I thought your 

comment at the end, Dr. Birnbaum, was something we all believe, 

that chemicals do affect children’s development and their brain. 

That is why I worked so hard on that children’s product bill with 

the lead, and the Chairman and others and Senator Udall have 

worked on lead paint and other issues like that. 

But I wanted to just narrow in on this autism issue. You mentioned two things specifically, was that one of the studies had 

shown no difference in the mercury levels of kids with autism and 

with not. Is that right? 

Ms. BIRNBAUM. That is correct. That is from the CHARGE study. 

I think maybe Dr. Pessah will talk more about that. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Then the other thing you mentioned, 

though, there was a difference in the immune systems. Do you 

want to elaborate on that? 

Ms. BIRNBAUM. I think I can just kind of give you the bottom 

line. It appears that the immune systems of these children may be 

altered. They appear that they may be showing more symptoms, or 

symptoms that may develop into autoimmunity. 

And again, I think Dr. Pessah will talk more about those findings. But I think it is important to understand that autoimmunity 

is another of the conditions in our country which is rapidly increasing over the past 10 to 20 years. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. So, could that have something to do—could 

that be the key for us trying to figure out the cause here because 

of the difference that has been found, or not? 

Ms. BIRNBAUM. No, no, I think the point is that there is growing 

suggestion that environmental factors may be playing a role in the 

increase in autoimmunity. Part of the syndrome, if you want to use 

that word, for autism spectrum disorders, may involve alterations 

in the immune system. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. OK. So what you are saying is, and I will 

let you answer this, too, Dr. Anastas, is that it is finding that there 

is a difference with the autoimmune systems. We know that autoimmune system differences can be attributed to environmental factors, and that that could lead us to believe that the environmental 

factors could have something to do with who has autism and who 

doesn’t. 

Ms. BIRNBAUM. I think alterations in the immune system may be 

one part of the autism puzzle. I think the role of environmental factors in the increase in autism is in large part because you can’t— 

our genes don’t change over a generation. Our genes take multiple 

generations to change. And the rapid increase in autism, which 

was indicated by work that was done at UC Davis. The CDC has 

done continual analyses indicating that 1 in 70 boys is developing 

autism. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. I take it that you both believe there has actually been an increase? Some people say, oh, it is diagnosing that 

they didn’t do before. But you both believe there has been an increase? 
45 

Ms. BIRNBAUM. Right. I think the study that, again, that is coming out of the UC Davis group that Dr. Anastas referred to, clearly 

shows that at least in California only 30 percent of the increased 

incidence can be potentially due to differential diagnosis. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Dr. Anastas. 

Mr. ANASTAS. Thank you. 

Yes, and I would just add that in addition to the study that was 

just referred to, there is an additional study worldwide that shows 

that the rise in incidence cannot be attributed to changes in diagnosis alone. 

There are a couple of very important points that have been made 

that I just wanted to emphasize. This window of susceptibility is 

something that can’t be overemphasized. When we talk about what 

the doses or the levels of mercury, for example, might be the same, 

we need to recognize that that is not the entirety of the story. 

When you are exposed, whether it is in utero or in early childhood, 

it can be a difference in reaction because of the level and the stage 

of development that you are in. 

So merely because one person may be exposed to the same levels 

as another, that is not the entirety, and that is something that is 

a very important area for research. 

The other is we often get into this discussion about whether it 

is environment or genetics. I think there is a growing body of 

knowledge that it is not one or the other. As Dr. Birnbaum just 

stated, our genetics can’t change this quickly in order to explain 

the increase in incidence. So what we are saying is that it is an 

interaction of the environment and genetic susceptibility, where 

certain triggers are released because of environmental exposures. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you. 

Senator Boxer. 

Senator BOXER. First of all, thank you very much, both of you, 

for your clarity. I remember many years ago meeting, when I was 

in local government, meeting parents who had children with autism. And then, they were being told it was the way they were raising their children, that there was something with the mother-child 

relationship. Honestly, I saw the look on parents’ faces. They were 

devastated. That is where the science was. 

We clearly have moved to a different place now, where we are 

looking at the genes, and we are looking at the chemicals that either the parents or the child have been exposed to. So I think there 

is a very important message to parents out there: do not give up 

hope. We are going to figure this thing out. 

The fact that we are only spending $9 million on autism, something that affects 1 out of 110 children, is just amazing to me. And 

it goes to where our priorities are. So I wanted to ask Director 

Birnbaum, again, just if you could lay out for me how much did you 

get in the Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act to facilitate 

the research. And if you could slowly tell me what that is exactly. 

Ms. BIRNBAUM. NIH has, as you know, got $10 billion, or $10.4 

billion, including the comparative effectiveness research dollars 

under the Stimulus Act. NIEHS, including our Superfund program, 

got about $190 million to conduct research under the Stimulus Act. 

Our funding that we have committed of our ARRA funds was about 

$9 million, no, $11.5 million, excuse me, related to 
46 

neurodevelopmental disorders. About $4.9 million of that was stimulus funding. 

Senator BOXER. I am really confused. How much of the Economic 

Recovery Act funds that went to NIEHS autism research? 

Ms. BIRNBAUM. Specifically, of the $190 million, let’s say, put 

about $5 million of that $190 million. 

Senator BOXER. Five million in addition to the $9 million? 

Ms. BIRNBAUM. No, that is part of the $9 million. Our base funding was, in 2009, was $4.3 million for autism. 

Senator BOXER. So the base funding is about $4 million. And you 

added $5 million. So you doubled the amount. So without the 

ARRA funding, we go back to $4 million, $4.5 million research on 

autism, is that right? 

Mr. BIRNBAUM. I think it is hard to say exactly, because we do 

see autism as a priority, and we are trying to increase our amount 

of funding to look at neurodevelopmental effects. 

Senator BOXER. Well, I hope you will let us know, all of us here 

care a lot about this, and others who are not here who do care. If 

you feel that we could do a lot more, if we had a little more funding 

here. Because following Chair Klobuchar’s questions, it is clear to 

me that there are, we are coming along, we are narrowing down. 

It may be this, some susceptibility to certain chemicals and toxins 

because of certain genes or other factors. 

So I think, and that is why putting that together with our cluster 

bill that we are introducing, and Senator Lautenberg’s bill on making sure the chemicals are safe before they are introduced, I think 

we are kind of having a fairly clear path here to where we are 

going. 

That really covers my questions. Thank you. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much. 

Senator Udall. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Chairman Klobuchar, and thank 

you, both of you, for focusing in on this issue. 

I would like to put my opening statement in the record and go 

directly to questions, if that is acceptable here. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Udall follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

Thank you, Chairman Klobuchar, for calling this hearing into an issue that is of 

great concern to families in New Mexico and around the country. 

A number of my constituents have contacted my office, describing their families’ 

challenges with autism and our frustrating inability to learn more about the causes 

and cures for this condition. 

According to our testimony here today, our top researchers believe that there is 

a significant environmental component to autism. Genetics cannot explain the rapid 

rise in autism, so they suspect chemical exposure may trigger or worsen neuro-developmental disorders. 

I hope this hearing will support those ongoing efforts, and I think that it is important to put the unknown links between autism and environmental toxic exposure 

in the bigger picture. 

As I and others on this Committee have stated, Federal toxic chemical regulation 

is broken and needs to be addressed. 

Our Nation’s laws that are supposed to regulate toxic chemicals do not even require chemical companies to submit health and safety studies for the chemicals that 

are included in everyday household products. 
47 

The Washington Post published an article yesterday titled ‘‘U.S. regulators lack 

data on health risks of most chemicals,’’ which I would like to include in the record. 

The article references the recent recall of 28 million boxes of the Nation’s most 

popular children’s cereals because a petrochemical known as ‘‘2-methyl naphthalene’’ accidentally ended up in cereal. The chemical is apparently used in the foil 

packaging. 

According to the article, ‘‘the Food and Drug Administration has no scientific data 

on its impact on human health. The Environmental Protection Agency also lacks 

basic health and safety data even though the EPA has been seeking that information from the chemical industry for 16 years.’’ 

We have had several hearings already this year underlining the need to reform 

the Toxics Substances Control Act, and I hope we will continue to make the case 

for action. 

I believe that we can all agree that science should drive decisionmaking and that 

we should take precautions when we expose children to potentially toxic chemicals. 

The need for testing is basic and obvious. 

If we do not, our children and our grandchildren will continue to be guinea pigs 

in an uncontrolled experiment testing the impacts of thousands of industrial chemicals on the human body. 

[The referenced article follows:] 
48 
49 
50 
51 

Senator UDALL. One of the things that I would like to ask about, 

and I would like to cite a few facts to set the stage, an April article 

in the journal Current Opinion in Pediatrics states that children 

today are surrounded by thousands of synthetic chemicals. Two 

hundred of them are neurotoxic in adult humans and a thousand 

more in laboratory models. Yet fewer than 20 percent of high volume chemicals have been tested for neurodevelopmental toxicity. 

According to the EPA, there are 3,000 chemicals that are classified as high production volume. These are chemicals that the U.S. 

imports or produces at a rate of more than 1 million pounds per 

year. According to the EPA, over 40 percent of these have not been 

tested for basic toxicity. 

And I would like to ask both of you, do you think the suspected 

links between chemical exposure and autism and other 

neurodevelopmental disorders show the need for chemical makers 

to provide more information and health studies about their products? And part of that, yesterday part of that question, I don’t 

know whether you saw the post yesterday, but on the first page 

was an article that in cereal, boxes of cereal, which—kids are eating most of the cereal, an unsettling surprise. The Kellogg recall 

shows that U.S. lacks data on risks of many chemicals. And there 

is a chemical in there. 

And one of the things it highlighted in the story is the chemical 

companies do not test, they do not test these kinds of chemicals. 

Because if they test, they are required to turn it over to the Government. So they just decide, well, we don’t want to know what is 

in it, so we don’t want to turn it over. 

Would you talk a little bit about that, and what you think we 

need to do to get to the bottom of this and try to do everything we 

can to protect our children? 

Ms. BIRNBAUM. First of all, I think you know that I am not in 

a regulatory agency, but in a research agency. 

Senator UDALL. That is right. 

Ms. BIRNBAUM. I may have had many years at EPA, but I would 

like to stick to the research. 

I think the issue is that there is growing evidence, lots of evidence that chemicals can cause effects. We have known for years 

that pharmaceuticals, or the drugs—there are always black box 

warnings on drugs, do not take if pregnant. And the reason you 

don’t take them is because they can harm the fetus as it grows. 

So we know that chemicals can impact things. Many chemicals 

are not tested at all. I think many of us do believe that it would 

be much better to have chemicals fully evaluated for their safety 

before they go on the market. The chemical that was of concern 

that was talked about in the cereal boxes yesterday is the chemical 

that my NTP actually has done some very limited testing on to test 

whether it was a mutagen or not, it caused genetic damage. But 

that is the extent of the testing that has been done for that. 

So I think it would be very important to have the testing done 

first. I think we have to really work on what we mean by testing. 

Because there is a pattern that has emerged that there are guidelines for how you do testing. And the problem is that guidelines 

that were established for science in the 1970s are really not up to 

what is needed in this century. We need to focus our efforts on 
52 

using all the newest information, not necessarily things that were 

required 20 or 30 years ago to do these tests. 

The other point I would like to make, which is referring to something Dr. Anastas just talked about, which was the susceptibility 

and the interaction between genes and the environment, I think it 

is very, very clear that depending on your genetics, as well as 

maybe what your past exposures were, can alter your susceptibility. There is a paper that I just saw that is coming out that 

shows that some of the flame retardants, whether or not you see 

developmental neurotoxicity, at least in animal studies, is totally 

dependent on the genetics of the mouse that you test. 

So while mice are not men, they provide us a great deal of information about what may be possible in the human population. 

I think I will let Paul talk a little bit more about the regulatory 

agenda. 

Mr. ANASTAS. I will just say that prior to coming to the Environmental Protection Agency, I taught chemistry at Yale University. 

One of the things that we always taught our students is that when 

you introduce a new chemical into the world, when you make a 

new chemical in the lab, you need to characterize that chemical. 

And there is a wide range of analyses that are done in order to describe exactly what that chemical is. 

But yet traditionally part of that chemical characterization has 

not included its impact on human health or the environment. As 

long as that exists, where when we are describing a chemical, it 

doesn’t include its impacts on humans, on the environment, on developing children, then we are going to be in the same situation. 

We need to have a fuller understanding. And the definition of performance when we are talking about chemicals, and even commercial chemicals, needs to include how it performs in terms of its role 

in the world, interacting with humans and the environment. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you both for those answers. 

I am sorry, I have to leave, and I won’t be able to hear the second panel. I have to preside over the Senate, but I am leaving you 

in the hands of two very capable Senators that I know are very 

concerned about this issue. 

Thank you very much. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you. 

First, Dr. Birnbaum, I am just trying to figure out the exact 

amount of money and trying to mesh these numbers here. You said 

it to Senator Boxer, it is like $9 million on research? 

Ms. BIRNBAUM. Nine million on autism research in fiscal year 

2009. And approximately that in fiscal year 2010. But that is, in 

our total portfolio for all our neurodevelopmental work, is about 

$29 million. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Right. That is what I just saw in your testimony. 

Ms. BIRNBAUM. It is about a third of the total neurodevelopment. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. So there is $29 million for research for 

neurodevelopmental work, and about a third of that is specifically 

for autism? 

Ms. BIRNBAUM. That is correct. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. I am just trying to figure out, we got from 

NIH the statistic that in the recovery act, we invested over $10 bil-
53 

lion in NIH on new research on mental health, including at least 

$60 million devoted to autism diagnosis and treatment. 

Ms. BIRNBAUM. Under the stimulus package, NIH did have an initiative and has funded about $60 million of stimulus funds on 

autism. Much of that has to do with treatment and diagnosis. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. So you are differentiating that from the research of causes? 

Ms. BIRNBAUM. Our—for example, approximately $5 million of stimulus funding in autism is part of that $60 million that NIH as 

a whole was spending. There are about four or five NIH institutes 

that are very involved, for example, in the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee and involved in autism research. So it is not 

just NIEHS. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. That makes a difference. 

The other thing I wanted to ask about was, we have had an incident in Minnesota, and I talked with these families in the Somalian community, we have a very large Somalian community in Minnesota. And they have had a very high incidence of autism. I don’t 

know if you have heard about it, but the diagnosis is 1 out of 28 

of their children have autism. 

So I was just wondering how this possibly could fit in with the 

research that is going on. Of course they are searching for answers. 

What Senator Boxer has been talking about with clusters, although 

this is, they live in a similar area, but other kids that aren’t Somalian don’t have that high rate. 

Dr. Birnbaum and then Dr. Anastas. 

Ms. BIRNBAUM. There are some recent hypotheses that Vitamin 

D, or the absence of Vitamin D may be associated with an increase 

in autism. My understanding is that there are essentially no reports of autism in Somalia. Again, it is a developing country, they 

might not have the diagnosis. 

But the phenomenal cluster, I would say, actually of Somali children being reported with ASD in Minnesota and I think in some 

other Somali communities in the northern United States, people 

are at least suggesting that that might be related to not having 

enough Vitamin D. So that is a hypothesis that people are beginning to look at. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Dr. Anastas. 

Mr. ANASTAS. I would just suggest that while this is certainly an 

important area of research, it does lend itself to something we discussed earlier, which is the genetic-environment interactions rather 

than one or the other. This dance, if you will, would lend itself to 

people with genetic predispositions, not necessarily exhibiting a 

certain disorder in the absence of being exposed to certain triggers. 

Yet when they are exposed to certain triggers, they could exhibit 

those disorders. 

So it is an active area, or I should say, an important area of research that in my opinion needs to be emphasized. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. This interaction, and I suppose this could 

be an example where if, in fact, and I do believe the diagnosis in 

Somalia might be very limited. But if in fact they get more autism, 

the kids do, in the U.S., that it could be an interaction between 

some genetic component and then some kind of triggering factor, 

environmental factor. 
54 

Ms. BIRNBAUM. This is the beauty of the EARLI study, which is 

recruiting 1,200 women who already have one autistic child. Because we know that if you have one autistic child you have a higher likelihood that a second child might be autistic, suggesting that 

there is clearly some genetic component to it. 

However, it is a little bit hard to—usually if you have one child, 

your environment doesn’t change that much if you have a second 

child. So there is also the interaction going on here. But in the 

EARLI study, not only are we looking at every kind of environmental factor that we can think of, and that includes diet and it 

includes stress, but we are also looking at the genomics of these 

women and their children and their partners as well. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Senator Boxer. 

Senator BOXER. A couple of questions. I want to home in on the 

one child, two child, three child; doctors studying that. What do we 

know? What are the chances, if you have had one autistic child, of 

having a second? 

Ms. BIRNBAUM. I believe you have about 10 percent chance that 

your next child might be. I think that is the approximate statistics, 

that about 1 in 10. So that is much higher than the 1 in 110. 

Senator BOXER. Than the 1 in 110. So that leads you further to 

suspect that it is something either in the genes or the environment 

combined? 

Ms. BIRNBAUM. Right. When you have a genetic input, and not 

every child is impacted, then it says that there has to be something 

in addition to genetics that is causing the condition to appear. 

Senator BOXER. Do we have other neurological conditions that 

have been found to be caused by both genes and environment? 

Ms. BIRNBAUM. There is suggestion that many different certain 

things like schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, for example, an adult 

clearly may have an interaction. And we know that, for example, 

when you look at something like lead, which is a clear 

neurodevelopmental toxicant, that not every child has the IQ loss. 

You have to look at a whole population of children to see the shift. 

Senator BOXER. So is the ultimate—down the road cure for this, 

if this proves out, we don’t know that, gene therapy? 

Ms. BIRNBAUM. I think that the importance of understanding environmental triggers of disease is that you can change your environment. But at least at this point, you can’t change your genes. 

Senator BOXER. But isn’t one of the goals of the reason we did 

all that funding for genes is to eventually do gene therapy? 

Ms. BIRNBAUM. That is certainly a possibility. But I think we can 

get to the environmental impacts more easily and more readily. 

And again, as Dr. Anastas has said several times, the effect of a 

gene may only be expressed in a given environment. 

Senator BOXER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ANASTAS. I would just like to add that this area of 

epigenetics is emerging and being understood—— 

Senator BOXER. What do you call it? 

Mr. ANASTAS. It is called epigenetics. 

Senator BOXER. E-P-I? 

Mr. ANASTAS. E-P-I. It is an emerging area of investigation. I 

would certainly describe it as in its early stages. 
55 

But this is showing that having certain environmental interactions may trigger these genes to perhaps impair a gene’s ability 

to the expression of a certain gene. The point that I want to make 

is that the early suggestions are that it wouldn’t necessarily stop 

with the individual, but can be translated into future generations 

as well. 

Now, I would never suggest that this is an established, concluded 

science. I am saying that this is emerging science in an important 

research area. 

Senator BOXER. Let me just ask my last question. We know in 

America 1 in every 110 kids is born with autism. What do we know 

about other countries’ data? 

Ms. BIRNBAUM. I don’t know the exact statistics in other countries. I do know that there appears to be—the increase in autism 

appears to be in many, many countries. I think one of the issues 

that we keep getting is the differential diagnosis, are we changing 

our criteria, are we looking in a different way. It is clear in the 

U.S. that that doesn’t explain the increase. 

Senator BOXER. So you would say, from what you know, there is 

a worldwide increase? 

Ms. BIRNBAUM. Certainly in many countries there appears to be. 

Certainly in developed countries anyway. 

Senator BOXER. I doubt that they have a lot of statistics in Somalia just because I don’t think they have a health care system that 

is capable of doing what we do. But I certainly think, given what 

Senator Klobuchar has discussed about that cluster, it might be 

very interesting to look at at least the gene situation, and if that 

is somehow making these children in your State more vulnerable. 

I don’t know if we have any data from Somalia. 

Ms. BIRNBAUM. We would certainly be eager to entertain a grant 

where someone proposed to study that population; it needs to be 

done, really, in a prospective fashion. And again, since there are so 

many children being diagnosed with autism in that population, you 

might be able to do something similar to what we are doing in 

Philadelphia and California and Maryland as far as recruiting in 

that population. 

Senator BOXER. The reason I think it is important—I was 

stunned with that number you said, 1 in 28 children. 

Ms. BIRNBAUM. Yes. 

Senator BOXER. That is a cluster. And I think we could maybe 

learn quite a bit. 

Anyway, I need to run off to my next obligation. I just wanted 

to say how much I will look forward to hearing about the next 

panel from today’s Chair, and to thank everybody for being here. 

We are going to be taking action on a lot of these matters. I wanted 

to note when you mentioned pthalates; did you mention pthalates? 

Ms. BIRNBAUM. Yes, I did. 

Senator BOXER. We passed some very tough legislation; Senator 

Klobuchar and I serve on the Commerce Committee. We were able 

to ban pthalates in children’s products. It was an enormous fight. 

It was an enormous, enormous, terrible, awful fight. We got into 

fights about rubber duckies and how, one of the people said, well, 

you know, these rubber duckies are fine. Well, yes, but if they have 

pthalates, they are not. 
56 

So we managed to do it. But it is very tough to regulate this one 

chemical at a time. That is why the work you do is so very important. Because hopefully you are going to be able to I.D. for us a 

class of chemicals that may be problematic or will give us the road 

map we need so we don’t have to just get into these arguments one 

particular chemical at a time. 

Thank you very much, Senator Klobuchar. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you. 

I want to thank our witnesses. It was enlightening. We know 

there is a lot more work to be done. Thank you for this update; I 

think it helps us to understand the funding but also the status of 

the research and learn some new things, like epigenetics. 

We look forward to our next panel. Thank you very much to both 

of you. 

If we could have our next panel come up. 

Welcome to our second panel. I see you are staying here, Dr. 

Anastas. Thank you for that, and Dr. Birnbaum, so we can hear 

your reaction to this later as well. 

Our first witness in this second panel, as has already been mentioned, is Dr. Isaac Pessah, who is the director of UC Davis Children’s Center for Environmental Health and Disease Prevention. 

He is an expert on how environmental factors interact to influence 

neurodevelopment. 

Dr. Bruce Lanphear, in the middle, is the Director of the Cincinnati Children’s Environmental Health Center, and is the principal investigator for research examining fetal and early childhood 

exposures to prevalent environmental hazards. 

Finally, I would like to extend a warm welcome to Mary Moen. 

Mary is a fellow Minnesota mother and is here today to share her 

and her family’s experience of living with an autistic son. 

Is Max with you today? There you are, Max. Thank you for being 

with us. 

I understand, Max, that you are a real whiz with maps and directions; is that right? Maybe you could help my husband. Maybe 

I can hook you guys up. 

As well as your dad, and Mary’s husband, Steve. Thank you for 

being here. And Mary is here with her family to help us put a real 

face on the stories behind autism and other neurodevelopment disorders. Thank you so much for coming from Minnesota. 

So we will get started with Dr. Pessah. 

STATEMENT OF ISAAC N. PESSAH, PH.D., DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF MOLECULAR BIOSCIENCES, COLLEGE OF VETERINARY MEDICINE, AND DIRECTOR, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS CHILDREN’S CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL 

HEALTH AND DISEASE PREVENTION 

Mr. PESSAH. Senator Klobuchar, thank you for giving me the opportunity to present testimony regarding environmental factors in 

autism risk. 

As you have already heard, autism spectrum disorders encompass a wide range of what we call phenotypic severities and comorbidities, such as a high rate of seizure disorder and anxiety. 

ASD likely encompasses several disorders with distinct ways of get-
57 

ting there, or etiologies, and pathologies that converge on a common set of behavioral criteria. 

Although autism risk has strong heritability, it turns out that no 

single locus alone, or genetic address, is sufficient to account for 

the full clinical phenotype. Results from many genome-wide autism 

screens indicate that potential susceptibility genes are spread 

across the entire genome. 

Recently, several very rare genetic mutations, single nucleotide 

polymorphisms, de novo copy number variations and as you have 

heard, epigenetic factors which influence DNA methylation, and 

therefore expression of the DNA’s message, were shown to contribute to the complex transmission of autism risk. So genetics 

alone cannot account for the majority of autism cases currently 

being diagnosed. 

There is a lack of full concordance between identical or 

monozygotic twins with some estimates ranging as low as 60 percent, which leaves wide room for environmental triggers. Interactions among multiple genes are likely to contribute to various 

types of autism. Inheritable epigenetic factors and/or non-heritable 

environmental exposures are likely to significantly contribute to 

susceptibility and variable expression of autism and autism-related 

traits. It is therefore likely that constellations of epigenetic and environmental factors are contributing to the increased prevalence of 

ASD, as we have heard. And the rise cannot be fully accounted for 

by changes in diagnostic criteria. 

There is a critical need to identify environmental factors, including exposures to foreign chemicals or anthropogenic source and 

changes to the diet that contribute to autism risk and severity. The 

vast majority of public and private resources has and continues to 

support work on identifying genetic impairments associated with 

autism risk. From these studies we have learned that genetics 

alone cannot predict the majority of autism cases, the patterns of 

impairments, severity, nor can they predict the success for current 

treatment modalities. 

Moreover, we have learned that many of the molecular and cellular systems that have been associated with autism risk are the 

very same ones that are targets of environmental chemicals currently of concern to human health, and children’s health in particular because of their widespread use. Current research is needed 

on definable factors that contribute to causing or protecting against 

autism. 

It is accepted that autism is a multi-factorial, meaning that there 

are multiple factors contributing to risk. Therefore, it is essential 

to bring together both studies of genes and environment to fully 

understand autism risk. 

We know that autism prevalence continues to increase dramatically, clearly implicating environmental factors in autism risk. We 

must identify which environmental exposures and combinations of 

exposures are contributing to the increased overall risk in the population and identify the most susceptible group within children, 

which are in themselves a highly susceptible group. 

Only by bringing together the concerted effort of multi-disciplinary teams of scientists can we identify which of the more than 

80,000 commercially important chemicals, and a subset of those, a 
58 

very small subset have actually received sufficient study, contribute to neurological impairments with idiopathic autism. It is 

clear that there is a critical need to identify which chemicals in the 

environment influenced the same biological pathways known to be 

affected in autism and how this contributes to susceptibility. By 

far, limiting exposures to these chemicals is the only current way 

to mitigate and prevent autism susceptibility in individuals. 

Thank you. I would be happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pessah follows:] 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Lanphear. 

STATEMENT OF BRUCE LANPHEAR, M.D., MPH, SENIOR SCIENTIST, CHILD AND FAMILY RESEARCH INSTITUTE, AND 

PROFESSOR, SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY, VANCOUVER, 

BRITISH COLUMBIA, AND ADJUNCT PROFESSOR, CINCINNATI CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER 

Dr. LANPHEAR. Thank you very much for the opportunity to be 

here today. 

I wanted to focus my testimony on other neurodevelopmental disorders, because we have talked quite a bit about autism as a window into why we should be concerned about chemicals, particularly 

as they might relate to autism. 

Children’s environmental health has grown tremendously in the 

past decade or two. It has been fueled by the emergence of new 

morbidities or diseases in children. Research has shown that fetus 

and child are particularly vulnerable to environmental influences 

and toxicants in particular. Mounting evidence is implicating environmental exposures as major risk factors for some of the most 

common diseases and disabilities in children. Finally, research indicating that many diseases of industrialized societies in adults 

have their origins in early childhood. So what happens during 

childhood has implications for a person’s ability throughout life to 

contribute. 

In short, and in contrast—and this is important—in contrast 

with many other types of research, this field of research offers tremendous promise and potential to prevent many of the diseases affecting America’s children. 

One in six American children has a developmental problem, from 

a subtle learning disability to overt behavioral disorders such as 

ADHD or autism. Although the data are sparse, many of these diseases appear to be rising. The findings from some of the most thoroughly studied and widely dispersed environmental toxicants—such 

as lead, tobacco, PCBs, and mercury—indicate that exposures to 

exceedingly low levels are risk factors for deficits in intellectual 

abilities and executive functions. Executive functions are those 

things that distinguish us most clearly from other animals. None 

of us would be sitting here today if we didn’t have good executive 

functions. 

So this is becoming increasingly important, if we want to try to 

make sure that children can contribute to society. 

We also know that they are major risk factors for behavior problems such as ADHD and criminal behavior. These conditions can 

severely impair a child’s ability to succeed in school, to interact socially. They can elevate a child’s risk for violent and criminal behaviors. And they can dramatically diminish their ability to contribute to society. 

We have heard about several other new emerging toxicants. And 

there is indeed emerging evidence that a whole host of new environmental chemicals, many of which are routinely found in pregnant women and children, such as bisphenol-A, flame retardants, 

pesticides, pthalates, and airborne pollutants, are associated in 

early studies with intellectual deficits or behavior problems al-
65 

though the evidence is not as conclusive as some of the more established toxicants. 

Much of the research I quoted from was from the NIEHS USEPA 

Children’s Centers in collaboration with the Centers for Disease 

Control. 

I wanted to share just a few highlights of the Cincinnati Children’s Environmental Health Center to highlight the impact of a 

low-level toxicant, lead, on both children and society as an indicator of the extent of the seriousness of what we have always 

thought of as a subtle problem. In a series of studies we found an 

increase in blood lead levels from less than 1 microgram per deciliter to 10 micrograms per decaliter, which is well below the CDC’s 

level of concern, were associated with a 6 to 7 IQ point decrement. 

On a population level a shift in IQ of 5 points across a population 

in the United States would mean 3 and a half million more children who qualify as being mentally retarded. These are not subtle 

effects. 

We also confirmed early reports implicating childhood lead exposure in the epigenesis of ADHD. As Dr. Birnbaum pointed out, we 

estimated that one in three cases of ADHD in U.S. children—that 

is over 1.5 million cases—could be attributed to prenatal tobacco 

exposure—that is when the mom smokes—or childhood lead exposure. 

Finally, we have confirmed that childhood lead exposure is a risk 

factor for impaired brain development, using brain imaging studies, 

again, focused in particular on the prefrontal cortex, that area responsible for executive function, as well as criminal arrests in 

young adults. Collectively, these and other studies suggest that a 

large proportion of crimes and homicides in the United States over 

the past century can be attributed to lead toxicity. 

Now, we don’t tend to think of low-level chemical exposures as 

being of any consequence. But the levels we are talking about are 

the same concentrations that we try to achieve with therapeutic 

doses of anti-psychotics. We know these low-level chemicals can 

have an impact on behavior. 

It has been estimated, using these studies, that for every dollar 

we invest in preventing lead exposure, we would benefit by $17 to 

$20, or annually, somewhere between $30 billion to $34 billion. I 

focused on just one toxicant. But I think they indicate the importance of this kind of exposures that occur. 

Finally, let me just end by saying that we have talked a bit 

about the research. That is increasingly important. Still, we can’t 

ignore the pattern of pathology we have seen with these other established toxicants: lead, tobacco, PCBs, and so forth. It is clear to 

me that we know enough to require pre-market testing for a whole 

host of other environmental chemicals, particularly those that are 

used in high volumes. The alternative, to continue to experiment 

on our children, is no longer tenable. 

We should also look back to the history of drug regulations. For 

50 years prior to drug regulations taking effect in the 1960s, there 

was a handful of people arguing that we needed better regulations. 

It took the thalidomide epidemic for us to take action. Perhaps autism is the equivalent for environmental chemicals. 

Thank you. 
66 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Lanphear follows:] 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Moen, thank you for being here. 

STATEMENT OF MARY MOEN 

Ms. MOEN. Thank you, Senator Klobuchar. 

I am happy to be here today with my husband, Steven, and my 

10-year-old son, Max, from our home in Minneapolis, Minnesota. 

Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you about the effect 

of autism on my family. 

When Max was 3 years old he was diagnosed with an autism 

spectrum disorder. The diagnosis came after a year of fear and 

frustration as our bright and active baby had become increasingly 

agitated and aggressive as a toddler. As a pre-schooler any social 

situation was very challenging for Max. He became difficult to 

manage outside the home safely and was increasingly bothered by 

loud and high pitched noises, smells, and touch. 

His reactions to things he didn’t like were explosive and often 

dangerous. His brother, Theo, was born during this time. And the 

stress of a new baby and an uncontrollable 3-year-old was more 

than we could bear. 

We took Max for lengthy evaluations through Minneapolis public 

schools and medical assessments at two different autism specialty 

centers. The school district gave him an educational label of autism 

spectrum disorder at age 3 and a half. The doctors’ and psychologists’ reports gave similar findings. 

At the time he was diagnosed, many around me were asking how 

Max got autism. We suspect a genetic link, but the time it didn’t 

matter. I was focused on moving forward to help my son, who was 

by now so obviously different from his peers. Everything we read 

about treating autism told us that early intervention was key. We 

bought books, went to conferences and begged for consultations 

with over-scheduled experts in the field. We learned what methods 

would be most effective for Max but were frustrated to find waiting 

lists as long as 6 to 12 months at facilities that offered these services. 

I quit my teaching job, and my husband cut back on his orthopedic surgery practice. It became our mission to put together an 

appropriate treatment plan that would address Max’s unique 

needs. We worked to tweak this plan for the next few years of 

Max’s life. 

When he began kindergarten at age 6, we learned that our local 

community school did not have an autism program. Although Max’s 

reading and math skills were far above grade level, his poor social 

skills and lack of self-control meant he needed more support. We 

had to send him to a school outside of our community. And doing 

so created even more impediments to making friends, and his social 

isolation was not improved. 

Our goal was to bring his skills to a point where he could be fully 

mainstreamed and moved to our community school by first grade. 

This took a lot of hard work, including doubling up on therapy and 

intensive summer programing. He has now been at the school for 

3 years. 

Life was somewhat easier now, but not without struggles. We 

made the difficult decision to give Max medication to control his 
74 

impulses and stay calm. Meltdowns come weekly, rather than 

daily. Things like playing on a sports team, making friends, and 

going to summer camp that are just natural steps in a neurotypical 

child’s life come carefully planned and prepared for Max. Setting 

him up for success takes understanding his challenges as well as 

a tremendous amount of time and forethought. 

So while things look pretty good right now, we never really know 

what will set Max back or how long he will need our help. We hope 

he will continue to excel academically and go on to college and be 

a productive and happy adult. 

In contrast, Max’s 48-year-old aunt, who we suspect is also in the 

autism spectrum, is unemployed, socially isolated, and entirely dependent on her aging parents. People like her, with undiagnosed 

and untreated autism, are an example of autism’s costs to our economy and society. 

I now feel like I can look beyond our situation and address some 

of the questions others were asking me when Max was first diagnosed. There are many unanswered questions that can only be answered through more research. As families of children with autism, 

we each struggle with the why. The manifestations of autism are 

as diverse as the families and communities from which children 

with autism come. 

I do not believe we can come to a simple conclusion when it 

comes to the cause and effects of such a complex disorder as autism. While there is an urgent and growing need for resources for 

early identification and intervention, ongoing treatment, medical 

care, and social services for children and adults with autism, it is 

also imperative that we focus resources on continued research so 

that we can one day identify its cause. Until we have done the extensive research necessary to understand autism, we cannot leave 

any stone unturned or rule out any possible factors as a cause of 

this disorder. 

Thank you for the opportunity to share my story with you today. 

I welcome any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Moen follows:] 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you so much. Thank you for your 

courage. 

She did a pretty good, right, Max? You liked it. You were good. 

So thank you for that, and all the work that you have done. Your 

story sounds eerily similar to some of my friends who basically 

gave up their jobs as well and focused on trying to figure out what 

was wrong and then how to fix it. I would think knowing the root 

cause would obviously make it a lot easier in figuring out the treatment. 

Could you just talk first about some of the impediments you had 

in getting treatment? I know Minnesota is one of the medical meccas and a good place to be when things go wrong. But do you want 

to talk about some of the obstacles and what you think could be 

done to improve that? 

Ms. MOEN. Definitely. Initially, there is a lot of shame. Because 

the behaviors he was exhibiting were more embarrassing than anything else. We called it the walk of shame, when we would go walk 

down the hall to the preschool teacher to find out what happened 

that day. So at first, just admitting that there was something that 

was different from his peers. 

It was fairly easy, living in a metro area, with the Minneapolis 

public schools doing early childhood screening as early as we needed it, to get him to special education. But the appointments to get 

in with an autism specialist were 6 months long, just to get a diagnosis. We didn’t know it was autism at that time, but we were 

looking at all of our different options. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. And when you are here today, when you listened to the testimony, I know you are out there about some of the 

research that is going on, and this complex interaction, as you have 

acknowledged, that it may not be just one silver bullet, the solution, between genetics and environmental factors, what is your reaction to that? You mentioned that you thought it could have a genetic link, because of this aunt, I assume. 

Ms. MOEN. Yes. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. So what has been your own journey in trying to follow the research and figure out what is going on? 

Ms. MOEN. My journey has been very recent, because I truly 

haven’t felt that I have been able to look outside of my little world 

until very recently. I am not surprised, because I have two sons. 

They both have the same aunt. One of them is neurotypical; one 

of them is not. And there have always been questions about what 

it could be, beyond that. I don’t think we can stop looking at that. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you. 

Dr. Pessah, we were talking earlier with Dr. Birnbaum about 

this, the CHARGE study and what has been going on there. She 

mentioned that you could help to further illuminate, there must be 

preliminary findings, because it is not completed? 

Mr. PESSAH. There are. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. On the immune system and the relation. 

Mr. PESSAH. The immune disregulation in children with autism 

seems to be standing out based on comparisons with case control 

comparison groups, including those with developmental delays in 

the study without autism and neurotypical children. If I had to sort 

of summarize what the major impairments are in the immune sys-
80 

tem, it would be a pro-inflammatory sort of—pro-inflammatory behavior of the immune cells in the presence of antibodies that direct 

or recognize proteins within the brain. 

We found these, or immunologists found these both in the children, but also in the mothers. We have no idea how these autoantibodies, as they were called—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. I got an A in high school chemistry, but 

then I forgot everything the next week after the test. So could you 

just try to explain that a little in layman’s terms, what you are 

talking about here? 

Mr. PESSAH. Sure. Pro-inflammatory behavior of the immune system is essentially one hallmark of immune dysfunction. Pro-inflammatory immune system can damage both immune responses but 

also is now known to influence neurodevelopment, especially if it 

occurs at very precise times during development. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. So pro-inflammatory, is it kind of a hyperimmune system, or it reacts a lot? 

Mr. PESSAH. Essentially hyper-responsive in a particular way. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. All right, so you have this hyper-responsive 

immune system, and you mentioned that which, I guess one could 

argue that, is that possibly it reacts to some environmental factor? 

Mr. PESSAH. That is a very good point. We have actually started 

to examine whether immune cells from children with autism respond differently to what we call zenobiotic exposures. The two 

that we have examined thus far is mercury, and the other are the 

flame retardants. We picked the latter because we now have evidence that flame retardants and others have presented that flame 

retardants interfere with both the developing nervous system and 

the immune system, possibly through common mechanisms. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. And what was the thing you said about the 

protein in the cells? What was that about? 

Mr. PESSAH. That auto-antibodies are those antibodies which recognize self. That is not really supposed to happen. Because it can 

promote disease. 

So in the mothers at risk for giving birth to an autistic child, we 

found that a subset of them have antibodies that actually can react 

with fetal proteins. What that means is that during gestation these 

antibodies can cross the placental barrier and have an influence, or 

have the possibility of having an influence on the developing fetus. 

Again, we don’t know why mothers at risk would have these 

auto-antibodies. This is something that we are examining now. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. In your testimony, and this is along the 

same lines, you said that genetics alone cannot account for the majority of autism cases currently being diagnosed. Do you want to 

elaborate on that? 

Mr. PESSAH. Yes. There are some genes that have been associated with autism. But when you look at the percent of cases which 

have these genetic malfunctions, for each gene it is typically less 

than 1 percent. And in cumulative total, I think the estimate may 

be as high but probably no greater than 20 percent, if you add all 

those up. 

So there is a large fraction of autism that really, at least at this 

point, has not been attributed to genetic contribution. 
81 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. I think you heard my story of these Somalian kids in Minnesota. Maybe you have heard about this before. 

Do you have any opinion on that and what could be going on there? 

Mr. PESSAH. It is certainly intriguing and deserves more study. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. We will get you the information on it. That 

would be helpful. 

UC Davis is working on a project called MARBLES, right, Markers of Autism Risk in Babies Learning Early Signs, to identify 

early predictors of autism, whether genetic or environmental? Can 

you be more specific in describing the aspects of this project and 

what the intended goals are? 

Mr. PESSAH. This project, MARBLES, is recruiting women at 

high risk of giving birth to an autistic child. This is based on having inclusion criteria that the women must have already at least 

one autistic child—biological child—in the family. The goals of the 

study are to study the biology of the women involved, including 

taking blood samples, urine samples, labor and delivery samples, 

as well as following the child for the first 3 years after birth. 

Such a longitudinal study is now being modeled. It was the predecessor of the EARLI study which Dr. Birnbaum described. Thus 

far, we have about 170 women enrolled. Our target is about 200, 

at least for this project period. The retention of women in the 

study, because it is a very arduous study for the participants, has 

been better than 90 percent. So we are very pleased. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Very good. 

I guess this could be both of you, I will start with Dr. Lanphear. 

You mentioned the emerging evidence that new environmental 

chemicals have been associated with autism or other 

neurodevelopmental disorders. I think you focused on some of the 

other ones. But that more research is needed. Can you elaborate 

on the information gap, and do you think the NIH priorities are on 

track, or the research that is being done across the country? 

Dr. LANPHEAR. Yes. First, I should say that using the same 

framework, it is going to be extraordinarily important to begin to 

understand mechanisms about how these chemicals may impact 

children and at different stages of life. What we have begun to do 

much more carefully over the last decade or so is to use biomarkers, measure how much of a chemical actually a child or an unborn 

child is exposed to, and then to see how that plays out, how it impacts the trajectory of learning behaviors and so forth. 

So those kinds of studies will continue to be extraordinarily important. One example has an interaction that we have talked 

about, I think Dr. Anastas mentioned, if we look at children and 

ADHD, if the mother smokes, the child is about 2 and a half times 

more likely to have ADHD. If the child is exposed to lead, higher 

levels of lead in childhood, again about a 2 and a half-fold increased risk. 

Together, if they are exposed to high levels of both tobacco and 

lead, which are both dopaminergic toxins, impacting particular 

areas of the brain, they are over 8 times more likely. So this idea 

of looking at interactions is really quite important. In a sense, you 

could think of it in very much the same way as genes and the environment. When they come together there can be tremendous risks 

for different kinds of problems. 
82 

Having said all that, while it is critical to do more of this research it seems to me that we do know enough to take action and 

develop regulations. Now, even if we develop all those regulations, 

there is still going to be plenty for all of us to do. We are not going 

to be out of work, although that would be wonderful, if you could 

develop regulations that would put me out of work. 

[Laughter.] 

Dr. LANPHEAR. But I do think the balance here is making sure 

that we act on the evidence that we have. And that doesn’t mean 

that each new chemical has to be studied to death. We could look 

at the pattern that we have seen with other environmental toxicants. And based on that, just like we took regulations, took and 

developed regulations based on drugs, we can develop the regulations. And yet of course there is still quite a bit that needs to be 

done to look at these new emerging chemicals, some of which are 

acting as endocrine disruptors, others as neurotoxicants, or traditionally, like lead, impact other parts of the body. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. You mentioned the biomarkers. Could you 

go into a little detail about how that will help, not only with trying 

to find root causes, but prevention, diagnosis, treatment? 

Dr. LANPHEAR. That is extraordinarily important. In the past we 

might have to rely on asking a pregnant woman, how close did you 

live to this plastics plant. That is not a very good way of measuring 

exposure. Now what we can do is take exquisite measures of exposures that might occur over pregnancy, for example. 

So in our Cincinnati home study, what we have done is by—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. By exquisite, you don’t mean like jewelry. 

What do you mean? 

Dr. LANPHEAR. Exquisitely accurate measures of chemicals that 

the pregnant woman is exposed to in either her diet or airborne exposures. And look at those at different times. So we have measures 

three times during pregnancy in the Cincinnati home study, at 16 

weeks gestation, 26 weeks, and at delivery. What we can do is 

begin to ask questions, not only about exposures throughout pregnancy, by taking the sum of those, but whether there is a difference, for example, in the timing of exposure. 

So when we looked at bisphenol-A, a plastic, we found that exposures at 16 weeks gestation were associated with acting out type 

behaviors in the daughters but not in the sons. Now, that needs to 

be confirmed. That is the type of research that we can’t make policy based upon one study. But what it suggests is the timing is important, looking sometimes at gender differences or sexually 

dimorphic behavior differences, based on a chemical. 

But we couldn’t have done that without a biomarker. So it is 

really critical to be able to measure exposures to chemicals. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. I get that. 

Dr. Pessah, do you want to add anything with the biomarkers? 

Because I understand them now. We are almost on equal footing. 

I am kidding. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. PESSAH. I think that by identifying classes of compounds, in 

the future we may be able to invoke a precautionary principle 

where, if a chemical has chemical properties that will know to be 

bioaccumulated—that is, retained in the body—if children are more 
83 

exposed, as you mentioned, that we might be able to predict, as opposed to having to test every chemical. 

There are various levels of testing chemicals, from the cellular, 

the mechanistic, to the epidemiological approach. Given the vast 

number of high volume and even greater number of other chemicals in the environment, it behooves us to try to find some commonalities amongst chemicals in their mechanism of producing 

harm. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. What about this fact that Dr. Lanphear 

was talking about, that boys seem to have a higher rate of autism? 

I think that is correct. I am just trying to understand this. He 

talked about the interrelationship with gender. Any ideas there? 

Mr. PESSAH. I think that is an important factor that needs to be 

acknowledged in current and future research, that obtaining cells 

from males may be different than obtaining cells from females, in 

terms of the level of susceptibility, or the nature of the response 

to environmental chemicals. So we need to keep that in mind. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. So if we could just write you a blank check 

right now, which sadly we can’t, what would you most, if you could 

just conduct the research that you wanted to, in a big way, and I 

know there are limits on research, but if you could do that, where 

would you want to focus the research? No constraints from anyone 

about telling you what it should be or what pot of money it comes 

from. If you just wanted to figure out an answer for Mary Moen’s 

question about why, what would you do? 

Mr. PESSAH. Because of the complexity of autism spectrum disorders, our lesson learned at UC Davis is that you need a multidisciplinary approach. You need to have immunologists talk to 

neuroscientists talk to toxicologists and pool their efforts, integrate 

their efforts in understanding this very complex disorder. So granted, very large science will address more global issues. 

I think concerted studies of specific populations will give you valuable answers that could lead to mitigation of autism. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Do you want to answer that, Dr. Lanphear? 

Dr. LANPHEAR. Yes. Given the prevalence of autism, even though 

it has risen in recent years, I think the kind of study you would 

want to do would be prospective, it would be large. And you would 

have multiple measures of various chemical exposures, or the opportunity to go back, using a repository, collecting blood or urine 

and so forth and storing it. And looking at the children as they develop. 

That would of course be augmented by a whole host of other 

types of studies, looking very specifically at questions. But that 

kind of large birth cohort study, like the National Children’s Study, 

I think is going to be an essential part of understanding the risk 

factors for the development of autism and ASD. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Very good. 

I want to thank all of you for coming. We will keep the record 

open for 2 weeks, and I am sure my colleagues may have some follow up questions. But I wanted to commend you for the work you 

are doing. I think that Ms. Moen said it best when she said she 

is just now, after struggling and doing everything for Max, gotten 

out of that. I know how that one feels, that one box, to start step-
84 

ping back and asking why. I think that is what a lot of us are 

doing on behalf of moms and dads like her across the country. 

It does appear that the solution may not be an easy one, but that 

this interaction with genetics and the immunology as well as the 

environmental factors is where we should head. So I want to thank 

you for all the research you have done. 

Dr. Pessah, I think you should try to go head to head with Max 

on a math question when we are done, and see how he does there. 

Because he is supposed to be a math whiz. We will see how he 

does. 

So thank you, everyone, for coming. The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:35 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[An additional statement submitted for the record follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

As a father and grandfather, protecting the health of children—born and unborn—is a personal priority for me. I would like to thank Senator Klobuchar for 

scheduling this important hearing to discuss new developments in autism and other 

neuro-development disorders. 

Autism and related developmental disorders affect approximately 1 in 110 births 

and are growing at an alarming rate of 10 to 17 percent per year. At this rate, there 

are estimates that the prevalence of autism could reach 4 million Americans in the 

next decade. Autism and similar disorders have no ethnic, racial, or social boundaries and can affect any family or child indiscriminately. Autism has increasingly 

been identified as a mostly complex genetic disorder, but some environmental factors may also be linked to its causes. 

I have always championed the use of the best available science to properly assess 

the risks these devastating disorders have on children and families. Due to the increasing rates of autism in children, the Committee must ensure that the best available scientific research is conducted and appropriate funding is directed toward 

these causes. 

Both the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences have dedicated resources to research the environmental 

health factors associated with autism, and I look forward to hearing from the witnesses on the status of these ongoing studies. I invite the agencies and experts to 

identify areas where there may be inefficiencies or lack of sufficient information so 

we can address these issues and make certain that proper resources are being dedicated to the most appropriate areas of study. 

The rise in autism is a very serious problem facing our Nation’s children and families, and I will stay committed to discovering the causes and finding treatments. 

I look forward to hearing the results of the agencies’ findings and how the Federal 

Government can enhance and improve its research efforts. 

Æ