Children are not small adults

By: dokovska

Skopje : Macedonia | 4 months ago

1 0

(Seventh BfR Consumer Protection Forum views children as consumers)

Risks for children must be assessed differently from risks for adults. When evaluating potential risks from chemical substances, risk assessors must bear in mind that in relation to their body weight children have a larger skin surface, eat more and breathe more rapidly than adults. In line with their age they have an elevated metabolic rate and their bodies ingest larger amounts of certain substances more quickly from the gastro-intestinal tract. Contaminants, which are only broken down slowly, can act over a longer period. Children perceive risks differently and behave differently. Infants, for instance, put objects in their mouths which were not intended for that purpose and may swallow them unintentionally. Children have also suffocated after swallowing peanuts. Typical poisoning incidents involving children may have severe health consequences. Furthermore, children are exposed to different accident risks than adults. "We shouldn’t see children as small adults; they must be viewed as a separate consumer group," says BfR president Professor Dr. Dr. Andreas Hensel. Around 140 participants at the seventh BfR Consumer Protection Forum in Berlin discussed the extent to which science has appropriately assessed the special risks facing children up to now and also the extent to which this has prompted policy makers to establish adequate measures for their protection.

The representatives from science, politics, public authorities, the business community, consumer associations and media agreed that the results of risk assessments for adults cannot simply be “calculated down” or transposed to children. In most cases substance risks for children must be calculated separately. This has to do with the special nature of the physical and mental development and behaviour of children. One criticism made was that frequently not enough data are available for risk assessment. The participants were of the opinion that there was an urgent need for research and documentation.

In legal terms children enjoy special protection from certain substances in food. For instance infant formula must comply with specific requirements before it may be placed on the market. For certain pesticides there are, for instance, stiffer maximum levels. In the case of harmful substances in toys, by contrast, there is a need for improvement. The criticism voiced by BfR concerning the new EU toys directive was shared by most of the participants. The question was raised in the context of toys whether manufacturers should really produce everything that sells – even if such toys could be dangerous for children under certain circumstances - and whether they can rely on parents constantly keeping an eye on their children when playing with the toys. In the context of globalised markets it is important to be able to identify consumer products quickly and clearly so that in the event of health impairments the risks can be assessed. BfR has, therefore, developed a new labelling system for the purposes of rapid identification in emergencies. Widely used labels like the CE mark, which manufacturers award themselves, cannot always guarantee sufficient consumer safety. Improved quality can only be achieved through control by independent institutes like in the case of the GS mark.

There was controversial debate of the role played by parents in protecting their children from health risks. What is clear is that as role models they can make a major contribution to preventing, for instance, accidents like falls, burns and chemical poisoning in the home. But this is dependent on the parents themselves having the relevant knowledge which, according to the multipliers, is not always present to the same degree. There are still gaps in knowledge when it comes to assessing microbial risks which may be associated above all with food of animal origin. There are repeated cases of infections of children with food germs like Salmonella and Campylobacter because parents do not know that these germs may be present above all on raw meat and eggs. This is where there is need for awareness-raising work by associations and state institutions.

Giving children the opportunity to grow up safely is a task for society as a whole. Statutory framework conditions to protect children, which state stakeholders can put in place, are dependent on adequate scientific knowledge which, in turn, must be furnished by a robust, age-related database. This is also a financial question. Everyone involved in looking after children can help to ensure that children learn how to deal with risks in daily life. After all, children will eventually pass on their knowledge and their experience one day as adults to other children

Reach
Credibility

Post a Comment Comments: 2

Posted By

Changez | 4 months ago

Thank you to committees of bureaucrats and scientists for pointing out the obvious, that children are not the same as adults and need to be looked after. Hopefully we can look to these people to point out even more obvious facts in the future, like the fact that water is wet and rain falls from the sky. It is good to know they are taking firm steps towards protecting children, like dealing with pollution, war and disease. This is the great thing about committees.

Posted By

aquamarina217 | 4 months ago

This article does indeed point out the obvious, but I can see the pitfalls and accidents that can happen in parenting when parents might not be aware of the obvious. There are so many different factors to constantly monitor when taking care of children.

For example, take a look at this quotation from the above article: "There are repeated cases of infections of children with food germs like Salmonella and Campylobacter because parents do not know that these germs may be present above all on raw meat and eggs". This statement implies that children should eat certain foods different from adults, but many parents feed their children exactly what they ate when they were young (that their parents unknowingly fed them) or what they eat now as adults (that, as this article suggests, is digested differently in children). Parents don't have time to research these details. And food is only one example of a complicated issue in dealing with children! What about bringing your child to the park, water slides, doctor's office, your backyard, giving them toys, having a pet around the house?

Parents are an important source for a child's upbringing. When my brother and sister played in the sandpit at a playground, my mom immediately took my brother out because she saw that he was placing the sand in his mouth. In some ways, this action is a positive and safe defense in preventing germs from entering my brother's body. However, sometimes a child's immune system needs to learn on its own what is good and what is bad. If a parent simply always shields the child from all that is bad in the world, as the child grows up, he or she will not be able to cope with the bad that he or she is INEVITABLY going to encounter. This argument of course can be expanded beyond science and germs to parenting styles, but that is a different story.

Lastly, I wanted to comment on the toys paragraph. Yes, toys are dangerous because children don't always know the appropriate way to play with them. They might stick a tiny plastic monkey up their nose or start eating the silly putty, but what are we supposed to do? Ban almost all toys? I think in these instances, parents are the most vital resource. No, manufacturers don't know how if parents will always keep an eye on their children, but I don't think that's a problem for manufacturers. I think every toy can be technically "dangerous" and hazardous to a child, so there is no way to decrease the risk except that parents should buy toys with caution and constantly watch their children. Also, there is the factor of conditioning that I mentioned previously, where after parents repeatedly slap their child's hand when he attempts to poke himself in the eye with the arm of an action figure, he'll learn that's a no-no :)