An Economic Cost Assessment of Environmentally-Related
Childhood Diseases in Maine
Mary E. Davis, PhD
Adjunct Assistant Professor
School of Economics
University of Maine

Executive Summary
Children are exposed to a wide range of toxic chemicals on a daily basis that their developing
bodies are particularly ill-equipped to manage. Surprisingly little is known about the health effects
of the vast majority of the chemicals that currently exist in the environment, and even less is known
about the unique susceptibility of children. The changing pattern of childhood illnesses represents a
shift from infectious diseases and genetic abnormalities to those of potentially preventable origin.
Childhood diseases are now more often the result of a combination of factors, including both
environmental triggers and genetic susceptibility. Maine children are no exception to what has been
called the “new pediatric morbidity,” and suffer from comparatively high rates of asthma and
cancer. Maine children are also at an increased risk of lead poisoning due to the aging housing
stock and historical industrial activities.
In order to understand the economic impact of environmentally-related childhood diseases in
Maine, this report provides a detailed estimate of the annual cost in four broad illness categories:
lead poisoning, asthma, childhood cancer, and neurobehavioral disorders. Building upon previous
scientific evidence in the health sciences and using state-specific data where available, this report
estimates both the number of children suffering from environmentally attributable diseases in the
state each year, as well as the economic cost associated with treating these illnesses. Overall, the
aggregate annual cost of environmentally attributable illnesses in Maine children is estimated to be
$380.9 million per year, ranging between $319.4 and $484.3 million. It is important to note that the
economic costs outlined in this report represent preventable childhood illnesses, and as such could
be fully avoided if environmental exposures in children were eliminated. It should also be viewed
as a conservative estimate of the true burden of environmentally-related childhood diseases since it
is limited to a relatively small number of the potential health outcomes associated with
environmental exposures. For example, this report does not quantify the impact of adult onset
cancers related to childhood exposures, although cancer is known to often endure long latency
periods before surfacing. This report also excludes the effects of endocrine disrupting chemicals in
our environment that may be associated with congenital abnormalities, lower sperm counts, and
gender identity disorder. Much of the science related to environmental pollution is still evolving,
and as such it is difficult to identify the range of health outcomes that are the direct result of contact
during childhood.

Acknowledgements: A sincere thanks to the research assistance provided by Sherise Smith, a
graduate student in the Department of Urban and Environmental Policy and Planning at Tufts
University, and to the helpful comments from reviewers Karen Buhr and Sharon Tisher at the
University of Maine, Jaime Hart at Harvard University, and Nancy Ross at Unity College.

1

 Introduction
The pattern of pediatric disease in the US has evolved from one primarily driven by infectious
agents to those with much more complicated multifactorial origins that include both genetic and
environmental causes. Advances in medical technologies that have succeeded in reducing infant
mortality rates have been countered in part by the negative health outcomes associated with
preventable childhood exposures to environmental pollutants. More than 80,000 synthetic chemical
compounds have been created over the past 50 years in the US alone (Goldman and Koduru 2000),
and information on the health effects of the vast majority of these chemicals is scarce to nonexistent. Reducing childhood exposure to environmental contaminants is important for a number of
reasons, not the least of which is that children are unable to make informed decisions to limit their
exposure to toxic chemicals. According to a recent EPA report, children are more susceptible than
adults to the ill effects of environmental pollutants due to their developing organ systems and small
size, as well as their unique activity patterns (crawling and hand to mouth contact) and exposure
pathways (breast milk and placenta) (Woodruff et al. 2003).
The economic burden of environmental diseases in Maine children is derived using the research
methods outlined in a national study by Landrigan et al. (2002) 1 published in Environmental Health
Perspectives, the peer-reviewed journal of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.
This Maine report follows similar efforts by other states to identify state-level costs of
environmentally attributable diseases in children, including Massachusetts (Massey and Ackerman
2003), Washington (Davies 2005), Minnesota (Schuler et al. 2006), and California (University of
California 2008). Landrigan applied the most recently available scientific evidence using a formal
decision-making process of expert panels to broadly define environmentally attributable costs in
four childhood disease categories, which included lead poisoning, asthma, cancer, and
neurobehavioral conditions (specifically mental retardation, autism, and cerebral palsy). Although
this Maine report closely follows the national approach outlined by Landrigan, it is updated
wherever possible with Maine-specific data relevant to the health risks, economic impact, and
environmental exposures particular to children in the state, and with more recently available
scientific evidence on the topic where available. Briefly, the major changes to the Landrigan
approach include the addition of a cost category for ADD/ADHD as a fourth neurobehavioral
condition, significant updates to the cost of autism in the neurobehavioral category, and the use of
Maine special education data to quantify these specific disability-related costs to the state. Cost
data from all sources have been adjusted for inflation to reflect 2008 dollars (US BLS 2008).
The economic cost of environmentally related childhood diseases in Maine is constructed based on
estimates of the environmentally attributable fraction (EAF). 2 The EAF represents the best
available estimate of the percentage of childhood diseases in Maine (ranging from zero to 100%)
1

From this point on, Landrigan et al. (2002) is interchangeably referred to simply as “Landrigan”.

2

The concept of the attributable fraction is based on both the prevalence of exposure to an environmental pollutant
(how much contact children have with the pollutant) as well as the health risks associated with such exposures. It
applies the following formula, where RR represents the relative risk of disease from exposure to environmental
pollutants (Breslow and Day 1980):

(

)

Prevalence ∗ RR - 1
Environmentally Attributable Fraction =

(

)

1 + Prevalence ∗ RR - 1

2

 that could be prevented by eliminating specific environmental exposures in children. The
percentage of childhood disease cases attributable to environmental exposures is combined with
information on size of the population at risk, the underlying rate of disease among this population,
and the cost per case to estimate the following model of total cost to the state:
Total Costs=Disease rate x EAF x Size of population at risk x Cost per case
In other words, the disease rate and size of the population at risk are combined to provide an
estimate of the total number of children suffering from a given disease regardless of the source,
which is in turn multiplied by the EAF to determine the number of those cases of environmental
origin. This number is then multiplied by the cost per case to provide an overall estimate of the
economic burden of childhood diseases attributable to environmental causes in the state.
The size of the relevant population of Maine children at risk is dependent on the individual disease
categories and closely follows those identified by Landrigan.
Lead poisoning: incidence of disease in the current birth cohort (under 1)
Asthma: prevalence of disease in the under 18 population
Cancer: incidence of disease in the under 18 population
Neurobehavioral: incidence of disease in the current birth cohort (under 1)
Prevalence is defined as the number of children suffering from an illness, while incidence is the rate
at which new cases of the disease develop over a given time period. The difference between these
two approaches is relevant to the current report because estimates based on prevalence assume that
the current cohort of children with the illness could recover fully once an exposure is removed,
while those based on incidence assume a more lasting lifetime impact. For example, reductions in
asthma severity would be expected to follow declines in exposure to air pollutants or other
respiratory triggers. For this reason, annual cost estimates based on current asthma prevalence in
the state is an appropriate measure of disease burden. In contrast, once a child develops a
neurological impairment or cancer, the effects are more likely to be felt over a lifetime. For this
reason, an approach that quantifies the lifetime cost based on the rate at which new cases develop in
the current cohort of at-risk children at current exposure levels is more appropriate. Table 1 below
provides the reference to the relevant population statistics used in this report.
Table 1: Size of the Relevant Maine Population At-Risk
Maine
US
ME share of
US population
Number of
281,496 73,652,027 0.0038
children (<18)*
Birth cohort**
13,944
4,112,052
0.0034
(< 1)
*Source: U.S. Census Bureau: State and County QuickFacts (representing 2006 population estimates)
**Source: National Center for Health Statistics, Martin et al. (representing 2004 population estimates)

3

 Costs of Childhood Lead Poisoning
Lead exposure in children can lead to significant health consequences, including brain and kidney
damage, anemia, and death at very high levels of exposure (NRC 1993). In response to these
negative health effects, much has been done over the past few decades to reduce lead exposure in
children and consequently blood lead levels have declined significantly over this time period
(Grosse et al. 2002). However, despite the reductions in lead exposure among children, subtle
neurological and cognitive impairments remain at the comparatively low exposure levels observed
today.
Although the technical definition of elevated blood lead levels (EBLLs) in children establishes a
benchmark of 10 µg/dL, substantial evidence has accrued to suggest that the negative health effects
can be seen at even lower levels and that there is no safe amount of lead exposure in children
(Landrigan et al. 2002). These small and often difficult to detect changes in cognitive function
related to low level lead exposure have been shown to impact school performance, educational
attainment, and ultimately the lifetime job prospects and earning potential of exposed children
(Grosse et al. 2002). This loss of function has been quantitatively linked to both changes in
performance on IQ tests, as well as decreases in the lifetime earning potential for exposed children
(Salkever 1995, Canfield et al. 2003).
Risk for Maine children
Children living in old homes are especially susceptible to lead exposure through residual lead paint
(air and dust), as well as contaminated water (lead pipes) and soil. According to the CDC (data
provided in Table 2), 35.8% of Maine houses were built prior to 1950 at a time when lead paint and
piping was commonly used, compared with the national average of 22.3% (CDC 2008a). Also, a
recent study of the Portland peninsula provided evidence of urban soil contamination from historical
industrial activities as well as residual lead from gasoline and paint sources. The study reported that
nearly 100% of the properties sampled in the area had lead concentrations in excess of the EPA
recommended public health levels (Wagner and Langley-Turnbaugh 2008). The Maine Childhood
Lead Poisoning Prevention Program provided data on the percentage of children tested in the state
with elevated blood lead levels (see Table 2). These estimates are slightly lower than those
projected by the Lead Poisoning Prevention Branch at the US CDC (CDC 2008b) due to differences
in the reporting methods.

4

 Table 2: Elevated Blood Lead Levels (EBLLs) and Pre-1950 Housing Units by County
Number
Number
Percent
% Pre-1950
County
Screened* EBLL*
EBLL*
Housing Units**
Androscoggin 6,674
149
2.2
41.6%
Aroostook
3,916
10
0.3
39.4%
Cumberland
12,888
173
1.3
36.9%
Franklin
1,828
22
1.2
32.1%
Hancock
2,329
28
1.2
35.4%
Kennebec
6,338
64
1.0
35.3%
Knox
1,549
41
2.6
44.0%
Lincoln
1,088
10
0.9
38.1%
Oxford
4,098
45
1.1
36.8%
Penobscot
8,195
95
1.2
34.6%
Piscataquis
9,68
20
2.1
35.2%
Sagadahoc
1,976
25
1.3
36.5%
Somerset
3,915
44
1.1
34.2%
Waldo
1,699
18
1.1
32.1%
Washington
2,408
26
1.1
38.0%
York
9,616
139
1.4
29.8%
State Average 69,715
913
1.3
35.8%
*EBLLs based on data obtained from ME Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program
(2009) for children < 72 months of age (data collected between 2003 and 2007)
**Source: CDC 2008a

Landrigan Cost Method
The Landrigan approach limits the estimation of the economic cost of lead poisoning to the decrease
in expected lifetime earnings due to IQ reductions in exposed children. These costs will accrue over
a lifetime and will materialize in forgone wages due to decreased mental capacity. This estimate is
conservative in that it excludes the cost of testing and treatment, as well as any adult-related
diseases associated with exposure. It is important to note that these estimates do not represent
actual direct or indirect expenditures for disease treatment and abatement.
¾ EAF = 100%. Based on the assumption that all cases of lead poisoning are the result of
environmental causes.
¾ Size of population at risk = Defined as incidence in the cohort of 5-year old US children.
Based on the assumption that no reduction in exposure or medical treatment would restore
mental capacity to children with lead poisoning.
¾ Disease rate/exposure estimate = National blood lead data from the mid-1990s for 5 year
olds (average blood lead level 2.7 µg/dL; Pirkle et al. 1998, CDC 1997).
¾ Cost per case = Calculated as lost lifetime earnings separately for boys and girls (US BLS
1999). Based on the assumption that each 1 µg/dL of blood lead is associated with a 0.25
decline in IQ points, and that each 1 point decline in IQ is responsible for a 2.39% loss of
lifetime earnings (Schwartz et al. 1985; Salkever 1995).

5

 Updated Maine Cost Method
The estimates for the economic burden of disease in Maine children related to lead poisoning
closely follows the Landrigan approach described above with the following exceptions.
¾ Size of population at risk = Defined as incidence in the current Maine birth cohort (<1) as
surrogate for Landrigan estimate of 5-year olds. The number of boys and girls extrapolated
based on state-level data of the male to female ratio (US Census 2000).
¾ Disease rate/exposure estimate = National blood lead data updated to 1999-2002 (average
blood lead 1.9 µg/dL; CDC 2005). The national average was used as a surrogate for the
Maine-specific data because the state does not currently collect the data necessary to
calculate a state-wide average. 3
¾ Cost per case = Based on the assumption that each 1 µg/dL of blood lead is associated with a
0.46 decline in IQ points (Canfield et al. 2003). All cost estimates updated to reflect 2008
dollars.
Results
Table 3 provides the results of the total cost calculations for the economic impact of childhood lead
exposure in Maine using the updated approach outlined above. The evidence suggests that this
year’s cohort of children born in Maine can expect to earn nearly $240 million less (in 2008 dollars)
throughout their lifetime as a result of the cognitive and neurological deficits related to lead. It is
important to note that these costs should be interpreted as the lost value of future wage earnings that
accrue over a lifetime. Therefore, they are not representative of direct annual expenditures, but are
instead indicative of lost potential in the current birth cohort.
Table 3: Total Annual Cost of Childhood Lead Exposure in Maine†
EAF
100%
Main consequence
Loss of IQ over a lifetime
Mean blood lead levels
1.9 µg/dL
Blood lead level of 1 µg/dL
Mean loss of 0.46 IQ points per child
At mean blood levels
Mean loss of 0.874 IQ points per child
Loss of 1 IQ point
Loss of lifetime earnings of 2.39%
At mean blood levels
Loss of 2.09% of lifetime earnings
Economic consequences
For boys
2.09% x $1,166,057 (lifetime earnings) x 6,791
= $165,500,686
For girls
2.09% x $687,742 (lifetime earnings) x 7,153
= $102,815,847
Total annual cost of childhood lead exposure $268,316,533
†

Representing 2008 dollars

3

More specifically, blood lead tests that show less than 5 µg/dl are recorded only as "<5 µg/dl", so it would be
inaccurate to calculate an overall mean using this information.

6

 Costs of Childhood Asthma
Asthma is the most prevalent illness in children and the most common cause of childhood
hospitalizations (Landrigan et al. 2002). The national rate of asthma among children doubled
between the years of 1980 and 1995 (from 3.6% to 7.5%), and is currently estimated to be 8.7%
(Woodruff et al. 2003). Exposure to outdoor (Wong et al. 2005) and indoor (NAS 2000a) air
pollutants, including household chemical products and pesticides (Sherriff et al. 2005), have been
associated with the both the onset and severity of asthma in children. There is also growing
evidence to suggest that chronic exposure to air pollutants such as ozone and particulate matter are
causally related to decreased lung function and the development in asthma in children (Woodruff et
al. 2003).
Risk for Maine children
The prevalence of asthma in Maine children has been increasing in recent years, and is currently
estimated at 11.2% (Tippy 2005) 4 . Maine has one of the highest asthma rates in the nation (ranks
5th for adults currently diagnosed with asthma; CDC 2006a). The asthma rate varies across regions
of the state (see Figure 1), with estimates ranging from 9.1% in coastal Maine (Knox, Lincoln,
Sagadahoc counties), to 14.4% in western Maine (Franklin, Oxford, Piscataquis, Somerset
counties). As a reflection of the state burden of asthma care, the prevalence of asthma in the
MaineCare population is 15.1% (compared to 9.5% in privately insured children) (Tippy 2005).
Figure 1: Asthma Prevalence by Region of the State
Current Asthma
Western
12.8%
North Eastern 12.8%
West Central
9.9%
East Central
14.4%
Coastal
9.1%
Southern
9.6%
State Average 11.2%
US Average
8.5%

Source: Tippy 2005

4

Prevalence data is based on a state-wide survey of kindergarten and third graders (Tippy 2005). This report assumes
that prevalence is uniform across the entire underage population. Due to a low response rate for the survey used, the
results cannot be considered to be generalizable beyond the population sampled. However, the results were similar to
those provided by national surveys with high response rates of US children under 18 [13% “ever asthma” and 9%
“current asthma” (Bloom et al. 2006)], of US high school students [17% “ever asthma” and 14.5% “current asthma”
(CDC 2006b)], and of Maine adults [14.1% “ever asthma” 9.7% “current asthma” (CDC 2006a)], as well as a recent
asthma report released by the state estimating “current asthma” at 10.7% and “lifetime asthma” at 14.6% (ME CDC
2008).

7

 Landrigan Cost Method
¾ EAF = 30% (range 10-35%).
¾ Size of population at risk = Not defined. Estimates based on the aggregate national cost of
asthma multiplied by the EAF.
¾ Disease rate/exposure estimate = Not defined. Estimates based on the aggregate national
cost of asthma multiplied by the EAF.
¾ Cost per case = Aggregate cost of asthma, including asthma-related deaths, developed from
existing literature (Chestnut et al. 2000, Weiss et al. 2000). Excludes costs of asthmarelated morbidity beyond the age of 18.
Updated Maine Cost Method
The estimates for the economic burden of disease in Maine children related to asthma closely
follows the Landrigan approach described above with the following exceptions.
¾ Size of population at risk = Defined as current prevalence in the cohort of Maine children
under the age of 18. Based on the assumption that environmental abatement would be
expected to reduce the burden of asthma morbidity.
¾ Disease rate/exposure estimate = Maine-specific asthma prevalence rate of 11.2%.
¾ Cost per case = Derived from a recent report detailing the per child cost of asthma in Maine
(Davis 2007). Based on the size of the cohort, there is less than one environmentally
attributable asthma death per year in Maine so this cost is excluded (CDC 2007a). All cost
estimates updated to reflect 2008 dollars.
Results
Table 4 presents an estimate of the total annual economic burden of $8.8 million (range $2.9–
$10.3) in environmentally related asthma costs in the state. Over 3,000 children are estimated to be
suffering from asthma as a result of non-genetic environmental exposures.
Table 4: Total Annual Cost of Environmentally Attributable Childhood Asthma in Maine†
EAF Expected
Total number of
Total annual
Total annual cost of
number of
environmentally
treatment cost
environmentally
children <18
attributable cases per year
per case
attributable asthma
with asthma
10% 31,527
3,153
$2,934,533
$931
30% 31,527
9,458
$8,803,600
35% 31,527
11,035
$10,270,866
†

Representing 2008 dollars

8

 Costs of Childhood Neurobehavioral Disorders
Neurobehavioral disorders impact between 3-8% of infants born in the US each year (Landrigan et
al. 2002), and 28% of these conditions can be linked either directly or indirectly to environmental
factors (NAS 2000b). Of the approximately 80,000 chemicals registered for commercial use with
the EPA, over 200 have been shown to have neurotoxic effects in adults (see full list in Table A-1
of Appendix), and a handful of others (lead, methylmercury, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs),
arsenic, and toluene) have been clinically proven to cause neurodevelopmental disorders in children
(Grandjean and Landrigan 2006). However, the size of this list is restricted by a general lack of
scientific information on the health effects of most chemicals, and should therefore not be regarded
as a comprehensive assessment of the chemicals associated with neurological abnormalities in
children. The developing brain is highly susceptible to environmental exposures, much more so
than fully formed adult brains. The neurological development process that begins in utero continues
after birth, and if any stage of development is impeded during this process, the effects are often
permanent. Furthermore, the placenta is not an effective shield against most neurotoxins, and the
blood-brain barrier that protects adults is not fully formed until about six months of age (Grandjean
and Landrigan 2006).
Risk for Maine children
Over last 10 years, the number of Maine children receiving special education services related to
neurological impairment has been increasing, and nearly one in five public school students now
receives special education services from the state (D.E. 2008a). The total cost to provide those
services has been growing at 6.7% per year, and was estimated to be nearly $300 million in 2006
(D.E. 2008b). Although overall student enrollment has declined, the share of special education
students has increased from 12.7% in 1986 to 17.7% in 2007 (D.E. 2008a). Growth in number of
special education students categorized as autistic is especially alarming, increasing 58.6% over the
last three years of available data (2004-2007) (D.E. 2008c). Table 5 provides a list of special
education enrollment in the relevant disability categories.
Table 5: Developmental Disability as a Percentage of Total Enrollment (2006)
Disability Category
Total Number of Students % of Total Enrollment
(n=194,232)
Mental Retardation
798
0.4%
Speech and Language Impairment 8,612
4.4%
Emotional Disability
2,943
1.5%
Other Health Impairment
5,528
2.9%
Specific Learning Disability
10,053
5.2%
Multiple Disabilities
3,082
1.6%
Developmentally Delayed
888
0.5%
Autism
1,990
1.0%
Total
33,894
17.5%
Source: D.E. 2008c

Landrigan Cost Methods
The Landrigan report limited the cost assessment to three neurobehavioral conditions (mental
retardation, autism, and cerebral palsy) due to the lack of both incidence and cost data for other
neurobehavioral illnesses. Furthermore, although a National Academy of Sciences report (2000)
suggested that up to 28% of neurobehavioral disorders could be linked to environmental exposures,
9

 Landrigan used a more conservative estimate of 5-20% to exclude cases that could be attributed to
substance abuse such as fetal alcohol syndrome. Also, to avoid the potential for double counting
children with mental retardation and autism or cerebral palsy, Landrigan imposed a downward
adjustment of 34% on attributable cases of autism and 15% on attributable cases of cerebral palsy.
Finally, since IQ loss associated with lead exposure is one cause of mild mental retardation in
children, they also controlled for lead as a confounding factor with a downward adjustment of 2.5%
for the mental retardation category.
¾ EAF = 10% (range 5-20%). Based on a conservative estimate in order to avoid the inclusion
of neurobehavioral conditions related to substance abuse.
¾ Size of population at risk = Defined as incidence of neurobehavioral diseases in the current
national birth cohort (<1). Based on the assumption that environmental cleanup will not
improve the health of children already suffering from neurobehavioral disorders.
¾ Disease rate/exposure estimate = Disease rates for mental retardation, autism, and cerebral
palsy taken from a 1991-94 survey (Buxbaum et al. 2000).
¾ Cost per case = Derived cost estimates from a study limited to mental retardation, autism,
and cerebral palsy (Honeycutt et al. 2000).
Updated Maine Cost Method
The estimates for the economic burden of disease in Maine children related to neurobehavioral
diseases closely follows the Landrigan approach described above with the following exceptions.
¾ Special education category added – The line item costs of special education services in the
Landrigan study was replaced with a separate Maine-specific category. Total state special
education costs in 2006 were reported to be $282,763,474 (D.E. 2008b), which would
represent $302,556,917 in 2008 dollars.
¾ ADD/ADHD category added: Based on a recent meta-analysis of the existing literature
(Pelham et al. 2007) outlining the rates of ADD/ADHD in children as well as the cost
associated with treatment, a category for this disorder has been added to the economic
assessment of neurobehavioral conditions. This study cited a national disease rate of
between 2 and 9%, for which this report chooses a mid-range estimate of 5% to represent
Maine children. In order to control for co-existing conditions, the same downward
adjustment applied to autism cases (34%) is also applied to ADD/ADHD.
The cost estimate for ADD/ADHD is also provided by the recent literature in this area
(Pelham et al. 2007), which calculated the aggregate annual cost of ADD/ADHD minus
special education services as $10,730 per year per child. Assuming these costs accrue
annually over a 13-year period for school aged children (between 5 and 18 years of age) at a
discount rate of 3%, total costs per child during the school age years would be $117,589.
The cost method for ADD/ADHD is a much more conservative estimate than is applied to
the other neurological conditions because it does not account for the lifetime impact of the
condition. Although this is certain to underestimate the total economic impact of

10

 ADD/ADHD in Maine, the specific cost data necessary to extend the time period under
consideration is not currently available.
¾ Disease rate/exposure estimate
o Mental Retardation –Incidence based on the national rate of 12 cases per 1,000 births
(Bhasin et al. 2006).
o Cerebral Palsy –Incidence based on the national rate of 3.6 cases per 1,000 births
(Yeargin-Allsopp et al. 2008).
o Autism –Incidence based on the national rate of 1 in 150 children with autism
spectrum disorders (CDC 2007b).
¾ Cost per case = Based on a more recently available study of the economic impact of autism
(Ganz 2007), the costs have been updated to reflect a lifetime impact of approximately $3.5
million per child. This excludes the cost of special education services, which are calculated
separately in this report. All cost estimates updated to reflect 2008 dollars.
Results
Table 6 presents an estimate of the total annual economic burden of $101.9 million (range $47.8–
$203.4) in environmentally related costs for neurobehavioral conditions in the state. Over $30
million of this total is spent directly by the state on an annual basis on special education services for
students with environmentally attributable disabilities.
Table 6: Total Annual Cost of Environmentally Attributable Neurobehavioral Disorders in Maine†
EAF
Mental Retardation* Cerebral Palsy ADD/ADHD Autism
Total environmentally 5%
9
3
34
5
attributable cases per
10% 17
5
67
9
year
20%
33
10
134
18
Total lifetime cost per case**
$2,181,456
$1,927,554
$117,589
$3,551,683
Total cost per
5%
$12,927,144
$4,915,264
$2,638,697
$11,720,555
birth cohort
10% $36,157,626
$8,192,106
$5,199,786
$21,096,998
20%
$71,988,033
$16,384,212
$10,399,571
$42,193,996
Special education expenditures only
Total annual cost = $302,556,917
5%
$15,127,846
10% $30,255,692
20%
$60,511,383
Total annual environmentally attributable costs of neurobehavioral disorders
5%
$47,329,505
10% $100,902,207
20%
$201,477,195
†

Representing 2008 dollars
*Annual incident cases for mental retardation adjusted for lead confounding
**Excluding special education services

11

 Costs of Childhood Cancer
Cancer related deaths in children have been declining over the last 20 years due to medical
advances in treatment options. However, the same time period has witnessed a troubling increase in
the incidence of childhood cancers, which can be seen in national data of incidence and mortality
from 1975 to 2003 presented below in Figure 2. There is a great deal of uncertainty on the
underlying causes of childhood cancer. While the available evidence suggests that no more than
10-20% can be attributed solely to genetic factors, leaving the remaining 80-90% potentially linked
to environmental causes, only a small number of toxic chemicals have been adequately researched
and definitively linked to childhood cancers (Landrigan et al. 2002). However, there is growing
evidence to suggest an increased risk cancer, especially for leukemia and brain cancers, in children
with high pesticide exposures, and a similarly increased risk of cancer in children exposed to certain
industrial chemicals (Schuler et al. 2006).
Figure 2: Childhood Cancer Incidence and Mortality (1975-2003)

Source: Taken directly from Ries et al. 2006

Risk for Maine children
Based on unpublished data from 1995 to 2004 made available by the Maine Cancer Registry (Maine
Cancer Registry 2009), there are approximately 62 new cases of childhood cancers each year in the
state in the under 20 population, with an average of 12 cancer deaths expected annually. More than
half of the childhood cancers in Maine can be attributed to leukemia, lymphoma, and cancers of the
central nervous system, which correspond with the most frequently occurring childhood cancers
nationally (Schuler et al. 2006). The incidence of childhood cancers in Maine over the 10 year
period observed was reportedly 186.2 per million children, which is higher than the national rate of
164 per million (Ries et al. 2006). This translates into an additional six childhood cancers in the
state each year when compared with the national rate. The elevated incidence of cancer among
children is not surprising given that Maine has the highest incidence of adult cancer in the nation
(526.1 per million compared to 458.2 per million nationally; NCI 2009).
Landrigan Cost Methods
¾ EAF = 5% (range 2-10%). Based on the assumption that a more conservative EAF would
account for the uncertainty in the underlying causes of childhood cancer. This estimate

12

 conservatively excludes the impact of the late onset of adult cancers that are related to
previous childhood exposures.
¾ Size of population at risk = Defined as incidence of childhood cancers in the national cohort
of children under the age of 15. Based on the assumption that environmental cleanup will
not improve the health of children already suffering from cancer.
¾ Disease rate/exposure estimate = Estimated disease rates for childhood cancer based on
1993 data (133.3 cases per million children; Zahm and Devessa 1995).
¾ Cost per case = Derived cost per childhood cancer case to include the cost of care for the
initial cancer as well as the additional costs related to the increased probability of a
secondary cancer later in life. They also included both lost parental wages and potential
lifetime earnings of the child, and total cost per case is estimated to be $840,482 (in 2008
dollars).
Updated Maine Cost Method
The estimates for the economic burden of disease in Maine children related to childhood cancers
closely follows the Landrigan approach described above with the following exceptions.
¾ Size of population at risk = Defined as incidence of childhood cancers in the national cohort
of children under the age of 19 because disease rate data was available for the additional
years.
¾ Disease rate/exposure estimate = Updated the disease rate with more recently available
state-specific information suggesting the annual childhood cancer incidence is 186.2 per
million children (ME Cancer Registry 2009).
¾ Cost per case = All cost estimates updated to reflect 2008 dollars.
Results
Given the relatively small population size of the state and the generally low probability of cancer,
only 52 cancer cases would be expected in any given year at the current national rate of cancer
incidence in children 0-18 years of age (see results in Table 7 below). Using the conservative
estimate of 5% for the environmentally attributable cases suggests that two of these cancers are
caused by environmental exposures annually. At the average cost of treatment, approximately $2.5
million is spent annually on preventable childhood cancers in the state. It is important to note that
these figures ignore the potential economic impact of adult cancers that are related to childhood
exposures, since many cancers have a long latency period and wouldn’t be expected to materialize
until much later in life.
Table 7: Total Annual Cost of Environmentally Attributable Childhood Cancers in Maine†
Expected number of
EAF Total environmentally
Total
Total annual cost of
childhood cancers per
attributable cases per
treatment
environmentally attributable
year (<18 population)
year
cost per case childhood cancers
2% 1
$840,482
52
$840,482
5% 3
$2,521,446
10% 5
$4,202,410
†

Representing 2008 dollars

13

 Conclusion
As shown in Table 8, the aggregate annual cost of environmentally attributable illnesses in Maine
children is estimated to be $380.5 million (range $319.4–$484.3 million), with a cost per Maine
child of $1,352 (range $1,135–$1,720). Some of these costs represent direct annual expenditures by
the state, including the cost of special education services and the medical treatment costs for
MaineCare recipients with asthma, cancer, and neurobehavioral conditions. Other costs represent
the indirect monetary impact of parental time off work or the reduced lifetime earning potential of
exposed children. For this reason, some of the cost would be incurred immediately while some
would be expected to accrue over the lifetime of the effected child. However, it is important to note
that all of the economic costs outlined in this report represent preventable childhood illnesses, and
as such could be fully avoided if environmental exposures in children were eliminated. Since this
report is limited to a small subset of childhood illnesses, the full impact of environmental exposures
in Maine children is likely to be much larger.
The current estimates developed for Maine are on par with work done in other states using similar
methods. The comparable per child cost (in 2008 dollars) was $1,246 from a Minnesota study
(Schuler et al. 2006), $1,015 from a Massachusetts study (Massey and Ackerman 2003), and $1,317
from a Washington state study (Davies 2005).5,6 The differences are the result of slight changes in
methodology based on the scientific data used, as well as differences in the rate of diseases across
the different states.
Table 9: Total Annual Cost of Environmentally Attributable Childhood Diseases in Maine†
Childhood Disease Category Total Cost Estimate Range of Cost Estimates
Neurobehavioral
$100.9 million
$47.3-$201.5 million
Cancer
$2.5 million
$0.8-$4.2 million
Asthma
$8.8 million
$2.9-$10.3 million
Lead Poisoning
$268.3 million
$268.3 million
Total
$380.5 million
$319.4 - 484.3 million
†

Representing 2008 dollars

Recent work has been done in the state to address the growing concern of chemicals in consumer
products (ME Task Force 2007), suggesting that a more comprehensive chemicals policy promoting
transparency and consumer education is necessary. Although it is beyond the scope of this report to
make specific policy recommendations, it is clear that reducing of childhood exposure to
environmental pollutants would provide a sizable economic benefit to the state. Beyond the
economic impact, the unique susceptibility of children to environmental pollutants and their
inability to make informed decisions to limit their risks makes the issue of reducing childhood
exposures a moral imperative.

5

The state comparisons include only the estimates generated using the “best estimate” EAF under the Landrigan
approach, and exclude additional categories reported by some states for adult cancers and birth defects. This report
does not include these health outcomes since they do not have established EAFs and were absent from the original
Landrigan report. Also, incidence data was requested from the Maine Birth Defects Program but was not available in
time for inclusion in this report.

6

A recent study of childhood costs was also available for California (University of California 2008). However, the
calculation methods (disease categories included, etc.) were unavailable and therefore could not be adequately
compared with the Maine numbers.

14

 References
Bhasin, T.K., Brocksen, S., Avchen, R.N., & Van Naarden Braun, K. (2006). Prevalence of four
developmental disabilities among children aged 8 years—metropolitan Atlanta developmental
disabilities surveillance program, 1996 and 2000. Surveillance Summaries, 55(SS01), 1-9.
Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5501a1.htm
Bloom, B., Dey, A.N., & Freeman, G. (2006). Summary health statistics for U.S. children: National
Health Interview Survey, 2005. Vital and Health Statistics, 10(231). National Center for
Health Statistics.
Breslow, N.E., & Day, N.E. (1980). Methods in cancer research vol. 1: The analysis of case-control
studies. IARC Scientific Publications, 73-76.
Buxbaurm, L., Boyle, C., Yeargin-Allsopp, M., Murphy, C.C., & Roberts, H.E. (2000). Etiology of
mental retardation among children ages 3-10: The metropolitan Atlanta developmental
disabilities surveillance program. Atlanta, GA: Center for Disease Control and Prevention.
Canfield, R.L., Henderson, C.R., Jr., Cory-Slechta, D.A., Cox, C., Jusko, T.A., & Lanphear, B.P.
(2003). Intellectual impairment in children with blood lead concentrations below 10 μg per
deciliter. The New England Journal of Medicine, 348(16), 1517-1526.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (1997). Update: Blood lead levels—United States,
1991-1994. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 46(7), 141-146. Available at:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00048339.htm
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2005). Update: Blood lead levels—United States,
1999-2002. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 54(20), 513-516. Available at:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5420a5.htm
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2006a). Behavioral risk factor surveillance system
survey data. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Available at:
http://www.cdc.gov/brfss/index.htm
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2006b). Youth risk behavior surveillance—United
States, 2005. Surveillance Summaries, 55(SS-5). Available at:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5505a1.htm
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2007a). National surveillance for asthma—United
States, 1980–2004. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 56(SS08), 1-14 and 18-54.
Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5608a1.htm
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2007b). Prevalence of autism spectrum disorders.
Surveillance Summaries. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 56(SS-1). Available at:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/ss/ss5601.pdf
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2008a). CDC surveillance data, 1997-2006: State data
by county. Retrieved November 15, 2008 from http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/surv/stats.htm
15

 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2008b). CDC surveillance data, 1997-2006: Tested
and confirmed elevated blood lead levels by state, year and blood lead level group for
children <72 mos. Retrieved November 15, 2008 from
http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/surv/stats.htm
Chestnut, L.G., Mills, D.M., & Agras, J. (2000). National costs of asthma for 1997. EPA contract
68-W6-0055. Boulder, CO: Stratus Consulting Inc.
Davies, K. (2005). Economic costs of diseases and disabilities attributable to environmental
contaminants in Washington state. CHE-WA: Collaborative on Health and the Environment –
Washington. Available at: http://washington.chenw.org/pdfs/EnvironmentalCosts.pdf
Davis, M.E. (2007). The economic burden of childhood exposure to secondhand smoke in Maine.
University of Maine, Orono. School of Economics Staff Paper 570. Available at:
http://www.umaine.edu/soe/publications/SOESTAFFPAPER570.pdf
Department of Education, State of Maine Special Services (D.E. 2008a). Students with disabilities
Maine child count data ages 3-21, 1986-2007. Available at:
http://www.maine.gov/education/speceddata/14yeardata.htm
Department of Education, State of Maine Special Services (D.E. 2008b). State and local expenditure
trends. Available at: http://www.maine.gov/education/speceddata/specedexpenditures.htm
Department of Education, State of Maine Special Services (D.E. 2008c). December 1 child
count/percent to total by disability. Available at:
http://www.maine.gov/education/speceddata/percentchart.htm
Ganz, M. (2007). The lifetime distribution of the incremental societal costs of autism. Archives of
Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 161(4), 343-349.
Goldman, L.R., & Koduru, S. (2000). Chemicals in the environment and developmental toxicity to
children: a public health and policy perspective. Environmental Health Perspectives
Supplements, 108(S3), 443-448.
Grandiean, P., & Landrigan, P.J. (2006). Developmental neurotoxicity of industrial chemicals.
Lancet, 368, 2167-2178.
Grosse, S.D., Matte, T.D., Schwartz, J., & Jackson, R.J. (2002). Economic gains resulting from the
reduction in children's exposure to lead in the United States. Environmental Health
Perspectives, 110(6), 563-569.
Honeycutt, A., Dunlap, L., Chen, H., & al Homsi, G. (2000). The cost of developmental disabilities.
Task order No. 0621-09. Revised Final Report. Research Triangle Park, NC: Research
Triangle Institute.
Landrigan, P.J., Schechter, C.B., Lipton, J.M., Fahs, M.C., & Schwartz, J. (2002). Environmental
pollutants and disease in American children: Estimates of morbidity, mortality, and costs for
lead poisoning, asthma, cancer, and developmental disabilities. Environmental Health
Perspectives, 110(7), 721-728. Available at:
16

 http://www.ehponline.org/members/2002/110p721-728landrigan/landrigan-full.html
Maine Cancer Registry (2009). Personal communication, Molly Schwenn, Medical Director,
1/13/2009.
Maine Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Chronic Disease, Maine Department
of Health and Human Services (2008). The Burden of Asthma in Maine. Available at:
http://maine.gov/dhhs/bohdcfh/mat/Information%20and%20Publications/2008%20Asthma%
20Burden%20Report.pdf
Maine Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program (2009). Personal communication, Kathy
Decker, Staff Epidemiologist, 1/5/2009.
Maine Governor John E. Baldacci’s Task Force to Promote Safer Chemicals in Consumer Products
(2007). Final Report. Available at: http://www.maine.gov/dep/oc/safechem/mesafer_chem_rpt.pdf
Martin, J.A., Hamilton, B.E., Sutton, P.D., Ventura, S.J., Menacker, F. & Kirmeyer, S. (2006).
Births: Final data for 2004. National Vital Statistics Reports, 55(1). Hyattsville, MD: National
Center for Health Statistics. Available at:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr55/nvsr55_01.pdf
Massey, R., & Ackerman, F. (2003). Costs of preventable childhood illness: the price we pay for
pollution. GDAE - Health and Environment. Available at:
http://www.ase.tufts.edu/gdae/policy_research/healthEnvironment.html#publications
National Academy of Sciences Committee on Developmental Toxicology (2000a). Clearing the
air: Asthma and indoor air exposures. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Available at: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=9610&page=R1
National Academy of Sciences Committee on Developmental Toxicology (2000b). Scientific
frontiers in developmental toxicology and risk assessment. Washington, DC: National
Academy Press. Available at: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309070864
National Cancer Institute. State Cancer Profiles. Accessed on 1/15/2009 and available at:
http://statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov/
National Research Council, Committee on Measuring Lead in Critical Populations (1993).
Measuring lead exposure in infants, children, and other sensitive populations. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press. Available at:
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=2232&page=R1
Pelham, W.E., Foster, E.M., & Robb, J.A. (2007). The economic impact of attentiondeficit/hyperactivity disorder in children and adolescents. Journal of Pediatric Psychology,
32(6), 711-727.
Pirkle, J.L., Kaufmann, R.B., Brody, D.J., Hickman, T., Gunter, E.W., & Paschal, D.C. (1998).
Exposure of the U.S. population to lead, 1991-1994. Environmental Health Perspectives,
17

 106(11), 745-750.
Ries, L.A.G., Harkins, D., Krapcho, M., Mariotto, A., Miller, B.A., Feuer, E.J., Clegg, L.,
Eisner, M.P., Horner, M.J., Howlader, N., Hayat, M., Hankey, B.F., & Edwards, B.K.
(Eds). SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975-2003, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda,
MD. Retrieved from http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2003/, based on November 2005
SEER data submission, posted to the SEER web site, 2006.
Salkever, D.S. (1995). Updated estimates of earnings benefits from reduced exposure of
children to environmental lead. Environmental Research, 70(1), 1-6.
Schuler, K., Nordbye, S., Yamin, S., & Ziebold, C. (2006). The price of pollution: Cost estimates
of environment-related childhood disease in Minnesota. The Minnesota Center for
Environmental Advocacy. Available at:
from http://www.mncenter.org/minnesota_center_for_envi/2006/06/environmentrela.html
Schwartz, J., Pitcher, H., Levin, R., Ostro, B., & Nichols, A.L. (1985). Costs and benefits of
reducing lead in gasoline: Final regulatory impact analysis. United States Environmental
Protection Agency, 230/05-85/006. Washington, DC.
Sherriff, A., Farrow, A., Golding, J., & Henderson, J. (2005). Frequent use of chemical
household products is associated with persistent wheezing in pre-school age children.
Thorax, 60, 45-49.
Tippy, K. (2005). Maine child health survey, 2003/2004 kindergarten and third grade report.
Portland, ME: Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Chronic
Disease. Available at:
http://www.maine.gov/dhhs/boh/phdata/Non%20DHP%20Pdf%20Doc/Maine%20Child%20
Health%20Survey%202003%202004%20Kindergarten%20and%20Third%20G.pdf
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (1999). CPI Detailed Report. Washington, DC: Department of
Labor.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2008). CPI inflation calculator. Available at:
http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm
U.S. Census Bureau (2000). Profile of general demographic characteristics for Maine from 2000
census. Retrieved November 15, 2008 from
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_bm=n&_lang=en&qr_name=DEC_2000_S
F1_U_DP1&ds_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U&geo_id=04000US23
U.S. Census Bureau: State & County Quickfacts (2008, July 25). Retrieved November 15, 2008
from http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/23000.html
University of California Berkeley, Centers for Occupational and Environmental Health (2008).
Green Chemistry: Cornerstone to a Sustainable California. Available at:
www.coeh.ucla.edu/greenchemistry.htm

18

 Wagner, T., & Langley-Turnbaugh, S. (2008). Case study: Examining the contribution of
historical sources of lead in urban soils in Portland, Maine, USA. Journal of
Environmental Planning and Management, 51(4), 525-541.
Weiss, K.B., Sullivan, S.D., & Lyttle, C.S. (2000). Trends in the cost of illness for asthma in the
United States, 1985-1994. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, 106, 493-499.
Wong, E.Y., Gohlke, J., Griffith, W.C., Farrow, S., & Faustman, E.M. (2004). Assessing the
health benefits of air pollution reduction for children. Environmental Health
Perspectives, 112(2), 226-232.
Woodruff, T.J., Axelrad, D.A., Kyle, A.D., Nweke, O., & Miller, G.G. (2003). America’s
children and the environment: Measures of contaminants, body burdens, and illnesses
(2nd ed). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Available at:
http://www.epa.gov/opeedweb/children/publications/ace_2003.pdf
Yeargin-Allsopp, M., Van Naarden Braun, K., Doernberg, N.S., Benedict, R.E., Kirby, R.S., &
Durkin, M.S. (2008). Prevalence of cerebral palsy in 8-year-old children in three areas of
the United States in 2002: A multisite collaboration. Pediatrics, 121, 547-554.
Zahm S.H., Devessa, S.S. (1995). Childhood cancer: Overview of incidence trends and
environmental carcinogens. Environmental Health Perspectives 103(suppl 6), 177-184.

19

 Appendix
Table A-1: Chemicals Known to be Human Neurotoxins*
Acetone
Dinitrobenzene
Acetone cyanohydrin
Dinitrocresol
Acrylamide
Dinitrotoluene
Acrylonitrile
Dinoseb
Aldicarb
Dioxathion
Aldrin
Disulphoton
Allyl chloride
Edifenphos
Aluminum compounds
Endosulphan
Aniline
Endothion
Arsenic and arsenic
Endrin
compounds
Azide compounds
EPN
Barium compounds
Ethiofencarb
Bensulide
Ethion
Benzene
Ethoprop
1,2-Benzenedicarbonitrile
2-Ethoxyethyl acetate
Benzonitrile
Ethyl acetate
Benzyl alcohol
Ethylbis(2-chloroethyl)amine
Bismuth compounds
Ethylene
Bromophos
Ethylene dibromide
Butylated triphenyl
Ethylene glycol
phosphate
Caprolactam
Ethylene oxide
Carbaryl
Ethylmercury
Carbofuran
Fenitrothion
Carbon disulphide
Fensulphothion
Carbon monoxide
Fenthion
Carbophenothion
Fenvalerate
Fluoride compounds
α-Chloralose
Chlordane
Fluoroacetamide
Chlordecone
Fluoroacetic acid
Chlorfenvinphos
Fonofos
Chlormephos
Chloroform
Chloroprene
Chlorpyrifos
Chlorthion
Coumaphos
Cumene
Cyanide compounds
Cyclohexane
Cyclohexanol

Formothion
Heptachlor
Heptenophos
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorophene
n-Hexane
Hydrazine
Hydrogen sulphide
Hydroquinone
Isobenzan

Methyl parathion
Methylcyclopentane
Methylene chloride
Methylmercury
Mevinphos
Mexacarbate
Mipafox
Mirex
Monocrotophos
Naled
Nickel carbonyl
Nicotine
p-Nitroaniline
Nitrobenzene
2-Nitropropane
Oxydemeton-methyl
Parathion
Pentaborane
Pentachlorophenol
1-Pentanol
Phenol
p-Phenylenediamine
Phenylhydrazine
Phorate
Phosphamidon
Phosphine
Phospholan
Phosphorus
Polybrominated biphenyls
Polybrominated diphenyl
ethers
Polychlorinated biphenyls
Propaphos
Propoxur
Propyl bromide
Propylene oxide
Pyridine
Pyriminil
Sarin
Schradan
Selenium compounds
20

 Cyclohexanone
Cyclonite
Cyhalothrin
Cypermethrin
2,4-D
DDT
Decaborane
Deltamethrin
Demeton
Dialifor
Diazinon

Isobutyronitrile
Isolan
Isophorone
Isopropyl alcohol
Isopropylacetone
Isoxathion
Lead and lead compounds
Leptophos
Lindane
Lithium compounds
Manganese and manganese
compounds
Diborane
Mercury and mercuric
compounds
Dibromochloropropane
Merphos
Dibutyl phthalate
Metaldehyde
Dichlofenthion
Methamidophos
Dichloroacetic acid
Methanol
1,3-dichloropropene
Methidathion
Dichlorvos
Methomyl
Dieldrin
Methyl bromide
Diethylene glycol
Methyl butyl ketone
Diethylene glycol diacrylate Methyl cellosolve
Dimefox
Methyl chloride
Dimethoate
Methyl demeton
Dimethyl sulphate
Methyl ethyl ketone
3-(Dimethylamino)Methyl formate
propanenitrile
N,N-Dimethylformamide
Methyl iodide
Dimethylhydrazine
Methyl methacrylate

Soman
Styrene
Sulprofos
2,4,5-T
TCDD
Tebupirimfos
Tefluthrin
Tellurium compounds
Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Terbufos
Thallium compounds
Thiram
Tin compounds
Toluene
Toxaphene
Tributyl phosphate
Trichlorfon
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Trichloronat
2,2’,2”-Trichlorotriethylamine
Trimethyl phosphate
Tri-o-tolyl phosphate
Triphenyl phosphate
Vinyl chloride
Xylene

Source: Grandjean and Landrigan 2006
*List excludes drugs, food additives, microbial toxins, snake venoms, and similar biogenic substances

21