A/HRC/33/41 78. Businesses must pay specific attention to the potential for children to be exposed to toxics by their activities, through the products that they manufacture or sell, and due to emissions into the environment and child labour conditions in upstream supply chains. C. Responsibility to prevent exposure through businesses’ activities 79. Businesses should prevent exposure to toxics and to substances with unknown risks as the best measure of respecting human rights, including children’s rights. The tragic deaths and injuries due to toxic humidifier sterilizers in the Republic of Korea illustrate this clearly.107 The profound lack of precaution in the Samarco mining waste disaster in Brazil 108 also illustrates the extent to which businesses are failing to do basic human rights due diligence with respect to hazardous substances and wastes. 80. Businesses have a responsibility, first and foremost, to avoid causing or contributing to impacts on the rights of the child through their activities, and to address such impacts when they occur. 109 The best way to prevent impacts on the rights of the child from hazardous substances is through prevention of exposure. 81. The responsibility to prevent children from being exposed to toxics and pollution will require the modification, cessation or relocation of certain activities that present unmanageable or simply unknown risks to children. However, businesses consistently argue that precaution is not “science-based”, in an effort to disregard the science behind the need for precaution when it comes to children and toxics. 110 82. Businesses often complain about the cost implications of protecting human rights from toxics.111 However, the protection of profit margins by industries is not a legitimate or justifiable derogation from any human right. Businesses have a responsibility to prevent childhood exposure to toxics and pollution, throughout the supply chain. If a business’s activity or relationship continues to expose children to toxics, it should explain why it cannot be avoided and how this respects the rights of children. 83. An emblematic case of child rights violations due to failure to prevent emissions and releases of hazardous substances into the environment is the case of Chisso Corporation in Minamata Bay, Japan. 112 From 1932 to 1968, waste containing mercury flowed from Chisso’s chemical factory into Minamata Bay. Thousands of children were poisoned by contaminated fish consumed by themselves or their mothers, suffering tragic impacts on their right to life, development and health. Among many health impacts known collectively as “Minamata Disease”, congenital disorders were observed in children born to mothers who did not display any health impacts. Economic considerations were the primary reason why the government did not require the company to stop emitting mercury into the Bay for twelve years after the first cases were first identified in 1956. 84. The Government of Japan acknowledges that: “Even taking historical and social conditions at the time into consideration, the governmental failure to prevent harmful impacts on human health from increasing, due to not taking strict measures against the 107 108 109 110 111 112 A joint letter of allegation was sent to the Government on 12 February 2016 and a response was received on 20 April 2016. See A/HRC/32/53. A joint letter of allegation was sent to the Government on 24 November 2015. See A/HRC/32/53. Guiding principle No. 13 (a). See, for example, United States Chamber of Commerce, “Precautionary principle” (2010). International Chemical Secretariat, “Cry wolf”,(2015). Ministry of the Environment, Japan, “Lessons from Minamata disease and mercury management in Japan”. 17