With more than 100,000 chemicals on the global market, it is a tremendous challenge to identify those that might cause harm to humans or wildlife. One class of chemicals, endocrine disruptors (chemicals that interfere with natural hormones), is receiving significant attention in the United States, European Union, and elsewhere.
Expert panels from the United Nations Environment Programme and World Health Organization, the Endocrine Society, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and others have concluded that the evidence linking endocrine disrupting chemicals to human diseases is strong.
How do we determine if a chemical is an endocrine disruptor? How do we separate the ‘bad actors’ from all of the other non-hazardous compounds?
Although this may seem like an easy task, in fact, it has proven to be quite difficult. In the US, for example, the Environmental Protection Agency has been working for 20 years to develop and implement the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP). Despite $100 million in funding, only 52 chemicals have been screened, and none have yet been declared to be an endocrine disruptor. This may seem like good news — no endocrine disruptors found! — but, according to scientific experts in the Endocrine Society, the world’s leading researchers on hormones, it is more likely an indication that the program’s methods are insufficient for this kind of evaluation.
Even worse is the pace of the EPA’s screening program. With more than 1,000 putative endocrine disruptors already identified by the US Food and Drug Administration and the non-profit group The Endocrine Disruption Exchange, at this rate it will take more than 300 years just to screen the compounds that have already raised some concern.
The situation isn’t much better in the EU. The European Commission has proposed new criteria to identify and classify endocrine disrupting chemicals.
Unfortunately, the proposal has a number of flaws that we and others have outlined in an open letter and other correspondence to the EU Directorate General for Health and Food Safety.
At this rate it will take more than 300 years just to screen the compounds that have already raised some concern.Two major concerns are: 1) The burden of proof for defining a compound as an endocrine disruptor is too high; compounds that are widely acknowledged to be endocrine disruptors like bisphenol A (BPA) would not be classified as such using the proposed EU approach. 2) The methods for identifying, evaluating, and integrating scientific evidence are biased and will further result in non-transparent (and likely inconclusive) assessments.
There is a lot at stake in determining which chemicals are endocrine disruptors. Children are particularly sensitive to exposures, and analyses examining just a few endocrine disruptors with strong links to a select number of human diseases estimate the annual health care costs associated with exposure to these compounds at more than €150 billion in the EU alone.
Costs are also borne by the chemical industry. Regulation 1107/2009 of the European Parliament determined that if pesticides have endocrine disrupting properties, their use is effectively prevented in the EU. As a result, many industries would prefer that their compounds are not labeled endocrine disruptors, even if there is strong evidence to conclude that they are.
For almost two years, we have been working in collaboration with more than twenty other scientists from the US, EU, Canada and Australia to develop a new framework for the ‘systematic review and integrated assessment’ (SYRINA) of studies on suspected endocrine disruptors. SYRINA fills an important regulatory gap, allowing scientists and regulators to evaluate the science on chemicals of concern transparently. This is vital because it makes the regulatory process less of an art and more of a scientific process.
Using SYRINA will allow risk assessors to determine if available data are sufficient to conclude that a compound is an endocrine disruptor. It also provides guidance on how data produced by industry, academic, and government scientists should be evaluated.
Perhaps most important, the SYRINA framework, published recently in the journal Environmental Health, aims to provide the evidence base needed to support decision-making, including actions to minimize potential adverse effects of exposures to endocrine disruptors.
We urge decision-makers in the EU, US, and elsewhere to utilize these methods to evaluate the scientific evidence linking environmental chemicals to health effects in humans or wildlife. Identifying ‘bad actor’ chemicals in a timely manner is of utmost importance, and the benefits we will reap by the regulation of endocrine disruptors will be evident in improved health for the next generation — and reduced health care costs.
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.