Out of the frying pan, into a fire

[Guest guest]

Out of the frying pan, into a fire

By Elizabeth Weise, USA TODAY

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2003-04-23-teflon-usat_x.htm

 

Fifty years ago, Americans wrapped their sandwiches in waxed paper,

poured their milk from glass bottles, wore rubberized coats when it

rained, drove cars made from steel and reheated dinner in an old pie

tin in the oven.

Today our sandwiches come in aluminum-plastic pockets, ready to be

popped in the microwave. Pizza boxes and French fry containers keep

grease off us with high-tech coatings. When it rains, we wear Gore-

Tex, which keeps the water out but lets our skin breathe.

 

Our cars are lighter, cheaper and more energy-efficient because

they're made from a dizzying array of metals and plastics. At night,

we pull dinner out of the refrigerator in plastic containers that

can go straight from freezer to microwave without cracking or

burning.

 

But there may be a price for all that convenience.

 

Last week the Environmental Protection Agency announced concerns

about a widely used chemical called perfluorinated acid. Tests in

rats have shown reduced fetal weight of pups, delays in maturation

and kidney problems — and 92% of Americans tested had trace amounts

of it in their blood. That's because so-called PFOA or its

byproducts are used in the manufacturing process for Teflon and Gore-

Tex and can be released as the original Scotchguard and Stainmaster

break down. PFOA also has other industrial uses.

This month a paper in the journal Current Biology reported that a

commonly used plastic ingredient called bisphenol A caused abnormal

pregnancies in mice and might cause reproductive problems in people.

Last year a Swedish study found that a flame retardant used in TV

sets, computer circuit boards and casings, foams and fabric called

polybrominated diphenyl ether, or PBDE, is rapidly accumulating in

human breast milk. The chemical is thought to cause thyroid cancer

and possibly neurodevelopmental problems in test animals.

These are by no means the first examples of wondrous new

technologies we've taken and run with, only to find out years later

that we've unwittingly harmed ourselves and our world.

 

The pesticide DDT was touted as revolutionary in the 1940s before it

became apparent that it caused the eggshells of predatory birds like

the bald eagle to thin, lowering their numbers dramatically.

Chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs, were prized for their chemical

stability until scientists discovered they eroded the ozone layer.

Polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs, were the darling of

manufacturers until their toxicity became apparent.

 

At the dawn of the 21st century, the question many are asking is

whether the convenience we gain from all these new materials is

worth the pain they may cause us and whether we need stronger

testing rules to avert environmental catastrophes.

 

" It's hard for people to get their minds around the fact that

there's something like 70,000 chemicals in commercial production and

about 10% of them (in quantities of) more than 1 million pounds a

year, " says Edward Groth, a senior scientist with Consumers

Union. " And the sad fact is we don't know anything about the

toxicity or environmental effects of most of them. "

 

'An unregulated experiment'

 

Americans already are " part of an unregulated experiment that allows

toxic chemicals to bioaccumulate in their bodies, " says Nena Baker,

author of a forthcoming book on the accumulation of industrial

pollutants in our bodies.

 

Baker believes it's fair for the public to demand information about

what the chemicals in our environment might be doing to us. Testing

isn't " horrifically expensive, " she says. " But the sad part is it's

being driven after the fact. The burden is on science to say

something is harmful before you can go back and get a better picture

of the costs and the effects. It's not to say that there aren't

terrific benefits. But do we really want to continue in the way that

public policy has unfolded in this country, which is basically that

everybody is a guinea pig? "

 

But how to deal with these issues is unclear. There are two

differing attitudes about how new technology should be evaluated.

Historically in this country we've applied a risk-benefit analysis —

do the potential benefits of the technology outweigh the potential

risks? Most businesses evaluate their products on this basis.

 

Consumer advocates, environmentalists and the European community,

however, are turning toward something called the precautionary

principle. This is based on a German legal notion of the

Vorsorgeprinzip, literally the " forecaring principle. " It started in

Germany when laws were enacted to save forests by reducing the power

plant emissions that cause acid rain.

 

Better safe than sorry

 

It was a precaution because at the time there wasn't 100% scientific

certainty that power plant emissions were causing acid rain. That

concept has since been embraced by many in the environmental

movement and was defined at a major conference in 1998 as: " When an

activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment,

precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause-and-effect

relationships are not fully established scientifically. "

 

In everyday language: Better safe than sorry.

 

" It's about avoiding the 'whoops' factor, " says Carolyn

Raffensperger, executive director of the Science and Environmental

Health Network.

 

At chemical giant DuPont, there's concern that such a regulatory

system would be costly and complicated. " We've been able to

accomplish a great deal of work on the hazards of chemicals under a

voluntary framework, " says Ed Mongan, director of energy and

environment.

 

" We certainly believe that a precautionary approach is prudent, "

Mongan says, " but some of the precautionary principles that are

coming out of Europe and elsewhere do have the potential to stop

innovation. "

 

The precautionary principle doesn't mean we have to go back to

living in the Stone Age, says Raffensperger. But it does mean that

we have to watch for indications of trouble provided by the

chemicals themselves.

 

" If the chemicals show themselves to be really mobile in the

environment and are showing up in places they don't belong, then we

should probably pay a lot more attention, and a lot faster, " she

says.

 

And it's not impossible. Europe has already embraced it. Draft

legislation will soon be released by the European Union to require

that over the next 11 years all chemicals be treated like new ones

and be required to undergo safety testing.

 

Not only that, but those chemicals of highest concern because of

their environmental infiltration, reproductive toxicity or

carcinogenicity will be treated like drugs, meaning the system will

presume they're dangerous and require applications for their use.

The rules, if approved, would go into effect in 2005.

 

" It's so much bigger than anything we could conceive of in the

U.S., " says Joel Tickner, an environmental scientist at the

University of Massachusetts-Lowell.

 

But it also comes out of a very different cultural experience.

Europe is much less trusting of the people overseeing new

technologies.

 

Europeans go cautiously

 

An excellent example of this trust issue is the case of genetically

modified food. As a nation, we've said it's probably safe unless we

find out otherwise. Europeans, applying the precautionary principle,

say if you can't prove it's safe, it's probably dangerous.

 

U.S. consumers by and large believe the government is working to

make sure our food is safe to eat.

 

Not so in Europe. In the debacle of mad cow disease, it came out

that governments were aware of the danger long before they warned

the public. Add to that an ill-handled case of dioxin in animal feed

and then foot-and-mouth disease and you have, in the words of

Michael Rodemeyer, executive director of the Pew Initiative on Food

and Biotechnology, " a complete collapse in confidence. "

 

" In a time when people don't trust the experts, how do you make

these decisions? The precautionary principle is an acknowledgement

that you can't, " he says. " They're saying that since they can't

judge the acceptability of risk on behalf of their citizens, they're

going to essentially say that no or very little risk is acceptable. "

 

But even in a political climate where it might be possible to judge

acceptable risk, scientists are quick to point out that it's

impossible to prove that anything is 100% safe.

 

Instead, a rational approach would be to use science to arrive at an

understanding of how a new technology or chemistry will work, says

Harvey Glick, director for scientific affairs at Monsanto, a company

with much to lose if this precautionary principle takes hold.

Monsanto has pinned its fortunes for the coming century on

biotechnology in agriculture.

 

" The real risk to society is to not develop technology that can

deliver real benefits to society. It's important to understand the

magnitude of risk and then marry that with the societal benefits

that may accrue, " Glick says.

 

But the truth is that these questions don't really have hard-and-

fast answers, Rodemeyer says. We assume there's a scientific answer

and there isn't. " What level of risk is acceptable is ultimately a

policy question, and yet we keep asking our scientists to answer it —

and they can't. "