Meeting in Germany
On 5-6 May, WWF-Germany and the Lower Saxony State
Ministry of Environment, held an international meeting in Germany, How Safe
is Our Future? to discuss EDCs among scientists, industrialists and
environmentalists. The key speaker was Theo Colborn who has been instrumental in
developing the EDC debate. She spoke about the global problem of infertility
caused by EDCs.
The conference reached a consensus on several synthetic EDCs,
most of which are pesticides and industrial chemicals. For example, a number of
pesticides, phthalates, dioxins and PCBs can affect the immune system and brain
development, to change the sex and the reproductive success of some fish and
marine molluscs.
"Although there is still more need for research, and
appropriate test systems have to be developed, immediate action is
necessary to avoid further damage," said Patricia Cameron, of the Marine
Pollution Prevention department of WWF Germany.
The scientists and experts called for screening to identify
the endocrine disrupting properties of pesticides and industrial chemicals in
use, and to phase out those substances found to interfere with the hormonal
systems. Furthermore, new chemicals have to be tested for their hormonal
activity before being introduced into the market.
|
WWF Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals recommendations
|
Brussels meeting
On 7 May, Globe International, WWF and the State of
the World Forum organised a meeting to discuss the global impact of EDCs. Theo
Colburn, WWF-US senior scientist, and Elizabeth Dowdeswell, director of UNEP
were amongst the main speakers.
Commenting on the main findings, Elizabeth Slater of WWF-UK
said: "The problem of EDCs in the environment is on the same global scale as
that of climate change, but is probably a more immediate problem. What is needed
is an international scientific research programme to investigate the extent of
the problem from which regulation, legislation and control of these substances
can be generated."
As at the German meeting, the environmental delegates at the
conference urged that the precautionary principle be adopted and that
legislation to restrict EDCs should be introduced as a matter of urgency.
WWF acknowledged that these sorts of recommendations cannot
be achieved without the full support of the chemical industry, a major producer
of EDCs.
London meeting
On 20-21 May, IBC Conferences Ltd organised an Endocrine
Disruptors in the Environment conference, again bringing together experts in
the field.
Professor Luis Guillette gave an overview of the effects of
endocrine disruptors on alligator populations in Lake Apopka in Florida. He
stressed how difficult it is to understand precisely the impact pesticides may
have in mimicking the effects of the hormone oestrogen in alligators. He also
said it was wrong to look at the effects of active ingredients in isolation. The
'mixtures issue', as he called it, is an important concern in this field. In
nature there are complex mixtures of natural and synthetic chemicals in the
environment which can alter their role as EDCs.
John Ashby of Zeneca Central Toxicology Laboratory agreed the
issue is complex. He concluded: "The adequate evaluation of chemicals for
endocrine disrupting activities is a daunting task. In order to make sound
progress it will be necessary to agree a set of toxic responses of concern, and
then to devise reliable and practical assays for their detection and
prediction."
Elizabeth Salter "there is now sufficient evidence to
indicate that the problem is extremely grave and therefore, based on the
precautionary principle, action to reduce discharges should be taken now."
US testing programme
In the US, an EPA advisory committee is developing
screening programmes to determine whether endocrine disrupting chemicals in food
and water adversely affect humans.
The 40-member Endocrine Disruptors Screening and Testing
Advisory Committee (EDSTAC) was formed late last year to assist EPA in
implementing the Food Quality Protection Act and Safe Drinking Water
Reauthorization Act of 1996. Both laws require EPA to have screening programmes
in place by August 1998.
Specifically, EPA must "develop a screening program, using
appropriate validated test systems, to determine if certain substances have an
effect on humans that is similar to an effect produced by naturally-occurring
oestrogen or such other endocrine effect."
In addition to looking at human health, EDSTAC will also
consider screening protocols for wildlife, and testing for neuro-hormones,
prolactin, pituitary, adrenal and immunological effects. The main challenges
facing the committee will be figuring out which in vitro/in vivo assays
are appropriate, and deciding how to prioritize some 70,000 chemical substances
for testing.
At the American Crop Protection Association's annual
conference in Washington 2 May, EDSTAC member Angelina Duggan, of FMC
Agricultural Products Group, called endocrine disruptors "the most
controversial human health concern facing the pesticide industry."
"Even low levels of exposure to endocrine disruptors may
cause reproductive abnormalities," Duggan said. "But the cause and
effect between low-level exposure and endocrine disrupters have not been
documented for humans."
US manufacturers discuss research
The Chemical Manufacturers Association, a trade
association of about 180 companies, is conducting US$8 million of its own basic
research on endocrine disruption.
About 30 industry scientists and trade association
representatives met in Washington on 13 May to review current research.
Several high-level EPA officials, including Assistant Administrator Lynn
Goldman, gave presentations to the group on the agency's endocrine disruption
programmes and policy. The meeting was not open to the public.
Conclusion
Environmental NGOs, the chemical industry,
politicians, civil servants and other decision makers are all now aware of the
problem of EDCs. Our current ability to quantify and contrast the relative risks
of EDCs, to a fine degree, is probably decades away. Therefore we have a
responsibility to act on behalf of future generations and adopt the
'precautionary principle'. The only way forward is pollution prevention at
source-that is, clean industrial and agricultural production. The priorities
are those substances that are persistent, bioaccumulative and/or toxic. (DB)
[This
article first appeared in Pesticides News No. 36,
June 1997, page 16]