6 ms·

It would be helpful if we knew eactly what these endocrine-disrupting chemicals were. As is usually the case with such reports, this article is short on specifi

It would be helpful if we knew eactly what these endocrine-disrupting chemicals were. As is usually the case with such reports, this article is short on specifics. Over the years there have many reports from cleaners to plasticizers, phthalates, and various other chemicals as endocrine disruptors but no one has put a sufficient measure on the problem so that we can move foreword - put regulations in place, etc. As the article points out, what is so problematic is that many of the chemicals that are under suspicion are ubiquitous and not easily avoided. I consider it important that we act quickly for not only public health reasons but also the fact that we're living in an increasingly chemical-phobic society and worrying the public without solid evidence isn't helpful to anybody. We need need more research on this urgently. Afterthought: it is essential that we have solid evidence ASAP as billions of dollars are tied up in the plastics industry. Plastics already cause environmental problems (and I constantly curse the fact that I have to get rid of so much waste plastic) but there's no point deliberately alienating the plastics industry without good cause.

m_eiman 6y ago
There are lists available, e.g. https://edlists.org/ https://edlists.org/ When the EU was debating the REACH regulations there was a big push to move to a "don't sell or produce it until you can prove it's safe" stance, but AFAIK it was significantly watered down before an agreement was reached. https://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/reach/reach_en.htm https://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/reach/reach_en.ht... Then there's the problem of "chemical cocktails", where combinations of chemicals are more dangerous than each chemical by itself; this gets a lot of media space, but is even harder to research than individual chemicals since just about everything gets mixed up in various concentrations in nature.
- MattGaiser 6y ago
  Is there a reason we can't just dump tons of mice into different sets and combos of chemicals and see what happens?
  - sdenton4 6y ago
    I think that's basically the current system. Unfortunately, we're worried about bioaccumulation over decades, and lab mice only live a year or so... It's also worth considering the number of Giant Breakthroughs that happen with mice which fail to translate to humans. They're quite different, it turns out.
  - hetspookjee 6y ago
    I'd wager ethical considerations would hamper such ambition.
  - adrianN 6y ago
    The search space is pretty big and research costs money.
  - petertodd 6y ago
    One problem is mice aren't humans. In many cases research done on mice ends up being overly pessimistic, because the short lifespans of mice compared to humans means there is less evolutionary pressure to be resilient to cancers and other diseases of aging. Equally, in other circumstances they'll be more resilient, because they don't live long enough to see the effects of longer term toxins. And of course, there can be differences in specific metabolic pathways. So yes, it certainly would be good to do more of that research. But there's limits to what it can tell us.
  - numpad0 6y ago
    It’s astounding how automated and reproducible software testing is.
    - amelius 6y ago
      And yet software crashes all the time ...
- hilbert42 6y ago
  Right, synergistic effects are prevalent everywhere in with chemicals, drugs etc. One of the biggest factors is that we're exposed to so many trace chemicals that figuring out the combination of effects and whether their concentrations are relevant is extremely difficult even with the best science. I reckon we will all be interested to see what the EU evaluation brings. What worries me though is that the EU is known for its hair-trigger response in such matters. If the evidence isn't really solid then we'll end up with a long protracted (and unnecessary) war with the plastics/chemical industry. As I see it, the chemical industry is the most vital of industries as it underpins just about everything that's manufactured nowadays, without it we'd be in deep you-know-what. The fact that it's had a lot to answer for in the past, pollution etc., cannot be ignored but demonizing it unnecessarily won't help either. From my perspective as one who doesn't work in the industry but who's had training in chemistry, there are two major problems that need solving. The first is that the chemical industry, especially in recent decades, is essentially closed to outsiders. There are many reasons for this, regulations, worry about access to dangerous chemicals, industrial accidents such as Bhopal being bad PR, and the fact that the industry is afraid to say anything for fear the public doesn't understand or takes what it says the wrong way - not to mention that its own PR is terrible to nonexistent. The second is that the public is grossely under-trained in chemistry and thus it's easily spooked or frightened whenever the word 'chemical' turns up. This leads to situations where minor incidents get concatenated with serious ones and they all take on equal seriousness. (I'll refrain from muddying the waters here with examples but there are many.) I haven't the time to go into the reasons why the public is so sensitive and twitchy nowadays - given that chemistry is taught in schools - but nevertheless it's a serious problem. The secrecy surrounding the industry only makes matters worse. It's why I'm always worried about inquiries into such matters. Of recent times we see engineers and scientists being so noncommittal about so many things that regulators and politicians ban things by default before the science is set. I acknowledge that's a sweeping statement because there are obvious exceptions where both commonsense and incomplete science indicate that we should act immediately. That, I stess again, is why the public needs to be better educated in the subject - then more correct decisions would be made more often and without unnecessary drama.
inter_netuser 6y ago
We all know what these are. It's precursors to common plastics, and byproducts of their decay. Majority of these have been grandfathered as GRAS "generally recognized as safe" by the FDA when environmental laws first went live in the 60s. The onus is therefore much higher, it is on you to prove they are harmful, instead of requiring producers to prove they are safe. Nobody wants to stick their neck out because the petrochemicals lobby will go after you, your career and your family. The only way to get this fixed is to require producers to conduct testing to prove they do not disrupt endocrine systems of not only humans, but other animals, insects and so on. I'm just not sure the political will is there.
- DoingIsLearning 6y ago
  The most reasonable work around is to force producers to label their product. There are many vegetable packing containers which do not specify which plastic type they are. There are thousands of cleaning products and hygiene products that hide these compounds in the 'Parfums' label. Forcing manufacturers to exaustively list composition would at least give people the data to make an informed decision when buying a product. Also we really need to we stop watering down all these health and environmental protection regulations because of lobbyists.
  - adrianN 6y ago
    No, labeling things does exactly nothing for consumers, because most of them don't have a Phd in endocrinology so they don't have the faintest idea what to do with the extra information. The most reasonable workaround is forcing producers to prove safety of the chemicals they use before using them.
    - jk7tarYZAQNpTQa 6y ago
      > labeling things does exactly nothing for consumers, because most of them don't have a Phd in endocrinology They don't need to. We, as technologists and scientists, can develop solutions to make the decision process very easy, almost automatic. A smartphone app that reads a barcode and produces a color-coded safety value, from green to red, is all a consumer needs to shop safely. Or a website containing whitelists or ordered lists, "the safest shampoo is X". Then the free market will theoretically make manufacturers compete to be at the top of that list. The problem is, such lists/apps can't be made until manufacturers disclose every single ingredient and chemical they use. And that won't be done until legislators force them to.
jdsalaro 6y ago
> Over the years there have many reports from cleaners to plasticizers, phthalates, and various other chemicals as endocrine disruptors but no one has put a sufficient measure on the problem so that we can move foreword - put regulations in place, etc. I've been reading through http://projecttendr.com/ http://projecttendr.com/ and they seem to be what you're looking for. I'm not sure what traction they've achieved on the political arena if any, though. > Targeting Environmental Neuro-Development Risks Project TENDR is a unique collaboration of leading scientists, health professionals and children’s and environmental advocates. We came together in 2015 out of concern over the now substantial scientific evidence linking toxic environmental chemicals to neurodevelopmental disorders such as autism spectrum disorder, attention deficits, hyperactivity, intellectual disability and learning disorders.
jonplackett 6y ago
When something’s this bad it would be much better to act now based on the evidence we have and figure out the full picture later. We know enough about how bad plastic is, even based solely on how it affects the environment and goes through the food chain as microplastics basically forever.
forgotmypw17 6y ago
If you wait for someone else to think for you and protect you from all the dangers in life, you'll be waiting a long time. The "regulators" are the same people and entities who make huge profits off this stuff. Do your research and act on it yourself.
- wing-_-nuts 6y ago
  >Do your research and act on it yourself. Or, we could acknowledge that most of the general public doesn't have the education necessary, and have the government regulate on our behalf. You know... like they're elected to do. Average Joe truck driver or Jane LPN shouldn't have to have an indepth knowledge of endocrinology just to be safe from the greed and callousness of polluting corporations.
  - forgotmypw17 6y ago
    > Or, we could acknowledge that most of the general public doesn't have the education necessary, and have the government regulate on our behalf. You know... like they're elected to do. Hmm... Are you talking about the regulators who come from the same industry which produces the pollutants and are heavily lobbied by that industry? > Average Joe truck driver or Jane LPN shouldn't have to have an indepth knowledge of endocrinology just to be safe from the greed and callousness of polluting corporations. While I agree with your "shouldn't have to", there is no reason that they cannot read the same research papers and understand them enough to come to their own conclusions. We are blessed with being able to access that information, and I think it is foolish to not take advantage of that privilege.
  - atq2119 6y ago
    > Or, we could acknowledge that most of the general public doesn't have the education necessary, and have the government regulate on our behalf. It's also worth acknowledging that having this kind of regulation makes our society more efficient. I would be capable of informing myself on this issue, but I don't. The are so many issues of this kind that if I were to attempt to inform myself on all of them, I wouldn't be able to get anything done anymore. Another way of looking at it is that regulation is a form of implicit specialization, which is why it helps us be more efficient.

m_eiman 6y ago

There are lists available, e.g. https://edlists.org/ https://edlists.org/ When the EU was debating the REACH regulations there was a big push to move to a "don't sell or produce it until you can prove it's safe" stance, but AFAIK it was significantly watered down before an agreement was reached. https://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/reach/reach_en.htm https://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/reach/reach_en.ht... Then there's the problem of "chemical cocktails", where combinations of chemicals are more dangerous than each chemical by itself; this gets a lot of media space, but is even harder to research than individual chemicals since just about everything gets mixed up in various concentrations in nature.

MattGaiser 6y ago
Is there a reason we can't just dump tons of mice into different sets and combos of chemicals and see what happens?
- sdenton4 6y ago
  I think that's basically the current system. Unfortunately, we're worried about bioaccumulation over decades, and lab mice only live a year or so... It's also worth considering the number of Giant Breakthroughs that happen with mice which fail to translate to humans. They're quite different, it turns out.
- hetspookjee 6y ago
  I'd wager ethical considerations would hamper such ambition.
- adrianN 6y ago
  The search space is pretty big and research costs money.
- petertodd 6y ago
  One problem is mice aren't humans. In many cases research done on mice ends up being overly pessimistic, because the short lifespans of mice compared to humans means there is less evolutionary pressure to be resilient to cancers and other diseases of aging. Equally, in other circumstances they'll be more resilient, because they don't live long enough to see the effects of longer term toxins. And of course, there can be differences in specific metabolic pathways. So yes, it certainly would be good to do more of that research. But there's limits to what it can tell us.
- numpad0 6y ago
  It’s astounding how automated and reproducible software testing is.
  - amelius 6y ago
    And yet software crashes all the time ...
hilbert42 6y ago
Right, synergistic effects are prevalent everywhere in with chemicals, drugs etc. One of the biggest factors is that we're exposed to so many trace chemicals that figuring out the combination of effects and whether their concentrations are relevant is extremely difficult even with the best science. I reckon we will all be interested to see what the EU evaluation brings. What worries me though is that the EU is known for its hair-trigger response in such matters. If the evidence isn't really solid then we'll end up with a long protracted (and unnecessary) war with the plastics/chemical industry. As I see it, the chemical industry is the most vital of industries as it underpins just about everything that's manufactured nowadays, without it we'd be in deep you-know-what. The fact that it's had a lot to answer for in the past, pollution etc., cannot be ignored but demonizing it unnecessarily won't help either. From my perspective as one who doesn't work in the industry but who's had training in chemistry, there are two major problems that need solving. The first is that the chemical industry, especially in recent decades, is essentially closed to outsiders. There are many reasons for this, regulations, worry about access to dangerous chemicals, industrial accidents such as Bhopal being bad PR, and the fact that the industry is afraid to say anything for fear the public doesn't understand or takes what it says the wrong way - not to mention that its own PR is terrible to nonexistent. The second is that the public is grossely under-trained in chemistry and thus it's easily spooked or frightened whenever the word 'chemical' turns up. This leads to situations where minor incidents get concatenated with serious ones and they all take on equal seriousness. (I'll refrain from muddying the waters here with examples but there are many.) I haven't the time to go into the reasons why the public is so sensitive and twitchy nowadays - given that chemistry is taught in schools - but nevertheless it's a serious problem. The secrecy surrounding the industry only makes matters worse. It's why I'm always worried about inquiries into such matters. Of recent times we see engineers and scientists being so noncommittal about so many things that regulators and politicians ban things by default before the science is set. I acknowledge that's a sweeping statement because there are obvious exceptions where both commonsense and incomplete science indicate that we should act immediately. That, I stess again, is why the public needs to be better educated in the subject - then more correct decisions would be made more often and without unnecessary drama.

inter_netuser 6y ago

We all know what these are. It's precursors to common plastics, and byproducts of their decay. Majority of these have been grandfathered as GRAS "generally recognized as safe" by the FDA when environmental laws first went live in the 60s. The onus is therefore much higher, it is on you to prove they are harmful, instead of requiring producers to prove they are safe. Nobody wants to stick their neck out because the petrochemicals lobby will go after you, your career and your family. The only way to get this fixed is to require producers to conduct testing to prove they do not disrupt endocrine systems of not only humans, but other animals, insects and so on. I'm just not sure the political will is there.

DoingIsLearning 6y ago
The most reasonable work around is to force producers to label their product. There are many vegetable packing containers which do not specify which plastic type they are. There are thousands of cleaning products and hygiene products that hide these compounds in the 'Parfums' label. Forcing manufacturers to exaustively list composition would at least give people the data to make an informed decision when buying a product. Also we really need to we stop watering down all these health and environmental protection regulations because of lobbyists.
- adrianN 6y ago
  No, labeling things does exactly nothing for consumers, because most of them don't have a Phd in endocrinology so they don't have the faintest idea what to do with the extra information. The most reasonable workaround is forcing producers to prove safety of the chemicals they use before using them.
  - jk7tarYZAQNpTQa 6y ago
    > labeling things does exactly nothing for consumers, because most of them don't have a Phd in endocrinology They don't need to. We, as technologists and scientists, can develop solutions to make the decision process very easy, almost automatic. A smartphone app that reads a barcode and produces a color-coded safety value, from green to red, is all a consumer needs to shop safely. Or a website containing whitelists or ordered lists, "the safest shampoo is X". Then the free market will theoretically make manufacturers compete to be at the top of that list. The problem is, such lists/apps can't be made until manufacturers disclose every single ingredient and chemical they use. And that won't be done until legislators force them to.

jdsalaro 6y ago

> Over the years there have many reports from cleaners to plasticizers, phthalates, and various other chemicals as endocrine disruptors but no one has put a sufficient measure on the problem so that we can move foreword - put regulations in place, etc. I've been reading through http://projecttendr.com/ http://projecttendr.com/ and they seem to be what you're looking for. I'm not sure what traction they've achieved on the political arena if any, though. > Targeting Environmental Neuro-Development Risks Project TENDR is a unique collaboration of leading scientists, health professionals and children’s and environmental advocates. We came together in 2015 out of concern over the now substantial scientific evidence linking toxic environmental chemicals to neurodevelopmental disorders such as autism spectrum disorder, attention deficits, hyperactivity, intellectual disability and learning disorders.

jonplackett 6y ago

When something’s this bad it would be much better to act now based on the evidence we have and figure out the full picture later. We know enough about how bad plastic is, even based solely on how it affects the environment and goes through the food chain as microplastics basically forever.

forgotmypw17 6y ago

If you wait for someone else to think for you and protect you from all the dangers in life, you'll be waiting a long time. The "regulators" are the same people and entities who make huge profits off this stuff. Do your research and act on it yourself.

wing-_-nuts 6y ago
>Do your research and act on it yourself. Or, we could acknowledge that most of the general public doesn't have the education necessary, and have the government regulate on our behalf. You know... like they're elected to do. Average Joe truck driver or Jane LPN shouldn't have to have an indepth knowledge of endocrinology just to be safe from the greed and callousness of polluting corporations.
- forgotmypw17 6y ago
  > Or, we could acknowledge that most of the general public doesn't have the education necessary, and have the government regulate on our behalf. You know... like they're elected to do. Hmm... Are you talking about the regulators who come from the same industry which produces the pollutants and are heavily lobbied by that industry? > Average Joe truck driver or Jane LPN shouldn't have to have an indepth knowledge of endocrinology just to be safe from the greed and callousness of polluting corporations. While I agree with your "shouldn't have to", there is no reason that they cannot read the same research papers and understand them enough to come to their own conclusions. We are blessed with being able to access that information, and I think it is foolish to not take advantage of that privilege.
- atq2119 6y ago
  > Or, we could acknowledge that most of the general public doesn't have the education necessary, and have the government regulate on our behalf. It's also worth acknowledging that having this kind of regulation makes our society more efficient. I would be capable of informing myself on this issue, but I don't. The are so many issues of this kind that if I were to attempt to inform myself on all of them, I wouldn't be able to get anything done anymore. Another way of looking at it is that regulation is a form of implicit specialization, which is why it helps us be more efficient.