Search results

Despite enormous national, regional, and global efforts on chemical management, the widespread use of hazardous chemicals continues in many parts of the world even after decades of there being well-known risks to public and/or ecosystem health. This continued supply and use, despite strong evidence of negative impacts, is not unique to chemicals management. In the field of climate change, the concept of "lock-in" has been used to explain the complex interactions among economic, social, technological, and political dynamics that reinforce global reliance on the extraction and use of fossil fuels. Learning from carbon "lock-in" phenomena, this Perspective explores the challenges of chemicals management from the perspective of lock-in through three case studies: paraquat, perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), and asbestos. These case studies illustrate that most current chemicals management frameworks fail to address the concerns arising from this complex interplay by not involving all relevant stakeholder groups that are part of lock-in, from producers to consumers. This results in a relatively narrow consideration (e.g., only demand but not supply) of the effectiveness and consequences of regulations. We submit that to break lock-in and address the global threat of chemical pollution, current approaches to managing hazardous chemicals should be broadened to take a comprehensive approach to understanding and managing factors contributing to lock-in, notably both supply and demand on national and international scales. ; ISSN:0013-936X ; ISSN:1520-5851

Approaches to risk assessment have been shown to vary among regulatory agencies and across jurisdictional boundaries according to the different assumptions and justifications used. Approaches to screening‐level risk assessment from six international agencies were applied to an urban case study focusing on benzo[a]pyrene (B[a]P) exposure and compared in order to provide insight into the differences between agency methods, assumptions, and justifications. Exposure estimates ranged four‐fold, with most of the dose stemming from exposure to animal products (8–73%) and plant products (24–88%). Total cancer risk across agencies varied by two orders of magnitude, with exposure to air and plant and animal products contributing most to total cancer risk, while the air contribution showed the greatest variability (1–99%). Variability in cancer risk of 100‐fold was attributed to choices of toxicological reference values (TRVs), either based on a combination of epidemiological and animal data, or on animal data. The contribution and importance of the urban exposure pathway for cancer risk varied according to the TRV and, ultimately, according to differences in risk assessment assumptions and guidance. While all agency risk assessment methods are predicated on science, the study results suggest that the largest impact on the differential assessment of risk by international agencies comes from policy and judgment, rather than science.

Many countries and regional political unions have regulatory and policy frameworks for managing chemicals and waste associated with human activities to minimize harms to human health and the environment. These frameworks are complemented and expanded by joint international action, particularly related to pollutants that undergo long-range transport via air, water, and biota; move across national borders through international trade of resources, products, and waste; or are present in many countries (1). Some progress has been made, but the Global Chemicals Outlook (GCO-II) from the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) (1) has called for "strengthen[ing] the science-policy interface and the use of science in monitoring progress, priority-setting, and policy-making throughout the life cycle of chemicals and waste." With the UN Environment Assembly (UNEA) soon meeting to discuss how to strengthen the science-policy interface on chemicals and waste (2), we analyze the landscape and outline recommendations for establishing an overarching body on chemicals and waste. The world has seen a tremendous increase in the amount and variety of chemicals in use, with continuous growth expected; global chemical sales reached over US$5.6 trillion in 2017 and are projected to almost double by 2030 (1). Similar trends are also true for waste generation; for example, global plastic waste entering the ocean is estimated to increase from 4.8 to 12.7 million tonnes in 2010 to some 100 to 250 million tonnes by 2025 (1). When chemicals and waste are poorly managed, not only are valuable resources lost, but chemical pollution can cause a wide range of adverse effects on human and ecosystem health at local, regional, and global levels. The latest Global Burden of Disease study estimated that exposure to lead and occupational exposure to 12 chemicals or groups of chemicals (a tiny fraction of the more than 100,000 chemicals in use) contributed to over 1.3 million premature human deaths in 2017 (3). Chemical pollution has also caused stratospheric ozone depletion, and it plays an important role in climate change (e.g., synthetic halogenated gases contributed over 10% of the global radiative forcing in 2011) (4) and ecosystem degradation (e.g., through the application of hazardous pesticides) (1). ; Peer reviewed

BACKGROUND: To date, the toxicity of organophosphate esters has primarily been studied regarding their use as pesticides and their effects on the neurotransmitter acetylcholinesterase (AChE). Currently, flame retardants and plasticizers are the two largest market segments for organophosphate esters and they are found in a wide variety of products, including electronics, building materials, vehicles, furniture, car seats, plastics, and textiles. As a result, organophosphate esters and their metabolites are routinely found in human urine, blood, placental tissue, and breast milk across the globe. It has been asserted that their neurological effects are minimal given that they do not act on AChE in precisely the same way as organophosphate ester pesticides. OBJECTIVES: This commentary describes research on the non-AChE neurodevelopmental toxicity of organophosphate esters used as flame retardants and plasticizers (OPEs). Studies in humans, mammalian, nonmammalian, and in vitro models are presented, and relevant neurodevelopmental pathways, including adverse outcome pathways, are described. By highlighting this scientific evidence, we hope to elevate the level of concern for widespread human exposure to these OPEs and to provide recommendations for how to better protect public health. DISCUSSION: Collectively, the findings presented demonstrate that OPEs can alter neurodevelopmental processes by interfering with noncholinergic pathways at environmentally relevant doses. Application of a pathways framework indicates several specific mechanisms of action, including perturbation of glutamate and gamma-aminobutyric acid and disruption of the endocrine system. The effects may have implications for the development of cognitive and social skills in children. Our conclusion is that concern is warranted for the developmental neurotoxicity of OPE exposure. We thus describe important considerations for reducing harm and to provide recommendations for government and industry decision makers. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP9285

Rockström et al. (2009a, 2009b) have warned that humanity must reduce anthropogenic impacts defined by nine planetary boundaries if "unacceptable global change" is to be avoided. Chemical pollution was identified as one of those boundaries for which continued impacts could erode the resilience of ecosystems and humanity. The central concept of the planetary boundary (or boundaries) for chemical pollution (PBCP or PBCPs) is that the Earth has a finite assimilative capacity for chemical pollution, which includes persistent, as well as readily degradable chemicals released at local to regional scales, which in aggregate threaten ecosystem and human viability. The PBCP allows humanity to explicitly address the increasingly global aspects of chemical pollution throughout a chemical's life cycle and the need for a global response of internationally coordinated control measures. We submit that sufficient evidence shows stresses on ecosystem and human health at local to global scales, suggesting that conditions are transgressing the safe operating space delimited by a PBCP. As such, current local to global pollution control measures are insufficient. However, while the PBCP is an important conceptual step forward, at this point single or multiple PBCPs are challenging to operationalize due to the extremely large number of commercial chemicals or mixtures of chemicals that cause myriad adverse effects to innumerable species and ecosystems, and the complex linkages between emissions, environmental concentrations, exposures and adverse effects. As well, the normative nature of a PBCP presents challenges of negotiating pollution limits amongst societal groups with differing viewpoints. Thus, a combination of approaches is recommended as follows: develop indicators of chemical pollution, for both control and response variables, that will aid in quantifying a PBCP(s) and gauging progress towards reducing chemical pollution; develop new technologies and technical and social approaches to mitigate global chemical pollution that emphasize a preventative approach; coordinate pollution control and sustainability efforts; and facilitate implementation of multiple (and potentially decentralized) control efforts involving scientists, civil society, government, non-governmental organizations and international bodies.

The Stockholm Convention is key to addressing the global threats of persistent organic pollutants (POPs) to humanity and the environment. It has been successful in identifying new POPs, but its national implementation remains challenging, particularly by low- and middle-income Parties. Concerted action is needed to assist Parties in implementing the Convention's obligations. This analysis aims to identify and recommend research and scientific support needed for timely implementation of the Convention. We aim this analysis at scientists and experts from a variety of natural and social sciences and from all sectors (academia, civil society, industry, and government institutions), as well as research funding agencies. Further, we provide practical guidance to scientists and experts to promote the visibility and accessibility of their work for the Convention's implementation, followed by recommendations for sustaining scientific support to the Convention. This study is the first of a series on analyzing policy needs for scientific evidence under global governance on chemicals and waste. ; ISSN:0013-936X ; ISSN:1520-5851