The East African, August 27, 2007

TEST THE CHEMICALS NOW OR FOREVER FACE THE ITCH

[Rachel's introduction: In the European Union a new set of regulations -- Reach (registration, evaluation and authorisation of chemicals) -- attempts to gain a handle on the proliferation of untested synthetic chemicals by applying the precautionary principle: "Better safe than sorry."]

By Mark Sommer

Better living through chemistry." That was the tag-line used by Dow Chemical in the 1950s at the outset of an era when industrial chemicals were introduced on a massive scale into consumer goods, agriculture, and virtually every other sector of modern life.

But the phrase has become hauntingly ironic as environmental health researchers discover more and more evidence of negative long-term impacts from some of what we had long thought to be a purely benign technology.

IN THE advanced industrial world, we are immersed in a brew of synthetic chemicals most of whose ingredients have never been tested for their long-term impacts on human health.

Tens of thousands of chemicals contribute to the comfort and convenience of our lives and the flavour of our foods.

But from their manufacture to their disposal, in their consumption and use and in the environment, they accumulate in our bodies to unknown effect.

For the mostly poor people who live closest to the the places these chemicals are manufactured, the health consequences are obvious and often severe, but plant owners and public officials often say the evidence of cause-and-effect is inconclusive.

However, even for those who live in more privileged circumstances, their food, electronic devices and even their beds all contain a mix of chemicals. Some widely-used chemicals, like phthalates (used to soften plastics in children's toys and other items) have been found to contribute to breast cancer, early puberty in girls, reduced testosterone levels, lowered sperm counts, genital defects in baby boys, and testicular cancer.

But given the range of variables at play in any individual, including genetic predisposition, personal habit and frequency of exposure, it's nearly impossible to prove a direct causal relationship between hazardous environmental toxins and personal illness.

Until recently, public health researchers have had few tools to measure such impacts, but not any more. "Bio-monitoring" is now being applied to scientific techniques used to sample blood, urine, breast milk, and other tissue to assess human exposure to chemicals.

Using these tools, researchers can now measure an individual's "body burden," testing for the presence of specific chemicals known or thought to be hazardous to human health.

But the costs of such monitoring are still far too high to be widely administered to whole populations.

WHOSE RESPONSIBILITY is it to test and pay for the testing of the thousands of chemicals currently in use and the thousands more being introduced each year? The costs would be huge. But the costs of continuing to ignore the impacts would undoubtedly be far greater.

Would you rather find out now and act accordingly or assume there will be no ill effects and risk being surprised at a later date by maladies that greater curiosity and care could have avoided?

IN THE European Union a new set of regulations -- Reach (registration, evaluation and authorisation of chemicals) -- attempts to gain a handle on the proliferation of untested synthetic chemicals by applying the precautionary principle: "Better safe than sorry."

Reach will require chemical manufacturers to provide basic health and safety information for all the substances they produce and will create a special category of some 2000 "substances of very high concern" slated for eventual replacement by safer alternatives.

Mark Sommer hosts the award-winning, internationally syndicated radio programme, "A World of Possibilities"

Copyright 2007, Nation Media Group Ltd.