Can they do it?
Can EPA actually come up with a scheme to evaluate the endocrine disruption potential of synthetic chemicals? Barry Johnson, director of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, calls himself "an eternal optimist," and says "it's possible."
Johnson, whose agency monitors health effects of Superfund sites, has attended several EPA meetings on the screening process. He thinks planning and definitions up front will pay off in the long run. "Success will have to follow careful and thoughtful delineation of the project. If it's too broad-based, they will have a difficult time. If they elucidate some of the basic science and build on that for toxicity testing, then they have good prospects."
But even the eternal optimist says it's "quite unlikely to have the basic science in place" by August 1998, EPA's Congressionally imposed deadline for devising a screening plan. "In the interest of thoughtful science, it will be hard to have a satisfactory and satisfying basic science base in that amount of time." Hundreds of research projects have already started.
At this point, Johnson says, the question of human health effects is up in the air. "I'm not personally convinced that there are demonstrated effects from environmental hormones on humans. But there's sufficient evidence to be concerned."
How much testing is enough?
EPA's advisory committee is on track, Klose says, in basing its approach on science. "In a world of finite resources, where research and development is so extraordinarily expensive, it's incumbent that we have protocols that are specific and pertinent, and that's what EDSTAC is leading to."
The effects of environmental endocrine disrupters on wildlife are clear,
With continued uncertainty about the effects of endocrine disrupters, how can the committee make a rational decision? By doing the possible without foreclosing future options. "We'll use the information we have to do the best job we can, and [urge EPA to] incorporate new information as it comes along," Weis says. "We intend to send a very strong message that the screening process should not be fixed in stone. As science develops, we intend EPA to change and follow it."
The current focus on endocrine disrupters should not fool should not distract attention from other possible toxic effects of chemicals, she observes. "We've had an overabundance of focus on cancer over the past 20 years," and EPA "neglected other nasty effects chemicals can have on living things. ... Now we have another issue that's attracting the public and threatens to get all the attention for the next 20 years. ... What we need is a balanced approach to all types of effects that toxic chemicals can have at low concentrations."
The trade association for pesticide makers is less convinced about the evidence for harm, and thinks current toxicity testing is probably adequate. "Our methods are designed already -- in reproductive and teratology [birth defects] testing, and with multi-generational rat studies, to pick up this kind of thing," says Christopher Klose, vice-president for communications of the American Crop Protection Association.
says Rutgers University biologist Judith Weis, a long-time student of how environmental contamination affects animals. "I don't think there's any question that there's a problem with wildlife in many areas of the world. In humans, it's possible. Our systems are similar enough that if wildlife is being affected, it's likely we are also being affected."
Balanced approach, eh? Check out our bibliography for starters.
