The fishy world of endocrine disrupters

The Chemical Industries Association (CIA) has hit back hard and fast following Environment Agency suggestions that chemical companies are not doing enough to prevent hormone-disrupting chemicals entering the environment.

The Environment Agency says: 'Industry needs to recognise the risks and uncertainties associated with the problem and take its own precautionary action by developing alternative products.'

But the CIA has counterpunched with a rapidly-assembled 50-page rebuttal, claiming there is no evidence of a causal link between endocrine-disrupting substances and environmental damage and that preventative action could not be accurately targeted.

Endocrine- (or hormone-) disrupting chemicals are suspected of damaging the reproductive systems of some wild animals.

In British coastal waters female dog whelks have acquired male characteristics which prevent them from reproducing, and on the River Lea male roach are showing signs of part feminisation.

Other reports include reproductive damage to alligators and turtles in the Florida lakes and the feminisation of gulls and terns. In all these cases, the finger of suspicion has been pointed at endocrine-disrupting chemicals.

And of wider concern is the question of what effect these chemicals might be having on the human population.

But what is clouding the issue, as the Environment Agency admits, is that it is not known for certain which chemicals are responsible or the range of wildlife being affected.

Faced with this, the agency proposes a double-barrelled approach: using its powers to prevent and minimise the chemical releases while continuing to back research into the problem.

There is a second complication. There are two main types of endocrine-disrupting substances; those which are naturally occurring and chemicals which have been manufactured, and both have the potential to damage wildlife.

The naturally occurring substances are believed to cause damage when they have become concentrated in the environment by human actions such as sewage treatment. The manufactured chemicals are often introduced intentionally into the environment, like pesticides, or are introduced as a result of waste disposal.

Dioxines and alkylphenol ethoxylates are just two of the chemicals under suspicion.

The endocrine-disrupters cause problems by mimicking or blocking the action of natural hormones.

The CIA accepts the serious nature of the problem and supports a precautionary approach but suggests an alternative strategy. 'The key priority is the development of a robust and reproducible testing protocol for endocrine disruption. Until this is available, no reliable prioritisation can take place,' says the report.

'The emphasis of the [Environment Agency's] report is weighted too much on the potential role of man-made chemicals on the reproductive health of fish... There must be more than a simple suspicion of an effect to argue for a ban or substitution of a chemical.'

Where the CIA and the Environment Agency completely part company is that the former is arguing for a customer-led precautionary approach while the agency is looking for a lead from the chemicals industries. The CIA's approach ultimately is that the market mechanism should be the ultimate arbiter of which chemicals enter the environment. 'Environmental awareness amongst both industrial customers and private consumers is now an important drive for chemical companies to gain a competitive edge by bringing new, more sustainable products to the market,' says the CIA.

But the standpoint of the Environment Agency is that in the face of uncertainty, prudence should be the watchword. It says: 'Although there are a number of actions that the agency can take now to minimise the impact of these chemicals on the environment and indeed it has already started to do so one of the most effective controls is to prevent them getting into the environment in the first place.

'Industry needs to recognise the risks and uncertainties associated with this problem and should therefore take its own precautionary action by developing alternative products that don't have hormone-disrupting properties.'

Naturally enough, the CIA is concerned what the agency's policy might mean for the chemical industries in terms of cost. 'The chemical industries spend large sums of money in developing new technologies and new products. It is in no-one's interest that these resources should be directed to search for alternative technologies and products when it is far from clear if the suspect products are indeed causing serious environmental health problems.'

But with a newly-independent Environment Agency looking set to flex its muscles and establish its authority, persuading it to modify its strategy in an area of such public concern may prove to be an uphill task.

CIA response to the Environment Agency consultative report: 'Endocrine-disrupting substances in the environment: what should be done?'

Zack Goldring is a freelance science and technical journalist.