Scientists are sounding the alarm, ordinary citizens know little, companies are in no hurry to change anything, and politicians are unable to do something: the fight against dangerous substances that have spread everywhere for half a century has hardly moved forward.
Asthma, early puberty, erectile dysfunction, infertility, type 2 diabetes, obesity, mental decline, autism, food intolerances, inflammatory diseases, breast and prostate cancer … Since the 1990s, more toxicologists and biologists around the world have been studying the potential exposure to a number of substances that surround us all. They gave them a slightly barbaric definition of "endocrine disruptors."
25 years later, the general public still knows little about them. These compounds are produced in our refineries, cosmetics and pharmaceuticals, and we all actively consume them. Despite their potentially serious impact on our health and the environment.
The endocrine system of our body produces hormones such as estrogen in women and testosterone in men. Hormones play a critical role in humans. Therefore, a breakdown of this system can directly affect such critical processes as digestion, growth, reproduction and development of the brain. The wide program of the second seminar on this issue, which took place in Paris on January 21 and 22 under the auspices of the Institut Pasteur, testifies to the growing concern of specialists.
As noted by the National Health Agency (ANSES), there are still "scientific and social" uncertainties in this matter. In particular, this concerns the role of such substances in the spread of the above pathologies. Nevertheless, according to experts, the ambiguities concern only the complete list of substances that need to be dealt with in the first place, and their toxicity threshold. On December 16, the EU Court officially recognized that the European Commission had not fulfilled its obligations in this matter. Brussels was reminded that it still has not clearly defined the criteria for the circulation of these compounds, although a 2012 decree requires it to do so “no later than December 13, 2013”.
The complexity of the issue, which is superimposed on many financial and political interests, contributes to the fact that he knows it only a few. Who in France today can say what an endocrine disruptor is? Almost no one except for a number of specialists and doctors or patients who suspect that they have become victims of their impact … The Minister of Ecology Segolene Royal understands that this is a huge problem for the health of the French, which she spoke about at the opening of the seminar. Moreover, you need to start acting immediately, because these micro-poisons have already begun to colonize our planet. According to many scientists, now in France there is not a single piece of land, water or air free from them, not a single living organism that would be completely protected from the effects of endocrine disruptors.
Scientific obstacles: how great is the danger?
Promotional video:
“Whether it's a plant, a frog, a pregnant woman or an old man, everyone is affected. There are no boundaries here. Even polar bears living in the far north are infected, and quite strongly. This happens not only because they are at the top of the food chain, but also because these substances from everywhere enter the sea and the atmosphere. Barbara Demenei of the National Museum of Natural History is chairing the scientific committee of the second workshop, which is part of the national program launched in 2005. In her recent work, she analyzed the impact of environmental pollution on mental health and the mind. In particular, she drew a direct link between the exposure of a child to endocrine disruptors and other toxic substances and an increase in the incidence of behavioral disorders, autism and decreased intelligence.
She is not the only one doing this work, but concerns expressed about these issues have not yet been widely reflected in the media, with the exception of perhaps two documentaries by Stephane Aurel.
But since we have so much research on the effects of endocrine disruptors on the entire biosphere, why is everything moving forward so slowly? The scientific community notes six factors that complicate its work in this area:
1. Small value. Endocrine disruptors are everywhere, but in very small numbers, making them difficult to identify. However, this does not negate their danger: the scale of their effect is associated to a greater extent not with the dosage, but with the duration.
2. Cocktail. There are so many of these substances in our environment that it seriously complicates the determination of the guilt of each of them in the development of this or that pathology.
3. Environmental pollution. Before starting the analysis of which endocrine disruptor enhances a particular symptom in a person, you first need to carefully study the state of the environment (pollution of water, air, soil …), his lifestyle (nutrition, stress, sleep, medicines, cosmetics …) and genetics … It is extremely time-consuming, expensive and, probably, even useless, because the environment around us is so dirty that we cannot describe the percentage of the effect of a particular substance.
4. A variety of methods of influence. Not all endocrine disruptors act the same way on our hormones. Some mimic the action of a natural hormone, others block it, and others lead to complex disturbances at the stage of its production and secretion.
5. Impact window. Exposure to these substances varies with the period of a person's life. If this happens during pregnancy, in the early years of life or adolescence, that is, at key moments in the development of the body and brain, the consequences will be much more serious.
6. Sustainability. Endocrine disruptors can remain in water, air and soil for tens or even hundreds of years. As we know today, their effects can manifest themselves even years after human contact.
Thus, the work of specialists is often a thankless task, because even if they manage to make a connection between cause and effect, it is difficult for them to fulfill all the conditions that sanitary agencies put in terms of reliability of results. This complexity also explains in part why it is so difficult for scientists, WHO, the European Commission and national authorities to come up with a common definition.
Industry associations, in turn, benefit directly from this conceptual and regulatory mess. While the political authorities have not yet made a decision, they pour thousands of more or less toxic goods onto the European market every day. In other words, they can still do business not because their products are considered safe, but because no one can say for sure how dangerous they are.
Economic obstacles or why you have to wait
Not only scientists took part in the seminar on January 21 and 22. The list included the names of representatives of international companies from the agricultural industry (Danone, Unilever), cosmetology (L'Oréal, LVMH), pharmaceuticals (Sanofi, Bayer), plastics manufacturers (PlasticsEurope, BASF) and pesticides (Bayer CropScience, Dow AgroSciences, BASF). All of them came to find out the latest news of science and regulation, as well as to scout the atmosphere and the attitude of the state authorities to their actions. And they did not lose.
On January 21, the debate was opened by Segolene Royal. She paid tribute to the 300 scientists who came to the workshop from all over the world, and strongly condemned the pressure from the major industrial lobbies:
“We are faced with powerful financial forces on all issues, in particular in the agricultural sector. (…) You, the scientific community, have a critical role to play in protecting the health of citizens who are vulnerable to large international companies. Companies use these chemicals and deny their impact on human health and ecosystems.
Fortunately, the flow of information is changing the situation. And the more actively it goes, the more you will contribute to making the right decisions in a quick and effective way. (…) I sincerely thank you on behalf of all those who silently suffer from the effects of endocrine disruptors, unable to protest, force them to accept other modes of action or understanding."
In private, scholars welcome such open opposition. However, in front of the camera, the new head of the General Directorate of Risk Prevention, Marc Morturet, spoke with restraint:
“There are, of course, lobbies here, as well as on many other issues. This has always been the case, the minister stressed. But you need to understand that there are also scientific disputes. Therefore, the decision must be made by ANSES, based on science and risk assessment. This is the only way to make progress."
Mark Morture is well aware of the arguments used by international companies. He only recently resigned as director of ANSES after five years of their endless speculation about the lack of credible research. If the minister recommends that scientists engage in dissemination of information in order to attract the attention of citizens and the media, he rather hopes to conduct more accurate research that would allow for restrictive measures against industry.
According to him, "France is leading the way on the issue of endocrine disruptors." However, the medium-term targets set by the national program may seem ridiculous in comparison to the scale of the problem. At the end of his talk, one doctor asked about the difficulties of ANSES: “There are hundreds or even thousands of harmful substances, but ANSES only studies five of them a year. Do you have the impression that you are approaching the problem too far? " "When will there be more ambitious goals?" - added from the audience.
Despite the growing pressure from doctors and scientists, enterprises have counter arguments. According to them, you have to wait. After scientific doubt, they move on to describe the financial barriers. “While 3,000 substances were allowed in the 1990s, there are now 250-300,” says pesticide expert Michel Urtizberea of BASF. “We have already started looking for replacements for some, like N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone, but their production is much more expensive. The development of new compounds is especially expensive. About a billion in ten years. In addition, it happens that at the end of the process all the results are inappropriate! “If the process is not phased in the law, we will never be able to replace everything! - adds toxicologist from LVMH. - We make efforts, but we cannot do everything at the same time. Besides,we are already trying to limit or completely stop the use of some endocrine disruptors that are not yet prohibited by law, but are discussed in the media …”In particular, this applies to parabens, which are often used as conservatives in cosmetology, pharmaceuticals and agriculture.
Behind the scenes, one former ANSES expert expresses concern about what an ill-conceived pursuit of substitutes could lead to:
“It takes years to assess the impact of an endocrine disruptor on the environment. Take, for example, bisphenol A. Some are already starting to talk about the danger of substitutes … It is possible that in 20 years we will find out that they are even worse than their predecessors!"
The last argument for enterprises: all legal restrictions can ultimately ruin employment and innovation. And this can make the state authorities fearful. Nevertheless, NGOs and associations dealing with this issue do not believe in this.
Radical civil solutions
“You can't wait until scientists understand all the mechanisms of action of endocrine disruptors to start acting,” says ecologist Elizabeth Ruffinengo. “It might take them years. But people cannot wait for science, they need to act. When a pregnant woman asks whether she should use a particular product, one cannot hide behind the complexity of the problem. Yes, there are difficulties, but scientists have to guide people. Nobody wants to use a certain product for ten years if several studies indicate its toxicity at once.
According to her, “the problem is that even if today there are suspicions about a particular product, no one adheres to the precautionary principle. Businesses are hiding behind the high cost of researching new compounds, but it's time for us to stop thinking about chemistry alone. Why not focus on finding other solutions like changing production processes or even completely redesigning a product?"
She is confident that such operations would cost the industry much less money and bring much faster benefits in terms of protecting the environment and human health: “Health is also a long-term investment. Now we need to think about protecting the most vulnerable segments of the population (pregnant women, children and adolescents) and future generations …"
These words echo the speech of the American expert Leo Trasand, who estimated the total damage from the effects of endocrine disruptors on health at 157 billion euros per year in the European Union: “And this is just the tip of the iceberg: according to the highest estimates, this amount can actually be as high as 2, $ 7 trillion."
In the meantime, associations and NGOs are already undertaking various initiatives, such as printing informational guides on the presence of toxic substances in cosmetics, household chemicals and even children's toys. “We do not offer the only possible or ideal solutions, because the data is constantly changing, but we still try to recommend some options for action,” says Elizabeth Ruffinengo. - Fortunately, the enterprises have already understood something. In particular, this applies to "ecological" toys for children, which allow to avoid contact of kids with plastic. And all of this is good for the economy because companies will have to innovate and therefore create jobs.”
Romain Guillot of the Institut Pasteur has done research on the effects of pesticides on the thyroid gland and gives some simple advice: “In France, apples and grapes are the most processed. They are sprayed with pesticides, which hit the surface, but do not necessarily reach the core. If you cut off the skin and a centimeter and a half of the pulp from the apple, you will remove all the pesticides. According to Greenpeace's blacklist, at least a third of all pesticides used worldwide are hazardous to health and the environment.
During a break between performances, we see a middle-aged man with a sandwich in his hands, who carefully examines the works presented by specialists. Physician Patrick Padovani became Marseille's Deputy Mayor for Health. He is responsible for managing the city's huge wastewater treatment plant, and he seeks to reduce the presence of endocrine disruptors in the water: “First, we would like to estimate the dose of endocrine disruptors at the station's exit. In particular, this concerns phthalates and phenols, which directly enter the city water supply system."
As far as he knows, now the number of endocrine disruptors is not considered at any water treatment plant in France: "When we can identify them and establish their number, then it will already be necessary to look for means to eliminate them." In any case, the techniques are still under development. “Some labs are starting to come up with ways to break down these compounds and make them inert,” he says. “But we still don't know what happens to inert molecules when they get into the same environment …” He pauses and continues: “We are already beginning to encounter problems of infertility and disorders of the formation of genitals in men … If nothing is done now, our children and grandchildren become mutants!"
Lucile Berland