Time to Break the "Lock-In" Impediments to Chemicals Management

Conflicts of Interest in the Assessment of Chemicals, Waste, and Pollution

Pollution by chemicals and waste impacts human and ecosystem health on regional, national, and global scales, resulting, together with climate change and biodiversity loss, in a triple planetary crisis. Consequently, in 2022, countries agreed to establish an intergovernmental science-policy panel (SPP) on chemicals, waste, and pollution prevention, complementary to the existing intergovernmental science-policy bodies on climate change and biodiversity. To ensure the SPP's success, it is imperative to protect it from conflicts of interest (COI). Here, we (i) define and review the implications of COI, and its relevance for the management of chemicals, waste, and pollution; (ii) summarize established tactics to manufacture doubt in favor of vested interests, i.e., to counter scientific evidence and/or to promote misleading narratives favorable to financial interests; and (iii) illustrate these with selected examples. This analysis leads to a review of arguments for and against chemical industry representation in the SPP's work. We further (iv) rebut an assertion voiced by some that the chemical industry should be directly involved in the panel's work because it possesses data on chemicals essential for the panel's activities. Finally, (v) we present steps that should be taken to prevent the detrimental impacts of COI in the work of the SPP. In particular, we propose to include an independent auditor's role in the SPP to ensure that participation and processes follow clear COI rules. Among others, the auditor should evaluate the content of the assessments produced to ensure unbiased representation of information that underpins the SPP's activities.

Integrated data-driven cross-disciplinary framework to prevent chemical water pollution

Access to a clean and healthy environment is a human right and a prerequisite for maintaining a sustainable ecosystem. Experts across domains along the chemical life cycle have traditionally operated in isolation, leading to limited connectivity between upstream chemical innovation to downstream development of water-treatment technologies. This fragmented and historically reactive approach to managing emerging contaminants has resulted in significant externalized societal costs. Herein, we propose an integrated data-driven framework to foster proactive action across domains to effectively address chemical water pollution. By implementing this integrated framework, it will not only enhance the capabilities of experts in their respective fields but also create opportunities for novel approaches that yield co-benefits across multiple domains. To successfully operationalize the integrated framework, several concerted efforts are warranted, including adopting open and FAIR (findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable) data practices, developing common knowledge bases/platforms, and staying vigilant against new substance "properties" of concern.

Optimizing Chemicals Management in the United States and Canada through the Essential-Use Approach

Chemicals have improved the functionality and convenience of industrial and consumer products, but sometimes at the expense of human or ecological health. Existing regulatory systems have proven to be inadequate for assessing and managing the tens of thousands of chemicals in commerce. A different approach is urgently needed to minimize ongoing production, use, and exposures to hazardous chemicals. The premise of the essential-use approach is that chemicals of concern should be used only in cases in which their function in specific products is necessary for health, safety, or the functioning of society and when feasible alternatives are unavailable. To optimize the essential-use approach for broader implementation in the United States and Canada, we recommend that governments and businesses (1) identify chemicals of concern for essentiality assessments based on a broad range of hazard traits, going beyond toxicity; (2) expedite decision-making by avoiding unnecessary assessments and strategically asking up to three questions to determine whether the use of the chemical in the product is essential; (3) apply the essential-use approach as early as possible in the process of developing and assessing chemicals; and (4) engage diverse experts in identifying chemical uses and functions, assessing alternatives, and making essentiality determinations and share such information broadly. If optimized and expanded into regulatory systems in the United States and Canada, other policymaking bodies, and businesses, the essential-use approach can improve chemicals management and shift the market toward safer chemistries that benefit human and ecological health.

A science-based agenda for health-protective chemical assessments and decisions: overview and consensus statement

The manufacture and production of industrial chemicals continues to increase, with hundreds of thousands of chemicals and chemical mixtures used worldwide, leading to widespread population exposures and resultant health impacts. Low-wealth communities and communities of color often bear disproportionate burdens of exposure and impact; all compounded by regulatory delays to the detriment of public health. Multiple authoritative bodies and scientific consensus groups have called for actions to prevent harmful exposures via improved policy approaches. We worked across multiple disciplines to develop consensus recommendations for health-protective, scientific approaches to reduce harmful chemical exposures, which can be applied to current US policies governing industrial chemicals and environmental pollutants. This consensus identifies five principles and scientific recommendations for improving how agencies like the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approach and conduct hazard and risk assessment and risk management analyses: (1) the financial burden of data generation for any given chemical on (or to be introduced to) the market should be on the chemical producers that benefit from their production and use; (2) lack of data does not equate to lack of hazard, exposure, or risk; (3) populations at greater risk, including those that are more susceptible or more highly exposed, must be better identified and protected to account for their real-world risks; (4) hazard and risk assessments should not assume existence of a "safe" or "no-risk" level of chemical exposure in the diverse general population; and (5) hazard and risk assessments must evaluate and account for financial conflicts of interest in the body of evidence. While many of these recommendations focus specifically on the EPA, they are general principles for environmental health that could be adopted by any agency or entity engaged in exposure, hazard, and risk assessment. We also detail recommendations for four priority areas in companion papers (exposure assessment methods, human variability assessment, methods for quantifying non-cancer health outcomes, and a framework for defining chemical classes). These recommendations constitute key steps for improved evidence-based environmental health decision-making and public health protection.

Integrating a Chemicals Perspective into the Global Plastic Treaty

Driven by the growing concern about plastic pollution, countries have agreed to establish a global plastic treaty addressing the full life cycle of plastics. However, while plastics are complex materials consisting of mixtures of chemicals such as additives, processing aids, and nonintentionally added substances, it is at risk that the chemical aspects of plastics may be overlooked in the forthcoming treaty. This is highly concerning because a large variety of over 10,000 chemical substances may have been used in plastic production, and many of them are known to be hazardous to human health and the environment. In this Global Perspective, we further highlight an additional, generally overlooked, but critical aspect that many chemicals in plastics hamper the technological solutions envisioned to solve some of the major plastic issues: mechanical recycling, waste-to-energy, chemical recycling, biobased plastics, biodegradable plastics, and durable plastics. Building on existing success stories, we outline three concrete recommendations on how the chemical aspects can be integrated into the global plastic treaty to ensure its effectiveness: (1) reducing the complexity of chemicals in plastics, (2) ensuring the transparency of chemicals in plastics, and (3) aligning the right incentives for a systematic transition.