Chemicals in the environment

The UK’s Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution recently launched their report Chemicals in Products: Safeguarding the Environment and Human Health following some 2 years’ study, interviews and visits to several countries (http://www.rcep.org.uk/chemicals/ch25-sum.pdf). The launch took the form of a press release which attracted several TV stations, as well as the press. The recognition of the importance of green chemistry in this context was indicated by the presence of an invited exhibition from the Green Chemistry Network (http://www.chemsoc.org/networks/gcn/). The report examines scientific understanding of the fate and effects of chemicals in the environment and the degree of uncertainty associated with that report. It also investigates the way that regulatory systems across the world attempt to manage the risk from chemicals, how they deal with the uncertainty and how they address public concerns about the process. This leads to a number of the recommendations being linked to best practice in countries around the world. The study deals with synthetic chemicals manufactured by industry and covers up to 100,000 chemicals currently on the market in greater than laboratory scale quantities. It is pointed out that less than 5% fall into categories that are currently approved for specific uses such as food additives and pharmaceuticals and that the rest can be used unless specifically regulated against.

The lack of information on chemicals is also the subject of attention in this report, which argues that the long and often complicated supply chain between manufacturer and the public end-user makes the flow of information along that chain less than satisfactory. This is made worse by what is described as a ‘distinct lack of reliable data for the vast majority of (these) chemicals’. The report notes the various national and international initiatives to increase chemical testing including the new European White paper (“REACH”) (see article on REACH by Michael Warhurst in this issue of Green Chemistry), but it adds its concerns to those of others over the costs of the testing proposed (in terms of money and animals used for the testing) and the practicality and adequacy of the proposed solutions. It considers much of the new legislation under consideration to be ‘more of the same’.

The new approach that the report recommends is based on Listing, Sorting, Evaluation and Action. In order to rapidly screen the many chemicals in the marketplace it is suggested that we should first bring together the data that is available on persistence, bioaccumulation and toxicity and that this should be augmented by a system based on advanced computational techniques to identify molecules with particular physiological properties (here the practice of the US EPA on the pre-manufacture of new chemicals is noted). It aims to carry out at least preliminary evaluation of all relevant chemicals on a much shorter time-scale than many other proposals under consideration. This system if effective, would also reduce the need for animal testing.

Any such evaluation process will inevitably lead to a number of chemicals being banned, restricted or made prohibitively expensive. The design and development of new more-environmentally-benign and non-toxic chemicals will become critical if we are to achieve the very wide range of chemical effects that are made use of in modern society. The report recommends that in order to find better alternatives to existing chemicals the government should adopt substitution as a core goal of chemicals policy. This is accompanied by recommendations about improved information about chemicals on the market and their hazards, the use of assessment and monitoring programmes to inform substitution decisions, and a much improved flow of hazard information along the supply chain underpinned by legislation (the legislation currently being prepared in the Netherlands is highlighted as being appropriate) and by a government testing programme (here the government-sponsored programme in Sweden is noted as an example of good practice).

Green chemistry features prominently in the report and is seen as the way forward. Many of the green chemistry initiatives around the world are identified, as are the various activities including educational and awards programmes. However, the report strongly encourages a shift from more process-focused activities to those which better address product issues. We have made similar arguments in this journal. The need for new low-hazard chemicals represents a need for consumers and distributors, a challenge for the manufacturing industries and an opportunity for research. By making sure that the principles of green chemistry are applied throughout the supply chain from manufacturer to consumer we can help ensure that we do indeed move towards a better and more sustainable society.

James Clark, York, July 2003

---