JEM News

Legislation

Climate merry-go-round heads to Durban

Durban, South Africa, is the latest city to find itself hosting an international meeting aimed at agreeing future global climate policy. An assorted circus of politicians, civil servants, scientists, campaigners and journalists was due to descend on the city in early December, but the prospects for an agreement look far from certain.

Speaking after the final preparatory meeting in Panama in October, UN climate chief Christiana Figueres was typically upbeat, saying that “governments have indeed worked very hard” during the week of talks. The EU, Australia, US and Japan all submitted papers that will help form a negotiating text for Durban, Ms Figueres told journalists. At times, however, the positions of the key countries and groupings looked as far apart as the banks of the nearby shipping canal.

There was good progress on the details of the climate adaptation committee and technology transfer mechanism agreed at last year's meeting in Cancun¹ and the review of countries' carbon reduction pledges scheduled for 2013–15. This review looks likely to be carried out by a dedicated expert body, Ms Figueres said. Discussions also began in Panama on possible legal forms for a binding global climate policy framework and texts were agreed on emissions reporting guidelines and the registry that will track developing countries' mitigation efforts.

Fundamental questions remain over the future of the Kyoto protocol, however. Developing countries continue to insist richer nations must sign up to a second Kyoto commitment period before they consider taking on any binding climate goals, a prospect Japan, Russia and Canada have ruled out. The EU is still willing to take on further Kyoto targets but only if a broader global deal is agreed as well.

Tomasz Chruszczow, representing the Polish presidency of the EU, admitted he was disappointed with discussions on the transparency of emission reductions, treatment of shipping and aviation emissions, and the general level of ambition on display. Tove Ryding of Greenpeace suggested a formal global deal was unlikely before the conclusion of the 2013–15 review of countries' carbon reduction pledges. She called for major emitters to at least agree its building blocks and timeline in Durban.

Scientists used the Panama meeting to warn that the world remains far away from meeting UN-backed goals on holding back climate change, setting the stage for major damage without more ambitious efforts to cut emissions. The controversial UN-led Copenhagen summit in 2009 agreed to limit global warming to 2.0 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels, a goal some environmentalists say is already too timid.²

The Climate Action Tracker, which aims to keep track of countries' efforts, found a yawning gap between governments' pledges and their track records when added together. China, the largest source of carbon blamed for rising temperatures, is on track to surpass its own targets but its overall emissions are growing more quickly than thought.

The planet is “very, very far away” from meeting the 2.0-degree goal, said Bill Hare, a lead author of the major 2007 UN scientific report on climate change and director at Potsdam-based research group Climate Analytics. “We are heading towards a warming of well over 3.0 degrees at present unless there are major improvements in the pledges,” Mr Hare told a news conference. While even 2.0-degree warming is problematic, the higher rate puts the world at risk of major problems such as more frequent wildfires and rising sea levels – a top concern for low-lying nations, Mr Hare added.

Europe's emissions reversed direction in 2010, rising by 2.4% from the previous year, according to preliminary data from the European Environment Agency (EEA). This followed a 7.1% drop in 2009. The rise was expected because of the economic recovery following the earlier crisis. A cold winter in 2010 was also a contributing factor, with increased demand for heating in the residential and commercial sectors. The largest increases were in the UK, Netherlands, Germany and Poland, the data show, while the biggest drops were in the struggling economies of Spain, Greece and Ireland. Emissions in Romania, Bulgaria and Cyprus also fell slightly.

UN Climate Secretariat: http://unfccc.int; Climate Action Tracker: http://www.climateactiontracker.org/; EEA: Greenhouse Gas Inventory: http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/approximated-eu-ghg-inventory-2010

US to develop shale gas standards

The EPA is to develop standards for wastewater discharges produced by natural gas extraction from underground coalbed and shale formations. At present there is no comprehensive set of national standards in the US for the disposal of wastewater discharged from natural gas extraction activities. Over the coming months the EPA will begin the process of developing a proposed standard with the input of stakeholders, including industry and public health groups.

Technology and operational improvements in extracting natural gas resources, particularly shale gas, have increased gas drilling activities significantly in recent years. Production from shale formations has grown from a negligible amount just a few years ago to almost 15% of the total US natural gas production and this share is expected to triple in the coming decades. The technique is highly controversial, with investigations into health and environmental risks being undertaken in both the United States and Europe.^3,4

Currently, wastewater associated with shale gas extraction is prohibited from being directly discharged to waterways and other waters of the US. While some of the wastewater is reused or re-injected, a significant amount still requires disposal. As a result, some shale gas wastewater is transported to treatment plants, many of which are not properly equipped. The EPA will consider standards for shale gas wastewater based on demonstrated, economically achievable technologies.

EPA: http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/cwa/304m/

Green groups dig over soil directive

Green groups are seeking to resurrect – or should that be disinter – the EU's plans for a soil framework directive. In a recent report environmental groups EEB and the German League for Nature and the Environment (DNR) claim that none of the arguments used by governments to oppose the European Commission's plans stand up to scrutiny. They argue that the benefits of an EU law on soils far outweigh its costs.

Austria, France, the Netherlands and the UK oppose the directive, which has become logjammed since being first proposed in 2007.^5,6 They view soils as a national issue and fear EU rules would add bureaucracy. Germany has also been among this blocking minority but is thought to be reviewing its position. The NGO report claims existing administrative and data collection systems in EU states would help keep costs and bureaucracy down and that the EU would only take action if a country were not acting to guarantee a “satisfactory level” of soil protection.

The introduction of EU-wide rules is justified because soil erosion and pollution can increase flood risks and water pollution in neighbouring countries, the report says. Soil remediation work could also create new job and export opportunities, it suggests. In broader terms, an EU law is vital because most countries have no legal provisions on soil conservation despite its deterioration costing the EU an estimated €38bn a year.

European Environmental Bureau: http://www.eeb.org/

Agency celebrates 25 years of Community Right-to-Know

The EPA is marking 25 years since the passage of its federal Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) as part of the reauthorization for Superfund in 1986.

Public demand for information about chemical releases skyrocketed in the mid-1980s after the Bhopal disaster in India. Shortly afterwards, a serious chemical release at a plant in West Virginia hospitalized 100 people. These events led to the implementation of EPCRA in 1986. Since then communities and emergency planners across the United States have used EPCRA to provide valuable information on toxic chemical releases in their area.

“This law is important to safeguarding our communities from chemical emergencies,” said EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson. “Twenty-five years after EPCRA was made into law, the EPA continues to improve and advance our community right-to-know programmes, so that we can ensure the best possible chemical safety protection for every community across the country.”

Under EPCRA, the EPA collects information on toxic releases through the Toxic Release Inventory programme (TRI), a public database containing information regarding the industrial releases of over 600 toxic chemicals from more than 20 000 facilities. TRI was the first publicly available database in the world that contained information on pollutant releases.

The Agency's latest initiative is a new mapping feature as part of its Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) database. The EPA and State Enforcement Actions Map allow the public to access federal and state enforcement information in an interactive format and to compare enforcement data by state. The map will be regularly updated to include the latest information about enforcement actions taken to address violations of air, water, and waste laws.

EPA: http://www.epa.gov/emergencies/content/epcra/epcra25.htm; ECHO: http://www.epa-echo.gov/echo/; ‘My Right-to-Know’ mobile application for TRI data: http://www.epa.gov/tri/myrtk/

Environmental quality

More heat than light on resource efficiency

European policymakers are giving greater attention to resource efficiency. A survey by the European Environment Agency found many different approaches to ‘doing more with less’, but only a few countries have specific strategies or action plans to cut their resource use.

In most cases resource efficiency is identified as a priority in general economy-wide strategies while actual measures are specified in sectoral policies, according to the EEA. This “mismatch” can be addressed at the EU-level through guidance on the most appropriate policy targets. Countries should be allowed to choose the right policy mix according to national and local conditions, it adds.

The survey is based on responses from 31 countries, including 25 EU states. Another finding is that about half a dozen countries are shifting from traditional environmental policies, targeting water for example, to more integrated resource efficiency policies. Energy and waste are the most targeted resources.

Countries tend to set broad objectives such as improving resource efficiency or increasing waste recycling. But some have more specific targets. Denmark, for example, is aiming to be fossil fuel-free by 2050 and Hungary is planning to reduce its annual waste generation by 20% by the end of the decade. Others, such as the Netherlands, are paying particular attention to the environmental impacts of international trade.

Welcoming the study, EU Environment Commissioner Janez Potočnik said: “Transforming Europe into a sustainable economy will require concerted action at all policy levels. Member States have an essential role in getting resource efficiency measures across to businesses and citizens.” The EU's recent resource efficiency roadmap foresees a “dashboard” of indicators on water, land and greenhouse gas emissions.⁷

Improving resource efficiency represents a huge business opportunity, according to consultancy McKinsey. It estimates the market to be worth $3.5 trillion through to 2030. The largest opportunity is in the energy consumption of buildings, where potential savings are nearly three times those of the next category, land savings from commercial farm yields. Land savings from less wasted food come third. Developing countries account for 70–85% of the opportunities. If exploited, the potential resource savings add up to nearly a third compared to business-as-usual in 2030, the study shows. But there are multiple barriers to overcome, including access to capital, information failures, and property rights issues. McKinsey recommends addressing some of these through more private-sector lending and awareness raising.

A further report shows Europe has the second largest land footprint after the US. The study by Friends of the Earth (FoE) and the Sustainable Europe Research Institute (SERI) compares direct and indirect land demand in 1997 and 2004, the year for which the most recent data is available. It shows that EU demand increased exponentially over the period, reaching 640 million hectares in 2004. The EU is using 1.5 times its size in land to produce traded products, the NGOs say. Another finding is that 60% of the land used to meet the EU's demand for agricultural and forestry products comes from non-EU countries. FoE says the results show Europe must act quickly to reduce its land footprint. This includes developing a common methodology, requiring reports from Member States, adopting a new product policy and setting up targets.

Meanwhile, a consultancy report cautions that it is too early to introduce water footprint labels on products. The recommendation is one of five options considered by consultancy RPA as part of a review of EU water policy. Such labels would not currently be possible because of a lack of clarity, transparency and reliability surrounding existing indicators, RPA says. And most consumers are not knowledgeable enough to use such labels appropriately. A policy mix aimed at encouraging best practice and developing a water stewardship standard should be introduced instead, it says.

EEA: http://www.eea.europa.eu/; McKinsey: http://www.mckinsey.com/mgi/publications/Carbon_Productivity/slideshow/slideshow_4.asp; FoE: http://www.foeeurope.org/

Great Lakes mercury down but not gone

The scope and intensity of mercury pollution in the Great Lakes region is much greater than previously reported, but additional mercury controls should bring needed improvement, according to a new summary of scientific research on the subject.

Despite general declines in mercury levels in the Great Lakes region over the past four decades, mercury concentrations still exceed human and ecological risk thresholds, especially in inland lakes and rivers, according to the report. Also, new research indicates that for some species of fish and wildlife in particular areas, mercury concentrations may again be on the rise.

While the risk of elevated mercury concentrations to human health is well known – all of the Great Lakes states and the province of Ontario issued fish consumption advisories due to high mercury levels – new studies cited in the report suggest that adverse effects of mercury on the health of fish and wildlife occur at levels much lower than previously reported.

“The good news is that efforts to control mercury pollution have been very beneficial,” said Dr David Evers, Executive Director and Chief Scientist at Biodiversity Research Institute. “However, as we broaden our investigations, we find that fish and wildlife are affected at lower mercury concentrations and across larger areas, and that impacts can be quite serious. For example, in large areas of the study region we found that mercury concentrations in the blood of common loons were above levels that are associated with at least 22% fewer fledged young.”

The report represents the work of more than 170 scientists, researchers and resource managers who used more than 300 000 mercury measurements to document the impact and trends of mercury pollution on the Great Lakes region. The EPA has recently introduced national standards for mercury pollution from power plants, the largest source of mercury deposition.⁸

Ecotoxicology, Vol. 20, No. 7 (October 2011). Special issue: Mercury in the Great Lakes. Guest editors: Evers DC and Wiener JG, http://www.springerlink.com/content/0963-9292/20/7/

Slovakia seeks green clean up fund

Slovakia is asking the EU to allocate €27bn for the remediation of contaminated land in ex-Soviet countries where the former owner of the land is not known and therefore the ‘polluter pays’ principle does not apply. The Slovak government also wants a special €2bn emergency fund to be setup to deal with environmental incidents in eastern Europe, such as last year's toxic red mud disaster in Hungary.⁹ Both expenditures would cover the EU's next seven-year budget period between 2014 and 2020.

In a note presented to environment ministers, Slovakia says that ex-Soviet countries still have a problem implementing the polluter pays principle as a result of their economic transformation in the 1990s. It is currently adopting a new law specifying cases where this principle cannot apply and the government would bear responsibility. There are 1845 contaminated sites in Slovakia alone, 1150 of which pose a significant risk to health and the environment, according to the note.

European Council: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/11/st15/st15168.en11.pdf

Air quality model will help protect human health

A new air quality model allows scientists to use up-to-the minute meteorology and air chemistry data to determine how weather conditions affect pollution, and how pollution can affect and change weather. Version 5.0 of the EPA's Community Multi-scale Air Quality model (CMAQ) allows scientists to analyze air quality at smaller, finer-resolution settings for individual towns and cities, and model air quality for the entire northern hemisphere. Currently, scientists use CMAQ to estimate air quality levels at the regional and national scales.

Earlier versions of CMAQ have been used for more than a decade by the EPA and states for air quality management. CMAQ uses meteorology and emissions data to evaluate air pollution trends and distribution. The system models multiple air pollutants, which include ozone, particulate matter, and air toxics to help air quality regulators determine the best air quality management scenarios for communities and states. Also, the National Weather Service uses CMAQ to produce daily US forecasts for ozone air quality.

CMAQ: http://www.epa.gov/AMD/CMAQ/

Chemical hazards

Experts recommend new POPs list

Global restrictions on three persistent organic pollutants (POPs) are being considered following recommendations by international experts. At a recent meeting in Geneva the Stockholm Convention's expert committee recommended the addition of the flame retardant HBCD to the list of restricted substances. Parties to the Convention will consider the move in 2013.

HBCD is widely used in polystyrene for electronic equipment and in textile coatings. The proposal was initially made by Norway, which has wanted a global ban for some time. In the EU, use of the flame retardant will be severely restricted from August 2015.¹⁰ Governments will now have to decide whether to include HBCD under the Convention's Annex A, B or C. Annex A substances must be eliminated, while those in annex B are subject to restrictions. Annex C substances cannot be accidentally released.

The experts also decided to initiate risk assessments for two substances: hexachlorobutadiene (HCBD), which is used as a fumigant for pest control, and chlorinated naphthalenes, which are used in wood preservation. A risk assessment for a third substance, pentachlorophenol – used as a pesticide and disinfectant – is being considered.

The committee also agreed to prepare guidance on alternatives to the pesticide endosulfan. The substance, which was added to a list of 22 POPs this year, is commonly used to control agricultural pests. Other substances on the list – which was extended a year ago – include lindane, PCBs, dioxins, furans and some brominated flame retardants.¹¹

Meanwhile, a meeting of parties to another international agreement – the Basel Convention – has achieved a solution to a long-running impasse over a toxic waste export ban. The ban on toxic waste exports from OECD to non-OECD countries was agreed in 1995 and has been ratified by 71 nations but it was unclear when it should enter force. Speaking at the end of the meeting, UN environment chief Achim Steiner said it had marked a turning point for the Convention, which has sometimes struggled to prove its worth. Campaign group Basel Action Network called it a major breakthrough.

Elsewhere, Danish MEP Dan Jørgensen is taking the European Commission to task for what he claims is a weakening of the prior informed consent (PIC) regime for companies exporting chemicals that are banned or restricted in the EU. He raised his concerns at a recent meeting in the European Parliament. The Commission says it is necessary to revise the rules to bring them into line with the Rotterdam Convention on trade in dangerous chemicals.¹²

Stockholm Convention: http://chm.pops.int; Basel Convention: http://www.basel.int/; Basel Action Network: http://www.ban.org/

REACH list targets 91 substances

Europe's REACH regime for chemicals management has reached a key landmark with the publication of the draft list of substances earmarked for detailed evaluation. The first Community Rolling Action Plan (CoRAP), which covers the period 2012–2014, includes 91 substances suspected of posing health and environmental risks. The plan, which includes confidential listings, is expected to be adopted in February.

The substances could be persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT), endocrine disruptors, or carcinogenic, mutagenic or reprotoxic (CMR), and are widely dispersed or used by consumers. Several of the substances on the list are available in nano-scale forms. The assessments will be conducted by national authorities in the Member States. New classification criteria for PBTs came into force earlier this year.¹³

The list for 2012 includes the solvent toluene, the biocide triclosan, and silicon dioxide. ECHA has not yet said which country will evaluate each substance or why the substances have been included in the list. Member States are given €50 000 for each evaluation but ECHA has raised concerns over staffing levels in the wake of the recession.¹⁴

In May, the Agency said it expected about 50 substances a year to be evaluated once the system is fully up and running – less than two per Member State – but the final list would only see about 30 substances evaluated in each of the first three years. National authorities have a year to evaluate each substance and prepare a draft decision requesting any further data needed to clarify suspected risks. The decisions will be agreed with other countries before the registrants are asked to supply the data.

ECHA: http://echa.europa.eu/doc/reach/evaluation/corap_2011.pdf

Europe needs ‘urgent action’ on EDCs

Europe should act urgently to introduce comprehensive risk management measures for endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs), ministers have been told.

At a recent meeting in Luxembourg, the French and Swedish environment ministers urged their colleagues to take firm action in response to the latest report on implementation of the EU's strategy on endocrine disruptors, particularly the development of identification criteria.¹⁵

Green groups have complained that no substances have yet been put on the REACH regulation's candidate list based on their endocrine disrupting properties. Swedish NGO Chemsec has put forward 22 endocrine disruptors for nomination. A recent European Commission report concluded that existing definitions and criteria for identifying endocrine disruptors are not satisfactory for regulatory purposes.¹⁶

France is considering a ban on all products containing bisphenol A (BPA), following a report from its environmental health agency ANSES earlier this year. The Assemblée Nationale, France's lower parliamentary house, has unanimously agreed to extend a ban on BPA from baby bottles to all food containers; the Senate is likely to vote on the plan by the end of the year. Sweden is also assessing the need for such a ban. The EU bans BPA in baby bottles and the US is implementing an action plan, including the development of new toxicity tests.¹⁷

Environment and health group RES said the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) could not continue to ignore scientific evidence by maintaining a tolerable daily intake threshold that does not take into account BPA's effects at low concentrations. EFSA is currently reviewing the French findings.

European Commission: Implementation of EDC Strategy http://ec.europa.eu/environment/endocrine/documents/sec_2011_1001_en.pdf

NGO ‘names and shames’ toxics producers

Swedish NGO ChemSec is turning up the heat in its campaign to phase out the production of dangerous chemicals, which it says are being produced in large amounts. It has produced a list of 389 companies producing chemicals that are likely to face restrictions under the REACH regime.

The NGO wants chemicals on its ‘substitute it now’ (SIN) list, which contains 378 substances, to be included on the EU's official list of substances of very high concern (SVHC).¹⁸ So far, only 46 substances have been labelled SVHC.¹⁹ Six of those have been moved to REACH's authorisation list, which allows certain uses.

The companies named include BASF which, according to ChemSec, produces the most chemicals on its SIN list with 65, followed by Bayer (45) and Clariant (25). These chemicals are produced in annual volumes of 10 tonnes or more. The NGO says this production level is significant given the toxicity of the substances.

The producers list is based on the European Chemical Substances Information System, a database which has not been updated since 2008. ChemSec has filed a lawsuit to force ECHA to provide an updated list of producers based on REACH registrations, but this has not yet been received.

ChemSec: http://www.chemsec.org/

Pesticides: the hidden pollutants

Pesticides are a bigger problem than previously thought, European scientists claim. An analysis of pollution data from the basins of four major European rivers has revealed that more than one-third of chemicals are present in concentrations which could potentially have an effect on organisms. This conclusion clearly shows that contamination by organic chemicals is a problem throughout Europe, the researchers say.

Most of the substances identified in the study were pesticides; the majority of these are not on the European list of priority substances which have to be monitored regularly. The list of chemicals specified by the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) as having to be monitored by national authorities needs to be revised urgently, the researchers say.

The project, known as MODELKEY, focused on analyses of organic pollutants in the basins of the Elbe, Danube, Schelde, and Llobregat rivers. One of the most frequently registered compounds was diethylhexyl phthalate (DEHP), a chemically-produced softener which may impair fertility and is therefore banned in the EU from 2015. This was followed by another softener bisphenol A (BPA), which may also impair fertility, and diclofenac and ibuprofen, two pharmaceutical substances used commonly in painkillers.

The scientists classified a total of 73 compounds as potential priority pollutants, around two-thirds of which were pesticides. Among the most problematic were azoxystrobin and terbuthylazine, neither of which is currently subject to restrictions. “Terbuthylazine is a compound that is structurally closely related to the priority pollutants simazine and atrazine, which may not be applied any more”, explained Dr Peter von der Ohe of Germany's Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ). “This is a nice example of how small structural modifications of chemical products may apparently improve the chemical status without mitigating any hazards to the aquatic ecosystems.”

Despite criticisms that Europe's water authorities pay too little attention to pesticides and that the list of priority pollutants should be revised, the study also reveals the first successes of the WFD. One-third of the pollutants classified as priority a few years ago by the EU now no longer present a risk to the rivers studied.

The EU has recently implemented new environmental quality standards for 20 priority pollutants based on expert recommendations;²⁰ and the EEA has pointed to the need to assess a wider range of hazardous substances in both fresh and marine waters.²¹

Von der Ohe PC, et al., Sci. Total Environ. 409: 2064–2077, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.01.054

Public & occupational health

Exploring health effects of climate change

US researchers are to study the role that a changing climate has on human health under a major new programme funded by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS). The programme will research the risk factors that make people more vulnerable to heat exposure; changing weather patterns; changes in environmental exposures, such as air pollution and toxic chemicals; and the negative effects of climate change adaptation and mitigation efforts.

In addition to better understanding the direct and indirect human health risks in the United States and globally, one of the programme's goals is to determine which populations will be more susceptible and vulnerable to diseases exacerbated by climate change. Children, pregnant women, the elderly, people from low socioeconomic backgrounds, and those living in urban or coastal areas and storm centres may be at elevated risk. This programme will also help to develop data, methods and models to support health impact predictions.

Projects are being launched at seven US universities, building in part on previous research efforts led by NIEHS.

NIEHS: http://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/supported/programs/climate/index.cfm

Nano definition fails to please

When is nano not nano? When it is defined by bureaucrats appears to be the answer. A long-awaited definition of nanomaterials, unveiled by the European Commission in October, sparked criticism from green groups and industry alike.

According to the Commission's draft recommendation, “nanomaterials are materials made up of particles, half of which are no bigger than 100 nanometres”. Green group EEB said this was too narrow because the 50% threshold excludes materials with a lower number of particles no bigger than 100 nm. It is far higher than the 1% threshold initially proposed during a consultation, it notes.²² Experts from the EU's SCENIHR committee had recommended an even lower threshold.²³

In a statement, chemical industry association CEFIC made the completely opposite point, saying the definition was too broad. It would cover “decades-old substances such as mineral pigments used in paints and other everyday products”. Industry is advocating cut-off criteria based on weight of particles rather than their size, but the EU executive insists that the latter is the only “universally applicable, clear and measurable criterion”.

The Commission said it deviated from SCENIHR's original recommendation for “practical considerations”. “The choice of 50% is based on the attempt to distinguish nanomaterials which may exhibit specific novel properties from conventional chemical substances”, it explained. The threshold will be reviewed by 2014. Experts are urging European regulators to take a more precautionary approach to the regulation of nanomaterials.²⁴

European Commission: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/nanotech; EEB: http://www.eeb.org/; CEFIC: http://www.cefic.org/

Toxics link in atherosclerosis

Environmental toxicants such as dioxins, PCBs, and pesticides can pose a risk for cardiovascular disease, Swedish researchers claim. For the first time they have demonstrated a link between atherosclerosis and levels of long-lived organic environmental toxicants in the blood.

Cardiovascular diseases, including heart attacks and strokes, are the most common cause of death in industrialized countries, and the most important underlying cause of these diseases is atherosclerosis. Unbalanced blood fats, diabetes, smoking, and high blood pressure are traditionally recognized risk factors. Previous studies have also reported possible links between cardiovascular disease and high levels of persistent (long-lived and hard-to-degrade) organic environmental toxicants, such as dioxins, PCBs, and pesticides. These compounds are fat-soluble and can therefore accumulate in vessel walls. However, no earlier studies have investigated possible links between exposure to these compounds and atherosclerosis.

The Swedish researchers measured the circulating levels of these compounds in about 1000 Uppsala residents. Atherosclerosis in the carotid artery was also measured using ultrasound. The findings show a clear connection between increasing levels of environmental toxicants and atherosclerosis, even after taking into consideration the traditional risk factors. There was also a link to tangible signs of fat accumulation in vessel walls.

“These findings indicate that long-lived organic environmental toxicants may be involved in the occurrence of atherosclerosis and thereby lead to future death from cardiovascular diseases,” said Lars Lind, Professor at the Department of Medical Sciences, Uppsala University. “In Sweden, and in many countries in the world, many of these substances are forbidden today, but since they are so long-lived they're still out there in our environment”, he added.

Further work is planned, including long-term monitoring of the individuals involved in the study.

Uppsala University: http://www.medsci.uu.se/pivus/pivus.htm and paper: 1103563

Research activities

US names i6 Green winners

The Obama Administration has announced the six winners of its i6 Green Challenge, an initiative to kick-start green innovation and entrepreneurship. The competition was first announced at the White House launch of Startup America in January.²⁵

Projects in Florida, Iowa, Louisiana, Michigan, New England and Washington will each receive up to $1 million from the US Commerce Department's Economic Development Administration (EDA) and up to $6 million in additional funding and technical assistance from other government agencies. i6 Green will support emerging technology-based businesses as they mature and demonstrate their market potential, making them more attractive to investors and helping entrepreneurs turn their ideas and innovations into businesses.

Speaking at the announcement, US Chief Technology Officer Aneesh Chopra said: “America's economy depends on both innovation and commercialisation. These six proof-of-concept centres will help to accelerate the commercialisation of products based on exciting new research and support the development of green jobs in regions across the country.”

i6Green: http://www.eda.gov/i6

Europe falling to exploit biotech innovation

The EU is on par with the US and Asia in developing new biotechnologies but is trailing behind in market deployment, industry delegates heard at a recent conference in Amsterdam. The event was intended to discuss the state of the bio-based economy.

Andre Koltermann, of German biotech firm Sud-Chemie, told the annual European Forum for Industrial Biotechnology that the EU is losing out because biotechnologies initially conceived in Europe are introduced to the market in the US and Asia. Mr Koltermann is part of a panel of experts advising the European Commission on key enabling technologies such as nanotechnology, biotechnology, microelectronics and nanoelectronics.

Conference organiser EuropaBio, an association of bioindustries, presented a report showing EU research is used in demonstration plants and commercialised products in Brazil, China, India and the US, and then sold back to Europe at a premium. The report, which lays out a roadmap for establishing more demonstration biorefineries in the EU, recommends co-investment from public and private stakeholders to spread the risks. It focuses on biotechnological conversion of agricultural residue, hardwood and energy crops into chemicals, materials and energy.

Similar challenges were discussed at another Brussels conference, the annual European Forum on Eco-Innovation. Ernst Ulrich von Weizsacker, co-chair of UNEP's International Resource Panel, said it was high time for action. Policymakers should let energy and mineral prices rise to force an improvement in resource productivity and finally decouple economic growth from environmental impact, he suggested.

The EU is due to issue its eco-innovation action plan by the end of the year. This will encourage international cooperation between eco-innovators, promote partnerships with the private sector to increase uptake of innovations, and emphasise demand-side measures.

European Forum for Industrial Biotechnology: http://www.efibforum.com/home.aspx; 11th European Forum on Eco-Innovation: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ecoinnovation2011/2nd_forum/index_en.html; EU High Level Group on Key Technologies: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/ict/key_technologies/kets_high_level_group_en.htm

New scientific director for NIEHS

The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) has named physician-scientist Darryl C. Zeldin, M.D. as its new scientific director. Dr Zeldin will lead and manage a $114 million biomedical research programme focused on discovering how the environment influences human health and disease.

“I am both honoured and humbled to be selected to lead such an outstanding group of scientists,” Dr Zeldin said. “I believe the work we do here at NIEHS is pivotal to improving the overall health of our nation. I'm looking forward to building upon our existing research strengths by using emerging technologies and effective scientific collaboration to develop a cutting edge research programme.”

Dr Zeldin has served as the Institute's acting clinical director since 2007, in addition to leading two research groups within the Laboratory of Respiratory Biology, focusing on both basic and clinical translational research. He trained in internal medicine with a subspecialty in pulmonary and critical care medicine. He has spent most of his professional career at NIEHS, arriving in 1994 as a tenure-track investigator before being promoted to senior investigator in 2001.

As scientific director, Zeldin will oversee in-house research programmes with approximately 950 employees working in 12 different laboratories and branches, and eight core facilities.

NIEHS: http://www.niehs.nih.gov/

References

1. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2011, 13, 233.
2. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2010, 12, 391.
3. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2011, 13, 1861.
4. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2011, 13, 2974.
5. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2009, 11, 2106.
6. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2010, 12, 803.
7. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2011, 13, 1860; M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2011, 13, 2677.
8. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2011, 13, 1123.
9. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2011, 13, 781.
10. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2011, 13, 782.
11. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2010, 12, 1788.
12. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2011, 13, 1527.
13. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2011, 13, 1127.
14. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2011, 13, 1862; M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2011, 13, 2356.
15. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2011, 13, 2681.
16. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2011, 13, 1862.
17. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2011, 13, 2681.
18. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2011, 13, 1862.
19. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2011, 13, 2087.
20. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2011, 13, 2678.
21. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2011, 13, 2353.
22. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2010, 12, 24; M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2011, 13, 17.
23. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2010, 12, 1647.
24. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2011, 13, 2975.
25. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2011, 13, 1129.

---