|
Why
is Our Stolen Future Controversial?
|
- Our
Stolen Future presents
a profoundly new way to examine the impacts of chemical contamination.
Most of the concern about contamination has been focused on the
potential for chemical contaminants to cause cancer.
Our
Stolen Future breaks
out of this "cancer paradigm" and shows that the preoccupation
with cancer has blinded society to other risks that may be much
greater. Our
Stolen Future also shows that
protections designed to avoid cancer impacts are inadequate to
protect against disruptions in hormone systems.
- The
science presented in Our
Stolen Future challenges the most basic
assumptions behind the current regulation of chemicals. Traditional
toxicology is based on the principle, 'the
dose makes the poison.' This understanding assumes that dose
and response have a linear relationship - the higher the dose
the higher the effect. At low doses, it is assumed, there is a
point at which no observable adverse effect
is present, the no obserable adverse effect level (NOAEL). Disruption
of the hormonal system can occur at doses far below the NOAEL,
and there is a growing body of research that gives evidence for
a non-linear, non-monotonic relationship between dose and response.
This means that important parts of the whole structure of laws
designed to measure the costs and the benefits of using many
synthetic chemicals are invalid.
Current approaches allow use unless harm has been proven with
scientific certainty. Our
Stolen Future presents
compelling scientific evidence that this is not adequate. Before
chemicals should be allowed to be used in widespread fashion,
there should be firm evidence that they do no harm.
- Children
and the unborn are the most at risk and current regulatory laws
do little to protect them. There are two significant risks
for children and the unborn: First, a fetus and a growing child
are still developing the hormonal relationships that define the
endocrine system. Their organ systems are acutely sensitive to
hormonal signals, which guide their development to maturity. If
the wrong hormonal signal arrives at a crucial moment in development---wrong
because it is disrupted by contaminants--development may be forced
along pathways that diminish the child's ultimate growth potential
and his or her ability to function as an adult. Adults, having
already passed those crucial moments, are no longer vulnerable
to the same disruptions. Second, a woman accumulates contaminants
over a lifetime of exposure prior to pregnancy. During pregnancy
she can transfer large quantities of contaminants to the fetus,
just a the time in the life of her baby when it is most vulnerable
to disrupting contamination signals.
- Our
Stolen Future presents
evidence
that hormone disruptors are already widespread in the environment
and that people are exposed to diverse combinations and levels
of chemicals via many unexpected pathways. Exposure to multiple
chemicals presents a new challenge to toxicological testing that
currently examines one chemical at a time. The regulations, agencies
and industry rules designed to protect humans and others species
have been asleep at the wheel.
- Since
Our Stolen Future was first published, the controversy
about endocrine disruptors has centered almost exclusively on
the question of human health implications and whether the theory
provides a possible explanation for worrisome health trends. In
the course of this debate, critics and chemical industry allies
have tried to dismiss endocrine disruption hazards as "speculative"
and "alarmist," arguing scientists do not have definitive "proof"
that hormonally active contaminants are causing harm in humans.
These skeptics have typically ignored the extensive animal evidence
that demonstrates the hazards of environmental hormones and they
have discounted that animal research provides a valuable guide
for predicting human effects.
|
|
|
|