David Gee

An assessment of the total external costs of UK agriculture

This trans-disciplinary study assesses total external environmental and health costs of modern agriculture in the UK. A wide range of datasets have been analysed to assess cost distribution across sectors. We calculate the annual total external costs of UK agriculture in 1996 to be £2343 m (range for 1990‐1996: £1149‐3907 m), equivalent to £208/ha of arable and permanent pasture. Significant costs arise from contamination of drinking water with pesticides (£120 m/year), nitrate (£16 m), Cryptosporidium (£23 m) and phosphate and soil (£55 m), from damage to wildlife, habitats, hedgerows and drystone walls (£125 m), from emissions of gases (£1113 m), from soil erosion and organic carbon losses (£106 m), from food poisoning (£169 m), and from bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) (£607 m). This study has only estimated those externalities that give rise to financial costs, and so is likely to underestimate the total negative impacts of modern agriculture. These data help to identify policy priorities, particularly over the most eAcient way to internalise these external costs into prices. This would imply a redirection of public subsidies towards encouraging those positive externalities under-provided in the market place, combined with a mix of advisory and institutional mechanisms, regulatory and legal measures, and economic instruments to correct negative

The Faroes statement: Human Health effects of developmental exposure to chemicals in our environment

The periods of embryonic, foetal and infant developmentare remarkably susceptible to environmental hazards. Toxicexposures to chemical pollutants during these windows ofincreased susceptibility can cause disease and disability ininfants, children and across the entire span of human life.Among the effects of toxic exposures recognized in the pasthave been spontaneous abortion, congenital malformations,lowered birthweight and other adverse effects. These outcomesmay be readily apparent. However, even subtle changes causedby chemical exposures during early development may leadto important functional deficits and increased risks ofdisease later in life. The timing of exposure during early lifehas therefore become a crucial factor to be considered intoxicological assessments.During 20–24 May 2007, researchers in the fields of environmentalhealth, environmental chemistry, developmentalbiology, toxicology, epidemiology, nutrition and paediatricsgathered at the International Conference on Fetal Programmingand Developmental Toxicity, in Torshavn, FaroeIslands. The conference goal was to highlight new insightsinto the effects of prenatal and early postnatal exposure tochemical agents, and their sustained effects on the individualthroughout the lifespan. The conference brought togetherresearchers to focus on human data and the translationof laboratory results to elucidate the environmental risks tohuman health.

Science, Precaution, and Practice

b The precautionary principle has become an increasingly prominent theme in the debate over technological risk, raising many questions over its implications for policy making. A key issue is the relationship between precautionary and more traditional so-called science-based approaches to decision-making, such as cost-benefit and risk analyses. Some fear that a precautionary approach— unlike risk assessment—is too ambiguous and impractical to serve as a basis for real decision-making, and that it is somehow antagonistic to science and may even stifle technological innovation. This article first examines some of the key issues affecting the relationship between science and precaution. Far from being in tension, these two concepts are actually consistent and even mutually reinforcing. A more useful distinction is found to lie between the narrow risk assessments of many regulatory apprais- als and the broader precautionary approaches to hazard reduction and policy- making under conditions of scientific uncertainty, complexity, and high deci- sion stakes. This article identifies a series of key features characterizing a precautionary approach to regulatory appraisal. It cites a recent European Environment Agency (EEA) study that provides examples of how some of these key features could have improved past decision-making on risk. 1 Finally, it illustrates a method that addresses these issues and delivers an approach to regulatory appraisal that is both precautionary and scientifically robust.

Human exposure to outdoor air pollution (IUPAC Technical Report)

Human exposure to outdoor air pollution is believed to cause severe health effects, especially in urban areas where pollution levels often are high, because of the poor dispersion conditions and high density of pollution sources. Many factors influence human health, and a good assessment of human air pollution exposure is, therefore, crucial for a proper determination of possible links between air pollution and health effects. Assessment of human exposure is, however, not straightforward, and this is the background for the present paper, which recommends how to carry out such assessments. Assessment of human exposure to air pollution may be carried out by use of: categorical classification, application of biomarkers, analysis of air pollution data from routine monitoring networks, personal portable exposure monitors, or application of mathematical air pollution exposure models. The categorical classification is a crude indirect method based on indicators of exposure such as type of residence, type of job, presence of indoor sources, etc. Categorical classification is generally inadequate for application in air pollution epidemiology. Biomarkers can be a strong instrument in assessment of health effects and provide information about air pollution exposure and dose. Use of biomarkers is, therefore, particularly useful when applied in combination with exposure assessment through one of the methods 3 to 5. The main focus of this paper is on these three methods for determination of human air pollution exposure. The optimal solution is clearly a combination of methods 2 to 5, but the available resources often set a limit to how far the assessment is carried out, and the choice of strategy will, therefore, often be very important for the outcome of the final study. This paper describes how these approaches may be applied and outlines advantages and disadvantages of the approaches used individually and in combination. Furthermore, some examples of specific applications in Denmark and the Netherlands are given for illustration.

Exposure to multiple environmental agents and their effect

Introduction: All children are exposed to multiple physical, chemical and biological challanges that can result in adverse health effects before and after birth. In this context, the danger of multiple exposures cannot be assessed from a single‐chemical approach as used in classical toxicology. Aim: To open up a ‘negotiation space’ for the problem of multiple exposure to environmental stressors, defined as any physical, chemical or biological entity that can induce an adverse response. In this context, two further questions obtain: to what extent can synergistic risks be assessed, and how far could potential adverse effects be prevented by enhanced regulation?Methods: A discussion of two general approaches is taken: 1 ) the investigation of mixtures such as smoking or air pollution without specifying the individual agents, and 2 ) the investigation of individual substances with a focus on possible interactions in the context of dose to receptor. Results: Although mixtures of compounds can have effects, it may not be possible to ascribe causation to a single compound. Furthermore, cumulative low‐dose insult can, in some circumstances, be more toxic than a single high‐dose exposure, e.g. endocrine disruptive effects of a combination of PCBs and dioxins which disrupt the thyroid hormone status; this tends to contradict elements of classical toxicology,. These cumulative insults may further combine with heavy metals and can disrupt the heme synthesis. It is possible that groups of pollutants could be used to test their cumulative capacity to multiple stress‐susceptible receptor targets as is done in smoking and air pollution. This methodology could be used for further groups of potential pollutants, for example those associated with cleaning products, or cosmetics. Testing individual substances with a focus on interactions means that not only chemicals but also concurrent diseases should be taken into account. We suggest that the enhanced regulation of potential multiple stressors falls into two discrete categories. The first comprises a more precautionary approach (as demonstrated by the banning of chemicals such as some brominated flame retardants in Europe). The second comprises a more ‘permissive’ liberal approach involving the initial study of an individual compound, and subsequent interrogation of that compound in combination with another (as demonstrated by lowering the carcinogenicity of aflatoxin by vaccination against hepatitis B).

Late lessons from early warnings: Toward realism and precaution with endocrine-disrupting substances

The histories of selected public and environmental hazards, from the first scientifically based early warnings about potential harm to the subsequent precautionary and preventive measures, have been reviewed by the European Environment Agency. This article relates the “late lessons” from these early warnings to the current debates on the application of the precautionary principle to the hazards posed by endocrine-disrupting substances (EDSs). Here, I summarize some of the definitional and interpretative issues that arise. These issues include the contingent nature of knowledge; the definitions of precaution, prevention, risk, uncertainty, and ignorance; the use of differential levels of proof; and the nature and main direction of the methodological and cultural biases within the environmental health sciences. It is argued that scientific methods need to reflect better the realities of multicausality, mixtures, timing of dose, and system dynamics, which characterize the exposures and impacts of EDSs. This improved science could provide a more robust basis for the wider and wise use of the precautionary principle in the assessment and management of the threats posed by EDSs. The evaluation of such scientific evidence requires assessments that also account for multicausal reality. Two of the often used, and sometimes misused, Bradford Hill “criteria,” consistency and temporality, are critically reviewed in light of multicausality, thereby illustrating the need to review all of the criteria in light of 40 years of progress in science and policymaking.

Adequate and anticipatory research on the potential hazards of emerging technologies: a case of myopia and inertia?

History confirms that while technological innovations can bring many benefits, they can also cause much human suffering, environmental degradation and economic costs. But are we repeating history with new and emerging chemical and technological products? In preparation for volume 2 of ‘Late Lessons from Early Warnings’ (European Environment Agency, 2013), two analyses were carried out to help answer this question. A bibliometric analysis of research articles in 78 environmental, health and safety (EHS) journals revealed that most focused on well-known rather than on newly emerging chemicals. We suggest that this ‘scientific inertia’ is due to the scientific requirement for high levels of proof via well replicated studies; the need to publish quickly; the use of existing intellectual and technological resources; and the conservative approach of many reviewers and research funders. The second analysis found that since 1996 the funding of EHS research represented just 0.6% of the overall funding of research and technological development (RTD). Compared with RTD funding, EHS research funding for information and communication technologies, nanotechnology and biotechnology was 0.09%, 2.3% and 4% of total research, respectively. The low EHS research ratio seems to be an unintended consequence of disparate funding decisions; technological optimism; a priori assertions of safety; collective hubris; and myopia. In light of the history of past technological risks, where EHS research was too little and too late, we suggest that it would be prudent to devote some 5–15% of RTD on EHS research to anticipate and minimise potential hazards while maximising the commercial longevity of emerging technologies.

Statement in response to asbestos industry efforts to prevent a ban on asbestos in Pakistan: chrysotile asbestos use is not safe and must be banned.

We condemn in the strongest possible terms the dangerous misinformation that the International Chrysotile Association is disseminating in its effort to defeat a proposed ban on asbestos in Pakistan. The International Chrysotile Association “actively represents the interest of Chrysotile Industry world over”.1 In a letter dated January 31, 2013 to Dr Mahmood A. Khwaja (Senior Adviser, Chemicals and Sustainable Industrial Development, Sustainable Development Policy Institute of Pakistan), the Chairman of the International Chrysotile Association (Mr Jean-Marc Leblond) expresses the opposition of that Association to the recommendation made, in January 2013, by the Pakistan National Assembly’s Standing Committee on Human Resource Development to ban the import and use of asbestos. Mr Leblond is a long-time salesman of asbestos. From 1986 to 2007, he was Vice President in charge of Sales for LAB Chrysotile Inc., a Quebec asbestos mining company. From 2008 to 2011, he was President of Chrysotile Canada Inc., the marketing agency for Quebec asbestos mining companies. He sat as a director of the discredited asbestos lobby organisation, the Chrysotile Institute. Presently, he is Presi-