Olwenn Martin

Safety of Plastics: Let's talk about it

Dr Olwenn Martin

Dr Olwenn Martin is a Post-Doctoral Research Fellow at the Institute for the Environment, Brunel University. Her research interest lies in developing solutions to the practical challenges between science and policy. She is currently involved on a project related to the challenges to account for mixture effects in the regulatory context. Dr Martin will participate on 5 November in the discussion panel on the topic “Tools addressing knowledge gaps: do we need more?”

Science, Politics and Industry

1. What should be the role of science in policy making?
It seems obvious that science should inform policy. I would struggle to find arguments against evidence-based policy. However, claiming that the interpretation of scientific evidence is always totally objective and devoid of any value-based judgements is probably naive. This rings particularly true where scientific evidence resulting from separate lines of inquiry has to be synthesised, where the weight accorded to different types of evidence can be related to a set of commonly held beliefs. The role of experts involved in such ‘weight-of-evidence’ analysis is then to try to clearly identify those beliefs to help policy makers form informed opinions.

2. What do you expect from policy makers?
The challenging task of policy makers is to remain critical and independent whilst not being scientific experts themselves. Their role is to translate science into policies that are fair, just and representative of the values of society at large.

3. Can you define robust science vs. non-conclusive science?
I think that robust science can be inconclusive. I do not see both terms as mutually exclusive. In my view, the robustness of the science refers to the rigour of the methods used rather than its results. Robust science may not always lead to robust conclusions. In particular, some of the environmental challenges we face definitively cannot be tested experimentally. We do not have a spare earth to test experimentally what the effects of different courses of action may be in terms of climate change. Nor do we test the toxic effects of chemicals on humans. We have to rely on models, whether computer models, animals or otherwise and extrapolate. A set of assumptions will necessarily be involved in such extrapolations and the difficulty is to transparently identify those.

4.  Is industry funded research to be trusted?
There are well-documented precedents with the tobacco and pharmaceutical industry, where it was found that the publication of studies that would have a negative impact on the financial interests of the sponsor of the research was suppressed. There is therefore an argument for greater transparency and the publication of scientific research publicly or privately funded. In the latter case, I recognise that this would also require mechanisms to protect intellectual property. Furthermore, although any scientist would strive to be objective, there are also much more subtle biases that can influence the interpretation of scientific results. This would apply equally to any scientist regardless of the source of funding. Scientists are human beings, they are social beings within a community and influenced by the collective values or norms of their peers etc... (there is actually a branch of humanities dedicated to the social studies of science). Therefore a dose of healthy self-criticism is essential for any scientist.

5. How to avoid conflicts of interests hampering the credibility of independent agencies?
Transparency is key! Transparency about sources of funding, selection or appointment processes. It may be particularly useful to ensure that different perspectives are represented, be it in terms of scientific discipline, but also in terms of age, gender, ethnic or cultural background...

The divergence approaches to risk regulation between the EU and US

6. Does culture affect how we approach legislation? Can you give examples?
Culture will have an influence on how legislation or the regulation of risks is approached. This would be true even between different European countries as well as between the EU and the US. There is generally some history behind a regulatory system. An example of a striking difference between the EU and US would be that of firearms restriction. In the realm of the safety of chemicals, the EU and the US generally watch what is happening on the other side of the pond. In the US, government-funded science carried out in the USEPA or NIEHS is often leading, whereas the EU has taken a lead in terms of translating the science into regulation.

How to deal with unintended consequences of precautionism?

7. When should the precautionary principle be applied?
If one refers to the definition of the precautionary principle, it states that “where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation”. There are therefore two conditions to invoke the precautionary principle, the threat of serious or irreversible damage and lack of full scientific certainty. I was recently reminded of the classical distinction between risk and uncertainty. Risk is generally measurable and quantifiable and therefore does not preclude a rational choice, whereas uncertainty is qualitative. We are unable to assign probabilities to outcomes and the rules of rational choice theory are not applicable. In that context, it is the role of policy makers to decide what regulatory action is proportional and justified by the current state of scientific evidence.

8. How can the precautionary principle enhance innovation?
The UNEP ‘Global Chemical Outlook towards sound management of chemicals’ report is quite enlightening in that respect. It presents evidence that strengthening of environmental regulations does in fact stimulate innovation. The example that is given is the boom in green technology as a result from international efforts on climate change.

In terms of mechanism, access to capital is necessary for innovation. In the chemical sector, as the number of investors who consider Environmental, Social, Governance risks grows, this should in turn give a competitive advantage to the ‘pro-active innovators’, those who focus on R&D and green chemistry, over the ‘regulation resisters’, those who focus on lobbying instead.

Is innovation possible in risk averse society?  

9. Is Europe risk averse?
Whose risk are we considering? For consumers, risk perception is most often driven by the media. I see no evidence that European consumers are more averse to risk than their counterparts in other developed countries.

I feel it is important to distinguish internal versus external risks, i.e. the business or financial risk that a company may take versus the risks its activities may have on the general population. It is important that the latter is internalised rather than civil society taking the brunt of that risk, regardless of whether the mechanisms to internalise such risks are financial as discussed above or political through regulation.

10. Do we need to take risk to be innovative?
For high impact innovation, or disruptive innovation, we need to take big risks, yes. However much can be achieved through incremental innovation, where we innovate to optimise existing processes or products. All innovation requires taking some internal risk, generally in the form of a financial investment or other business risk. Sustainable innovation also considers external risks, such as potential environmental damage or human health effects, but aims to minimise those.

Health and Safety for Competitiveness

11. What would be your message to policy makers when it comes to the precautionary principle?The ‘Late lessons from early warning’ reports are useful in terms of offering examples where it would have been beneficial to apply the precautionary principle as well as examples of regulatory actions proportional to the state of scientific evidence.

12. Can innovation (therefore, competitiveness) be possible with the application of the precautionary principle?
The precautionary principle can drive and guide innovation and therefore competitiveness.

13.  In an ideal world, the scientific community, policy makers and industry should work together in order to guarantee the safety and health of all consumers, or should have be a healthy distrust between them to secure the health and safety of consumers?A stakeholder missing from this scenario is NGOs to represent the concerns of the consumers. There is a need for dialogue between all these stakeholders, but according a blind trust to industry would be a situation begging for abuse, at least by some.

Axel Singhofen

Safety of Plastics: Let's talk about it

Axel Singhofen

Axel Singhofen, political advisor to the Greens/European Free Alliance in the Environment Committee of the European Parliament. He drafts and coordinates the political and legislative work on health policy, chemicals and waste policies.

Science, Politics and Industry

1. What should be the role of science in policy making?
The role of science should be to inform policy making. It should be objective, transparent about any interests and clearly state its limits and uncertainties. Good science looks at short-term and long-term effects and gives full weight to qualitative aspects (instead of looking primarily at short term quantifiable effects such as business costs). And very importantly, scientists that want to remain credible should not venture into lobby campaigns to try to influence imminent decisions. The recent unprecedented joint editorial attack of the European Commission's work on determining criteria for endocrine disrupters by Dietrich et al. is a perfect example for both bad science and disrespect for the role of scientists in policy making (rebuttal by Bergman et al.). Scientists are most welcome to make their views and concerns heard, and to make recommendations, as they did for example with the 2013 Berlaymont Declaration on Endocrine Disrupters. However, they should not try to be the better politicians, especially not if they did not even declare their interests, as Grandjean and Ozonoff remind us.

2. What do you expect from policy makers?
I expect from policy makers to inform themselves about the problem at hand as comprehensively as possible, and that they listen to all sides, carefully assessing the specific interests (public, private) at hand, consider the costs to society of inaction - and then take their decision. I expect them to act for the good of society as a whole and not wrongly equate the narrow economic interests of a few with those of society at large. Finally, they should not hide behind uncertainties. Life is highly complex and thus inherently fraught with uncertainties. Policy makers need to have the courage to take decisions in light of these uncertainties according to their best knowledge, and not make believe that science can sooner or later provide the definitive answer.

3. Can you define robust science vs. non-conclusive science?
This question creates a false dichotomy. Robust science does not necessarily mean conclusive science, and science is not conclusive only when it has established full scientific proof of cause and effect. Good laboratory practice certainly does not make any study robust as such. For me, robust science is published science that is peer-reviewed, that relies on generally accepted principles of science and respects its limits.

When it comes to non-conclusive science, this is not to be mixed with controversial findings. Non-conclusive science often results when people try to quantify issues that are hard or impossible to quantify. That is bad - but even worse is when certain interests try to undermine robust science by trying to render it non-conclusive - see e.g. Merchants of Doubt.

4.  Is industry funded research to be trusted?
I wished it could - but there are too many examples of industry funded research being biased towards the interest of the funder (e.g. Arthur D. Little study on REACH, Industry-funded BPA studies, studies by drug and medical device companies). This does not mean that industry studies disqualify as such, but "Industry funding or other conflict of interest may raise the risk of bias in design, analysis, and reporting. Reviewers suspecting high risk of bias because of industry funding should pay attention to the risk of selective outcome reporting" (Viswanathan et al. 2012).

5. How to avoid conflicts of interests hampering the credibility of independent agencies?
By clearly following the recommendations set out by the Court of Auditors in its special report of 2012 Management of conflict of interest in selected EU Agencies (inter alia assessing ECHA and EFSA). By not putting experts with clear links to industry into committees or working groups that are meant to provide independent advice.

The divergence approaches to risk regulation between the EU and US

6. Does culture affect how we approach legislation? Can you give examples?
Of course it does. In the EU, a majority of citizens still expects the government to actually govern and to take action for the good of society. When the failure of chemicals legislation to adequately protect public health and the environment against harmful chemicals became obvious in the late 90's, the EU set out for a complete overhaul of EU chemical legislation, which resulted in the adoption of REACH in 2006. In the U.S., the possibilities of the Federal Government to take action are hindered by a deep division in society, partisan ideologies - just think of the current "government shutdown" - and a strong belief in individualism and free market. These at least partially explain why the U.S. is still in the last millenium when it comes to chemical control with its completely inadequate Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976.

How to deal with unintended consequences of precautionism?

7. When should the precautionary principle be applied?
The European Environment Agency has adopted a good working definition of the precautionary principle: "The precautionary principle provides justification for public policy actions in situations of scientific complexity, uncertainty and ignorance, where there may be a need to avoid, or reduce, potentially serious or irreversible threats to health and the environment, using an appropriate strength of scientific evidence, and taking into account the pros and cons of action and inaction".

The difficult question is what level of evidence is required before taking action. This cannot be answered in abstract - as it depends to a large extent of the nature of the risks in question, and what can actually be found out in a reasonable time.

One does not need to refer to the precautionary principle to restrict PVC - more than enough is known about its hazardous additives, its notoriously poor recyclability and the manifold problems it causes in incinerators and landfills.

When it comes to halogenated flame retardants, there are still many unknowns - but what we know about them today is of appropriate strength for me to substitute them - as is already being done by at least some of the big players in the electronics industry. The same applies to Bisphenol A: enough is known to justify ending its use in all food contact materials - not just in baby bottles.

8. How can the precautionary principle enhance innovation?
Innovation is only beneficial if the resulting benefits clearly outweigh the corresponding harms - for society as a whole, not just for certain players. The precautionary principle teaches us to respect the limits of science, and to err on the side of protection of health and the environment in case of doubt. If it were properly considered by those who take decisions about innovation (rather than ignored or even dismissed), it could be a major tool to steer innovation in the direction of sustainable development.

Is innovation possible in risk averse society?  

9. Is Europe risk averse?
The suggestion that Europe might be risk averse is one of the classics in the rhetorical toolbox of the chemical industry. There is no point in taking risks that are not likely to be outweighed by corresponding benefits. There are zero benefits for society from GMO plants. There are zero benefits for children from phthalates in toys. The benefits of halogenated flame retardants are clearly outweighed by their risks. The real question is whether Europe is courageous enough to tackle relevant risks in time before they have caused significant or even irreversible harm.

10. Do we need to take risk to be innovative?
Every innovation is a risk, but not every innovation is worth taking a risk. The question should rather be: Do we need innovations that take a risk with human health and the environment? Or should industry not rather innovate to deliver true benefits for society and replace current risks?

Health and Safety for Competitiveness

11. What would be your message to policy makers when it comes to the precautionary principle?
Read the reports from the European Environment Agency "Late Lessons from Early Warnings, Volume I (2001) and Volume II (2013) - or at least the summaries - and learn the lesson!

12. Can innovation (therefore, competitiveness) be possible with the application of the precautionary principle?
Innovation is not a value in itself. Competitiveness is not a value in itself. Both are only - and should only be - means to an end. But what should be the end that they should serve? To my mind, there is only one answer: sustainable development. Competitiveness is possible without the precautionary principle, innovation is possible without it, but surely not desirable, as it will not lead to sustainable development, rather the contrary.

13.  In an ideal world, the scientific community, policy makers and industry should work together in order to guarantee the safety and health of all consumers, or should have be a healthy distrust between them to secure the health and safety of consumers?
In your ideal world of cooperation, you are missing a key interest: that of civil society. Partial cooperation that excludes vital interests will not lead to the protection of these vital interests. As long as industry continues to follow a blind pro-innovation pro-competitiveness stance that seeks to disregard or even discredit the precautionary principle and to instrumentalize inherent uncertainties in science to stop protective action, it fuels the very distrust that it would like to get.